4. We have given further consideration to the following on the basis of
further information from the Government. We maintain our opinion[6] that it raises questions of legal and political importance, but now make no
recommendation for its further consideration:--
Department of Transport
(17534)
10284/96
COM(96)455 |
Draft Directive amending Directive 93/75/EEC on minimum requirements for
vessels bound for and leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods. |
| Legal base: |
Article 84(2); co-operation; qualified majority voting. |
Background
4.1 When we considered this document on 5 March[7],
we raised various questions with the Minister. These were: why political agreement had been reached
before scrutiny had been cleared; and why it had taken more than two months for us to be told of
that agreement. We also asked for a copy of the text. We did not clear the document, pending his
reply.
The Minister's reply
4.2 In his letter of 14 March, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Viscount
Goschen), says:
"I apologise unreservedly for the oversight which resulted in the delay in informing
the Committee of the outcome of the meeting of the Transport Council in December.
"You asked for an explanation of my reasons for reaching political agreement on this
proposal while it had not been cleared by your Committee. In considering the Committee's
conclusions following its consideration of the proposal and the Explanatory Memorandum which I
provided in early November, I noted your agreement that ambiguity in the text needed resolving
before the proposal could be adopted. At the Council meeting, it became clear that all Member
States were in accord with the United Kingdom's wish to ensure that the comitology procedures were
unambiguous and could not lead to future amendments going beyond the intended purpose of the
Directive. The Commission, when faced with unanimity among Member States on this point, withdrew
its reserve on the text, stating that future amendments through comitology could not broaden the
scope of the Directive. I was then fully satisfied that your Committee's concerns had been met.
I thought it prudent, therefore, to take full advantage of the unanimity expressed by Member States
at that point, to consent to political agreement on the text before us.
"You also expressed regret that you were asked to reconsider this matter without seeing
the revised texts. We have not yet received from the Council Secretariat the text recording the
outcome of the Transport Council meeting in December. I enclose, however, a copy of the text which
was referred to the Council by the Committee of Permanent Representatives shortly before the meeting
in December. The key point at issue was in Article 1, paragraph 2 of the proposal. This would
amend Article 11 of Directive 93/75 by specifying that the Regulatory Committee established under
that Directive may amend its annexes in line with international developments. It was agreed at the
Council meeting that the text in square brackets, 'without broadening the scope of the Directive',
on which the Commission had maintained a reservation, would be retained. If you wish, I shall
forward a copy of the new text upon receipt."
Conclusion
4.3 We accept the Minister's apology, and thank him for his full explanation of
how the events which disturbed us occurred. We trust that arrangements are now in place to guard
against similar oversights in future. We are now clearing the document. It is regrettable that
the Council Secretariat has not yet produced the text resulting from the December meeting; but we
would welcome a copy of the new text when it is available.
6.(17534) 10284/96; see HC 36-ii (1996-97), paragraph 9 (6 November 1996). Back
7.(17534) 10284/96; see HC 36-xvi (1996-97), paragraph 1 (5 March 1997). Back
|
