SAFETY OF SEABORNE OIL TRADE
(21146)
7245/00
COM(00) 142
|
Draft Regulation on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or
equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 80(2) EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: |
Environment, Transport and the Regions
|
| Basis of consideration:
| Letter of 23 June 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 23-xviii (1999-2000), paragraph 5 (17 May 2000)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| June 2000 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; request to be kept informed
|
Background
5.1 On 17 May 2000, we reported on a Commission
Communication on the safety of seaborne oil trade, including three
legislative proposals. We cleared two of them but left the third
uncleared. That proposal was for a draft Regulation on the phasing-in
of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull
oil tankers. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO), which
provides the framework for international action on maritime safety,
has set dates for phasing out single hull tankers. The proposed
Regulation would require Member States to adopt an accelerated
phasing out, more in step with US requirements. Part of the argument
in favour of the Regulation is to avoid elderly tankers being
"dumped" in Europe as a result of the US legislation.
The Regulation would apply withdrawal dates for a range of different
tankers including those between 600 and 20,000 tonnes deadweight,
as well as larger ones. The Minister raised concerns about the
commercial and other effects of the lower limit of 600 tonnes
which he considered too low. We asked the Minister to tell us
why, from a safety perspective, he considered the limit to be
too low and whether the safety record of such smaller vessels
was demonstrably better than larger tankers. We asked the Minister
to keep us in touch with developments on this proposal and to
give us an estimate of its economic effects, together with an
estimate of the direct and indirect economic effects of disasters
such as the Erika.
The Minister's reply
5.2 In his letter of 23 June 2000, the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment,
Transport and the Regions (Mr Keith Hill) says:
"Safety Issues and
the proposed lower limit in ship size of 600 tonnes
"It does not appear that safety at sea would
be affected by the proposal to set the lower limit for ships caught
by the proposed Regulation at 600 tonnes deadweight. There is
no evidence from marine accident or port State control records
to indicate that the safety record of smaller vessels is demonstrably
different from that of larger ones. However, improving construction
and operational safety standards for oil tankers is not the intention
of the proposed Regulation. Its aim is to provide greater protection
against pollution following accidents involving tankers. One of
the means of achieving this is to apply the requirements of the
proposed Regulation to single hull oil tankers between 600 tonnes
and 20,000 tonnes and delivered before 6 July 1996. These smaller
vessels would not otherwise be affected by the phasing in of double
hull design standards under the Marine Pollution Convention (MARPOL).
"Economic Effects
"We are continuing to press for an assessment
of the economic effects of the proposal for accelerating the phasing
out of single hull oil tankers. The cost of pollution directly
attributable to the Erika will not be known until the claims for
compensation have been received and considered. This may take
several years. In its Communication the Commission indicates that
it believes that the cost of pollution could reach 200 million
euro (£127 million at current exchange rates). However this
is a broad and preliminary illustration and the actual sum to
be paid may be much smaller.
"Compensation for oil pollution from tankers
is provided in the first place by the compulsory insurance which
shipowners must have under the Civil Liability Convention. The
ceiling for compensation is determined by the gross tonnage of
the ship. Where the level of pollution damage or related economic
losses exceeds the amount payable by the shipowner the International
Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPCF) steps in. This is financed
by a levy on major oil importers in the States which are signatories
to the IOPCF Convention. In respect of the Erika the overall level
of compensation available from both sources is equivalent to £114
million. We have announced that we intend to seek an increase
in overall compensation levels and the proposal will be considered
at the International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) Legal Committee
in October.
"Action in IMO
"The IMO has also indicated that it will give
prompt consideration to proposals to revise MARPOL, to accelerate
the phasing-out of single-hull tankers. The first discussions
will be held at the next meeting of IMO's Marine Environment Protection
Committee in October this year. We believe that this is a helpful
development. A regional, that is Community, solution cannot be
ruled out but shipping is a global business and the problems which
it causes are best tackled at a global level."
Conclusion
5.3 We thank the Minister for his helpful
reply. On the safety issue, we recognise that the aim of the Regulation
is to reduce the pollution in the event of an accident rather
than to improve safety as such, and also that the Commission's
proposal for these smaller vessels goes further than present IMO
requirements.
5.4 However, we assume that applying
the proposed Regulation to these smaller vessels would reduce
pollution risks and we conclude that the Government's view is
that any gain in that respect would not be justified, having regard
to the commercial and economic disadvantages (to which we referred
in our earlier Report).
5.5 We note the Minister's comments on
the possible economic effects of the Regulation and the costs
of the Erika disaster. These do not provide the comparative figures
we had hoped to have but we understand the difficulties. We ask
him to let us know when an estimate of the cost of the proposal
has been obtained. We note also the timetable for discussions
in the IMO.
5.6 We leave the document uncleared and
invite the Minister to continue to keep us in touch with its progress
and related IMO developments.
| 
