5.SAFETY AT SEA
(24347)
7235/03
COM(03) 105
|
Commission Communication reporting to the European Council on action to deal with the effects of the Prestige disaster.
|
| Legal base: | —
|
| |
| Document originated: | 5 March 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament: | 12 March 2003
|
| Department: | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration: | EM of 27 March 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report: | None; but see (24077) 15301/02: HC 63-vi (2002-03), paragraph 1 (8 January 2003) and (24165) 5111/03: HC 63-xi (2002-03), paragraph 2 (5 February 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council: | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | Cleared
|
Background
5.1 We have been following developments since the loss
of the oil tanker "Prestige" in November 2002[11]
and there has been a debate in European Standing Committee A.[12]
The document
5.2 This document reports developments since the "Prestige"
incident to the European Council. Its two main sections deal with
prevention of similar events in the future and dealing with the
immediate consequences of an incident if it should nevertheless
occur.
5.3 The section on prevention includes discussion of
cooperation between national authorities, early implementation
of existing maritime safety measures, early establishment of the
European Maritime Safety Agency, industry cooperation, new Commission
proposals, including for single-hulled vessels, criminal sanctions
and international aspects. The section on consequences of incidents
includes discussion of the use of social and structural funds
and research into, and piloting of, new technologies.
The Government's view
5.4 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
of Transport, (Mr David Jamieson) comments extensively on the
issues raised in the document. Much of this reiterates what we
have been told previously. But the Minister draws our attention
to several new points. The Government:
- supports proposals in the International Maritime Organisation
for an international third level of compensation through the existing
International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPCF), rather
than a special European fund;
- has concerns about proposals to weaken limits on civil liability;
- is unhappy with the emphasis which the Commission lays on
"designating" places of refuge for vessels in distress;
- thinks imposition of criminal penalties for deliberate pollution
is a large and complicated issue which requires more time for
agreement;
- says state aids may play a part in raising standards, but
should not confer competitive advantage on those receiving them;
- has no objection to the majority of the proposals for use
of existing Community funding and technical resources to meet
the immediate costs of environmental and economic damage, but
does have a major objection to use of the new Solidarity Fund,
which is designed to deal with natural disasters only;
- has reservations about Commission's proposals for exploiting
existing programmes, such as the Sixth Framework Programme for
Research. The Commission's proposed 'experience exchange network'
might provide the required research resources.
Conclusion
5.5 We clear this useful update on developments in
response to the loss of the "Prestige".
11 See
headnote. Back
12 Official
Report, European Standing
Committee A, 12 February 2003, cols. 1-26. Back
|
