Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340-349)
19 MAY 2004
MR MARK
BROWNRIGG, MR
EDMUND BROOKES
AND MR
DONALD CHARD
Q340 Chairman: Why do they think that,
Mr Brookes, is what I am asking you? Is it because they do not
know how the shipping industry works?
Mr Brookes: I do not think they
understand in sufficient detail the way the international container
movements take place.
Q341 Chairman: But why do they not? Presumably
they have to deal with you? You have just been demonstrating to
us that they feel sufficiently competent to bring in other standards
than those agreed at international level. Why do they not understand
the whole problem of the size of containers and the harmonisation
of the size of containers? Why is it that they think they are
proposing a solution which is better than that proposed by the
industry itself?
Mr Brookes: I wish I knew the
answer to that question. I have been to Brussels with a whole
range of people and gone through the proposals in detail with
them and explained that the solution to their problem exists and
has already been developed.
Q342 Chairman: And are you telling us
they ignored those representations?
Mr Brookes: Yes.
Q343 Chairman: Were you using any language
which was recognisable to the Commission?
Mr Brookes: They fully understood
the points that were being made, I can assure you of that.
Q344 Chairman: Do you have other instances
in which the Commission have waded in with their wellie boots
on a misinterpretation of what was going on internationally? Those
seem to be two quite massive and important changes.
Mr Chard: Madam Chairman, may
I come in? We had an instance some years ago, again following
the Erika incident, when the question of compensation for oil
pollution was very high on the agenda. There have for many years
been treaty conventions providing arrangements for compensation
which were agreed through the International Maritime Organisation
(IMO). The IMO compensation levels were increased. The agreement
to increase them was taken in the year 2000. The actual increase
became unconditional last year. But at an earlier stage the European
Commission decided that they wanted to have a much higher level
of compensation for Europe and they proposed to plant on top of
the international agreement a European arrangement. That then
was put into abeyance because a number of Member States, including
I think the UK, were rather concerned about the implications for
internationalism. There were certain difficulties which I will
go into if you wish but which made it rather more difficult for
the IMO to increase the rates of compensation again at an early
stage and a solution had to be developed whereby we now have what
is called a third tier or supplementary fund of compensation,
which is on top of the IMO provisions. That is expected to come
into force later this year or possibly next. That tier of compensation
will apply in states looking for a higher level of compensation.
While it does maintain and preserve the internationalism of the
arrangements, it is likely that only certain states, particularly
in Europe and perhaps some other highly developed states, will
follow that provision. So, although we will have internationalism,
to some extent we have fractured the basis of it. The European
Commission feels that it approved and it encouraged the increase
but one just wonders whether the increase will be counter-productive
in the longer term because it stands now in danger of creating
different compensation bolt-on arrangements elsewhere in the world.
Q345 Chairman: Yes. Does it matter if
this difference exists as long as ships that are operating in
British waters, or within European waters if we are using these
terms, have to comply with the same regulations?
Mr Chard: If they have to comply
with the regulations in Europe that is one thing, but the idea
of the international compensation scheme is to try and bring as
many countries into the system as possible and for them to provide
whatever they can afford and that has to be at a reasonable and
proportionate amount. If a figure can be set for application on
a global basis then it is immaterial if the incident occurs in
the English Channel or somewhere on the other side of the world;
you still have the same level. Once you start having different
arrangements then it is not quite so clear any more what will
be the situation or what will be required.
Q346 Chairman: Airlines told us that
a single Community negotiating position for the EU gave Europe
more clout on the world stage. Is that not the same thing for
shipping?
Mr Brownrigg: As I said before,
I think it is debatable. We hold the view that it will not. I
think airlines are slightly different. I know there are many more
private airline operators now but it still comes from a baseline
of inter-governmental agreements, so I think the position in the
aviation sector may be significantly different from ours.
Q347 Chairman: Well, I ask you again
what seems to me to be the very important question. Do you feel
the level of expertise within the Commission is equal to that
which you would expect to deal with either in your own national
government or, alternatively, within an international organisation
dealing with shipping?
Mr Brownrigg: I think we are in
a period of transition there, madam Chairman
Q348 Chairman: Mr Brownrigg, I think
that means no, does it not?
Mr Brownrigg: It means immediately
no, but there has recently been established the European Maritime
Safety Agency, which is designed to give precisely that kind of
knowledgeable input to the Commission's relatively small staffed
division.
Q349 Chairman: Are you therefore hopeful
that the situation that Mr Brookes described, which is one of
some considerable interest, where detailed and specific information
was given to the Commission and they then ignored it will not
arise again?
Mr Brownrigg: We are.
Chairman: Gentlemen, you have been very
helpful. We are very grateful to you and again I can only apologise
for keeping you waiting. Thank you very much indeed.
| 
