|
Column Number: 3
European Standing
Committee A
Wednesday 10 September 2003
[Miss Anne Begg in the Chair]
Maritime Transport Security
[Relevant Document: European Union Document No. 8566/03.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): What a pleasure it is, Miss Begg, to sit under your chairmanship again. May I say how refreshed you look after the recent recess?
The European Union regulation originates in the new security regime agreed last December by the contracting Governments to the International Maritime Organisation's 1974 convention on safety of life at sea—SOLAS. That regime is, in turn, an international response to the tragic events of 11 September 2001. It seeks to ensure that member states' implementation of the IMO regime is consistent with EU law and to extend its application to domestic maritime traffic within the EU.
The IMO security regime comprises amendments to SOLAS and a new international ship and port facility security code, known as the ISPS code. It sets out the preventive security requirements for ships on international voyages and the port facilities serving them. It requires risk-based security assessments to be carried out and security plans to be drawn up based on the outcome of those assessments. Trained company, ship and port facility security officers must be appointed to ensure that the security plans are implemented and to act as the focal points for contact with national competent authorities. The deadline for implementation is 1 July 2004, and the security arrangements must be in place by then. The timetable is challenging, but I am confident that we can achieve it.
In the UK, overall responsibility for implementing the security regime rests with the transport security directorate—Transec—in the Department for Transport. In respect of non-passenger ships, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will assist Transec. Security controls on ships prior to and on entry to a port are a key feature of the new regime, and the MCA's port state control staff and expertise will be a considerable asset in countering the threat from ships entering our ports. Transec and the MCA will, in practice, be the UK's competent authorities.
The primary purpose of the draft regulation is to ensure consistent and timely implementation of the IMO security regime throughout EU member states. That will be verified through inspections in member states, carried out by the European Commission. The regulation also proposes to extend the IMO regime to domestic traffic, to require that certain paragraphs of the guidance in the ISPS code become mandatory and to give the Commission a role in approving security agreements between member states. It would also give
Column Number: 4
the European Maritime Safety Agency and the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships new responsibilities for maritime security.
There is wide support for the regulation among member states. An orientation debate took place at the Transport Council in June, and all member states that contributed, including the UK, endorsed it, subject to the resolution of several points of detail.
Without the regulation to implement the IMO requirements in the UK, primary legislation would have been required to implement certain aspects of the IMO regime. Other member states have confirmed that they need the regulation if they are to meet the IMO deadline. The Government support it because it will help to ensure equal treatment and lead to improved maritime security across the EU. The ship security requirements, for example, will give us greater confidence that foreign-flagged ships entering UK ports do not pose a threat.
I can also give the assurance that the UK's existing security standards will be maintained. Neither the IMO regime nor the regulation imposes specific security measures or standards. Those are decided by each member state based on the outcome of the security assessments. The previous and current Council presidencies have given a high priority to the regulation. We expect agreement to be reached at the Transport Council in early October, and I understand that the presidency is seeking a First Reading deal with the European Parliament. That is important as any delay could prejudice member states' meeting the IMO deadline.
The negotiations in the official-level working group have secured a number of important changes to the regulation, and most of the UK's concerns have been addressed, including having a separate maritime security committee rather than COSS, and EMSA not having a security role, although the Commission has not yet conceded those two points. The main outstanding issue is the scope of domestic application, on which a ministerial decision will be made at the Transport Council. Application to class A passenger ships—primarily those that travel more than 20 nautical miles from the coast—and associated port facilities is expected to be mandatory, with application to other domestic ships and associated port facilities expected to be decided by each member state, based on the security risk assessment of different categories of ships. The Government propose to support that approach at the Transport Council in October with the proviso, on subsidiarity grounds, that the security risk assessment should determine whether the ships are included, not excluded, as the Commission prefers.
I should also mention Community competence. Our legal advice, which has been agreed with the Cabinet Office, is that the Community has competence, in principle, in respect of transport security for all modes covered by article 80 of the European Union treaty, following an agreement of the civil aviation security regulation last year. The regulation under discussion exercises that competence in the maritime sector, and on that basis our negotiating strategy is designed to protect the principle of subsidiarity and, in particular,
Column Number: 5
that decisions on the scope and extent of domestic application and on specific security measures and standards are for member states, not the Community. I hope that that helps hon. Members in their further deliberation on these important matters.
The Chairman: We have until 3.30 pm for questions to the Minister. I remind hon. Members that questions should be brief and asked one at a time.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): May I say, Miss Begg, what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? I echo the Minister's words that you look most refreshed after a welcome break. I also welcome the Minister back to his place. I regret that I have not had an opportunity to visit, at his personal invitation, the chain ferry in his constituency.
The Minister alluded in his introductory remarks, which were most helpful for the purposes of clarification, to the scope of the regulation. At what stage did it become apparent to the Government that the Commission was extending the scope of the regulation beyond that originally intended, and what support are the Government receiving from other quarters to narrow that scope?
Mr. Jamieson: During the period of discussion of the regulation, it became apparent that the Commission wanted to look further into domestic application. There is considerable agreement on the amendments that we want to make, and I am optimistic that those amendments will be agreed to at the October Transport Council.
Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): As a permanent member of the Committee, I am sure that I can say on behalf of us all that we are pleased to see you back in your proper place, Miss Begg. From your constituency perspective, you will be interested in the answer to my first question to the Minister.
Those of us who represent coastal communities, fishing ports and ports in private or local government ownership would be interested to know what attempts the Commission made to talk to the owners of smaller ports, which in theory could be the route through which any problems occur. Will there be cost implications and will those ports receive any support in implementing the proposed measures?
Mr. Jamieson: I always bow to my hon. Friend's knowledge, interest and experience in these matters. We are concerned for some of the smaller ports. For the larger ports that currently take passenger ships, many of the measures' implications will be slight, because those ports fulfil many of the requirements already. With regard to the smaller ports, we conducted a full consultation with the ports organisations, and the feedback that we received was generally that they welcomed the proposals.
There was little concern about the extra cost, which surprised me. I thought that those organisations would express such concern more firmly than they did. They probably did not do so because the ports that may have to make changes under the regulation at least know that other EU ports will have to make the same changes, so there will not be unfair competition
Column Number: 6
between one port and another. That will have given the ports some comfort.
There will be some extra expenditure, but it will depend on the level of risk and threat that is determined at a port. At some ports, little change may be required because their level of threat or security risk is extremely low. There may be considerable ramifications for other ports that currently do not have the security measures in place. Work on that is going on; I think that it started this month. As time goes on, the costs will become more apparent, but the general principle on which we are operating is that they should be borne by the ports and it will be appropriate for them to recover those costs, where possible, through port users. I recognise the problems that smaller ports may have, and we will listen carefully to their concerns, which my hon. Friend raised.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath): May I ingratiate myself, Miss Begg, by saying how nice it is to serve under your chairmanship and by saying nice things to all the other members of the Committee? It was a great delight to hear the question from the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). It is the first time that I have heard her begin a contribution without declaring a long list of interests, which suggests that she does not have a direct involvement in shipping, at least.
The Liberal Democrats support the recommendations and the Government's approach, but does the Minister agree that implementation and compliance will be very important? We can write down all these fine words, but compliance is important. The recommendations place additional security burdens on our ports, yet the Minister will be aware that we already have requirements under the port marine safety code, which should have been implemented by the end of 2001, and by January 2003 at least 14 per cent. of our ports had not complied with them. Can the Minister assure us that the code has now been implemented in all our ports, so that they can move ahead with the new requirements resulting from this regulation?
| 
