Select Committee on European Scrutiny Twenty-Third Report


9 Short sea shipping: intermodal loading units

(25651)

9265/04

COM(04) 361

Amended draft Directive on intermodal loading units

Legal baseArticles 71(1) and 80(2) EC; co-decision; QMV
Document originated30 April 2004
Deposited in Parliament12 May 2004
DepartmentTransport
Basis of considerationEM of 25 May 2004
Previous Committee ReportNone; but see (24452) 8523/03: HC 42-xi (2003-04), para 15 (25 February 2004)
To be discussed in CouncilNot known
Committee's assessmentLegally and politically important
Committee's decisionCleared

Background

9.1 A Commission Communication of April 2003 set 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", which 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. In the Communication the Commission proposed a harmonising draft Directive. The draft Directive was intended to provide for:

  • harmonisation of the interoperability characteristics of intermodal loading units. A certain degree of diversity would be allowed to remain and old intermodal loading units would disappear from the market over time;
  • creation of a standardised European Intermodal Loading Unit, which would be the optimum loading unit for transporting general purpose dry cargo by road, rail, inland waterways and short sea shipping, combing the advantages of containers and swap bodies. Its use would not be compulsory; the Commission hopes instead that its benefits would become self-evident; and
  • the safety and security of intermodal loading units.

The document

9.2 In its consideration of the draft Directive the European Parliament adopted eleven amendments. The Commission has now tabled this amended draft Directive in the light of these amendments. The amended draft Directive would:

  • specify that those containers covered by the International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC), which are already subject to the inspection requirements set down in that Convention, would not be subject to the new European certification, maintenance and periodic inspection obligations;
  • align the inspection intervals under the proposed Directive with those in the CSC;
  • specify that new requirements for ILUs should take account of relevant existing ISO (International Standardisation Organisation) standards;
  • require Member States to work towards harmonisation of penalties for non-compliance with the draft Directive; and finally
  • clarify the text without altering the substance.

The Government's view

9.3 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Mr David Jamieson) says:

"The Government maintains its overall stance on this proposal. It supports the underlying objective of making intermodal transport more accessible, efficient and secure, but is as yet unpersuaded that there are problems here that require a legislative solution setting out essential criteria backed up by voluntary standards. If the Commission were to present persuasive evidence the Government would be ready to consider this.

"The EM[19] on the Commission's original proposal stated that the Government would 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 therefore welcomes the clarification in the amended proposal that the Directive should not apply an EU inspection regime to containers already subject to inspections under the International Convention for Safe Containers. The requirement to take account of existing ISO standards is also welcome. If retained by the Council, these amendments would satisfy some of our concerns, provided the text were clarified to ensure that the changes did indeed achieve the intended effect.

"The Commission has amended Article 13 of its proposal to state that the Member States shall work towards full harmonisation of the penalties and adopt any measures necessary to ensure the implementation of these penalties. The Government has severe reservations about this proposed amendment and is opposed to its inclusion.

"As this Directive is a first pillar measure, a proposal for full harmonisation of penalties would probably be taken to include criminal penalties. These penalties should be left within the remit of the third pillar and are inappropriate for a first pillar measure. Even in third pillar instruments, only a limited degree of harmonisation has taken place.

"The amendment is not well drafted. The language used is vague in the extreme, speaking of 'full harmonisation' without providing a definition or any detail as to what precisely this will mean. Such language is unprecedented.

"The UK will therefore oppose the inclusion of these words in the text of the Directive."

Conclusion

9.4 We note the Government's continued scepticism about the need for this legislation and remind the Minister of our understanding that the Government will vote against the proposal if it is clearly disproportionate or impracticable. We note also, and applaud, the Government's opposition to the present text on harmonisation of penalties. We presume that if the attempt to deal with third pillar criminal matters in this proposal is pursued the Government will, if necessary, challenge it in the European Court of Justice.

9.5 On the basis of these approaches to the issues of proportionality and practicability and of harmonisation we clear the document.


19   In fact the Minister's letter of 9 December 2003 - (24452) 8523/03: see HC 42-iii (2003-04), para 2 (17 December 2003). 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 1 July 2004