11. We consider that the
following raises questions of political importance, but make no
recommendation for its further consideration at this stage:-
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
|
(17755)
12395/96
COM(96)574
|
Draft Directive on the registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships.
|
|
Legal base:
|
Article 84(2); co-operation; qualified majority voting.
|
Background
11.1 After the loss of
the ferry Estonia in September 1994, a Council Resolution
of 22 November 1994 on the safety of roll-on-roll-off passenger
ferries asked the Commission to submit a proposal for the registration
of passenger numbers and other details.
The proposal
11.2 The Directive seeks
to improve passenger safety and to help search and rescue for
ships using ports in Member States. It would require passengers
and crew to be counted before sailing, and the numbers reported
to the master and to a designated person ashore. Article 6 would
require, for ships on voyages of 20 miles or more, the recording
of name, gender and age for everybody aboard, and for this information
to be communicated to the shore within 30 minutes of sailing.
Some derogations might be possible, but would not apply to the
UK's main international ferry routes.
11.3 Member States would
be required to implement the Directive by 1 January 1998 and to
apply Article 6 by 1 January 1999.
The Government's views
11.4 The Government's
views are set out in an Explanatory Memorandum dated 21 January
submitted by the Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Viscount
Goschen):
"In general,
and with the specific exception of Article 6, the UK has supported
this proposal. The recording of passenger numbers is already
UK practice. But Article 6 is problematic. It requires
the recording of passengers' names, age and gender, which does
nothing for their safety in the event of an accident. The information
is of very little use for search and rescue purposes: only the
passenger numbers are relevant. Industry sees it as an unnecessary
burden that would involve added start-up and running costs and
seriously hamper embarkation by causing congestion and adversely
affecting turn-around times in port. Industry experiments in
the past support this view. The Department also considered such
a requirement after the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise
in 1987, deciding against it on similar grounds.
"While the information
could be of some value to administrations after an accident,
on balance, the burden of the requirement would be wholly disproportionate
in relation to the very rare circumstances in which such information
might be used.
"The Commission
argues that the requirement to record passenger details is necessary
to ensure consistent interpretation and application of a new Regulation
in Chapter III of the International Convention for the Safety
of Life at Sea (SOLAS). That Regulation covers the same ground
as the Commission proposal but with far more discretion left to
administrations. Under a general SOLAS exemption, that Regulation
need not be implemented for ships never more than 20 miles from
land. The Regulation also provides for exemptions from the requirement
to record names, age and gender where the scheduled voyages of
ships render this impracticable. The Commission argues that this
'loophole' needs closing through Community legislation. However,
the proposal would remove to an unacceptable extent much of the
latitude allowed administrations under the SOLAS Regulation.
"We do not believe
that the Commission has justified its criterion of voyages of
20 miles or more for the requirement for registration. The SOLAS
requirement criterion relates to distance from shore, which is
far more relevant for search and rescue purposes than journey
length. We also consider that the requirement to report the details
to shore within 30 minutes is illogical, certainly in the context
of a short cross-Channel journey, which would already be half-completed
in that time (thus negating any supposed benefit of the Directive
for any accident occurring during the first half of such a journey)
while pointing out that a shorter deadline would itself be impracticable.
Paragraph 1 of Article 9 is also potentially problematic. Even
if Article 6 is suitably amended, Article 9 would allow a Member
State to require the registration of passenger details for ships
on shorter voyages than those covered by the main provisions of
the Directive. This could create a situation where a ship sailing
from one Member State to another would have to meet stricter requirements
on its return journey than on the outward journey.
"Some Member
States share our concerns to varying degrees. Others, notably
France, support the Commission's proposal. We have pressed the
Commission on their justification for, in particular, Article
6, with some support from other Member States. We await developments.
A further Transport Working Group discussion is scheduled for
March."
Conclusions
11.5 This proposal
raises matters of political importance. The safety of passengers
and crew in ships is an issue of particular significance to an
island nation. So, for the same reason, is effective search and
rescue in case of accident.
11.6 There is a significant
divergence of view here between the United Kingdom Government
and the Commission on the requirements of Article 6, though we
notice that the Commission's views are shared by the French.
We also note that, according to the Minister, the main complaint
from industry about the proposal is not about the costs of running
a system to provide the required information, but about the costs
implicit in the delays during embarkation which would increase
voyage turn-around times.
11.7 The arguments
about the application of Article 6 are in our view finely balanced.
Although the Estonia sank in the open waters of the Baltic
sea, the worst marine incidents to affect this country in recent
years occurred in the relatively sheltered waters outside the
harbour at Zeebrugge and in the River Thames. The justification
for what is proposed in this Article ought to be determined by
whether it is necessary for this information to be available for
search and rescue purposes.
11.8 We therefore
do not clear the document at this stage and ask the Minister to
let us have a Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum when discussions
have progressed, and in advance of the Transport Council in June
when political agreement is expected to be sought. We will then
consider it again.
|
