20 Port security
| (25377)
6363/04
COM(04) 76
| Draft Directive on enhancing port security
|
| Legal base | Article 80(2) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 20 May 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xii (2003-04), para 3 (10 March 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 10-11 June 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared, but further information awaited
|
Background
20.1 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.[45]
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. 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.
20.2 In March 2004 we considered a draft Directive
which 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. Whilst
welcoming the prospect of enhancing maritime security by extending
the effect of the new Regulation to wider port areas, we said
we should like to know, following the Department's consultations,
the view of the industry and other interested parties of the measures
proposed, particularly in relation to effectiveness and proportionality,
before considering the document further.
The Minister's letter
20.3 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department for Transport (Mr David Jamieson) now tells us:
"The consultation process ran from 24 February
to 24 April and a number of responses were received from industry
and government organisations. The majority of the responses were
generally supportive of the Directive while some would prefer
that the security of ports as a whole be dealt with in the context
of the proposed supply chain Directive. None were against the
idea of enhancing the security of ports even though they felt
that the Directive might duplicate the EU Regulation since most
of them had taken a whole port approach to security in implementing
the EU Regulation.
"We asked the industry for the cost implications
of the proposal. While a number of the responses from industry
mentioned that the Directive would impose 'disproportionate costs'
or increase their operational costs significantly, only one response
gave a general indication of how much the costs might be. Their
estimate, based on operating costs to apply the Aviation and Maritime
Security Act (AMSA) in 1990, was in the region of 4-5% of annual
turnover."
20.4 The Minister adds:
"However, the Port Security Directive seeks
primarily to co-ordinate the security measures that are being
introduced by the EU Regulation and is not necessarily about putting
additional security measures in place. Our initial estimation
therefore is that because of the pragmatic risk based approach
that the UK is taking towards the implementation of the IMO security
regime under the EU Regulation in most cases, there will be few
additional compliance costs and even here, the costs would be
marginal. These costs are likely to fall mostly to larger ports
where there are operational areas separate from the individual
port facilities. The smaller ports would not be affected as they
would either have no additional areas outside the port facility,
in which case the Directive does not apply, or the additional
areas would not of themselves require additional security measures.
As with the EU Regulation we are seeking to ensure that the Directive
is proportionate, sustainable and effective.
"Due to the lack of information on cost implications
from the industry, and because costs would be based largely on
the extra security measures that may need to be put in place following
the implementation of the EU Regulation, we can not provide a
quantitative estimate of the additional costs that the Directive
would impose on the port industry. We plan, however, to produce
a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment once the cost implications
of the EU Regulation which the Directive seeks to complement,
become clearer."
20.5 The Minister also tells us that there have been
negotiations to iron out Member States' concerns and that, although
the Irish Presidency was initially lukewarm about pursuing the
proposal, fresh political impetus has been provided following
the Madrid bombings. The Presidency has indicated it will seek
agreement on a general approach at this month's Transport Council.
Conclusion
20.6 We are grateful to the Minister for this
further information. Whilst we note the reservations about cost
of some respondents to the consultation, we also note that smaller
ports would be unaffected by the measure and that there is a renewed
desire to enhance port security.
20.7 We now clear the document. But we should
like to see the Regulatory Impact Assessment the Minister mentions,
once produced.
45 Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee A, 10 September
2003, cols. 3-22 and (24536) 8566/03: HC 63-xxix (2002-03), para
2 (10 July 2003). Back
| 
