6 Port services
| (26039)
13681/04
COM(04) 654
| Draft Directive on market access to port services
|
| Legal base | Article 80(2) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 24 February 2006
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 38-i (2004-05), para 10 (1 December 2004) and HC 34-ix (2005-06), para 4 (9 November 2005)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
6.1 In February 2001 the Commission issued a Communication on
"Reinforcing quality service in sea ports: A key for European
transport", which included a draft Directive on market access
to port services (pilotage, towing, mooring, cargo handling and
passenger services). However, in November 2003 the European Parliament
narrowly rejected proposals for an amended text which had emerged
from the conciliation process between the Council and the Parliament.
The legislation therefore fell.
6.2 In October 2004 the Commission proposed a new
draft Directive. The text of the new draft was based on that which
developed during the previous negotiations. It would:
- introduce a framework for competition
in provision of commercial port services in sea ports or port
systems of Member States which have an average annual traffic
of 1.5 million tonnes of freight and/or 200,000 passengers in
the previous three years;
- ensure that the market is aware of the opportunities
that exist for provision of such services;
- require ports to allow competing service providers
to enter the market;
- allow the number of service providers to be limited
in certain circumstances, such as on safety grounds;
- provide for a system of mandatory authorisations
for those wishing to provide port services;
- require designation of competent authorities
to consider applications for authorisations and for an appropriate
appeals mechanism;
- enable self-handling by shippers; and
- require port authorities to keep separate audited
accounts for each commercial service they provide.
6.3 The main changes compared with the text rejected
by the European Parliament were:
- self handling by ship operators
providing a regular short sea shipping service or those with "Motorways
of the Sea"[21]
operations could be conducted using not only land-based personnel
but also seafaring crew;
- authorisations for port service providers would
be mandatory;
- the duration of authorisations would be reduced;
- transitional arrangements for the new regime
would be largely eliminated; and
- compensation arrangements for outgoing service
providers would not be as comprehensive.
6.4 When the previous Committee considered this draft
in December 2004 it reported on the one hand the Government's
support for the broad principles of market liberalisation and
on the other its considerable disappointment with the redrafted
proposal.[22] When we
considered the proposal in November 2005 we noted that during
the Government's consultations on the revised proposal the majority
of UK interested parties — both ports and their customers
— did not see any significant benefits to be brought about
by the revised draft Directive. Set against possible benefits
were potential costs including those related to an inappropriate
single model, inadequate and inflexible durations for authorisations
of services, uneven spreads of investment, increased financing
costs, inadequate compensation provisions, the proposed tendering
process, self handling, disruption of existing supply chain benefits
for vertically integrated ports, increased bureaucracy, cherry
picking of the most profitable services, casualisation of the
workforce, risks to pension funds and customer care. We commented
that the desirability of the proposal, at least without considerable
amendment, seemed doubtful and that its future would be clearer
once the European Parliament had concluded its first reading consideration
of the text. We kept the document under scrutiny.[23]
The Minister's letter
6.5 The Minister of State, Department of Transport
(Dr Stephen Ladyman) writes now to tell us the outcome of the
European Parliament's consideration and some possible consequences.
The Minister says that on 22 November 2005, after an inconclusive
vote, the European Parliament's Transport Committee remitted the
Commission's unamended proposal for decision in the European Parliament
plenary. He comments that "Whether intentionally or not,
the Committee voted to reject, as a whole, all of the individual
amendments they had painstakingly agreed." The Minister continues
that the European Parliament was thus faced with a text with which
a number of its Committees, many MEPs, the Council and organised
labour had serious reservations and, against the backdrop of 6,000
protesting dock workers, it voted on 18 January 2006 to reject
the revised draft Directive by 532 votes to 120.
6.6 The Minister then tells us that:
- notwithstanding the vote many
MEPs have now demanded alternative legislation on transparency
and fair competition in ports;
- the Transport Commissioner, M. Barrot, has yet
to announce his next move, but there is a strong probability that
he will ask the College of Commissioners to agree to a formal
withdrawal of the draft Directive; and
- immediately following the vote M. Barrot asserted
that the underlying motivation for legislation — the Lisbon
Strategy for economic reform — remained. He hinted that
he would now seek to reconsider a Community ports policy, covering
a broader field than the present proposal including aspects such
as port charges, state aids and integration into the wider supply
chain. This points to a further consultation exercise, possibly
through a Green Paper, later in 2006.
6.7 The Minister concludes that:
- from the Government's point
of view the proposal clearly has the potential to make a significantly
adverse impact on the continuing success of the UK ports sector.
It is concerned that proposals on port services should be realistic
and proportionate, recognising the diversity of the industry and
the competition that already exists, particularly between the
UK and other European ports. The present proposal simply would
not achieve these reasonable goals;
- the Government will now discuss with the Commission
how it might take the matter forward, seeking to steer it (and
other Member States) away from proposals which may potentially
prejudice the commercial functioning and future development of
the UK's competitive ports sector; and
- the elements outlined by M. Barrot would be a
useful starting point and the Government already has strong indications
from some Member States that they wish to tread the same path
in close collaboration with the UK.
Conclusion
6.8 We are grateful to the Minister for this
account of where matters now stand on port services and look forward
to hearing further from him on developments.
6.9 In the meantime, whilst the draft Directive
remains formally on the table, we do not clear the document.
21 Motorways of the sea are transnational maritime
links to be developed to bypass bottlenecks on land such as the
Alps or the Pyrenees. See (24941) 13297/03 (24970) 13244/03: HC
63-xxxvi (2002-03), para 3 (5 November 2003) and Stg Co Deb,
European Standing Committee A, 11 November 2003, cols.3-26. Back
22
See Headnote. Back
23
ibid. Back
|
