SIXTH REPORT
The European Scrutiny Committee has agreed to the
following Report:—
1. SAFETY AT SEA
(24077)
15301/02
COM(02)681
|
Commission Communication on improving safety at sea in response to the Prestige accident.
|
| Legal base: | —
|
| |
| Document originated: | 5 December 2002
|
| Deposited in Parliament: | 10 December 2002
|
| Department: | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration: | EM of 19 December 2002
|
| Previous Committee Report: | None
|
| Discussed in Council: | 6 December 2002 — see below
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | For debate in European Standing Committee A
|
Background
1.1 On 19 November 2002 the oil tanker "Prestige"
sank off the coast of Spain. In correspondence in December 2002
the Minister for Transport, Department of Transport (Mr John Spellar),
told us the Commission had proposed at short notice draft Conclusions
for adoption by the Transport Council relating to the "Prestige"
incident. Many of the ideas in these Conclusions were contained
in the document which the Council had before it and which we now
report on.
The document
1.2 The Commission's Communication informs the European
Parliament and the Council of its view on a number of safety and
environmental issues consequent on the loss of the "Prestige".
The Commission recalls action taken after the loss of the tanker
"Erika" in December 1999 and regrets what it regards
as the slow pace in implementing the improvements agreed. It notes
that the measures adopted after that incident will not start to
come into effect until 1 January 2003 (phasing out of single hull
tankers), 22 July 2003 (Directives[1]
on enforcement of international standards for ship safety, pollution
prevention and shipboard living and working conditions, port State
control, and classification societies, responsible for ship structural
safety inspections) and 5 February 2004 (Directive[2]
on vessel traffic monitoring). The Commission calls for implementation
earlier than the dates scheduled. It also proposes additional
measures on carriage by sea of highly polluting products and urges
the Member States to take action within the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) so as to reinforce maritime safety and prevent
pollution from ships. The Commission suggests a tightening up
of certain points in existing legislation by:
- making the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) operational
six months ahead of the currently scheduled date of July 2003;
- making assessment of the work of classification societies
more rigorous;
- producing an indicative list of ships which would be banned
from EU ports if the criteria in the latest amendments to the
port State control Directive had already been in place;
- setting up a trans-European data exchange network for vessel
traffic monitoring;
- speedier preparation of plans to accommodate vessels in places
of refuge; and
- Member States acting in advance of the implementation dates
of post-"Erica"measures by:
— recruiting sufficient numbers
of port State control inspectors to meet the inspection targets;
— sufficient inspection rates
at all ports and anchorage areas to ensure a consistent level
of inspection across the EU and to inspect vessels which may be
calling only to refuel; and
— early ratification of the
Protocol establishing a Supplementary Fund for compensation, promoted
by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), and ensuring
the Fund covers damage up to _1 billion and is operational before
the end of 2003.
1.3 Whilst noting that the causes of the loss of the
"Prestige" are not yet known, the Commission also proposes
measures additional to those taken following the "Erika"
incident:
- administrative agreement between the maritime administrations
of Member States, candidate countries and neighbouring states
on a ban on the use of single-hull oil tankers for carrying heavy
fuel oil;
- amendments to international provisions on liability and compensation
for oil pollution damage;
- legislation on penal sanctions for maritime pollution caused
by grossly negligent behaviour;
- legislation on the recognition of seafarers' certificates
of competency issued by third countries;
- review of provisions relating to the obligation on pilots
to report ships in doubtful condition; and
- review of measures to improve the protection of EU coastal
waters from ships that pose an environmental threat.
1.4 The Commission refers to its wish that the Community
accede to the IMO[3] and
says it will support efforts of Member States in the IMO to establish:
- compulsory shipping routes and restricted zones to keep hazardous
cargoes away from sensitive EU coastlines; and
- a compulsory audit procedure for flag States.
1.5 Finally the Commission hopes to agree a code of conduct
on the carriage of oil with the oil companies under which they
would:
- not charter single hull oil tankers over 23 years old;
- not carry heavy fuel in single hull tankers;
- exchange information on sub-standard vessels; and
- examine with the Commission a more balanced approach between
transporting oil within the EU in tankers or in a trans-European
pipeline.
The Government's view
1.6 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
of Transport (Mr David Jamieson) tells us:
"We can agree with many of the policy aims set out in the
Communication, and we were generally supportive of the Conclusions
of the Transport Council on 6 December, in which some, but not
all, of the recommendations in the Communication appeared. The
Commission's approach was welcomed by most member states at that
Transport Council, some such as Spain and France wanting stronger
action than proposed, others expressing minor reservations on
particular points but welcoming the overall approach. Only the
Netherlands and the UK sought changes to make the proposed Council
Conclusions more cautious, at least until likely consequences
could be more thoroughly assessed.
"We should approve the Commission's attempts to accelerate
the application of the ERIKA measures, where practicable, especially
the earlier establishment of the EMSA, closer monitoring of classification
societies, exchanging vessel traffic monitoring data and preparing
plans for accommodating ships in places of refuge. We also approve
efforts to accelerate improvements in port State control, particularly
in those Member States which fail to reach the target of inspecting
25% of foreign flagged vessels calling at their ports. However
such proposals do have resource implications in terms of extra
burdens on maritime administrations to provide inspectors to carry
out more inspections and mandatory inspections required under
the new arrangements. The targeting and mandatory inspection of
certain types of vessel may also mean that shipowners who run
vessels of the types likely to be targeted may find their vessels
being inspected more frequently, however well-maintained they
are.
"We approve the encouragement being given to Member States
to support the supplementary oil compensation fund being devised
in IMO and likely to be finalised at a Diplomatic Conference in
May 2003. However, at the Transport Council we felt that it was
unhelpful of the Commission to make constant reference to the
creation of a separate EU fund of _1 billion, if efforts
in IMO did not bear fruit. Such tactics could make it more difficult
to win support in IMO for a valuable and truly international measure.
Our interventions secured a moderation of the language in the
Council Conclusions, toning down a categorical statement of separate
EU action in the event of failure to reach agreement in the IMO
and substituting an intention to 'examine immediately' a regulation.
"We could also support many of the 'additional
measures'. We support the concept of securing a better balance
between the responsibilities of all those involved in the transport
of oil by sea and introducing the deterrent of a penal sanction
against those who pollute the sea, either deliberately or through
gross negligence. For some time we have been pressing for more
member States to ratify the Conventions on liability and compensation
for marine pollution from sources other than oil and would see
benefits in a Community-wide assessment of the qualifications
of seafarers to ensure they meet international standards. Pilots
are a valuable source of information about the vessels they guide
and gathering information from them is a suitable task for the
EMSA.
"However we feel that the measure to restrict the transport
of heavy oil in single hull tankers has been proposed without
detailed evidence being produced of its impact on oil supplies.
At the Transport Council we made this point forcefully. The Commissioner
consequently agreed an amendment to the draft Council Conclusions,
limiting the action proposed here to heavy grades of oil which,
she said, amounted to only some 7% of the oil carried at sea.
She also agreed to publish urgently her evidence for saying that
there is sufficient double hull capacity to replace single hull
tankers. We shall also be vigilant to ensure that steps to protect
the coastal waters of the EU comply with the international law
of the sea, as the Council Conclusions require.
"In the 'actions at international level' the
question of accession by the European Community to the IMO has
already been the subject of Explanatory Memorandum 7826/02[4]
submitted last July. We should, however, have no difficulty with
working inside the IMO to secure protection for environmentally
sensitive areas. While we support proposals for an audit of the
performance of flag States, we feel that advocating such a scheme
on a compulsory basis could at this stage be counter-productive
in IMO negotiations, though it may be a long-term aspiration.
"We support the proposals to work with the
industry.
"In summary, the Communication represents
an ambitious commitment to making significant changes in a very
short time. It will be important for the EU to work sensitively
within the IMO if we are to succeed in negotiations on the global
stage and not raise opposition there. Moreover some of the measures
could be interpreted by others as an attempt to dump the problem
of oil pollution from European waters to the rest of the world.
For this reason we should emphasise the importance of acting in
IMO to secure truly international solutions. We must also press
for industry to be consulted and for the draft measures to be
supported by the proper regulatory impact assessment to ensure
their practicability and proportionality. Both these points are
in accordance with new procedures on consultation and regulatory
impact assessment recently adopted by the Commission."
Conclusion
1.7 Loss of the "Prestige" has highlighted
again the maritime safety and environmental concerns last
addressed by the EU following the "Erika" incident.
We welcome the prompt consideration of issues arising by the Commission
and the Council. These issues, and possible measures to
address them, are important, but we note the Government's reservations
in relation to some of the Commission's suggestions. We believe
Members would welcome the opportunity to explore these matters
further, and recommend the document for debate in European Standing
Committee A.
1 Council
Directive 94/57/EC (OJ No L 319, 12.12.1994, p.20) as last amended
by Directive 2001/105/EC (OJ No L 19, 22.1.2002, p.9) and Council
Directive 95/21/EC (OJ No L 157, 7.7.1995, p.1) as last amended
by Directive 2001/106/EC (OJ No L 19, 22.1.2002, p.17). Back
2
Directive 2002/59/EC (OJ No L 208, 5.8.2002, p.10). Back
3
See (23591) 7826/02; HC 152-xxxviii (2001-02), paragraph 7 (16
October 2002). Back
4
See (23591) 7826/02; HC 152-xxxviii (2001-02), paragraph 7 (16
October 2002). Back
| 
