House of Commons - European Scrutiny

Select Committee on European Scrutiny Twenty-Ninth Report

SAFETY AT SEA

(21677)
11997/00
COM(00) 603

Commission Report for the Biarritz European Council on the Community's Strategy for Safety at Sea.

Legal base:	—

Document originated:	27 September 2000
Forwarded to the Council:	29 September 2000
Deposited in Parliament:	19 October 2000
Department:	Environment, Transport and the Regions
Basis of consideration:	EM of 1 November 2000
Previous Committee Report:	None; but see (21146) 7245/00: HC 23-xviii (1999-2000), paragraph 5; HC 23-xxiii (1999-2000), paragraph 5.
To be discussed in Council:	December 2000
Committee's assessment:	Politically important
Committee's decision:	Cleared

Background

37.1 On 17 May 2000 and 28 June 2000, we reported[109] on a Commission Communication on a range of safety and environmental issues triggered by the loss of the tanker Erika in December 1999. That document included three proposals for legislative measures in the shorter term and outlined a number of longer-term proposals. We have reported separately on the progress of the short-term legislative measures (see paragraph 6).

37.2 The recent sinking of the cargo ship, Ievoli Sun, has increased the public and political concern about safety at sea, and not simply in respect of oil tankers. The Feira European Council of 19-20 June 2000 welcomed the Commission's intention to deliver a report on overall strategy concerning the safety of transport at sea before the end of the year.

The document

37.3 This Communication sets out the Commission's proposed strategy to improve safety at sea and reduce pollution risks. It includes a progress report on the three legislative measures put forward earlier in the year. In our Report of 17 May 2000, we cleared two of those (to strengthen port inspections and to centralise the regulation of classification societies[110] in the hands of the Commission. We left uncleared the proposed regulation accelerating the time-table for phasing out of single hull oil tankers. We are reporting separately on the uncleared document in paragraph 6. We deal here with the Commission's longer-term proposals. These were originally mentioned in the Communication on which we reported earlier, but are now set out in more detail. In his Explanatory Memorandum of 1 November 2000, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr Hill) says that these proposals are intended to:

"— improve the existing regime for liability and compensation by increasing the limits of the international regime, introducing a European Compensation Fund and introducing rules making parties liable for damage if they cause, or contribute to, oil pollution damage and deterrent sanctions on parties who cause or contribute to damage through gross negligence; and

"— ensure efficient and uniform application of international safety rules through the creation of European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)".

37.4 In respect of the proposal to tighten up surveillance of shipping movements, the Minister says that the proposal would, in effect, set up a European system of information on sea traffic, on the basis of the following principles:

— improving the procedures regarding the transmission and use of data concerning dangerous cargos, particularly by the systematic use of electronic data interchange;

— requiring vessels sailing in Community waters to carry on board automatic identification systems (or transponders) in accordance with the timescale laid down by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO);

— boosting the development of common databases and the networking of centres responsible for managing the information received under the Directive in order to provide a more complete picture of the traffic (especially transit traffic) in European waters;

— ensuring closer monitoring of the vessels presenting a particularly serious threat to safety at sea and the environment; and

— enhancing the powers of intervention of Member States as coastal states in the event of an accident, hazard or threat of pollution of their coast.

37.5 In respect of liability and compensation, the Minister says that the Commission's view is that the existing Marine Pollution Compensation régime established under the 1992 Protocols to the Civil Liability Convention (CLC) and International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund Convention (IOPC Fund Convention) need to be improved, on the grounds that:

— the regime fails to provide incentives for the supply and use of high- quality ships for oil transportation;

— the damage/compensation procedures are complex, slow and obscure.

37.6 The Minister explains that the Commission believes that it is necessary to set up a European Fund to provide top-up compensation for claimants when the international regime is insufficient to meet their needs. The Commission also seeks a co-ordinated European approach to amend the relevant international conventions so as to extend the liability to other operators, as well as the ship owner, involved in transport at sea; for example to include charterers. The Commission intends, should that approach be unsuccessful, to put forward a system of overall liability at Community level including an unlimited liability in the event of negligent behaviour.

37.7 The Minister says that the Commission's proposal for a European Maritime Safety Agency envisages that such an agency might provide a number of co-ordinating and monitoring services in support of the activities of Member States. These would include on-the-spot inspection of the conditions under which Member States carry out port state control of ships, assessing and auditing the classification societies, tasks relating to the monitoring of shipping and the management of information relating to sea traffic and being involved in, or co-ordinating, activities relating to investigations following an accident at sea.

The Minister's view

37.8 As regards the proposal for a European system of information on sea traffic, the Minister says that the UK would not wish to support early legislation on the basis of the material the Commission has so far made available, as it seems too ambitious and the reason for setting up such a system has yet to be made clear. The Government has significant underlying concern about mandatory reporting, which the then Government opposed in the context of a proposed directive in the early 1990s and which would have conflicted with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Reporting by vessels passing through European waters but not calling at an EU port would have to be agreed by the IMO.

37.9 As regards liability and compensation, the Minister says that the Government does not agree that the increased limits which should soon come into force under the international regime will prove to be inadequate. He says that the IMO Legal Committee agreed increases on 18 October 2000 under which the amount available under the International compensation regime for any single oil spill from a tanker will rise from about £120 million to £180 million. He says that £180 million is more than two-and-a-half times the amount which was available to meet the claims generated by the two major oil spills the UK suffered in recent years — the Braer and the Sea Empress. In so far as the Commission is simply proposing a top-up fund to be called into use only if the international regime proves inadequate, the Minister says that it is necessary to know more about the way in which the Commission envisages it would work. In principle, however, the Government is supportive of the EU proposal if it does not harm the existing international system.

37.10 More generally, the Minister notes that the IOPC Fund has recently set up a working group to consider possible reforms to the international liability regime, for example the possibility of better coverage for environmental damage. He says that the UK supports the IOPC Fund initiative and considers that all EU members should participate fully in the working group to bring about improvements so that benefits may be felt world-wide (rather than simply on a European regional basis). He notes also that the Commission's proposal on liability for damage appears to present some potential overlap with the regime which will be introduced by the International Bunkers Convention if, as the Government hopes, that Convention is adopted in March 2001. The Convention will address pollution damage from oil which ships carry as fuel rather than cargo and in respect of which there is currently no international strict liability or compulsory insurance regime. He notes that the Convention is the culmination of a number of years' work and that it will be essential to ensure that any European proposals do not conflict with it, which would prevent EU states ratifying the Convention once adopted.

37.11 As regards sanctions for gross negligence, the Minister says that in principle the UK would not oppose such a measure but stresses the importance of ensuring that any EU legislation is designed and implemented so as not to have a damaging effect on the régime established internationally.

37.12 As regards the Commission's proposal for a European Maritime Safety Agency, the Minister says that the Government supports proposals aimed at improving the performance of Member States but questions whether the creation of such an agency would add any value to existing arrangements. The UK would prefer a Commission technical unit which would support existing Commission functions without extending them further into Member States' territory. Any such unit should, he says, be under the control of Member States and not represent an increase in Community competence or the power of the Commission.

Conclusion

37.13 The longer-term proposals for safety at sea outlined above are at this stage set out only in general terms. We note the Government's concerns that action by the Community should not undermine or prejudice wider actions through the IMO and other international fora in respect both of safety at sea and liability and compensation. We note also its concerns about extension of Community competence and Commission involvement in maritime matters which could result from the proposed European Maritime Safety Agency. We recognise these concerns, though they need to be set clearly in the context of the public expectation that the environmental and other risks of shipping oil and other products are kept to a minimum and that responsibility for compensation in the event of accidents should be shared by all who could be reasonably regarded as responsible, and not simply ship owners. Compensation should also be adequate to meet the full cost of pollution. We note that the Minister says in respect of the other document on which we report (paragraph 6 ) that the cost of the Erika disaster may be as high as £240 million — above the limits of the proposed new international regime to which he referred.

37.14 The Communication includes no specific legislative proposals, so we clear it on the basis that we will be reporting in the next few months on such proposals as they come forward. At that stage we expect that the Minister will spell out more clearly the nature of any continuing objections, for example, as they relate to any potential increase in Community competence or unnecessary interference in the discharge of Member States' responsibilities for safety at sea.

109 (21146) 7245/00; see headnote to this paragraph. Back

110 Private organisations to which flag states may delegate some inspection functions. Back