QUALITY AND SAFETY OF BLOOD
(22122)
5773/01
COM(00) 816
|
Draft Council Directive setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components, and amending Council Directive 89/381/EEC.
|
| Legal base: |
Article 152(4)(a) EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: |
Health |
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 12 November 2001
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 28-viii (2000-01), paragraph 11 (14 March 2001) and HC 152-iv (2001-02), paragraph 5 (7 November 2001)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| 15 November 2001 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared, but request to be kept informed
|
Background
6.1 Although the Community has enacted a
number of legislative measures applicable to blood and medicinal
products derived from it, the Commission says that these do not
address comprehensively the quality, safety and efficacy requirements
needed to cover the different destinations of blood[17]
or plasma,[18]
and that action needed to be taken to meet these requirements.
It therefore set out in the current document the ways in which
it sees these aims being achieved, including in particular the
setting of binding standards for the safety and quality of blood
and blood components, and provisions covering the information
to be provided to, and obtained from, donors; the criteria for
screening and deferring donors; testing requirements for whole
blood and plasma donations; storage and freezing requirements;
labelling requirements; and quality requirements.
6.2 The remainder of the proposal, and the
Government's reactions to it, were described at greater length
in our predecessors' Report of 14 March 2001. This noted that
there were good reasons in principle for setting Community standards
in this area, and that the main point at issue was whether the
proposal did so in a sensible and proportionate way. Our predecessors
also noted the Government's reservations that the proposal was
likely to give rise to, as yet unquantifiable, costs, and, since
it was consulting a range of interests, they decided to defer
any decision until the results of the consultation were known,
and the Government had provided some kind of Regulatory Impact
Assessment.
6.3 In her Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
of 24 October 2001, the present Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State at the Department of Health (Ms Hazel Blears) drew our
attention to various of the amendments proposed by the European
Parliament at its first reading of the proposal on 2 October 2001.
She made it clear that some of these, if adopted, would have important
implications for the proposal, notably the requirements that all
donations of blood (including imports) would have to be voluntary
and unpaid; that priority should be given to blood from other
Member States of the Community; that all the detailed annexes
to the proposal would be deleted; and that a competent person
within the terms of the proposal would need to hold a medical
qualification, preferably with a specialisation in haematology
or a related medical specialisation, and any medical examination
prior to donation would have to be carried out by a doctor rather
than a nurse.
6.4 The Minister also attached to her Supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum a Regulatory Impact Assessment. This pointed
out that the UK currently has one of the safest systems in the
world, and that consequently the principal benefit from the proposal
would stem from guaranteeing minimum standards across the Community.
The Assessment also said that the main costs would arise from
the inspection requirements, which would increase two-fold for
the Medicines Control Agency (MCA), and — assuming the proposal
applied also to hospital blood banks — four-fold for Clinical
Accreditation Pathology UK (CPA), which inspects and accredits
such banks under a voluntary scheme.
6.5 It also appeared that, although the
Commission had yet to take a formal view on the European Parliament's
amendments, and had thus not so far issued any amended proposal
of its own, attempts would be made to reach a Common Position
at the Health Council on 15 November 2001.
6.6 In our Report of 7 November 2001, we
noted that this proposal seemed likely to provide another example
of the Council proceeding to a Common Position on the basis of
amendments proposed by the European Parliament, but before these
had been the subject of any amending proposal from the Commission.
We therefore said that, in view of this, and of the fast-moving
nature of the proposal, we did not yet feel able to clear it.
In particular, we asked for further clarification (i) on the likelihood
of the United Kingdom being able to ensure that supplies from
third countries would not be jeopardised by any insistence on
their being from unpaid donors; (ii) on whether the proposal would
apply to hospital blood banks; and (iii) on the extent to which
the conditions regarding the medical qualifications needed would
be amended to meet the concerns which the Minister had expressed.
We added that it would also be helpful if she could say a little
more about the proposal to delete all the detailed annexes in
the original proposal. Whilst we could see that the latter might
well have been over-prescriptive, total deletion appeared to risk
going to the opposite extreme, and leaving the measure couched
in terms too general to be effective. We therefore invited the
Minister to comment on this possibility.
Minister's letter of 12 November 2001
6.7 In his letter of 12 November 2001, the
Minister of State for Health at the Department of Health (Mr John
Hutton) deals with each of these points in turn.
6.8 On voluntary unpaid donations,
he says that, although the UK supports in principle the strong
view among several Member States that blood products should only
come from unpaid donors, this is impractical at present, given
the theoretical risk of vCJD, and the need for the UK to import
raw plasma for pooled blood products from the USA (where the only
available supply in the quantities needed comes from paid donors).
He adds that the UK' s key concerns are to ensure that the text
provides sufficient flexibility to enable it to continue sourcing
plasma from the USA, and that the measure is not drafted in such
a way as to extend Community competence by regulating the way
that blood supplies are sourced, Discussions on possible compromise
texts are still continuing.
6.9 As regards the other three points, the
Minister says that the most important factor so far as hospital
blood banks are concerned is an exclusion regarding inspections
and licensing, and that he hopes this will be adopted in the final
text. Likewise, he believes that the negotiations have been successful
in loosening the definition regarding medical qualifications
in order to meet the UK's interests. On the proposed technical
annexes, he says that, although the Government did not support
those in the initial proposal, it also had reservations regarding
the European Parliament's proposed amendment, as this would in
effect leave the entire drafting of the technical requirements
to the Commission and an expert working group nominated by Member
States, which would amount to giving them a carte
blanche. He says that the UK would support a solution —
which he hopes will be in the final text — which respects
the aim of the Directive, but checks the powers of the Commission,
by preventing it from extending these without formal request.
More generally, he is confident that negotiations in the Health
Council on 15 November will be concluded in the best way to preserve
UK interests, and he says that he will ensure that UK interventions
in the Council will be in line with these principles.
Conclusion
6.10 We are grateful to the Minister
for this further information, and, although the position still
appears to be uncertain as regards the main concern over supplies
from paid donors, we recognise that, at this stage in the negotiations,
particular issues such as this are often resolved only at the
last moment. We also recognise that, overall, the UK is in favour
of this proposal, in view of the benefits it will bring, not least
for those UK citizens who may need to have access to blood when
in another Member State. For these reasons, we are clearing the
document, but, if a decision is taken at the Council on 15 November,
we would be glad if the Minister could write to us again afterwards
to inform us of the outcome.
"PERICLES" PROGRAMME FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE EURO AGAINST COUNTERFEITING
(22469)
9690/01
COM(00) 248
|
(i) Draft Council Decision establishing a training, exchange and assistance programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting ("Pericles" programme); and
(ii) Draft Council Decision extending the effects of the Decision establishing a training, exchange and assistance programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting ("Pericles" programme) to the Member States which have not adopted the euro as the single currency.
|
| Legal base: |
(i) Article 123(4) EC; unanimity of Member States that have adopted the euro
(ii) Article 308 EC; consultation; unanimity
|
| |
| Document originated:
| 22 May 2001 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 22 May 2001 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 20 June 2001 |
| Department: |
HM Treasury and Home Office
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 7 November 2001 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date known |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
7.1 This is one of a number of documents
concerned with protecting the euro from counterfeiting.[19]
The document
7.2 The document comprises two draft parallel
Decisions setting up a Community action programme to cover all
Member States. The first, based on Article 123(4) EC, sets out
the necessary provisions and is applicable to all Member States
that have adopted the euro as the single currency; the second,
based on Article 308, simply extends the provisions in the first
to those Member States which have not adopted the euro as their
currency.
7.3 The proposed programme will run from
1 January 2002 until 31 December 2005. It is named "Pericles",
as the document tells us, after the "Athenian statesman associated
with the 'golden age'. It was during this age that certain security
features were added to coins."
7.4 The programme covers training, exchange
of information and technical, scientific and operational backup.
It is intended to ensure equivalent levels of protection in all
Member States, developing a shared understanding of best practice
while taking account of States' traditional arrangements.
7.5 The programme is intended for staff
of organisations involved in the detection, handling, reporting
and resolution of counterfeiting issues, in particular:
- staff of agencies involved in detecting and combating
counterfeiting (NCIS in the UK);
- representatives of national central banks, mints,
commercial banks (and, in the UK, the Financial Services Authority);
and
- other relevant specialists and groups in this
field (such as lawyers and, in the UK, the Forensic Science Service);
7.6 The training will be delivered by organisations
with relevant expertise, both at international and national level.
The document highlights the contributions to be made by the European
Central Bank and Europol.
7.7 The costs associated with the programme
will be shared between the Community and the Member States. The
Community will cover publication and translation costs, staff
placements and exchanges, and overseas travel and accommodation
expenses; Member States will fund the training of their staff
and some of the costs associated with events organised on their
territory with Community funding.
7.8 Relevant organisations, including the
Commission, will be able to propose workshops, seminars and meetings.
The Commission will have the final say on which bids will be approved,
based on the capacity of the organisers, the intrinsic quality
of the project, the cost and the likely impact. Proposals will
need to meet the programme objectives, have a European dimension,
and fit well with others. Only the best will be selected.
7.9 The Commission will submit an independent
evaluation report on the "Pericles" programme to the
European Parliament and the Council by 30 June 2005, and a detailed
report on implementation and results by 30 June 2006.
The Government's view
7.10 In the Explanatory Memorandum jointly
submitted by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
and the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State at the Home Office
(Mr Bob Ainsworth ) the Ministers tell us:
"Counterfeiting of any currency is a serious
criminal offence in the United Kingdom and the Government is committed
to the principle of protection of the euro against counterfeiting...
"The Government is also committed to take action
to support and supplement anti-counterfeiting measures with appropriate
staff training and sharing of information. It is important that
the United Kingdom should contribute to efforts to develop and
share best practice among Member States. No legislation is required.
"The Decisions would require the active participation
of the relevant competent authorities in the UK, in particular
the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Bank of England,
the Royal Mint and the Forensic Science Service. The Treasury
and the Home Office would share responsibility for oversight."
7.11 The Ministers say that there will be
some costs to the UK, but these are not expected to be significant
and should be met within existing budgets.
7.12 Finally they report: "The Pericles
programme is due to be discussed at the plenary session of the
European Parliament on 12-15 November. The Presidency aims to
finalise the proposal as soon as possible after that."
Conclusion
7.13 We are at a loss to understand how
it can have taken the two Ministers over four months to produce
an Explanatory Memorandum on this uncontroversial proposal. We
ask the Ministers for an explanation of the delay.
7.14 It is also not clear to us what
is meant by "finalising" the proposal. We remind the
Ministers that the parliamentary scrutiny reserve remained on
this document until our consideration of it today. We ask the
Ministers for a likely timetable for agreement of the measure.
7.15 Meanwhile, we clear the document.
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION POLICY OF
THE EU
(22538)
10511/01
COM(01) 354
|
Commission Communication on a new framework for co-operation on activities concerning the Information and Communication Policy of the European Union.
|
| Legal base: |
— |
| |
| Document originated:
| 27 June 2001 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 29 June 2001 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 18 July 2001 |
| Department: |
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 24 October 2001 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared |
The Commission Communication
8.1 The purpose of the Communication is
to propose how a new framework might be set up for the Institutions
of the EU to co-operate more closely on information and communication
work. The Commission says that the aim will be to establish a
new inter-institutional relationship for joint implementation
of information policies under administrative arrangements which
are "easy to handle, decentralised and [which] involve as
little bureaucracy as possible".
8.2 The Commission acknowledges that the
European Parliament (EP) has asked it on several occasions in
the past to set up a joint strategy for information and communication
work. This Communication was eventually called for by the Helsinki
European Council in December 1999 which invited the Commission
to "study the general question of the Union's information
policy, including improving co-ordination with its information
offices in the Member States and links with national information
offices".
8.3 The Commission says that this is a big
job. It requires considerable input from all the Institutions
and the Member States. Given what is at stake, it calls for a
debate, particularly on content, based on the framework it proposes.
It says:
"The Institutions face many difficulties in
reaching out toward the citizen and cannot reasonably be expected
to be able to launch and uphold a debate on their own. Ways must
be found to overcome barriers to communication whether of a linguistic,
cultural, political or institutional kind and taking full account
of the differences between Member States: a European Public does
not exist today for most purposes.
"We therefore have to adapt the message to convey
according to the specificities of the public addressed".
Co-operation between the European Commission and
the European Parliament
8.4 The framework for this co-operation
is envisaged as taking place at three different levels:
- the political level, in the form of the
Inter-institutional Group on Information (IGI), which will define
the general guidelines and priorities, whilst fully respecting
the sectoral competence of the Parliamentary Committees;
- the operational level, where the relevant
services of the Commission and the EP will decide on what action
should be taken; and
- the decentralised level, "at which
execution takes place in the Member States (Representations and
External Offices)."
8.5 The Communication spells out at greater
length how co-operation at these different levels might be strengthened,
for instance in Member States by more systematic contact between
the Heads of the Commission Representations and those of the EP's
External Offices.
Co-operation between the Council, the other Institutions,
the Member States and the National Parliaments
8.6 The Council has a different information
and communication policy to those of the EP and the Commission.
Although it has limited budgetary resources for the purpose and
shares some facilities with the other Institutions, it does conduct
its own relations with the press and media. It participates in
the EUROPA web-site and in Europe by Satellite and sits
on the editorial and managerial committees, but does not take
part otherwise in the formulation of information and communication
policies. It does not take part in the IGI.
8.7 The Communication suggests that future
developments could include the Council co-ordinating with the
Commission and the EP information and communication on second
and third pillar issues. It will invite the Council to consider
how it should handle issues such as the rapid reaction force and
EU participation in international peace-keeping operations, and
how it envisages participating in the IGI.
8.8 In the section on co-operation with
Member States and National Parliaments, the Communication suggests
that the Commission should enhance co-operation with national,
regional and local administrations, in partnership with the Member
States. Such arrangements already exist in Paris and Lisbon and
will soon be in place in Rome. Permanent information centres have
been, or are to be, established in those cities. Alternatively,
joint activities could be undertaken on specific policy priorities
like the euro or enlargement. The advantages include "the
possibility of reaching groups of the population which no European
Institution may reach alone". The Member States have reacted
differently to "the advances of the Commission regarding
conventions. Some have embraced the proposals with enthusiasm".
Only two Member States have not yet agreed. The Communication
makes no direct reference to national parliaments.
Commission information and Communication Services
8.9 The Commission says that the Representations
will continue to play a crucial role in helping to implement major
information activities decided upon by the Commission within the
framework of PRINCE.[20]
Under the heading Externalisation possibilities, the Commission
says that its information might reach the citizen more easily
if it were to make increased use of external services.
Annex
8.10 In the annex the Commission sets out
in more detail information on activities at present being undertaken,
such as PRINCE, Europe Direct, Eurojus, Signpost Service, networks
and relays, including the European Movement, training for journalists,
the Central Library and visits.
8.11 The Commission's Visits Services devotes
most of its human and financial resources to organising visits
by "senior groups" of information multipliers and opinion-formers
from Member States. The Communication recognises that the EU's
information efforts need to be targetted at the public as well
as at the traditional targets of the media and politicians. More
use could be made of tools such as Eurobarometer and public hearings
if further resources were available.
The Government's view
8.12 The Minister for Europe at the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office (Mr Peter Hain) says that the Government
supports the aim of the Communication "to improve the supply
of meaningful information about the EU to the citizens of the
Union" and the particular objectives set out in it. He notes
that the Commission intends to analyse the responses it receives
to the Communication and to present its conclusions by the end
of the year.
Conclusion
8.13 The Minister has little to say about
this effort from the Commission, with its snappy phrases such
as the need to "provide information at decentralised grassroots
level", "execution in the Member States Representations"
and "externalisation possibilities". The Commission
describes the task of devising this strategy as a big job, which
is no doubt why it has taken since December 1999 to complete.
We welcome the aim and look forward to the execution.
8.14 Meanwhile, we clear the document.
SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES
(22543)
10546/01
COM(01) 318
|
Commission Report on the implementation of Council Directive 92/6/EEC of 10 February 1992 on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community;
Draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community.
|
| Legal base: |
Article 71 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated:
| 14 June 2001 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 18 June 2001 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 18 July 2001 |
| Department: |
Transport, Local Government and the Regions
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 19 October 2001
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| To be discussed in Council:
| 6-7 December 2001 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared |
Background
9.1 At present, Council Directive 92/6/EEC
of 1992, requires topspeed limiters to be fitted to buses
and coaches with more than eight passenger seats whose maximum
weight exceeds 10 tonnes, and to heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) whose
maximum weight exceeds 12 tonnes.
9.2 Article 2 of the Directive requires
the installation of speed limitation devices with a maximum set
speed of 100 km/h for category M3 vehicles (buses) and Article
3 requires the same for category N3 vehicles (lorries), but with
a maximum speed of 90 km/h. In Great Britain topspeed limiters
are fitted to goods vehicles, buses and coaches weighing 7.5 tonnes
or more.
The documents
9.3 Document (a) sets out the general case
for the introduction of speed limitation devices, including the
four basic arguments that justified the introduction of such devices
for heavier HGVs, such as categories M3 (buses)[21]
and N3 (lorries). The report states:
- if large engines are unrestricted, they pose
an excessive risk to the vehicle's performance, particularly in
terms of braking and tyre performance;
- lower speed results in fewer road accidents and
fewer casualties;
- lower speed means lower fuel consumption and
vehicle emissions; and
- lower speed means less wear and tear on the vehicle
and so better safety and environmental standards.
9.4 The report summaries some studies that
examined the effects of using speed limiters on vehicles. The
report notes:
"The studies differ slightly in their conclusions
but the following overall positive effects are noted: lower fuel
consumption (from 3% to 11 %), lower maintenance costs (tyres,
brakes, engine), increased road safety (fewer casualties), more
relaxed driving and lower insurance premiums as a consequence
of less accidents. As negative effects the following are noted:
decreased road safety when performing an overtaking manoeuvre
as overtaking another vehicle takes relatively longer, and increased
delivery times as the journey takes longer to make.
"Whilst not indicated in these studies, it is
clear that a further positive effect is that vehicle emissions
(C02 and NOx) are reduced when speed is reduced, because these
are directly proportionally linked to fuel consumption.
"An indirect effect is that the long overtaking
manoeuvres of vehicles fitted with speed limitation devices have
the effect of reducing the average speed of other road users.
"To summarise, it is clear that the known effects
of speed limitation devices are generally very positive for drivers,
for companies, for society and for the environment. The negative
aspects are small and avoidable: if all the speed limitation devices
were set accurately to the same speed, there would be less need
for overtaking, and as the use of speed limitation devices is
accepted, the timetables given to the drivers are more realistic
in comparison with the old practice of giving unrealistic timetables
which, to be met, required speeding."
9.5 The report also points out that when
the Commission asked Member States to share their experience of
speed limitation devices, only four Member States (Denmark, Spain,
Luxembourg and the UK) replied. Although the responses noted some
difficulties, Member States were generally supportive of the present
system. The authorities in the United Kingdom stated that:
"although some problems exist with tampering
of the speed limitation device and thus more enforcement is needed,
the overall results of the use of speed limitation device are
positive, especially in lowering the average speed of buses and
their accident and casualty rates."
9.6 The report goes on to estimate the benefits
of introducing speed limitation devices to lighter HGVs based
on a study conducted in the Netherlands that concluded that speed
limitation devices for lighter vehicles would have a positive
effect both for the transport sector and for society generally.
By extrapolating the results of the Dutch study, the Commission
estimates that the total benefits of the introduction of speed
limitation devices with a maximum speed of 90 km/h for light trucks
would be around _3 billion (around £2 billion).
9.7 The European Commission's proposal (document
b) would effectively extend in full to the lighter HGVs, buses
and coaches and to midicoaches and minibuses the requirements
and the speed limits already applied to the heaviest classes.
In his Explanatory Memorandum of 19 October 2001, the Under-Secretary
for Transport at the Department for Transport, Local Government
and the Regions (Mr David Jamieson) summarises the Commission's
proposals:
"— restrict the speed of all minibuses
and "midicoaches" with more than 8 passenger seats
to 100 kph (62 mph), which is 8 mph less than the current GB maximum
speed limit for such vehicles (70 mph);
- restrict the speed of the lighter HGVs of over
3.5 and up to 7.5 tonnes weight to 90 kph (56 mph), which is 14
mph below their current GB maximum speed limit (again, 70mph);
- restrict the speed of HGVs of between 7.5 and
12 tonnes to 90kph (56 mph), which is 4 mph below the current
GB limit for such vehicles (60 mph) to which they are already
speedlimited;
- require retrospective fitting of top speed limiters
to vehicles already registered.[22]
The initial requirement would be to fit only to new vehicles registered
as from 1 January 2004. But, by 1 January 2005, the requirement
would extend to all vehicles in the new categories registered
from 1 January 2001. There would be an extra year of grace, until
1 January 2006, for those inscope vehicles used exclusively
in national transport."
The Government's view
9.8 The Government is opposed to the Commission's
proposal to fit speed limiters to smaller vehicles. In his Explanatory
Memorandum of 19 October 2001, the Minister says:
"The Government is strongly opposed to the fitment
of speed limiters to smaller vehicles (ie those below 7.5 tonnes)
as proposed by the EC, and to their retrofitting. It does not
believe that the case is made for doing so.
"The Government is concerned that there may
be disadvantages as well as benefits in so wideranging an
extension as proposed. A blanket upper speed limit may give rise
to congestion which in turn may reduce the potential environmental
benefits of speed limitation, as well as introducing new hazards
as a result of traffic bunching. The Government believes that
the scope of the measures (size of vehicles covered), the need
for retrospective fitting, and the most appropriate speeds for
different sizes of vehicle all need to be examined critically
before the Council is invited to reach a decision."
9.9 As regards the Commission's estimated
benefit of _3 billion (around £2 billion), the Minister says:
"— it is not entirely clear if the
benefits claimed are gross benefits or net benefits after allowance
has been made for the costs.
- Whilst the European Commission argues that further
benefits would be gained by extending speed limitation to all
buses with more than eight passenger seats, it provides little
support for this argument.
- The EC accepts that political considerations
militate against extension at present to cars and light vans below
and including 3.5 tonnes.
- The Report does not attempt any sensitivity analysis
to assess levels of benefit in respect of different speed limits
or subcategories of vehicle."
9.10 As the Minister acknowledges, there
is a lack of clear evidence in the UK on the effect of using speed
limiters on HGVs, including their effect in reducing speed-related
accidents. The Minister says:
"In the UK, we do not have clear evidence to
show how many accidents have been prevented by fitting topspeed
limiters to the heavier vehicles. Nevertheless, the small reduction
in mean speeds achieved since 1988 may have delivered reductions
in the numbers killed and in the number and severity of injuries.
It will also have delivered environmental benefits. It will therefore
be similarly very hard to quantify the potential benefits for
lighter vehicles. There should, however, be some inprinciple
environmental benefits through fuel and emissions savings. Equally,
a reduction in speed limits for some of the vehicles (which is
in effect part of the Commission's proposal) should reduce the
number and severity of accidents.
"As regards costs, the attached RIA [Regulatory
Impact Assessment] shows that the cost implications of fitting
retrospectively to vehicles already registered are less favourable
than those of fitting to new vehicles. In addition, implementation
of the proposal as it stands could lead to congestion effects,
caused for example by more vehicles being trapped in long overtaking
manoeuvres. It would also impose additional costs on operators
because of increased journey times. We would like to buy time
in negotiation to give an opportunity to elucidate these effects,
although Presidency pressure to come to an agreement in Council
may preclude this."
9.11 We note the disturbingly high incidence
of HGVs speeding on dual and single carriage ways. The Minister
says:
"In 1999, on motorways a little under 7% of
HGVs were found to be speeding and 4% of buses and coaches. But
on dual carriageways, even given the existing requirement to fit
topspeed limiters to the heaviest categories, those speeding
increased hugely to well over 80% of HGVs and 50% of coaches and
buses, and on single carriageways well over 60% and 23% respectively."
9.12 As regards the results of consultations,
the Minister says that:
"There is some broad support (by no means universal)
for a compromise similar to the present UK requirement, that is,
that topspeed limiters should be required on vehicles (goods
and passengercarrying) over 7.5 tonnes maximum permitted
weight. On the other hand, there are protagonists of extension
down to 3.5 tonnes as proposed, and others who would have none
of it. ROSPA are not convinced that the measures as proposed would
have a significant effect on accident reduction."
Conclusion
9.13 We note the Commission's general
view that the effects of fitting speed limiters to heavy goods
vehicles "are generally very positive for drivers, for companies,
for society and for the environment" whereas the costs are
"small and avoidable." In terms of extending the fitting
of speed limiters to lighter heavy goods vehicles, the Commission
estimates that the total benefits of the introduction of speed
limitation devices with a maximum speed of 90 km/h for light trucks
would be around _3 billion (around £2 billion), including
fewer and less severe accidents.
9.14 We note that the UK Government is
strongly opposed to the fitment of speed limiters to lighter heavy
goods vehicles (i.e. those below 7.5 tonnes) and that it does
not believe that the case is made for doing so. However, we also
note that the Minister acknowledges that there is a lack of clear
evidence in the UK on the effect of using speed limiters on heavy
goods vehicles. We call upon the Government to undertake and publish
research into the subject, especially given the high incidence
of speeding by heavy goods vehicles and the lack of any consensus
among interested parties.
9.15 Meanwhile, we clear the document.
SATELLITE DISHES
(22545)
9650/01
COM(01) 351
|
Commission Communication on the application of general principles of free movement of goods and services (Articles 28 and 49) to the use of satellite dishes.
|
| Legal base: |
— |
| |
| Document originated:
| 27 June 2001 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 27 June 2001 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 23 July 2001 |
| Department: |
Trade and Industry |
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 11 September 2001
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| To be discussed in Council:
| No further substantive discussion expected at this stage
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared |
Background
10.1 The document arises out of several
complaints, petitions and requests for information which the Commission
has received both from individuals and institutions, including
the European Parliament.
10.2 The purpose of the Communication is
to clarify the Commission's intention that private individuals
should be free to use satellite dishes without undue technical,
administrative, planning or tax obstacles. It applies only to
satellite dishes which receive services. No legislation is scheduled
to arise from the Communication, which is intended to be merely
informative.
The document
10.3 The Communication emphasises basic
principles of free movement of goods and services: individuals
who wish to have access to a satellite dish must be able to do
so. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom
of expression) applies to this area.
10.4 The Communication also refers to the
judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Autronic
case[23],
where Article 10 of the Convention was held to apply not only
to the content of information but also to the means of transmission
and reception, including satellite dishes.
10.5 The Communication lists the relevant
national or local restrictions brought to its attention and summarises
its guidance as follows:
- Technical specifications and standards: any provision
which lays down technical specifications and/or conditions concerning
the installation of satellite dishes may constitute an obstacle
to the free movement of goods and services.
- Administrative rules: systematically requiring
an administrative procedure to be followed prior to permitting
the use of a satellite dish has restrictive implications.
- Architectural and urban planning rules: architectural
and urban planning concerns can be efficiently addressed through
measures which aim to minimise the visual impact of satellite
dishes without infringing the right to satellite reception of
the individuals concerned and without forcing them to pay excessive
fees.
- Tax rules: any taxation which applies only to
satellite dishes as compared to other types of receivers is an
obstacle to the free movement of services in the Single Market.
- Rules on reception: the choice of the means of
reception and of the possible services available via satellite
belongs to the individual concerned.
The Government's view
10.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum, the
Minister of State for e-Commerce and Competitiveness at the Department
of Trade and Industry (Mr Douglas Alexander) says:
Technical specifications and standards
"In the UK, satellite receivers do not need
to comply with any technical specifications apart from those laid
down by Directive 73/23/EEC relating to electrical equipment designed
for use within certain voltage limits and electromagnetic compatibility.
"All satellite receivers in the UK are exempt
from the requirement to be licensed under section 1(1) of the
Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, except in relation to the reception
of television broadcasting.
"The Communication points out that restrictions
on the size of satellite diameters and bandwidths can cause problems
with compatability with Articles 49 et seq. of the EC Treaty.
In the UK the maximum diameter allowed for a domestic satellite
dish is 1.2 metres. The normal UK household satellite dish (BskyB)
measures 60 cms.
"There are of course safeguards needed for the
installation of larger receiver dishes, used for commercial or
scientific purposes.
Administrative rules
"The UK Government is in favour of reducing
regulatory hurdles and agrees that any constraint which works
against Single Market principles of importation, installation
and use of receive-only satellite terminals would need to be justified
and proportionate. There are balances to be made especially in
areas like planning permission, where aesthetics (manifestly subjective)
have to be weighed.
"European (including UK) operators and manufacturers
continue to face regulatory problems deploying Very Small Ampliture
Terminals (VSATs) including receive-only. We will continue to
work with the Commission on these issues and encourage the co-operation
between the EU and the Conference of European Postal and Telecommunications
(CEPT), with its 44 European States membership.
Architectural and urban planning rules
"In England and Wales the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995, allows for the installation
of one satellite dish on a dwelling-house without a requirement
for planning permission, subject to a limitation on size of the
dish and the position of the dish on the building. In key environmental
areas, such as conservation areas, planning permission may in
certain circumstances be required, for example in relation to
the position of the dish on a building.
"The limitations on permitted development rights
in such areas are intended to protect the environment from unnecessarily
large, unsympathetic or poorly sited satellite dishes. This does
not mean that the installation of satellite dishes will not be
allowed if it does not fall within the permitted developments
rights but rather that in such circumstances the local planning
authority will have an opportunity to consider the suitability
of that particular development in that place.
"Listed building consent is also required for
any dish that affects the character or appearance of a listed
building or its setting.
"The planning provisions in Scotland in this
regard are virtually identical to those in England and Wales (including
requirements relating to listed building consent). In addition
to dwelling-houses, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 would allow 2 satellite antennas
to be installed on any other building (including a block of flats)
without a requirement for planning permission. This permitted
development right is subject to conditions relating to the size
of the dish and the amount of other types of antenna on the building.
This permitted development right does not apply in certain designated
areas, in which case an application for planning permission would
be required.
Tax rules
"As the Communication makes clear, taxation
is a matter for Member States subject to compatibility with the
fundamental freedoms in the EC Treaty.
"The Communication indicates that any national
tax measures, which specifically target satellite dishes, are
likely to run counter to the free movement of services. There
are no tax measures specific to satellite dishes in the UK.
Rules for broadcasting reception
Under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 (as amended),
a licence is required if a person installs, uses or intends to
use television receiving apparatus (terrestrial, cable or satellite).
Obtaining a TV licence satisfies this legal requirement.
"The Government agrees with the principle that
rules on broadcasting reception should be technologically neutral.
The UK does not set any rules requiring satellite dishes to be
directed at any specific transmission services. UK policy is therefore
in accordance with the principles set out in the Communication."
Conclusion
10.7 The document has already been discussed
at the Satellite Action Plan Plenary Meeting on 9 and 10 July
and there are no plans to produce any specific legislative proposals.
Nevertheless the document is important in re-stating certain core
principles of EC law in a significant area, and as the first initiative
under the Commission's new Strategy for Services. We are pleased
to note that UK policy accords with all the principles in the
Communication. The Communication is intended only as guidance,
and we are content to clear it.
PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION
(22581)
9616/01
COM(01) 389
|
Commission Communication: Pedestrian Protection: Commitment by the European automobile industry.
|
| Legal base: |
— |
| |
| Document originated:
| 11 July 2001 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 19 July 2001 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 7 August 2001 |
| Department: |
Transport, Local Government and the Regions
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 10 October and Minister's letter of 12 November 2001
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| To be discussed in Council:
| 26 November 2001 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared, but request to be kept informed
|
Background
11.1 The explanatory note to the document
states that the Commission had been considering legislation to
increase the protection of pedestrians and other road users from
injury arising out of a collision with a motor vehicle. To this
end, the Commission was expected to produce a Directive by mid-2001.
However, in its Communication of 21 December 2001, the idea of
a self-regulatory code was raised. The Commission subsequently
entered into discussions with the European Automobile Manufacturers
Association (ACEA), and the Japanese and Korean equivalents (JAMA
and KAMA respectively). A public meeting was held on 6 February
2001 and views were contributed by interested parties, including
Member States.
11.2 The outcome of these discussions is
the proposed voluntary agreement. The proposed technical requirements
are based on the suggestions of the Joint Research Centre (JRC),
and are less rigorous than the measures for a proposed directive
contained in the 1999 report of the European Enhanced Vehicle
Safety Committee (EEVC — WG17) — a body in which Member
States collaborate on research.
The document
11.3 The voluntary code will be binding
on the members of the three associations, the ACEA, JAMA and KAMA;
however, as is usual with Directives, independent companies are
excluded.
11.4 In addition to cars, the voluntary
agreement will apply to all passenger vehicles with nine or ten
seats (known as M1 vehicles) and goods or dual purpose vehicles
(known as N1 vehicles) which are derived from M1 vehicles and
which weigh 2.5 tonnes or less.
11.5 Under the agreement, the industry commits
itself to:
"— ensure that the parts of new cars
forward of the windscreen meet the technical test requirements
recommended by the JRC (to apply to new models from 1 July 2005;
80% of all new registrations from 1 July 2010, 90% in 2011 and
all new registrations by 2012);
- introduce anti-lock braking systems (ABS) in
2003 and daytime running lights in 2002 on all new vehicles;
- not fit rigid bull bars on new vehicles from
2002; and
- comply with the EEVC-WG17 targets for pedestrian
safety (to apply to new models in 2010; and all new registrations
progressively from 2012, but not later than the end of 2014) through
application of EEVC-WG17 technical requirements or other measures
which provide equal protective effect."
11.6 The Commission proposes to set up a
Monitoring Committee to report on compliance with the agreement.
The monitoring will be based on the findings of reports carried
out by independent technical services. Manufacturers would supply
the monitoring committee with information on technical progress
and planning.
The Government's view
11.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 10
October 2001, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the
Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (David
Jamieson) states:
"The proposed technical requirements for the
first phase are significantly less severe than the full EEVC proposals.
However, they are expected to take effect two years earlier than
a Directive. We are currently considering the concept of a voluntary
approach, giving earlier first phase benefits.
"We believe that Member States should be involved
in any decisions on how to implement daytime running lamps as
there is no agreed definition of these.
"Although the agreement includes a proposal
for monitoring, we believe that the Commission should be invited
to review the monitoring arrangements with a view to agreeing
a more robust procedure with manufacturers.
"The second phase of the agreement commits manufacturers
to achieving the full EEVC-WG17 technical requirements, or to
introduce other measures which have equivalent effect. The document
is silent on how equivalence will be judged. We believe that the
Commission should consider establishing an expert technical forum,
involving Member States, to establish a mechanism and resources
for continued development of all car pedestrian protection measures.
11.8 In a letter of 12 November enclosing
a Regulatory Impact Assessment, the Minister comments as follows:
"We received 42 formal responses during our
recent consultation on the Commission's proposal. There was a
range of views expressed, but no clear consensus emerged. Road
safety groups were opposed to the concept of a negotiated agreement,
and believed that only the full technical requirements backed
by legislation was acceptable. The motor manufacturers, on the
other hand, believed that a negotiated agreement offered the best
way forward. Between these two extremes were those who accept
that the negotiated approach did have shortcomings, but that in
the circumstances it probably represented the most acceptable
option. A summary of responses to the consultation has been placed
in the Libraries of both the House of Commons and the House of
Lords."
- the potential impact on the industry and a comparison
of the EEVC approach with the JRC approach
"We have consistently supported, and will continue
to support research to improve the safety of pedestrians hit by
cars. We believe that the requirements proposed by the European
Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee (EEVC) offer the most scientific
basis for the assessment of pedestrian protection. However, we
also recognised that the negotiated agreement is a step forward
which could make a worthwhile contribution to pedestrian safety.
In our Road Safety Strategy, Tomorrow's Roads — Safety
for Everyone, we supported the bringing forward of a Directive.
However, this was before the possibility of a negotiated agreement
had been mooted by the Commission. While we share some of the
scientific reservations about the negotiated agreement, we also
judge that what might be achieved in the first phase of a Directive,
although not certain, might not be very different. But taking
the Directive route would inevitably lead to a two year delay.
It could be argued that we should go straight to the full EEVC
requirements, but aside from the inevitable wrangle over the science,
the feasibility and costs would currently be hotly disputed relative
to the benefits. In our judgement the current package, which would
give early first phase benefits and a second phase with at least
the benefits associated with the EEVC proposals, offers the better
route forward."
"Key Member States are in favour of the negotiated
agreement, and expect that it will be operated in a very similar
way to a Directive. We are satisfied that monitoring arrangements
will include checks on the conformity of production. The technical
requirements of the first phase will be operated in a flexible
manner, which allow manufacturers to develop cars in phase one
which move towards the phase two levels."
- miscellaneous amendments proposed by the Council
"the controls on bull bars [should] be extended
to vehicles outside the scope of the agreement, through amendments
to the 'external projections Directive' (74/483/EEC); Member States
and type approval authorities should be involved in the basis
of a harmonised global regulation; the Daytime Running Lamp element
should be postponed; it should be emphasised that Directives are
generally still the preferred route; and the Commission should
be invited to continue with the preparation of Directives that
might supplement or replace the negotiated agreement if the need
arose."
Conclusion
11.9 The proposal is the first voluntary
agreement in this area. Whether the Commission proceeds along
this path with other motor vehicle regulations will depend to
a large extent on the success or failure of this voluntary agreement.
The most important advantage of the voluntary approach is the
earlier date on which it can come into force. The strongest basis
for believing the agreement may be successful is the 'carrot and
stick' approach: the Directive could be introduced at a later
stage if the voluntary approach fails.
11.10 We are grateful to the Minister
for his letter and attached Regulatory Impact Assessment, which
addressed most of our concerns. We would like to be informed of
the manner in which equivalence will be judged and on what is
agreed about day-time running lamps.
11.11 We believe the voluntary agreement
is a sensible step by the Commission which should result in greater
protection for pedestrians throughout the European Union at the
earliest possible date. We are content to clear the document.
JOINT INVESTIGATION TEAMS
(22620)
11990/01
—
|
Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the French Republic, the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom for the adoption by the Council of a draft framework decision on joint investigation teams.
|
| Legal base: |
Articles 31(a) and 34(2)(b) EU; consultation; unanimity
|
| |
| Department: |
Home Office |
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 6 November 2001
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 152-ii (2001-02), paragraph 41 (17 October 2001)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared (decision reported 17 October 2001)
|
Background
12.1 When we considered this document in
October, we cleared it because the text was almost identical with
Articles in the already-cleared Convention on Mutual Assistance
in Criminal Matters.[24]
However, we asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at
the Home Office (Mr Bob Ainsworth) for a fuller explanation of
his assertion that the proposal did not confer on Europol investigative
powers in the Member States. We also asked to be sent a copy of
the explanatory note (which was promised in the document itself)
and to be kept informed of progress.
The Minister's letter
12.2 The Minister has now responded, addressing
our points. In relation to our question about investigative powers,
he states:
"It is the Government's understanding that the
agreements [envisaged in the proposal] could not confer investigative
powers, in the sense of intrusive or coercive powers, or powers
of a police constable on Europol officers or seconded officers
under present domestic legislation. But my officials are still
considering how the agreements might be drafted, and I shall write
to you again shortly with a fuller explanation of the way the
Framework Decision would be operated in practice."
12.3 The Minister agrees that he undertook
to send us a copy of the explanatory note. However, he now understands
that the note will not be produced, since the information it would
have contained is already available in the explanatory report
on the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. He
tells us that, if a note is produced, he will send it.
Conclusion
12.4 We thank the Minister for his response,
and, in particular, for his undertaking to write shortly with
a fuller explanation of the way in which the Framework Decision
will be operated in practice. We ask that his response not only
covers the UK, but also gives some indication about whether there
is any risk that investigative powers might be conferred on Europol
in any other Member States.
12.5 Although we have cleared the document,
we are still interested in its progress. In this connection, we
ask the Minister, when he writes to us again, to indicate the
likely timetable for the measure. We had understood that it would
be discussed at the 16 October Justice and Home Affairs meeting,
but this does not appear to have been the case.
12.6 We have already cleared the document.
17 Whole blood comprises components such as red cells
(which carry oxygen), white cells (which fight infection), and
platelets (which help prevent bleeding). Back
18 Plasma
is the clear liquid within which the other blood components are
suspended. Back
19 See,
for example, (20624) 12585/99; HC 23-x (1999-2000), paragraph
5 (1 March 2000), (21553) 10847/00; HC 28-v (2000-01), paragraph
9 (7 February 2001) and (22408) 9961/01; HC 152-ii (2001-02),
paragraph 12 (17 October 2001).
Back
20 The
Commission notes that the PRINCE programme, which was introduced
in 1995 largely at the instigation of the European Parliament,
involves priority campaigns in partnership with the institutions
and the Member States. It is now applied to enlargement, to the
euro, to the debate on the future of the European Union and to
the new campaign on the creation of an area of freedom, security
and justice. Back
21 Having
a maximum weight exceeding 10 metric tonnes. Back
22 According
to the Government the estimated cost of retrofitting for each
vehicle would be in the region of £320. Back
23 Judgment
of 22 May 1990. Back
24 (21233)
7846/00; see HC 23-xix (1999-2000), paragraph 14 (24 May 2000). Back
| 
