15 Marine equipment
| (34574)
17992/12
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(12) 772
| Draft Directive on marine equipment and repealing Directive 96/98/EC
|
| Legal base | Article 100(2) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 24 June 2013
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 86-xxx (2012-13), chapter 4 (30 January 2013), HC 86-xxxi (2012-13), chapter 3 (6 February 2013) and HC 83-iv (2013-14), chapter 8 (5 June 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | 10 June 2013
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
15.1 Equipment carried on board ships is required to conform
to the safety regulation and approval standards provided for in
conventions adopted by the International Maritime Organization
(IMO).
15.2 To provide a harmonised interpretation and
implementation of the IMO approval standards for marine equipment
across Member States and to ensure a free movement of equipment
within the EU, Directive 96/98/EC on marine equipment (MED) was
introduced in 1996. When developed the MED sought to harmonise
the testing standards applied to marine equipment across the EU,
which resulted in Member States being required to mutually recognise,
without prejudice, equipment approved by another Member State.
The underlining objective of this was to promote free movement
of marine equipment within the EU.
15.3 With this draft Directive the Commission
has proposed a new measure to replace the current MED. Based on
the experience gained by Member States, certain weaknesses in
the area of implementation and enforcement of the current MED
have been identified. The proposed Directive would provide for
a number of solutions to optimise the effectiveness of the MED.
Many of these measures are minor technical changes which act
to simplify procedures and requirements.
15.4 When we considered this proposal, for the
third time, last month we were not prepared to clear this proposal
from scrutiny. However, we did agree to give the Government a
waiver, in terms of paragraph (3)(b) of the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution
of 17 November 1998, allowing it to support an acceptable deal,
if such a deal could be achieved at the Transport Council on 10
June. That was on condition that the deal included:
- deletion of a provision in
relation to listing of international conventions;
- inclusion of expected limitations on the use
of delegated acts;
- deletion of patent requirements and provision
of manufacturers' samples proposals;
- inclusion of an acceptable Alternative Design
Arrangements compromise; and
- adequate responses on the remaining issues mentioned
to us.
15.5 We looked forward to hearing the outcome
of the Transport Council and meanwhile the document remained under
scrutiny.[37]
The Minister's letter
15.6 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Transport (Stephen Hammond), writes to tell us
that in the lead up to the 10 June Transport Council there was
further discussion of the outstanding items and that these provided
further clarification and solutions to the Government's outstanding
concerns. He says that:
- the provision allowing the
list of international conventions to be amended by means of delegated
acts has been deleted;
- the power of the Commission to issue delegated
acts, rather than being for an indeterminate period of time, would
now be for a period of five years only;
- the requirement to provide a certified copy of
the patent, when applying for a conformity assessment, has been
deleted;
- the text regarding the obligation of manufacturers
to make a sample of their product available to the market surveillance
authorities of a Member State has now been clarified, so that
they would have to provide information and samples after a request
by a Member State, which could only ask for samples "when
reasonable and practicable";
- there is, therefore, an opportunity for manufacturers
to push back on these requests where they are not reasonable or
practicable ¯
since the text does not go into the detail of what this could
be limited to, companies would be free to cite costs or any other
argument;
- the Government considers this an acceptable compromise
for both manufacturers and market surveillance authorities;
- following lengthy discussions on Alternative
Design Arrangements, the Commission noted that Member States would
be free to use SOLAS (the International Convention for the Safety
of Life at Sea, 1974) provisions permitting them to accept equipment
of alternative design;
- it did not wish to include such provisions under
this proposed Directive, as it did not wish to Wheelmark[38]
these products;
- it was agreed to include a recital stating explicitly
that Member States can approve Alternative Design Arrangements
under SOLAS;
- all Member States were content that such a solution
does not interfere with their ability to use Alternative Design
under SOLAS; and
- the Government considers this a very sensible
compromise, as it does not prohibit the UK from continuing to
use Alternative Design mechanisms.
15.7 As for other issues the Minister reports
the following explanations, saying that:
- the Government had concerns
about the definition of 'placed on board', because the previous
text of the proposal was not clear about the point at which testing
standards would apply;
- during the negotiation, the wider issue of application
of testing standards was resolved and the text is now much clearer,
stating that the implementing acts for testing standards must
include application dates that take into consideration timeframes
for ship-building;
- Member States have a voice in developing implementing
acts, so can influence these implementation and application dates;
- the new reference to "taking into consideration
timeframes for ship building" prevents the Commission from
bringing in a new standard in an unrealistic timeframe which would
be costly to ship owners;
- in relation to exclusion of international testing
standards from the requirements of application in their up to
date version, the text now adds clarity by stating "The entry
into force of testing standards shall not be automatic but shall
be identified in implementing acts in accordance with Article
35(2)";
- the Government believes that the protection now
available to manufacturers who refuse to comply with a demand
to provide samples, especially on legitimate grounds of disproportionate
costs or protection of their solvency, will help such manufacturers
to avoid penalties; and
- it will be for Member States to decide what penalties,
if any, to levy upon manufacturers who refuse to comply.
15.8 The Minister comments that, given these
further improvements to the proposal, the Government felt able
to support the general approach at the 10 June Transport Council.
15.9 The Minister also tells us that the European
Parliament is considering this proposal and is currently expected
to have its plenary first reading in October.
Conclusion
15.10 We are grateful to the Minister for
his account of the outcome of the Transport Council and now clear
the document from scrutiny.
37 See headnote Back
38
The Wheelmark mark of conformity is for EU regulatory marking
of all marine equipment, as defined in the Marine Equipment Directive. Back
|
