Select Committee on European Scrutiny Third Report


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 baseArticles 71(1) and 80(2) EC; co-decision; QMV
DepartmentTransport
Basis of considerationMinister's letter of 9 December 2003
Previous Committee ReportHC 63-xxii (2002-03), paragraph 3 (21 May 2003)
To be discussed in CouncilNot known
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionNot 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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 14 January 2004