1 Ports
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision | Not cleared, recommended for debate on the floor of the House; drawn to the attention of the Transport Select Committee
|
| Document details | Draft Regulation about a framework on market access to port services and financial transparency of ports: (34955), 10154/13 + ADDs 1-5, COM (13) 296
|
| Legal base | Article 100(2) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Transport
|
1.1 With this draft Regulation the Commission seeks to establish
a regulatory framework to improve the efficiency and competitiveness
of all EU ports and to contribute towards their ability to cope
with increased demand in the transport and logistics sector. It
wishes to ensure that EU ports can become competitive in the context
of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) strategy up to
2030 and beyond. The draft Regulation would apply to 'core' and
'comprehensive' ports within the TEN-T. It appears that some 47
UK ports would be in scope of the Commission's present proposal.
1.2 Our first reaction to this proposal, in June
2013, based on comments to us by the Government, was that there
was a considerable question mark over the utility of the draft
Regulation. In July, given that the Italian Presidency hopes to
reach a general approach on the dossier at the Transport Council
on 8 October and the impending periods of recess, we recommended
that the document be debated on the floor of the House. But, the
Government refused our request for a floor debate and the draft
Regulation was scheduled for debate in European Committee A on
3 September. However, that debate was adjourned, following criticism
of the failure of the Government to include the latest Council
working group version of the draft Regulation in the debate pack.
There was also much strongly voiced criticism of the failure by
the Government to schedule the debate on the floor of the House
rather than in European Committee.[1]
1.3 The Minister writes, before the adjourned debate,
about the Government's decision to reject our request for a floor
debate.
1.4 We find the Government's explanation for its
decision to refuse our request for a floor debate on this important
matter unconvincing, regret that yet again the scrutiny process
has been weakened and draw the issue of principle to the attention
of the House.
1.5 Moreover, given the unanimous decision to
adjourn the European Committee debate we urge the Government to
now accede to our renewed recommendation that the issue be debated
on the floor of the House, and to ensure that this debate takes
place before the House rises on 12 September for the Conference
recess. Additionally, we emphasise to the Government that it would
be wholly inappropriate to override the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution
on this draft legislation so very important to UK interests. We
are drawing this report to the attention of the Transport Select
Committee.
Full details of
the documents: Draft
Regulation establishing a framework on the market access to port
services and the financial transparency of ports: (34955), 10154/13
+ ADDs 1-5, COM (13) 296.
Background
1.6 Transport is a competence shared between the
EU and Member States. Two sets of proposals by the Commission
related to access to ports and transparency of port charges were
both rejected by the European Parliament, in 2003[2]
and 2006.[3]
1.7 With this draft Regulation the Commission seeks
to establish a regulatory framework to improve the efficiency
and competitiveness of all EU ports and to contribute towards
their ability to cope with increased demand in the transport and
logistics sector. It wishes to ensure that EU ports can become
competitive in the context of the Trans-European Transport Network
(TEN-T) strategy up to 2030 and beyond and seeks to achieve this
by:
· strengthening
market access for port services, specifically identifying as key
aspects pilotage, towage, mooring, dredging, bunkering and waste
disposal;
· ensuring
financial transparency, including for port charges; and
· improving
port coordination and consultation.
1.8 The draft Regulation would apply to 'core' and
'comprehensive' ports within the TEN-T, as defined in Regulation
(EU) No. 1315/2013 on EU guidelines for development of the TEN-T.
The comprehensive network is defined in that draft Regulation
as consisting of all existing and planned infrastructure meeting
the requirements of the guidelines and is to be in place by 31
December 2050 at the latest, whereas the core network overlays
the comprehensive network and consists of its strategically most
important parts and is to be implemented as a priority by 31 December
2030. It appears that some 47 UK ports would be in scope of the
Commission's present proposal.
1.9 Our first reaction to this proposal, based on
comments to us by the Government, was that there was a considerable
question mark over the utility of the draft Regulation. When we
considered it for a third time, in July, we heard that although
important issues were still under negotiation by the Council working
group the Italian Presidency hoped to reach a general approach
on the dossier at the Transport Council on 8 October.
1.10 Given the impending periods of recess we recommended
that the document be debated on the floor of the House and that
the debate should take place in the fortnight beginning 1 September,
when the Government would be able to inform Members of developments
in further consideration of the proposal by the Council working
group. We said that in the debate Members might wish to examine
particularly the likely consequences for the UK's largely liberalised
ports sector if the draft Regulation proceeded in its present
form. But the Government refused our request for a floor debate
and the draft Regulation was scheduled for debate in European
Committee A on 3 September.
The European Committee debate
1.11 However, that Committee adjourned before any
substantive discussion on the document, following criticism of
the failure of the Government to include the latest Council working
group version of the draft Regulation in the debate pack. There
was also much strongly voiced criticism of the failure by the
Government to schedule the debate on the floor rather than in
European Committee.
The Minister's letter of 1 September 2014
1.12 The Minister of State, Department for Transport
(Mr John Hayes), wrote before the debate about the Government's
decision to refuse our request for a floor debate. He acknowledges
that we gave careful consideration to whether the debate should
take place on the floor or in General Committee and says that:
· the
Government also gave the matter careful consideration, but on
this occasion took the view that, on balance, a General Committee
debate would offer greater value;
· the
Government is working closely with the ports industry on this
proposal, and the ports industry is also engaging with Members;
and
· the
question and debate format of a debate in General Committee, lasting
up to two and a half hours, in comparison to a debate on the floor
of the House which last for 90 minutes only, allows a better opportunity
for a range of Members' views to be expressed.
1.13 The Minister, reminding us that the Italian
Presidency is making this dossier a priority and hopes that a
general approach can be reached at the 8 October Transport Council,
adds that:
· four
working group discussions were held in July and a further six
are planned in September;
· the
Government has engaged vigorously in this process and the progress
of negotiations so far has been, on the whole, towards diluting
unwelcome administrative burdens;
· nonetheless,
the Presidency's objective is peculiarly ambitious and, in his
judgement, is premature;
· he would
be informing Members of developments during the debate and looked
forward to hearing their views on the proposal; and
· he would
continue to keep us informed of developments in negotiations following
the debate.
The UK Major Ports Group
1.14 We have also received a letter of 19 August
from the Chairman of the UK Major Ports Group about their concern
with both the draft Regulation itself and what they perceived
as the apparent weakening of the Government's position.[4]
The letter was made available to Members of the General Committee
debating the document.
Previous Committee Reports
Sixth Report HC 83-vi (2013-14), chapter 2 (19 June
2013), Twenty-third Report HC 83-xxi (2013-14), chapter 9 (20
November 2013) and Fifth Report HC 219-v (2014-15), chapter 2
(2 July 2014).
1 See Gen Co Debs, 3 September 2014, cols 3-xx. Back
2
See (22185), 6375/01; (22187), 6390/01 and (23326) 6593/02: Seventh
Report HC 152-vii (2001-02), chapter 7 (21 November 2001), Twenty-eighth
HC 152-xxviii (2001-02), chapter 2 (8 May 2002) and Thirty-second
Report HC 152-xxxii (2001-2), chapter 14 (12 June 2002). Back
3
See (26039), 13681/04: First Report HC 38-i (2004-05), chapter 10
(1 December 2004), Ninth Report HC 34-ix (2005-06), chapter 4
(9 November 2005) and Twentieth Report HC 34-xx (2005-06), chapter 6
(1 March 2006). Back
4
See Background Papers. Back
| 
