PORT STATE CONTROL (5632/06)
Letter from Stephen Ladyman MP, Minister
of State for Transport, Department for Transport to the Chairman
I am writing to bring your Committee up to date
with developments on the above proposal. Your letter of 25 July
2006[39]
requested further information about the progress of negotiations
of the draft Directive. This letter reflects the state of negotiations
following the most recent discussions at Working Group and the
Committee of Representatives (COREPER) at the end of November,
and the proposed compromises issued by the Presidency on 4 December.
Progress in negotiations has taken longer than
originally anticipated, in part due to parallel discussions concerning
technical issues on the development of the New Ship Inspection
(NIR) regime within the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port
State Control (the Paris MOU) which includes EU states and others,
notably Russia and Canada. The NIR lies at the heart of the recast
of the existing Directive and underpins the better targeting for
inspection of those ships which pose the greatest risk. Those
technical issues have been resolved and although there are some
issues to be discussed by Ministers at the Council on 11 December,
the Presidency believes it should be possible to achieve a General
Approach.
Although negotiations on a range of technical
issues have been protracted, those discussions have not impacted
on the general thrust of the Commission's proposal, which is about
focussing port state control resources on those ships which by
virtue of their type, flag State, inspection record etc, pose
the greatest potential risk while reducing the inspection burden
on ships known to be of good quality. That makes for better regulation
and it is why the thrust of Commission's proposal has our support
and why we were keen to start work on the dossier under the UK
Presidency.
While I am content with the text which the Presidency
will present to Council for a General Approach, I said in my Explanatory
Memorandum that we had doubts about the value of imposing a duty
on deep sea pilots to report any defects in the ship or its operation
which they observe. Most pilots are not marine surveyors and are
therefore not appropriately qualified to make the necessary judgements,
and there is the risk that some ship owners will be dissuaded
from taking pilots if they were to be seen to be acting as agents
of a port state (spy in the cab). If that was to be the case,
there might be an adverse impact on safe navigation. While we
have not been successful in persuading sufficient other Member
States of that potential risk, the proposed duty on deep sea pilots
has been diluted and the requirement to report has been limited
to what might reasonably be observed by a pilot in his normal
course of duty on board. Not ideal, but I think a reasonable compromise
in the circumstances.
The matters which the Presidency is looking
to Ministers to resolve in Council on 11 December are as follows:
BANNING VESSELS
FROM COMMUNITY
PORTS
The Commission wants to extend the present provisions
for refusing access to Community ports for those vessels which
have repeatedly been detained in port following inspection to
enable serious deficiencies to be rectified before being allowed
to sail. We have no difficulty with extending the present provisions
but we are opposed to the proposal for a mandatory lifetime ban
for the worst offending ships. Refusing access to EU ports for
a period, which might be indefinite, is an appropriate sanction
on ships which repeatedly fail port state control inspections,
but a lifetime ban is disproportionate, not least because a bad
ship can become a good one if, eg, it is acquired by more responsible
owners and then properly maintained and run. We should not rule
out that possibility.
The Presidency has proposed a compromise which
I support and which I believe will find favour with the majority
of other Member States. Rather than a lifetime ban for the worst
offending ships, the Presidency has proposed that such ships are
refused access to Community ports for an indefinite period which
must be of no less than three years. After three years, a ship
which had been indefinitly refused access might be allowed to
regain access, but on the condition that there was clear evidence
that the ship was now being operated and maintained in line with
international and Community regulations on safety and environmental
performance.
INSPECTING SHIPS
AND ANCHORAGES
The Directive will require ships calling at
Community ports which are due for inspection to be inspected regardless
of whether or not they are tied up at a berth or moored at an
anchorage. That is very sensible, but the scope and interpretation
of an anchorage has prompted some debate in working group which
Ministers will need to resolve. The Presidency has suggested that
ships at anchorages are ships in a port, or another area within
the jurisdiction of the port, but not at a berth when engaged
in the business of a port (which would exclude ships at anchor
which are not making a port call but have anchored for other reasons,
such as awaiting orders as to the final destination of their cargoes).
At COREPER the UK reserved its position on the text, but I am
prepared to support the Presidency's proposal, which is also supported
by at least two other Member States. The views of the other Member
States are unknown, since they have formally entered scrutiny
reservations without expressing a view.
MISSED INSPECTIONS
Using targeting factors developed by the Paris
MOU, in the context of the NIR, port states are free to select
ships for inspection. However, port states will be required to
inspect certain ships. Whether a mandatory inspection is due will
depend on a number of factors, such as the type and age of the
ship, the time elapsed since it was last inspected, the ship's
inspection record and the performance of its flag State. The Commission
recognises that it is impossible for any port State to inspect
100% of the ships calling at its ports which are due a mandatory
inspection, given, eg, the problems of getting an inspector to
the ship if the port call is short, at a remote port, and, say,
in the early hours of a Sunday morning. The Commission has proposed
that a port state can be allowed to miss up to 5% of mandatory
inspections. We can live with that, given the flexibility of the
UK port inspection workforce and the resources available to us.
However, it is a mjor problem for most Member States. After considerable
debate in working group, the Presidency has proposed a compromise
text for Council which will retain the 5% exemption for mandatory
inspections of ships, but apply it only in relation to ships which
have a high risk profile. For ships with a lower risk profile
but which are due mandatory inspections the Presidency is proposing
an exemption of up to 10%. I intend to support the Presidency
compromise, which will also be supported by the large majority
of other Member States.
As I said in my Explanatory Memorandum, we consulted
industry prior to the UK Presidency and, not unexpectedly, found
support for the broad thrust of the Commission's proposals, since
what is being proposed should reduce the inspection burden on
reputable shipowners. Although discussions on the dossier have
been protracted, they have been of a detailed nature and have
not had any direct impact on the benefit the UK industry expects
to derive from the Directive. So to date it has not been felt
necessary to engage in further direct consultations with the industry.
The European Parliament has begun it consideration
of this dossier and is currently expected to have its Plenary
First Reading in late April 2007. I will, of course, continue
to keep your Committee informed of progress on this dossier, including
the outcome of the discussions at the Transport Council on 11
December.
5 December 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Stephen Ladyman
MP
Thank you for your letter dated 5 December 2006.
Sub-Committee B considered your letter at its meeting on 11 December.
We were grateful to you for your detailed update
on the progress of negotiations on this important Directive. We
are pleased that the technical issues relating to the New Ship
Inspection Regime have been resolved satisfactorily and that the
Presidency compromises promise to secure a consensus in Council.
As the three key issues of banning vessels from
EC ports, inspecting ships at anchorages and missed inspections
remain open to discussion, and as the European Parliament may
seek to make further amendments next year, we will maintain scrutiny
on the Directive at this stage.
We look forward to receiving updates from you
following the Council meeting on 11 December and the Plenary First
Reading, which you expect to take place next April.
12 December 2006
39 Correspondence with Ministers, 40th Report of Session
2006-07, HL Paper 187, p 122. Back
| 
