Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300-319)
19 MAY 2004
MR MARK
BROWNRIGG, MR
EDMUND BROOKES
AND MR
DONALD CHARD
Q300 Mrs Ellman: If the EU interpret
international regulation more severely than perhaps other areas
why would that be a particular problem for UK shipowners? Would
it not apply elsewhere?
Mr Brownrigg: I think I have mentioned
already the desirability of a multilateral approach to shipping
standards because it brings a higher standard across the world
as opposed to a very high standard in one part of the world, and
we have had negative impacts of unilateralism in some cases in
the past, for example in the United States forging ahead and imposing
its position on certain things. At the same time it is important
that you do not have lots of different unilateral legislations
imposed around the world because as world traders you would have
to be familiar with 101 different standards and that is almost
impossible to do. So the important thing from a shipping point
is to adopt the multilateral approach and raise standards across
the board and respond, as my colleague has said, to a specific
incident. If it requires a deeper investigation and higher standards,
to respond in that multilateral way as far as possible.
Q301 Mrs Ellman: Within the European
Union why should there be a particular problem for this country?
Mr Brownrigg: There is not a competitive
problem as between ourselves and other Member States, if that
is the gist of your question, it is more the disruption that it
creates in that wider context.
Q302 Chairman: Are you really saying
that the Commission is hung up on legislation and does not go
for enough voluntary agreements?
Mr Brookes: No, that is not what
we are saying. Obviously in certain areas we as companies and
organisations work ahead of legislation. We should have legislation
but it has to be international. I would just come back to the
previous question. Ships on the British register trade worldwide.
They have to abide by UK legislation.
Q303 Chairman: Yes, I think you have
made that point.
Mr Brookes: But if they are then
competing with other countries which do not have to meet that
particular requirement then they are at a cost disadvantage.
Chairman: Sure.
Q304 Mrs Ellman: Should individual Member
States be members of the IMO or should it be the Commission on
behalf of all the states involved?
Mr Brownrigg: We believe that
the present arrangement whereby individual Member States are full
members of the IMO is probably the best way forward. You can juggle
the advantages of a single large voice against 25 smaller voices.
I am not sure that the EU is yet in a position to wield that large
voice as fully as some others. So whatever other arrangement might
be made for the status of the EU towards the IMO, or indeed any
other organisation, we would prefer the individual Member States
to remain plenipotentiary.
Q305 Mrs Ellman: Could not the strong
voice, though, be in a better negotiating position?
Mr Brownrigg: It could, and there
are other examples. In trade policy it is a fact that individual
states are subsumed in the Community approach and that works both
in the WTO and in maritime agreements with China, for example,
but at this stage and at the stage of the development of the Commission's
bureaucracy in terms of expertise and sophistication in the detail
of some of the issues we are talking about, we would prefer individual
Member States to have their full say.
Q306 Mr Stringer: Just following up that
series of questions, are you really saying that there is no role
for the EU at all in this area, it is better left to nation states
and there is no advantage in having higher standards imposed by
the EU so why does the EU not just disappear?
Mr Brownrigg: I have said I think
there is a balance in this and in individual questions you may
find that it leads in one direction or another.
Mr Chard: One of the problems
we have been having over the last year, I think, is that a directive
has been developed through Brussels on ship-source pollution.
Now, ship-source pollution has for many years been regulated through
international agreement under the Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships, MARPOL for short. All the EU Member States
are signatories for that Convention and therefore they have all
applied it in their domestic legislation. The Commission looked
at that and decided that it wanted to incorporate the Convention
into the Community law but in doing so its proposals, certainly
at the beginning, went much further than the requirements laid
down in the main Convention. For example, after an accident at
sea if there is a spill the results do not usually give rise to
criminal offences but the original provisions in the Ship-Source
Pollution Directive would in fact have made them an offence. We
have been working very hard and I have to say that the UK Government
has been constructive in trying to modify the content of the directive
to bring it much closer to the internationally agreed provisions
through MARPOL. We think that that influence is now beginning
to work and we are hoping that there will be a successful outcome,
but if it did not work then we would have different provisions
in Europe as opposed to different parts of the world.
Q307 Mr Stringer: That is a very good
example and I think I understand what you are saying. So why do
we need Europe involved in this area of regulation and law making
because you have been answering Mrs Ellman's questions by saying
that actually it is better to go to the IMO and to have one standard
which slowly improves worldwide rather than a separate European
standard? If that is the case, if I am understanding your arguments
correctly, are you not really arguing in the case of ship-source
pollution and other examples you have given that the European
Commission should not be involved in this area at all?
Mr Brownrigg: I do not think we
are going that far.
Q308 Mr Stringer: Can you tell me why
not?
Mr Brownrigg: Well, I think I
can, because firstly implementation in a consistent and early
say of properly constituted international regulations is a good
objective and to get a consistent application across 25 countries
is one hell of an input into the implementation of any international
regulation. But I appreciate that is a reactive response to your
question. The active response is then to decide that okay, implementation,
but what about the constitution and the establishment of those
international regulations? There I think it is a much more balanced
question and there is no easy answer. It will depend on the individual
issue. In our judgment, if there is a specific European dimension
to it, whether driven by the fact of potential pollution within
European waters or the sensitivity of ferry operations or whatever
it is, then there is every reason for Europe to look at that but
what we would like it to do is to work all the time, if you like
as a driving force, within the international forum.
Q309 Mr Stringer: Was it not reasonable
for the Commission and the European Parliament when there was
the oil spillage off the north-west coast of Spain, I cannot remember
the name of the ship, to say, "We want higher standards in
Europe and we do not want this very high level of pollution caused
by an oil tanker sinking in very deep waters"?
Mr Brownrigg: I will ask Edmund
Brookes to go into this in a little bit more detail. You have
to recall that the Prestige incident followed three years on from
a previous incident which was the Erika off north France and there
was a whole sequence of legislative proposals which flowed from
the Erika sinking. In the context of Prestige we would argue that
there was little new in the Prestige and it was more likely to
be down to national failings than failings of international regulation,
but if I could ask Edmund to expand on that.
Mr Brookes: If I could throw a
bit more light on that, I think here we look at the United Kingdom.
I am happy to go on record to say that if the Prestige incident
had happened in this country that vessel would not have sunk.
We have the SOSREP in this country, of which we are all justifiably
proud.
Q310 Chairman: We are not using terms
like that, are we?
Mr Brookes: I apologise, the Secretary
of State's Representative. He has powers to direct how ships may
be dealt with and in this instance he would have taken control,
taken the ship into a safe haven, it would have been repaired,
the cargo would have been taken out and she might still be sailing
these days. So that, I think, is one aspect of that. Obviously
as a result of the loss of the vessel the Prestige there were
serious concerns in Spain and in France and here I think we have
an example of Europe going very near to the wire on international
regulation. They developed a new European regulation, very much
advanced, for the withdrawal date for single hull oil tankers
and then effectively challenged the International Maritime Organisation
to match it. In the event, four months ago in December that is
what happened at the International Maritime Organisation across
the road. I feel that was a retrograde step.
Q311 Mr Stringer: They accepted the double
hull?
Mr Brookes: They accepted the
double hull. We already had dates for the introduction of double
hull tankers, something like 2015, though the date varies. That
has been brought forward, it varies for the type of ship, but
by 2009 as a result of the Prestige incident and the action of
the EU in developing a new regulation. It then went to the IMO
and in December at a meeting of the Marine Environment Protection
Committee it was accepted with one or two very minor amendments.
Q312 Mr Stringer: You were saying that
you thought that was a bad thing but you did not explain why.
Mr Brookes: I think it was a bad
thing in two respects. First of all, the Prestige accident, as
it ultimately turned out, should not have happened. If it had
been dealt with as it would have been in the United Kingdom the
vessel would have been salved. The Sea Empress off Pembroke a
few years ago is an example of that. Therefore, it is wrong to
have a knee-jerk regulation to a problem. We should address the
real problem, which is why the vessel was not correctly treated
at sea and in port, and then look at those consequences before
you suddenly start to change international regulation through
the force of the European Union. That is why I hold to those views.
Q313 Mr Stringer: But is it not a good
thing to have double hulled oil tankers earlier? Are not the world
seas safer from pollution if you have those oil tankers plying
the waves earlier rather than later?
Mr Brownrigg: Could I answer?
The long-term judgment on that is yes, because that is where the
international community was going, but it set its initial timetable
in, if you like, the cold light of day as opposed to in the political
heat which was generated particularly by two countries in response
to the Prestige issue, which as we say should not really have
happened.
Q314 Clive Efford: When you say that
the Prestige would not have happened, what would not have happened?
Mr Brownrigg: It should essentially
have been brought into a safe harbour and surrounded by booms
and dealt with when it was in trouble and asking for assistance.
Q315 Chairman: The vessel was pushed
back out to sea and that actually tore it apart?
Mr Brownrigg: Yes.
Q316 Clive Efford: Are you saying that
the regulation should be dictated by the lowest common denominator
rather than the highest?
Mr Brownrigg: No. Well, I do not
know if it was the right or wrong denominator. You can argue that,
but a considered common denominator had been agreed and then a
political imperative drove it into a higher standard.
Q317 Clive Efford: It is the word "political"
because we have had it used several times and I thought you were
going to use it. Is it a euphemism for public opinion?
Mr Brownrigg: I think it was a
lot broader than that on that occasion.
Q318 Clive Efford: Were not the public
demanding that more action was taken and earlier action taken
in order to clean up the act of the oil industry in terms of oil
tankers, the shipping industry?
Mr Brownrigg: Well, what we are
saying is it should have been prevented, not allowed to happen.
Q319 Clive Efford: But that was not the
only example of a single hull tanker causing serious environmental
concerns. This is the real "p" word that we are talking
about here?
Mr Brownrigg: Yes.
| 
