15 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 10 February 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-iii (2003-04), para 2 (17 December 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
15.1 In its White Paper on European Transport Policy for 2010:
time to decide of September 2001,[30]
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.
15.2 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 last considered
this document we remained concerned about the proportionality
and practicality of the draft Directive. We asked the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Mr David Jamieson)
to confirm that the Government would oppose
this legislation unless it was shown to be both proportionate
and practical.[31]
The Minister's letter
15.3 The Minister writes now in relation to securing
a proportional and practical Directive. He says:
"We are already taking steps to this end. We
have made our views about the proposal known to the Commission
officials in the lead, and they are in no doubt about our position.
They have also seen copies of the responses to our consultation.
In addition we have provided briefing to UK members of European
Parliament, and briefed key UK members orally. Our contacts with
forthcoming Presidencies suggest that there is little enthusiasm
to seek agreement on the proposal, and the Irish have not scheduled
it for discussion. But if there is any suggestion that it is
to be pushed towards agreement we will seek to discourage this.
"I hope
you will understand, though, that it would be wrong to commit
myself from the outset to vote against in all circumstances.
If the proposal does come to Council and it rallies a qualified
majority without the UK, I must keep flexibility to trade my support
for some improvement to the text if
I judge that to be in the interests of the
UK."
Conclusion
15.4 We are grateful for the additional information
provided by the Minister. We note that it is now less likely
that the proposed legislation will come to fruition, at least
in the near future.
15.5 We note also the Minister's comment about
opposing the proposal in all circumstances. We understand the
need to retain flexibility in negotiations. But we emphasize
that we would expect the Government to vote against a proposal
that remained clearly disproportionate or impracticable.
15.6 We have no further questions to ask and clear
the document.
30 (22660) 11932/01; see HC 152-xv (2001-02), para
2 (30 January 2002) and Official Report, European Standing Committee
A, 13 March 2002, cols. 3-28. Back
31
See headnote. Back
|
