Document originated:	19 March 1998
Original language:	French
Forwarded to the Council:	20 March 1998
Circulated by the Council in the original language:	24 March 1998
Circulated by the Council in English:	26 March 1998
Deposited in Parliament:	3 April 1998
Department:	Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Basis of consideration:	EM of 18 April 1998
Previous consideration:	None
Committee's assessment:	Politically important
Committee's decision:	Cleared

Background

14.1  EC Directive 96/35/EC[26] sets out requirements for the appointment of dangerous goods safety advisers in the transport industry and prescribes their duties and vocational qualifications. The previous Government had regarded the proposals as unnecessary but they were adopted nevertheless. The proposals were debated in European Standing Committee A as long ago as 10 February 1993. Our predecessors last reported on them on 8 March 1995[27].

14.2  Directive 96/35 provides, among other matters, that the professional competence of the safety advisers is to be ensured by special training and approved by a certificate after passing an examination but it does not contain any detailed provisions on the harmonisation of examination requirements. The present proposal fills this gap and follows an undertaking made by the Commission to the Council in 1996 at the time of the adoption of the Directive.

14.3  The current proposal lays down the compulsory examination requirements and requires Member States to take appropriate measures to ensure that safety advisers are examined in conformity with the requirements provided within the proposed Directive. The proposal requires Member States to draw up an examination "catalogue" covering subjects set out in an annex to the earlier Directive and specifies that the examinations for safety advisers must be constructed by drawing questions from the catalogue. There are also requirements relating to the appointment of examination bodies and the nature of the tests.

14.4  In an Explanatory Memorandum dated 18 April, the Minister for Roads (the Baroness Hayman) comments, in relation to the Commission's claim that the measures proposed are required to guarantee a uniform and high standard of training because examination requirements and levels are different in all Member States, that because the requirements of Directive 96/35 have yet to be implemented, there is a strong case for suggesting that there is little basis for the Commission's contention without a careful study. She says: "It could be argued that the measures proposed should be left to the individual Member States to organise. The training and examination requirements of other safety related professional persons are not regulated in such a manner."

14.5  The Minister suggests that a certain flexibility in Article 4 of the proposal, which would permit Member States to restrict the testing of safety advisers working in specialised areas to the subject matters relating to their special activities, is in conflict with the requirements of Directive 96/35. She also considers that some of the proposed provisions relating to approved examinations are "considered to be unduly prescriptive and will require further detailed discussion." She says that the Government believes the proposed Directive should set out guidelines for conducting examinations.

14.6  The Minister says that the Government's view is that this proposal may be unnecessary but that the flexibility referred to above might, but only in a small way, reduce the considerable costs with which industry will be faced when conforming with national legislation implementing Directive 96/35.

14.7  We are told that proposed legislation for implementing Directive 96/35 is currently subject to a formal consultation exercise. We also note that although the costs for industry arising from the training requirements in Directive 96/35 are likely to be high, the actual costs relating to the current proposal are likely to be very small and will fall on the authorities administering the approved examination and certification régime.

14.8  This proposal is consequent upon the requirements of Directive 96/35. The Government has a number of difficulties with specific provisions of the proposal and with the proposed timing, which it considers it is essential to resolve. Our view is that, because the current proposal seeks only to provide harmonised arrangements for the implementation of aspects of Directive 96/35, and the outstanding issues are not of major importance, the document can be cleared.