2 Short sea shipping
| (24452)
8523/03
COM(03) 155
| Commission Communication: "Programme for the Promotion of Short Sea Shipping" and a draft Directive on Intermodal Loading Units.
|
| Legal base | Articles 71(1) and 80(2) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 9 December 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xxii (2002-03), paragraph 3 (21 May 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
2.1 In its White Paper on European Transport Policy for 2010:
time to decide of September 2001,[3]
the Commission mentioned use of short sea shipping (shipping over
short distances) as one way to improve the competitiveness and
sustainability of Europe's transport. That short sea shipping
should be a priority for the European Union has been endorsed
by the informal Transport Council of June 2002.
2.2 The Commission's Communication sets out a programme
for promoting short sea shipping, including harmonising standards
for intermodal loading units (ILUs). Within Europe many goods
are shifted by road, rail and sea in ILUs, often known as "swap-bodies".
They are designed to be transferred between modes like a container,
but they are not as robust as containers, cannot be stacked and
have no standard size and lifting points. The Commission's draft
Directive would provide for harmonisation. When we considered
the document earlier this year we said we
should like to hear from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State, Department of Transport (Mr David Jamieson) when the Government
had formed a view on the proportionality and practicality of the
proposed Directive.[4]
The Minister's letter
2.3 The Minister writes now to tell us that his Department
has completed its consultations with industry on the draft Directive.
He says that nine formal responses were received from companies,
trade associations and regulatory bodies on the following points:
- whether EC legislation is appropriate
to ensure that containers and ILUs meet certain essential criteria;
- if so, whether the criteria proposed by the Commission
are the right ones;
- the proposed requirement for a biannual inspection
of ILUs; and
- views on the idea of a (non-mandatory) European
Intermodal Loading Unit (EILU) and the dimensions suggested for
it.
2.4 Few respondents addressed the first three points
in detail, but in so far as they did their key comments were that:
- the case for EC legislation
had not been made;
- the International Standardisation Organisation
(ISO) regime and the Container Safety Convention cover much of
the ground addressed in the draft Directive. These are widely
complied with, and make the need for further legislation questionable.
It would certainly be wrong to have provisions that were not consistent
with the existing regime; and
- any increase in standards would have a cost implication,
and the costs might not justify the benefits. For instance, if
certain units would never need to be stacked more than three high,
there was no point paying for greater rigidity.
2.5 Most respondents concentrated their attention
on the last point, and in summary they felt that the standard
proposed by the Commission was ill-conceived and the dimensions
proposed were so problematic that the market would simply reject
the standard.
2.6 The Minister says:
"The Government shares the views of many consultees
that the proposal is flawed in a number of ways and that a convincing
case for legislation has not been made by the Commission.
"The Government notes that standards for containers
have been successfully elaborated through ISO and sees no need
to pursue other avenues for standards. But it recognises that
for some ILUs, notably swap-bodies, usage is regional rather than
global and ISO may not be the most appropriate place to consider
the needs of the region. So there may be a place for consideration
of European standards for swap-bodies through the European standardisation
organisations. However the Government is as yet unpersuaded that
there are problems here that require solutions through standards
or essential criteria. If the Commission were to present persuasive
evidence the Government would be ready to consider this.
"While the Government has no objections to the
non-mandatory approach to the EILU proposed by the Commission,
it questions whether ILUs of the dimensions proposed will gain
wide currency. And it questions the sense of setting a voluntary
standard in legislation.
"As for regulation of safety of ILUs, the Government
believes the CSC Convention is the right vehicle to ensure safety
inspections of containers. However it notes that some EU member
states have not ratified the Convention and therefore accepts
that there may be containers operating in Europe that are not
subject to ongoing inspections.
"The Government also notes that there is no
comprehensive inspection regime for swap-bodies. At present swap-bodies
that travel by sea are subject to the inspection regime under
the CSC while those travelling by land only are not. This may
be an issue on the continent where swap-bodies are less likely
to travel by ship. If the Commission does press ahead with legislation
to address this gap, the Government will argue for the closest
possible alignment with the provisions of the CSC to ensure that
the industry has to conform with just one regime.
"The Government notes that discussions about
requirements for anti-tamper seals and tracking devices are active
at present and believes the EU should await the outcome of global
discussions before deciding whether EU action is appropriate."
Conclusion
2.7 We are grateful for the additional information
provided by the Minister. We note that the Government remains
to be convinced that legislation is necessary, or that it is proportionate
and practical. Before we finally clear this document we should
be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the Government
will oppose this legislation unless it is shown to be both proportionate
and practical.
3 (22660) 11932/01; see HC 152-xv (2001-02), paragraph
2 (30 January 2002) and Official Report, European Standing
Committee A, 13 March 2002, cols. 3-28. Back
4
See headnote. Back
| 
