Select Committee on European Scrutiny Eleventh Report


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 baseArticles 71(1) and 80(2) EC; co-decision; QMV
DepartmentTransport
Basis of considerationMinister's letter of 10 February 2004
Previous Committee ReportHC 42-iii (2003-04), para 2 (17 December 2003)
To be discussed in CouncilNot known
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionCleared

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


 
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 11 March 2004