Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
 Full text 
Procedure : 2016/0014(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A8-0048/2017

Texts tabled :


Debates :

PV 04/04/2017 - 5
CRE 04/04/2017 - 5
PV 18/04/2018 - 21
CRE 18/04/2018 - 21

Votes :

PV 04/04/2017 - 7.2
CRE 04/04/2017 - 7.2
PV 19/04/2018 - 10.6

Texts adopted :


Tuesday, 4 April 2017 - Strasbourg Revised edition

5. Approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (debate)
Video of the speeches

  Daniel Dalton, rapporteur . – Mr President, I would like to thank all colleagues for their comments. The general view, I think, is that the proposal by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) is a good one. It is a compromise. Everyone has had to move from their original positions, everyone has had to give things up, and I think we need to recognise that. I just wanted to make it clear what type approval is, because I think that there is some confusion, especially on my right, as to what exactly the system is. We have a national system of type approval with mutual recognition across Europe and, as Mr Schwab said, one type approval for the whole of the EU. That is good for consumers, it is good for jobs, it is good for industry, but it is in everyone’s interests to know that the system works in other EU countries because this affects everyone. People in Germany, for example, need to be confident that the system in Italy, say, works, as cars approved in Italy will be driven in Germany. So we need an umpire. We need a role for the Commission, as the report recognises. Now most speakers wanted more independence, transparency, obligations on Member States, compensation, a stronger system: all of that is in this IMCO report.

On the agency – this is the last time I talk about the agency, I promise! – that is not actually the key thing in this report. The details are much more important. I think that the Commissioner is sitting on the fence a little bit, clearly not convinced about the agency; but Bas Eickhout’s answer was, I think, actually the most instructive: the cost and bureaucracy of setting up the agency just to send the results to the same people in the Commission who will deal with the info under the system that we are proposing. It will always come back to the Commission to act, but it is clear that as a Parliament we are split down the middle on this issue. We have to sort it out in a vote and I will support the outcome whichever way it goes. No system will stop people who want to cheat the system, but I think that we have got a stronger system now. The key is to make sure that we get them once they have cheated the system. I think that we can do that. It has been 18 months since the Volkswagen scandal. It has been 15 months since the Commission came forward with its proposal. It is time now for us to get on with it, so I effectively commend this report to the vote later today and I look forward to starting negotiations with the Commission and Council as soon as possible.

Last updated: 27 September 2017Legal notice