9 Short sea shipping: intermodal loading
units
| (25651)
9265/04
COM(04) 361
| Amended draft Directive on intermodal loading units
|
| Legal base | Articles 71(1) and 80(2) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 30 April 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 12 May 2004
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 25 May 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (24452) 8523/03: HC 42-xi (2003-04), para 15 (25 February 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
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
| 
