A summary of the report back to the Committee on ongoing inter institutional negotiations is available.
EP IMCO Committee Meeting – 11 October 2017
Approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles
– Reporting back to committee
– Visit the Policy Pipeline to access related documents and the next stage of the procedure
Rapporteur Dan Dalton (ECR, UK) made the following remarks:
- the second trilogue had taken place on 10th October. The European Parliament (EP) had presented a united front;
- the EP had yesterday received an overview of the Council’s updated mandate which had allowed them to move forward and take stock on certain issues. Unfortunately, the Council had presented their new mandate as an overall package. For the EP, some aspects of the new mandate were insufficient for them to agree at this stage but they did not reject improvements to the Council mandate as a whole;
- discussions had focused on governance, market surveillance, and sanctions and penalties;
- more progress could be made on governance, in particular by guaranteeing the reviews of periodic assessments carried out to check the robustness of type approval and market surveillance authorities. The Council mandate still only foresaw peer reviews for the designation of technical services by type approval authorities. For the EP, this would be insufficient;
- the negotiating team had placed significant emphasis on getting the ex-ante supervision correct in the EP mandate. Without it, they risked not making the progress needed. The EP therefore undertook to present a counter proposal on governance and would be discussing this with the Shadows in the coming days;
- on market surveillance, they had been pleased by the Council’s willingness to show movement on the role of the Commission. This was a key point for the EP but could not be the only improvement in the text;
- a useful discussion had taken place on national market surveillance and the scope of checks. All the checks would be done on the basis of physical dynamic assessment. They had not reached a final agreement on this and more work would need to be done. In particular, they would need to determine how the quotas of cars to be checked would be established and distributed across the member states. The EP was sympathetic to members states without the resources to take on a large number of testing obligations but neither could the big car producing countries be the big testing countries as well;
- concerning penalties and sanctions, consumer protection remained an outstanding question. The EP mandate included clarity on the scope of liability in the case of a defective vehicle and this was an important political objective. The Council view was that there were other legislative initiatives in the area that could deal with the issue. The EP would study the matter carefully before moving forward on the point;
- the EP did not see specific moves to address failings for consumers affected by the VW scandal and others. The political need therefore remained to improve the situation for consumers who had been mistreated. This should remain a political priority;
- the trilogue had covered a number of other areas where the Council and EP mindset remained largely the same. Nevertheless, they had had useful discussions and clarification from all sides on their objectives This would fuel the ongoing technical work which would hopefully help them find solutions ahead of the third trilogue in November. He hoped for a quick conclusion to this file.
Ivan Stefanec (EPP, SK)
- the Council’s updated mandate as received yesterday attempted to weaken the Commission’s proposal which was not acceptable;
- he was positive the EP could achieve their position and bring change into this important file. The change would have to be accompanied by the strengthening of common rules and the role of the European Commission.
Christel Schaldemose (S&D, DK)
- although she agreed they were heading in the right direction, she wanted to warn colleagues that they might have to delay or postpone the final trilogue in order to find solutions on technical issues.
Source: One Policy Place