Examination of Witnesses (Questions 289-299)
19 MAY 2004
MR MARK
BROWNRIGG, MR
EDMUND BROOKES
AND MR
DONALD CHARD
Q289 Chairman: Gentlemen, I apologise
for making you wait. I am afraid that when we do get interesting
questions going our next set of witnesses suffer slightly. May
I ask you firstly to identify yourselves.
Mr Brownrigg: I am Mark Brownrigg,
Director-General of the Chamber of Shipping.
Mr Brookes: I am Edmund Brookes,
his deputy and technical man.
Mr Chard: I am Donald Chard, the
legal manager.
Q290 Chairman: That is very helpful.
Mr Brownrigg, did you have anything you wanted to say?
Mr Brownrigg: We are very happy
to be here, madam Chairman, and I think we are happy to go straight
to your questions.
Q291 Chairman: That is exceedingly tactful!
It gives you brownie points before you start! How successful have
the European Commission and the Transport Council been in reconciling
northern Europe's open trading philosophy with some of the more
protectionist traditions?
Mr Brownrigg: I think that over
the last decade and a half they have been quite successful. There
was definitely a split between north and south Europe in the 10
and then gradually the 15, but certainly going back to the mid-'80s
there was a positive package of shipping policy proposals which
began to open up intra-Community trade and that was followed later
in the early '90s by a regulation opening up cabotage trades.
So I think by and large the Commission and the Community as a
whole have moved in the right direction in terms of liberalisation.
Q292 Chairman: So we are talking about
cabotage and what else would you say is particularly successful?
Mr Brownrigg: Movements between
Member States as well. So internally within individual Member
States and between Member States, and they have adopted also quite
a liberal approach in their foreign policy in shipping. So in
the WTO, for example, it is quite a positive approach, albeit
that is taking quite a long time to bear any fruit.
Q293 Chairman: Then could I ask you,
do you have any concerns about the European activity on shipping
policy that results from the Commission's views and do you think
the Commission has the right attitude or are the processes generally
inadequate, or is there something else?
Mr Brownrigg: I think the answer
is probably a curate's egg. In some areas it works very well,
in other areas it gives cause for concern. I think the main area
we wanted to focus on in this was the interrelationship between
what happens at an EU regional level compared with the rather
extensive range of sophisticated world-wide regulations that exists
through, in particular, the International Maritime Organisation.
Q294 Chairman: Why, because you think
it is inward looking?
Mr Brownrigg: No. It is a group
of countries which sees as part of its purpose finding a uniform
interpretation of wider regulations. When it comes to that, firstly
there are practical problems of implementation in a common way
and a consistent way, but also there may be other particular priorities,
maybe politically driven, maybe issue driven, which arise in any
one issue and so at that stage there may be a conflict between
a regional intent and compliance with the wider international
regulations.
Q295 Chairman: Let me understand it.
You are not saying that you think that overall they have got the
wrong attitude, what you are simply saying is that one of their
priorities is in effect to form a regional block and that that
can lead to competition with the aims that you as maritime world
businessmen would have? Is that correct?
Mr Brownrigg: I think that is
broadly right. Shipping is international from the start. Even
in a regional context we have non-EU operators operating not just
in Europe but also on the UK coast. So it is international right
from the start and historically it has operated under a international
framework of standards, whether under the IMO or even labour relations
through the International Labour Organisation or others in different
ways. What is important, and by and large the Commission has got
it right as a starting point but then on individual issues it
may change, is that the EU maintains a balance in which it puts
its own priorities in perspective. In particular it is important
to maintain that multilateral principle so that by and large across
the whole of the world's industry we bring up the weaker nations
to a standard which is accepted on safety.
Chairman: I suspect that may be a bit
beyond them.
Q296 Mrs Ellman: What specific problems
have been created by the EU setting rules which are tighter than
those agreed internationally?
Mr Brookes: In our written evidence
we have highlighted two or three instances where the European
Union has taken legislation further than the International Maritime
Organisation. We feel that this is misguided and in some instances
can be detrimental to the UK. Could I give an example?
Q297 Mrs Ellman: Yes. You do refer to
a couple of examples. Could you focus perhaps on pollution? I
think that is one of the key areas.
Mr Brookes: Could I focus on air
pollution as one particular issue which we have drawn attention
to. The International Maritime Organisation seven years ago brought
out a new annex to the International Convention on the Prevention
of Marine Pollution called Annex VI to MARPOL and this was to
cut down air emissions, very, very beneficial. That annex still
has not come into force because the correct number of governments
have not ratified it. The United Kingdom Government has not ratified
it. We hope it will be ratified this year and come into force
next year. However, in the meantime the European Union has developed
its own regulation which is being updated at the moment, which
intends to set tighter limits on the emission of certain products,
particularly sulphur, and this we feel is wrong. The real way
forward should be to ratify the International Maritime Organisation
Convention and then work within that organisation with all the
other 100 plus countries to update it. We would agree it needs
updating and would lead to a cut in the overall level of sulphur
in fuel, but not to the degree which the European Union is now
proposing, particularly for ships in ports.
Q298 Mrs Ellman: If there was a problem
identified would you expect national governments to take action
ahead of waiting for the time inevitably involved in getting an
international agreement?
Mr Brookes: Well, the United Kingdom
Government has a very long reputation of supporting the work of
the International Maritime Organisation, it is just across the
road from here, and we prefer to work on international regulations
because our members trade worldwide and regional or domestic rules
will work against us trading freely throughout the world because
it might encourage other countries to adopt equally unpalatable
regulations.
Mr Brownrigg: Could I just add
that equally there may be occasions when national action, or indeed
regional, can be helpful. It is all a question of balance—to
take, for example, the instance of the Braer, which was a ship
which foundered off northern Scotland. After that the UK produced
a voluntary routing guide around the UK and that measure was then
taken to the international forum, the International Maritime Organisation,
and then ratified and broadened. So in specific contexts with
specific sensitivities there is clearly a space for national and
indeed regional action. There is an example on the regional side
where, despite initial reluctance in the ferry sector, the northern
European states, following the Estonia incident in the early '90s,
agreed that there should be an arrangement covering the northern
states of Europe which went beyond the international because of
the particular sensitivity in that region.
Q299 Mrs Ellman: Would you say that the
UK national government is sufficiently active in these areas?
Mr Brownrigg: I think so and in
some cases very constructive.
| 
