The real trouble with this Europe lark is that those who know all about it remind me of two QSs talking about CESSM or the differences between SMM 6 and 7, to say nothing of good old number 5.
And if by now you don鈥檛 know what the hell I鈥檓 talking about 鈥� that鈥檚 just my point.
Take, for example, something that I have heard of time and time again but don鈥檛 entirely understand. It鈥檚 called the Construction Products Directive. I think it鈥檚 about lavatory pans being the same standard whether in Berlin or Bognor Regis 鈥� although if I鈥檓 right, I鈥檒l be surprised. The thing is, the Eurocrats have made a total bungle of explaining what the Construction Products Directive is. So, I am going to explain how they explain it.
But before I do that, I ought to warn you that the Construction Products Directive has been recently amended by the CE Marking Directive.
The Construction Products and CE Marking Directives are examples of the European Commission鈥檚 鈥渘ew approach directives鈥�. These have the perfectly sensible aim of removing technical barriers to trade within the European Economic Area 鈥� which comprises the 380 million inhabitants of the European Union and the European Free Trade Association.
I have only two problems with this: I doubt if anyone can understand it, and I doubt if it will work.
Not that the idea is bad in principle. If you make, or flog, construction materials, the idea is that CPD dumps all the national standards and technical approvals you鈥檝e won for your gizmo, and replaces them with a set of Europe-wide technical specifications that have been formulated just for construction products.
I have a picture of dozens of egghead professors costing a small fortune paid for from your euro pocket
And I guess this means that if a manufacturer鈥檚 products match these European technical specifications, they cannot be refused entry to EEA markets on technical grounds. And, I guess, too, that a product bearing the CE mark will be presumed to meet the requirements of these specifications and cannot be thrown off site as a breach of contract 鈥� I guess.
In short, if a building product has implications for health, safety or the energy efficiency of buildings and civil engineering works, a CE mark is required. So, I am right 鈥� it is to do with lavatory pans.
But how do you get your head round the way these specifications are arrived at? For the record, the technical specifications are Harmonised European Standards and European Technical Approvals. A product must meet one or the other. Why, I don鈥檛 know.
If harmonised standards cannot be written because no national standards exist to build on, an assessment is still possible, based on the European Organisation for Technical Approvals. However, products with an electric or electronic dimension will be written by an outfit called CENELEC.
And where do the technical specifications come from? There are Interpretive Documents that explain all the essential requirements for mechanical resistance, stability, fire, hygiene, health, safe use, noise protection, energy efficiency, heat retention and so on.
By now, I have a picture of dozens of egghead professors costing a small fortune happily playing games using money from your euro pocket.
And the CE mark is only half the battle. Each state can also have its own sub-rules, and these can still put up barriers. For example, Finland might say it has a very cold climate and so hot lavatory pans are preferred; or Italy might say hot climates require cold pans 鈥� or some such nonsense. The Eurogobbledegook term for this is 鈥渓evels and classes鈥�, which means each state is entitled to identify particular performance characteristics. Suspicious? So am I.
Postscript
Tony Bingham is a barrister and arbitrator specialising in construction.
