Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 16 December 2003 - Strasbourg

8. Measuring instruments

  President. – The next item is the recommendation for second reading (Α5-0458/2003), on behalf of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, on measuring instruments (9681/4/2003 – C5-0417/2003 – 2000/0233(COD)) (Rapporteur: Mr Chichester).

  Chichester (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Mr President, we now come to a measure of great length, weight, size, volume, thickness and complexity with the capacity to affect a wide range of instruments.

National legislation on measurements and measuring instruments has been with us a long time. It precedes European legislation and reflects the importance of accuracy of measurement on the daily life of people. All EU and developed countries have metrological institutes charged with the task of establishing traceability of measurement results.

The first question to ask is: why the interest in measuring instruments? The answer is because all developed countries have complex economies which need a minimum level of measurement accuracy for fair trading in the public interest. Thus all legislation is based on the premise that the public interest is served if measuring instruments are subjected to legislative requirements that guarantee this minimum level of accuracy.

A number of concepts or issues are raised in this proposal. Optionality: Amendment No 2 essentially states that a Member State will be free to decide whether or not to regulate in this field. However, Member State legislation should not act as a technical barrier to completion of the internal market, nor cause unfair competition. Regarding harmonised standards, in order to meet the essential requirements for any of the instruments covered by this directive, the manufacturer must show conformity in one of three ways as made clear in Amendment No 21.

It is important that manufacturers have the choice between the requirements in new Annex 2, together with the detail of the instrument-specific annexes M1 to M10, or by applying the relevant European harmonised standard, or by compliance with the relevant parts of the normative documents adopted by the OIML and approved by the new measuring instruments advisory committee and published in the Official Journal.

This advisory committee also has an important regulatory role which is why new Compromise Amendment No 30 is so crucial in requiring proper consultations with representatives of interested parties i.e. the industry and practitioners.

Perhaps the most important improvement to the common position lies in Compromise Amendment No 32: the joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission regarding conformity assessment procedures. It has been a matter of much concern to your rapporteur that there is inconsistency between the conformity assessment modules in Council Decision 93/465/EEC and Annexes A to H1 of the common position. After much discussion, the compromise position has yielded a commitment to review both texts and bring forward a full set of coherent conformity assessments very soon, which I believe will make industry much more content. In which context I thank the presidency for its measured but constructive approach and I thank the Commission for being instrumental in finding the compromise text.

One matter remains before this long process reaches conclusion. That concerns our desire to distinguish between manufacturers and traders in the definition of terms in this proposal. If the Commissioner is willing to give an undertaking that he will include a review of the definitions in the overall review of the conformity modules I am mandated by the committee to withdraw Amendments Nos 3 and 11. We naturally expect the Council to respect the spirit of cooperation and compromise involved so as to shorten the procedure.

I shall close by thanking my shadow rapporteur, Mr Glante, other colleagues, and the staff of the committee for their helpful and constructive work on this proposal.

  Liikanen, Commission. Mr President, firstly, let me express my congratulations to the European Parliament and in particular to the rapporteur, Mr Chichester, for his intensively prepared second reading report and by using the word 'intensively', I am not exaggerating.

The present proposal replaces ten existing directives and implements the principle of the new approach for technical harmonisation. The aim of the proposal is to ensure appropriate consumer protection by imposing the use of high-quality instruments for measurement tasks, covering commercial transactions. Examples are gas meters, electricity meters, petrol pumps and taxi meters.

The proposal imposes technical requirements, expressed in performance terms, allowing for different technical solutions to be applied, thus allowing innovative products to be developed and enhancing competitiveness in line with the principle of subsidiarity. The proposal, however, does not use legal instruments to lay down which measurement tasks must be performed. This remains the competence of Member States.

I am pleased that the rapporteur supports the common position concerning measuring instruments. His amendments contain many good and useful suggestions, all of which the Commission can support. In reply to the rapporteur's question, the revision of conformity assessment procedures, which has been agreed upon in the joint declaration and in Amendment No 32, also includes harmonisation of the definitions of specific terms used in certification, such as 'manufacturer', 'authorised representative', 'trader', etc.

With the Commission’s support for Parliament’s amendments, I trust that the Council will agree with you in a second reading.

  Glante (PSE). – (DE) Thank you, Mr President. Commissioner, Mr Chichester, ladies and gentlemen, I was my group’s shadow rapporteur during the first reading of this Measuring Instruments Directive, and have followed the inception, development and progress of this directive throughout the two readings. The rapporteur has been kind enough to express his thanks to me, and I would like to take this opportunity to reciprocate. He has shown a masterly grasp of this highly complex and technical subject matter and settled into the work very quickly during the second reading. We worked well together. I think it is important to say this, for although our political views diverge in a number of respects, we were able to collaborate very closely and productively on this project. There is no point in seeking confrontation needlessly. I would therefore like to reciprocate his thanks. It was a great pleasure working with him.

As has already been mentioned, this new directive replaces ten existing directives. It may thus be a small contribution to dismantling bureaucracy, which is something we are always calling for in a range of areas. It remains a complex but also a very important directive. On the issues of optionality and the distinction between manufacturers and traders – Amendment No 32 and Commissioner Liikanen’s statement play a key role here – there was vigorous debate about whether the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy would be willing, yet again, to conclude the matter through an informal trialogue during the second reading. I would like to reiterate – especially since I myself will have an opportunity to make a statement on my own report tomorrow – that the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy is showing good will and is happy to adopt this approach. This must not, however, become the rule. We are making these exceptions in order to speed up the procedure.

The compromises which have been found are acceptable. The Commission’s opinion and statement are good too. Naturally, I very much hope, as do the rapporteurs and my fellow Committee members, that the Council will write this letter and submit this declaration accordingly so that we can actually conclude the matter and do not wind up in a conciliation procedure after all, on the basis of the compromise which has now been achieved.

Otherwise, I am very happy with the outcome. I hope that European industry, users and manufacturers will be satisfied with it. Perhaps you will permit me, at the end of our pre-Christmas session and almost at the end of the year, to express my hope that our British colleagues and above all the hospitality industry in Great Britain will be satisfied with the rules on measures for beer glasses. I understand that this is a particular problem. However, I think we have found a good solution here as well. Thank you very much for the collaboration and particular thanks to the interpreters for providing their services at such a late hour in the evening.

  McNally (PSE). – Mr President, I would like to join in the congratulations just expressed to our rapporteur. At this time of night I cannot match him in using words skilfully in the form of puns as he did in his speech, but, well done!

I am pleased that we will be able to present this to the public as a move towards efficiency and clarity. This will not get big headlines in newspapers for the rapporteur or anyone else, but it is extremely important for the public to have clarity and security in the measuring instruments used as listed for items of public health, public safety, public order, protection of the environment and, indeed, the levying of taxes and duties and the protection of consumers and fair trading. All those public goods need accurate, trustworthy measurements, and in the European Union we need to get rid of the barriers to trade that might exist without such instruments.

A quite considerable range of instruments has been mentioned, including water meters, taxi meters, exhaust-gas analysers and breathalysers. We support, as Mr Glante has said, the principle of optionality: it is quite reasonable to give Member States a choice as to whether or not they regulate. But with that choice goes a responsibility not to put up trade barriers or to be unfairly competitive. The comitology issues that concern us appear to have been solved. This is an example of the new approach to harmonisation. We have to bear in mind that there may well be technological advances or problems we have not heard or thought of, perhaps, for example, electromagnetic interference.

The simplification, clarity and conciseness of the rapporteur are helpful. I am glad that the Commission agrees and I look forward to the Council of Ministers taking the same approach. The joint declaration on the procedures for ensuring conformity with the review of texts will be welcome.

I am glad that the countries which will be joining us in May 2004 will have an example of how Member States can make decisions in the context of a European Union which wants fair competition and does not want barriers to trade. I am sure that they have been following this work with interest.

We hope there will be an agreement at second reading. Our committee has a reputation for putting in hours of work in the form of informal trialogues. Some of us sometimes question whether we are misguided in doing that in comparison with other committees such as the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. But my belief is that, so far, we have managed in an assertive way to put across our points of view. I congratulate the rapporteur again.

  Martin, Hans-Peter (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, after this memorable, perhaps even historic weekend, we should be making even more use of our right to ask questions. Is what we are doing here really necessary? Do we need it to the extent envisaged? Is it not rather surprising that a fellow Member who generally lobbies for as little regulation as possible is now working in such technical detail? Is it really a success for Europe if we have now more precise knowledge about the measures on beer glasses in Great Britain? I doubt it very much. Are we not on the wrong track? Is it not precisely this form of regulation, which concerns neither product liability nor very clear principles, that is likely to lead us in quite the wrong direction? Surely we need genuine transparency in our work, and that includes what we are doing here. If we look around the group of fellow Members here, surely all we are doing is just patting each other on the back, with very high costs for the taxpayer.

  Liikanen, Commission. Mr President, it was not my intention to hog the debate, but in response to Mr Martin's question I should like to point out that, yes, harmonisation is necessary here.

In the light of the famous cassis de Dijon case law, harmonisation is necessary because national technical regulations conflict and separate conformity assessments are required. The proposal in question based on the new approach replaces some 11 existing old-approach directives which allow for national legislation to exist alongside Community provisions and are technically outdated.

Harmonisation thus allows firms to gain from economies of scale and to improve the competitiveness of European firms in the global market.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.⁽¹⁾

(The sitting was closed at 11.30 p.m.)

(1) Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes