2 Maritime safety
| (27218)
5171/06
COM(05) 589
| Draft Directive amending Directive 2002/59/EC establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system
|
| Legal base | Article 80(2) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 14 May 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xviii (2005-06), para 8 (8 February 2006) and HC 34-xxx (2005-06), para 2 (24 May 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 7-8 June 2007
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared. Further information awaited
|
Background
2.1 Directive 2002/59/EC established a Community vessel traffic
monitoring and information system aimed at preventing damage to
marine and coastal environments by making shipping safer. The
Commission proposes this draft Directive to amend some of the
existing provisions of Directive 2002/59/EC — notably in
respect of technical requirements for information interchange,
declarations concerning the carriage of dangerous or polluting
goods, suspect vessels, places of refuge and comitology[1]
— and to introduce new provisions — notably in respect
of carriage of Automatic Identification System (AIS) equipment
on board fishing vessels and measures in ice conditions.
2.2 When we considered this proposal last, in July
2006, we reported that:
● on
consideration the Government did not think that the Commission's
proposal falls foul of the subsidiarity principle;
● the
Government had sought with like-minded Member States to reduce
the cost impact on the fishing industry by ensuring that the requirement
to carry AIS equipment is phased in over a number of years after
the draft Directive comes into force;
● the
Government and a number of other Member States was continuing
to argue strongly against an explicit reference to the draft Directive
on civil liability and financial securities of shipowners, which
is not currently under Council discussion;[2]
● provisions
on places of refuge for vessels in distress had been satisfactorily
amended;
● new
wording for the provision on measures in ice conditions was satisfactory;
and
● a general
approach was to be adopted at the June 2006 Transport Council.
But we said that before considering the document
further we wished to have:
● a
promised Regulatory Impact Assessment, which we assumed would
take account of the Department's informal consultations with the
industry; and
● the
English version of the Commission's own impact assessment requested
previously.[3]
The Minister's letter
2.3 The Minister of State, Department of Transport
(Dr Stephen Ladyman) writes now to tell us first of developments
on the proposal. He says that on 25 April 2007 the European Parliament's
plenary first reading of the draft Directive adopted 62 amendments
to the Commission's text. The Government has concerns about a
substantial number of the amendments as they are not consistent
with the text on which the Council achieved a general approach
and as, rather than improving on that text, they are less acceptable
to the Government.
2.4 The Minister continues that the concerns —
many of which are on points of substance, rather than mere detail
— relate to amendments dealing with a range of subjects,
including carriage of AIS on fishing vessels, dangerous and polluting
goods, financial guarantees and compensation, long range identification
and tracking, rights of navigation in Member States' waters and
the timetable for SafeSeaNet.[4]
The European Parliament's amendments are being discussed by the
Council Working Group this month. The Government is working with
the Presidency and other Member States to defend the improvements
which are encapsulated in the Council's general approach text,
and which were an acceptable result for the UK, and to reject
the unhelpful amendments proposed by the European Parliament.
He says that the Government does not expect these amendments to
be included in the political agreement, which the Presidency is
hoping to secure at the Transport Council on 7-8 June 2007.
2.5 Turning to the question of impact assessments
the Minister tells us that in the event the Commission did not
translate its assessment into English (their own Guidelines for
Impact Assessment specify that these can be produced in English,
French or German and do not require them to be translated). Nevertheless
he now provides the further information promised in his Explanatory
Memorandum in the Government's own draft partial Regulatory Impact
Assessment.
2.6 The Minister notes that:
● the
main focus of the Regulatory Impact Assessment is on the mandatory
carriage of AIS equipment on fishing vessels as the other elements
of the draft Directive are unlikely to have a financial impact;
● this
part of the draft Directive aims to reduce the number of fishermen's
lives lost, but this will have a financial cost to the fishing
industry of installing the equipment;
● the
Government will be developing the Regulatory Impact Assessment
in due course, in discussion with the fishing industry;
● the
industry is aware of this proposal as the issue of mandatory carriage
of AIS has been raised by the Government in the Fishing Industry
Safety Group's Fishing Safety Technical Operations Group in January
2006;
● throughout
the negotiating process the Government's national position has
been informed by what it understands to be the concerns of the
fishing industry, most especially the anticipated costs to the
fishing industry; and
● some
— although not all — other Member States have also
indicated that the cost to their fishing industry was an important
consideration.
We note that the partial Regulatory Impact Assessment
observes that there is little practical basis for assessing the
benefits of AIS for fishing vessels. However an estimate of costs
is made and we annex that part of the partial Regulatory Impact
Assessment.
Conclusion
2.7 We are grateful to the Minister for his report
of where matters now stand. We note that there has been little
consultation yet with the fishing industry on the AIS issue. We
note also that the Presidency hopes to achieve political agreement
on this measure at the Transport Council of 7-8 June 2007.
2.8 We are concerned that unhelpful amendments
from the European Parliament may lead to an unsatisfactory text
and we urge the Government not to be rushed into a political agreement.
2.9 We do not clear the document and before considering
it again we should like to have:
● an
account of the outcome of negotiations of the European Parliament
amendments; and
● a
description of agreed changes in the resulting text and an assessment
of the then likely consequences, particularly for the fishing
industry.
1 Comitology is the system of committees which oversees
the exercise by the Commission of legislative powers delegated
to it by the Council and the European Parliament. Comitology committees
are made up of representatives of the Member States and chaired
by the Commission. There are three types of procedure (advisory,
management and regulatory), an important difference between which
is the degree of involvement and power of Member States' representatives. Back
2
See (27271) 5907/06: HC 34-xxi (2005-06), para 6 (8 March 2006). Back
3
See headnote. Back
4
A "European Platform for Maritime Data Exchange between Member
States' maritime authorities". The main objective is to aid
the collection, dissemination and harmonised exchange of maritime
data. The network assists communication between authorities at
local/regional level and central authorities, thus contributing
to prevention of accidents at sea and, by extension, marine pollution. Back
| 
