Power play aims to force deal on plugs

Date: 13/02/1997

By Simon Coss

THE European Commission is considering using EU internal market and competition rules to force agreement on a common European plug.

Officials in Commissioner Martin Bangemann's Directorate-General for industry (DGIII) are examining whether the failure to agree on a standard device after years of talks amounts to a breach of the commitment enshrined in the Treaty of Rome to the free movement of goods and free competition.

The move comes after the body charged with getting agreement on this issue failed once again to strike a deal at the end of 1996.

After members of the European Committee for Electrical Normalisation (CENELEC) rejected a proposed design late last year, the committee voted in December to lift a freeze on member states carrying out their own research into plug designs.

The block had been put in place to prevent competing research being carried out while a common approach was being sought.

Notes taken at the December meeting indicate the depth of Commission anger over the decision, with the institution's representative insisting that this “should not be the end of the line”.

The Commission opposed lifting the freeze on research by individual member states and insisted instead that the reasons for the vote against the proposed common standard should be examined in detail.

“[The Commission's representative] considered that the negative vote did not meet the legal requirements of the Treaty of Rome in permitting free movement of goods and allowing free competition,” state the notes, adding: “He implied that the Commission would not let the matter drop, but would now consider legislation or a directive on plugs and sockets.”

Commission officials confirmed this week that they were considering their next move. “We hope to see this area harmonised and we have the tools and the competence to act,” insisted one.

The December vote calls into question once again CENELEC's independence from the influence of the powerful plug manufacturers' lobby.

The organisation is in fact a coalition of national electrical control bodies, whose membership includes representatives of consumer interests, the electrotechnical industry (plugmakers) and the electricity regulators.

Critics say the plugmakers have too much influence in the voting procedure. “Everybody involved with this knows that the whole thing has been commercially driven,” said one harmonisation expert.

Any use of EU competition rules would require evidence that plugmakers were working together to maintain the status quo. The Coalition of European Plug and Socket Manufacturers, which represents 80&percent; of European plugmakers, hotly denies this.

“The market in this area is already extremely competitive. Our members compete in the market-place not only with each other but also with cut-price imports from the Far East,” said a spokesman for the group, adding: “If this is the road the Commission is choosing to take then, frankly, it is a bit of a long shot.”

If the Commission cannot find an alternative way of forcing through harmonisation, Europe will have to wait for CENELEC and its international counterpart, the International Electrical Commission, to come up with a new standard.

The design which was rejected by CENELEC members last year was the fruit of almost a decade of wrangling. A breakdown of the vote shows national delegations rejected the proposed design for a variety of reasons, with some saying it was the wrong size, others arguing that the space between socket outlets should be specified, and a third group warning that it would cause problems for non-electricians trying to fit new plugs.

Critics argue this shows that the vote was not really concerned with technical issues at all. “If there really were technical problems, surely everyone would have agreed on what they were,” said one expert.