3 Port security
| (25377)
6363/04
COM(04) 76
| Draft Directive on enhancing port security
|
| Legal base | Article 80(2) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 10 February 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 19 February 2004
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 4 March 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | June 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
3.1 In September 2003 a draft Regulation to ensure consistent
and timely implementation across the EU of the new International
Maritime Organization (IMO) regime for maritime and port facility
security was debated in European Standing Committee A.[6]
One of the intentions underlying the Regulation is that port
facilities covered by the Regulation would have to carry out security
measures, based on assessments and plans, and appoint security
officers. International shipping and related port facilities
would be covered from July 2004, domestic Class A passenger ships
— primarily those travelling more than 20 nautical miles
from the coast — and related port facilities from July 2005
and all other domestic operations from July 2007. But these requirements
would be limited to the ship and port interface — essentially
the quayside. They would not apply to other operational areas
of ports.
The document
3.2 The draft Directive would require Member States to apply requirements
similar to those in the Regulation to port areas adjacent to port
facilities covered by that legislation. The draft Directive is
likely to have a greater impact on large multi-facility ports,
with larger adjacent operational areas. For many smaller ports
the port facility boundary will encompass the whole port and there
will be few or no additional security obligations under the Directive.
3.3 Security measures would be based on security
assessments and plans, the appointment of security officers and
three security levels, predicated on current threat assessments.
In addition, port security authorities and port security committees
would be appointed to co-ordinate security for the whole of the
port. As with the Regulation, the Commission would have a role
monitoring implementation by Member States and would be supported
by the security committee of Member States to be set up under
the Regulation.
The Government's view
3.4 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
of Transport (Mr David Jamieson) says:
"The Government supports the Directive. It
attaches great importance to transport security and shares the
Commission's objective of enhancing port security across the EU
— the UK has had a maritime security programme covering
international passenger routes and the ships serving them since
1990. The Directive will ensure that other European countries
put effective security regimes in place, thereby providing better
security both to UK ships in foreign ports and to enhance the
protection of the UK by pushing our protective security regimes
outwards. It would also have the benefit of ensuring that implementation
was consistent across the EU, thereby avoiding distortions of
trade. It is unlikely to mean that the other Member States put
in place — at least immediately — security standards
that are equivalent to UK requirements, but it should lead to
progressively improving standards."
3.5 On the financial implications the Minister continues:
"It is only possible to produce an initial Regulatory
Impact Assessment at this stage, as the detailed financial impacts
depend on the security requirements that will need to be put in
place, and these are based on the outcome of port security assessments.
There will also be some costs for industry associated with the
requirement to appoint and train port security officers, although
in many cases these roles are being combined with existing duties
and additional staff would not be required. For many ports, the
costs of security measures will result from compliance with the
IMO security regime given effect by the separate EU Regulation;
in many smaller ports there may be no additional compliance costs
because the IMO regime will suffice. Larger, multi-facility,
ports may incur additional costs depending on the layout and vulnerability
of other operational areas within the port. As with the EU Regulation,
the UK would be seeking to ensure that Directive is proportionate,
sustainable and effective."
3.6 The Minister also tells us that the Department
is including industry representative bodies, trade unions and
other interested parties in a formal consultation on the draft
Directive, which will end on 26 April 2004.
Conclusion
3.7 This measure to extend the effect of the new
Regulation to wider port areas should enhance maritime security
generally and is to be welcomed. But we should like to know the
view of the industry and other interested parties of the measures
proposed, particularly in relation to effectiveness and proportionality.
3.8 To that end we should like to hear again from
the Minister as soon as possible after the conclusion of the Department's
consultations. Meanwhile we do not clear the document.
6 Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee A, 10 September
2003, cols. 3-22 and (24536) 8566/03; see HC 63-xxix (2002-03),
para 2 (10 July 2003). Back
| 
