As a reaction to the VW emissions scandal, an enquiry committee was set up in the EU Parliament last month. The purpose of the committee is to clarify who is responsible for what failings. That will by no means be simple; hence, the crux of the matter lies above all in the system, which itself is now looking for clarification.

AK EUROPA already reported on this year's legislative proposals of the EU Commission with regard to emission limits and discussed the gap between manufacturer information and real driving emissions at an event hosted by the European Office of the Austrian Trade Union Federation and BEUC.

The 90 MEPs of the parliamentary enquiry committee have a year to deal with the issue and to evaluate among other any possible failings of national authorities and the EU Commission. An interim report will be submitted after six months; a final report is expected in early 2017 at the latest. Over the coming months, groups of different stakeholders will be heard. To begin with, the committee began with the exchange of executives of the Directorates-General of the European Commission; hearings are now taking place with technical experts concerning the issue of emissions in real driving conditions, followed by hearings with quality experts, then US-American experts, followed by Members of the Commission, the automobile sector and finally the Commissioners.

US authorities have reacted

The committee members were, among other, very interested in the question why the scandal had been exposed in the USA and not in the EU. The main reason for this, so the reply, is that the USA would systematically take a different approach. The executives responsible also pointed out that NGOs had exposed the affair – however, one should not forget that the authorities reacted when they were informed by the NGOs. Very much in contrast to the authorities in the EU. In reality, the gap between the specifications is not new. The results have long been known; they are even accessible to the public - but no one has taken any serious measures.

Who should have taken action?

The main reason for this different approach is the fact that the system is simply not well regulated. All participants are just passing the buck: the Commission would not have a mandate for supervision, the Member States should have intervened - after all they had been informed. On the other hand, there is no supervision duty for the Member States and basically, the type system makes control and supervision respectively more difficult. Hence, the ball rolls back into the corner of the EU institutions, which are after all responsible for this watered down legislation. However, this also includes the EU Parliament, which at the same time has set up the parliamentary enquiry committee. Furthermore, it was never mentioned that the Member States had invited responsible executives, who were referred to by most taking part in the hearings.

With regard to the fraudulent software, many institutes, such as the Joint Research Centre claim that there were never any indications for its use and that it would be very difficult to prove such application. However, other institutes have been referring to its use for years. The fact that the issue is very technical, does also not necessarily contribute to the productivity of the committee.

The balancing act between environmental/consumer protection and the fear of possible job losses in the automobile sector seems to spread further and further. It is important that in future legislation is structured in such a way that there are clear competencies as to who MUST take which measures when. There is also an urgent need to close any loopholes, which make such scandals possible in the first place. Consumers have a right to correct manufacturer information and of course to fresh air to protect their health.

Further information:

AK WIEN: Study Vehicle emissions between standard and real world consumption

AK EUROPA: What kind of emission tests will follow after the VW scandal?