The European Vehicle Surveillance Agency (EVSA) ultimately failed to obtain the support of the European Parliament during two crucial votes in the Strasbourg plenary session on Tuesday 4 April.
Whether it involved the recommendations from the EMIS commission of enquiry into the cheat devices scandal or the regulation on the type approval and motor vehicle monitoring market (adopted by a very large majority with 585 votes in favour, 77 against and 19 abstentions), supporters in favour of setting up this kind of agency failed to obtain a majority.
There had been a small ray of hope among supporters of the agency, such as Seb Dance (S&D, United Kingdom) who declared a week ago during a working breakfast with journalists that he was “optimistic” about the result, for which he has predicted a possible surprise. Some MEPs and parliamentary assistants were counting on the support from certain EPP delegations, particularly those on the EMIS commission.
Unfortunately, the bitterness felt by supporters of the agency is particularly keen with regard to the EMIS commission recommendations because the proposal for setting up this kind of agency (§33) which was adopted in extremis during the EMIS commission (EUROPE 11735), was ultimately rejected during the plenary by just 14 votes (333 for, 347 against, 9 abstentions). Paragraph 33 therefore disappears and was not replaced.
Similarly, with regard to the report on the regulation, introduced by Daniel Dalton (ECR, United Kingdom), the amendment introduced by the S&D and Greens (amendment 351) in favour of an agency was rejected by more than 40 votes (308 for, 351 against, 7 abstentions).
Shared points of view. The co-rapporteur of the EMIS report, Gerban-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE, Netherlands), who voted in favour of the agency, explained during the press conference following the vote that the question of setting an agency up, however, was not the most important point. He considers that what counts is to ensure that the idea of ensuring European level surveillance in the future prevails.
During the same conference, the other co-rapporteur, Jens Gieseke (EPP, Germany), voted against the proposal because he believed the added value of setting up this kind of agency compared with supervision provided by the European Commission had not been proven and that as long as there was no proof on the matter, he would continue to vote against it.
In reply to a question put to her by EUROPE, Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D, Belgium), the President of the EMIS commission, came out fighting and said that that she could now “Take her hat off as president” and highlight the need to set up an independent agency.
The Belgian MEP recognised that her group should have added another amendment to request the European Commission to carry out an impact study into setting up an agency because it would have had a good chance of getting through.
Commission remains lukewarm. During talks with Parliament that day ahead of the vote, the European Commissioner for the Internal Market and Industry, Elżbieta Bieńkowska, chose not to definitively bury the project but did indicate that initially they needed to concentrate on the legislative proposal on type approval and market monitoring. For certain observers, this constitutes backpedalling compared to the declarations made by European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, who spoke in favour of setting up an agency during the presentation of the white paper on the future of the European Union.
The battle is lost but not the war. As several speakers reported that day during the press conference, such as Ska Keller, from Germany, the co-president of the Green group, the question is not yet closed. She provided assurances that her group would seek to get this project through by all possible means. According to Mr Gerbrandy, one of the opportunities that should be seized could involve the follow-up to the implementation of the European Commission recommendations, which should take place in 18 months after the adoption of the report (see EUROPE 11735).
Changes to EMIS report. Some changes were introduced, particularly with regard to the consumer protection (amendments 27, 29, 30). MEPs are therefore calling for European consumers affected by the “Diesel gate” scandal to be compensated by the automobile manufactures involved. They are therefore calling on the European Commission to put forward a legislative proposal to establish a system for group litigation. An amendment on the protection of sector workers was also adopted in an effort to ensure that they do not suffer from the effects relating to the emissions scandal (amendment 31). They are subsequently requesting that the Member States and car manufacturers develop vocational training measures. Another important point involved the MEPs supporting an in-extremis amendment by just one vote (341 for, 340 against, 7 abstentions) – from the Greens, which also calls for the compliance factor in the approval tests in real conditions be brought up to factor 1 by 2021.
Changes to Dalton report. We were informed that few changes had been made to the internal market and consumer protection committee version outlined by EUROPE (see EUROPE 11722), except for greater consumer rights. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)