B. CASES WHERE EFFECTIVE SCRUTINY HAS NOT BEEN POSSIBLE
36. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE AMENDING DIRECTIVE 95/21/EC CONCERNING
THE ENFORCEMENT, IN RESPECT OF SHIPPING USING COMMUNITY PORTS
AND SAILING IN THE WATERS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE MEMBER
STATES, OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR SHIP SAFETY, POLLUTION
PREVENTION AND SHIPBOARD LIVING AND WORKING CONDITIONS (PORT STATE
CONTROL) (10278/97)
Letter from Lord Tordoff, Chairman of the Committee,
to Glenda Jackson CBE MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State,
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
This proposal was considered by Sub-Committee B at their
meeting on Thursday 21 November.
The Sub-Committee have asked me to write to you to express
their concern over your Department's delay in providing an Explanatory
Memorandum on this document. I understand that the proposal was
received by the Council Secretariat on 29 July this year. It has
therefore taken your Department three months to provide the Memorandum,
dated 28 October, which makes no reference to this delay.
I would therefore appreciate any explanation you have for
this delay. However, given the non-contentious nature of the proposal,
the Sub-Committee have agreed to clear the document in advance
of the December Transport Council. This letter therefore lifts
the scrutiny reserve.
26 November 1997
Letter from Glenda Jackson CBE MP, Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and
the Regions, to Lord Tordoff, Chairman of the Committee
Thank you for your letter of 26 November which lifts your
Committee's scrutiny reserve on the above proposal.
Your letter asks for an explanation of why our Explanatory
Memorandum (EM) was dated 28 October when the proposal was received
by the Council Secretariat on 29 July this year. I apologise about
this delay; it occurred because the European Secretariat of the
Cabinet Office did not receive from Brussels a copy of the text
to deposit. As soon as they became aware that a text of the proposal
had been issued, they obtained it and deposited it on 17 October.
An EM was then triggered and submitted to your Committee on 28
October.
Clearly there is a limit to our ability to rectify the omissions
of others. But I have asked my officials to double check with
Cabinet Office whenever they receive a potentially depositable
text for which they have not been asked to produce an EM.
9 December 1997
|
