9 European Maritime Safety Agency
| (24840)
12131/03
COM(03) 440
| Draft Regulation to amend Regulation (EC) No. 1406/2002 which established a European Maritime Safety Agency.
|
| Legal base | Article 80 (2) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 27 November 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xxxiii (2002-03), paragraph 11 (15 October 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 5 December 2003
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
9.1 A technical body, the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA),
was set up in 2002, following the loss of the oil tanker ERIKA
in December 1999. Its remit is to provide Member States and the
Commission with technical and scientific assistance in applying
international and Community legislation on maritime safety and
preventing pollution from ships; to monitor the implementation
of legislation; and to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures
put in place.
9.2 In October 2003 we considered this draft Regulation
to amend the Regulation which created EMSA in order to permit
the Agency to:
- support and supplement the
efforts of Member States to respond to pollution;
- contribute to the improvement of the anti-pollution
capabilities of Member States;
- strengthen and facilitate co-operation between
Member States;
- promote co-operation in seeking compensation
from polluters;
- provide practical help, including specialised
pollution-response ships and equipment;
- play a role in application of the International
Ship and Port Facility Security Code when it is implemented in
the Community;[36] and
- take over from Member States the task of assessing
training arrangements in non-EU countries to ensure the competence
of seafarers certificated by those countries.[37]
9.3 We noted government support for important aspects
of the draft Regulation consistent with the proper role of EMSA.
But we said that, before considering the document further, we
would like an assurance from the Government that any aspect of
the draft Regulation encroaching on national security matters
was being excised in working group negotiations.
The Minister's letter
9.4 In reference to our comment the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Mr David Jamieson)
now writes to say:
"In negotiating this dossier the Member
States have already achieved significant successes in restricting
the scope of the Agency's security-related activities and reducing
considerably the operational role in counter-pollution which the
Commission had envisaged for the Agency. The Commission has also
made it clear that, if the former task is given to EMSA, the Agency
will be given additional resources to minimise the risk that it
will be distracted from its other duties.
"Notwithstanding these welcome developments,
at the most recent Working Group on 30 October there remained
a significant core of opposition to the Commission's proposal
to include security. We have written to colleagues in those States
which expressed opposition to make it clear that we wish to associate
ourselves with them on this matter. In the run-up to Council we
shall continue to monitor the position in these States with a
view to securing a blocking minority at Council on 5 December.
If that is not possible, then we shall pursue our opposition in
the European Parliament. The Parliament recently deleted a reference
to EMSA in its plenary debate on the security and port facility
regulation. Logic suggests that the Parliament should adopt the
same approach when it debates this draft regulation."
Conclusion
9.5 Although the Minister reports some success
on the threatened encroachment on national security competence
we remain concerned that the matter is not yet wholly resolved.
We commend the Government's intention to seek a blocking minority
in the Council and to encourage, if necessary, opposition in the
European Parliament.
9.6 We will continue to hold the draft Regulation
under scrutiny, and ask the Minister both to keep us informed
of developments and to tell us whether the competence issue is
of sufficient substance to warrant a challenge in the European
Court of Justice if the offending provisions appear in the final
legislation.
36 See (24536) 8566/03: HC 63-xxix (2002-03), paragraph
2 (10 July 2003) and Official Report, European Standing
Committee A, 10 September 2003, cols. 3-22. Back
37
See (24197) 5369/03: HC 63-xv (2002-03), paragraph 5 (19 March
2003). Back
|
