Search Results

1-11 of 11 results for subject:Ports

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the outcome was of the Transport Council held on 27th-28th March; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement.

Asked by

Michael Connarty (Labour)

Answering body

Department for Transport

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

27 March 2003

For answer on

2 April 2003

Answered on

2 April 2003

Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the outcome was of the Transport Council held on 27-28 March; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [106359] Mr. Spellar: The transport segment of the Transport, Energy and Telecommunications Council was held in Brussels on 27-28 March. I represented the United Kingdom. The Council reached a general approach on a proposal to further accelerate the phase-out of single hull tankers and to ban the carriage of heavy grades of oil in such ships sailing to and from EU ports. The regulation will apply to all ships calling at or leaving Community ports and to all ships carrying Community flags anywhere in the world. The final date for phase-out of single-hull tankers is 2010, with an exemption until 2015 for certain vessels under specified conditions. A presidency compromise date of 2008 was agreed for the coming into effect of a ban on carriage of heavy oil intankers below 5000 tons deadweight. The definition of heavy oils was agreed as those having a density at 15oC higher than 900kg/m3. I would have preferred a transitional period to 2010, and a definition of 950kg/m3, but these compromises are acceptable to the UK so, together with other Member States, I was able to support them as part ofan overall package. The Commission presented its proposed Directive on ship source pollution and the introduction of sanctions, including criminal sanctions, for pollution offences. The presidency concluded that the Council would return to the matter in June. The Council agreed a general approach on a Directive to streamline the assessment of minimum vocational training standards for seafarers. The UK supports the proposal. The Commission outlined the content of its Communication on Maritime Security, which is expected shortly. It will include a draft regulation on security for ships and ports in the EU, implementing existing IMO obligations, and set out the Commission's future strategy including a Directive on port zones and staff security in the second half of the year. The presidency hoped that the Council would be able to take decisions on these issues at its June meeting. Under AOB, Belgium and France urged action by Member States to support an unlimited liability system in respect of oil spills arising from recklessness by ship owners and charterers. This went beyond the Commission's original proposal. Council had previously agreed that the proposed Supplementary Fund to the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPC) regime, to be adopted at the May 2003 IMO Conference, should have a limit of up to è1 billion. The Commission noted that, if the IMO failed to adopt this supplementary fund, the EU should adopt its own regime before the end of the year. Also under AOB, the Council discussed a paper for IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee in July, tabled jointly by France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the UK, proposing the creation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs), around our coasts. The proposal requires further work on points of detail, but there was support in the debate. The Commission stressed the need for consistency with the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Commission presented a progress report on the EU satellite navigation project, Galileo, and outlined the state of play on negotiations with third countries. A Commission mandate for negotiations with China about their involvement in the project was agreed on the condition that security arrangements would be the same as for Russia and the US. The presidency looked forward to conclusions on integrating the existing EU EGNOS system in June. The second rail package, which includes measures to complete market opening for rail freight, promote interoperability and safety and establish a European Rail Authority,was agreed. The package brings forward full liberalisation of international freight from 15 March 2008 to 1 January 2006 and requires liberalisation of domestic rail freight markets by 1 January 2008. The Commission presented its proposal to improve safety in road tunnels following disasters in Alpine tunnels in recent years. The Directive will apply to all tunnels over 500m long on the Trans European Road Network and will stipulate technical changes, safety instructions for users and different management procedures. At least seven tunnels in the UK would be within scope I expressed concerns about the costs and benefits of the proposal--which are shared by a number of Member States--and about the potential adverse impact on traffic flow. The Council confirmed the common position it had reached at the special session held on 31 December last on extension of the ecopoints scheme for limiting Alpine lorry transit traffic. In doing so the Council rejected the amendments proposed by the European Parliament in its first reading on 12 February 2003, which could result in a difficult conciliation. The issue is not one in which the UK has a substantive interest. On aviation issues, the Council debated the Commission's request for a mandate to allow the Commission to negotiate air service agreements with the US. Most Member States were willing to give the Commission a mandate but only in return for greater certainty over future arrangements for the negotiation and implementation of bilateral agreements with third countries in light of the recent judgement of the European Court of Justice. The presidency concluded that work would continue with a view to reaching agreement in June. The Council was asked whether it supported the broad aims of the Commission's proposed regulation on unfair pricing practices by third countries, and where it could be improved to facilitate agreement at the next Transport Council. The Commission's proposal would allow Community measures to be applied to non-EU airlines found to be using state aid to price unfairly. Most Member States agreed with the broad principles of the proposal, but had specific concerns on the detail. The Presidency invited COREPER to consider the issues and submit a text to Council in June for Common Position. There was a unanimous political agreement on the proposal to improve safety standards of third country airlines operating to and from Community airports. Following discussion over lunch the presidency reported general support for the Commission's view that state assistance for European airlines during the conflict in Iraq should be limited and proportionate. No formal votes were taken at this Council.

Date

2 April 2003

Reference

106359; 402 c703-5W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Transport

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the outcome was of the Transport Council meeting on 17th June; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. - Inc figures.

Asked by

Jim Hood (Labour)

Answering body

Department for Transport

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

17 June 2002

For answer on

21 June 2002

Answered on

21 June 2002

Mr. Hood: :To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the outcome was of the Transport Council meeting on 17 June; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [63142] Mr. Spellar: :The Transport Council was held on 17 June in Luxembourg. I represented the UK. I was pleased to see the adoption by the Council of two directives on passenger vessel safety. The first of these requires compliance by 2015 by all Member States with the higher standards of damage stability for ro-ro passenger ships engaged on international voyages already introduced following the Estonia disaster by eight EU countries, including the UK (the "Stockholm Agreement"). These requirements are complementary to the International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) standard, aimed at increasing the survivability of damaged ro-ro vessels. The very large majority of UK ro-ro ferries have already been altered to comply with the Stockholm standard and those few remaining will be altered as necessary before the deadline of September 2002. The second directive on safety of passenger ships makes a number of technical amendments to the existing Directive 98/18. I would particularly draw attention to provisions bringing into Community law the IMO rules and standards on High Speed Craft and placing a duty on Member States to encourage owners to improve accessibility to their ships for people with limited mobility. The Council reached agreement on a Directive to open the market for the provision of services, including cargo handling and pilotage, in large and medium-sized ports. For service contracts, there will be maximum durations of 10, 15 and 36 years (plus a possible further 10 years), respectively, for services with no significant investment, services with significant investment in movable assets, and services with significant investment in immovable assets. In addition, I argued successfully for a 40 year period for new ports in the future. The agreed text includes a number of other significant changes, which meet many of the concerns we have had on the Commission's original proposals including protecting working conditions for port workers. The Commission said it would come forward with guidelines as soon as possible to address the important issue of competition between ports. The Council did not reach agreement on a Regulation establishing a programme (the Marco Polo programme) to succeed the PACT programme for the promotion of combined transport. The Marco Polo programme would offer Community financial support for modal shift projects, with a budget of è 85 million and various thresholds for different types of eligible project. I joined other Member States in arguing that there should be a reduced budget. The Commission reported on the need for further action in Europe in the field of maritime security. This would be principally within the framework of the IMO. The Council was unable to agree Conclusions on the Commission's transport White Paper of September 2001, which proposes a range of measures to address significant issues such as congestion, safety and the environmental impact of transport. During the debate I was one of a number of Ministers to reject any reference in the Conclusions to tax harmonisation. I also referred to the need to update the existing Eurovignette Directive, to allow Member States to proceed with implementing distance-based charging schemes. Following the debate, the Presidency issued Conclusions. The Council did not agree a common position on amendment of the Trans European Network Guidelines. Discussion centred principally on the new list of priority projects. More work will be done on this in preparation for consideration by Ministers during the Danish Presidency. The Commission presented a proposal for Community accession to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the IMO. It will be seeking a mandate from the Council to negotiate with these organisations. The Council reached agreement on a decision agreeing Community accession to the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol), the pan-European body coordinating air traffic management. The agreement is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny reservations being lifted. There were Presidency Conclusions noting the large degree of support among Member States for the Single European Sky and the agreement of Member States to make progress by 2004 in line with the Conclusions of the Barcelona European Council. The Conclusions also noted the importance of Eurocontrol in the process. The Council unanimously adopted a common position on a Directive on occurrence reporting in civil aviation, establishing a common framework for dealing with safety-related incidents. There was agreement on a draft Regulation requiring Member States to provide aviation statistical returns. The Commission presented a proposal on subsidy and unfair pricing by third country airlines, noting that some third countries had offered substantial financial support to their airlines, which had an impact on Community carriers. The Presidency reported on discussions over lunch about aviation war-risk insurance. The Council believed that State intervention should be limited, to avoid market restriction, but that possible mutualisation schemes should be examined. The Council reached agreement on a Directive tightening existing Community legislation on seat belt wearing. A compromise was reached on an exemption for school buses, which will last for five years. We have some concern at the lack of respect for subsidiarity in this proposal and this was made clear to the Council. In our view, it is appropriate to have a broad framework at EU level, leaving details of implementation to Member States. The Council did not reach agreement on a regulation on ecopoints for the transit of HGVs through Austria. This would have allowed extension of the ecopoint system beyond the current expiry date of 31 December 2003, but not beyond 2006, pending the forthcoming adoption of legislation on EU-wide infrastructure charging. The Commission concluded that in 2004 the Ecopoint system would finish. The Presidency hoped that imminent high level discussions among key Member States would lead to a solution of the problem of Alpine transit. No formal votes were taken at this Council.

Date

21 June 2002

Reference

387 c577-80W; 63142

House

House of Commons

Dept for Transport

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what progress has been made in the discussions since 15th May in the International Maritime Organisation regarding maritime security.

Asked by

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour; Co-operative Party)

Answering body

Department for Transport

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

21 June 2002

Reference

387 c582W;387 c581-2W; 63109

House

House of Commons

Dept for Transport Local Government and the Regions

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, whether all ports in the UK charge port dues for ships coming into the port for repairs; which European ports around the North Sea waive port dues for ships without cargo commitments coming in to port for...

Asked by

Stephen Hepburn (Labour)

Answering body

Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

22 January 2002

Reference

26043; 378 c707W;378 c703W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Transport Local Government and the Regions

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, what representations he plans to make to the International Maritime Organisation concerning the adequacy of existing shipping and port security measures.

Asked by

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour; Co-operative Party)

Answering body

Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

15 January 2002

Reference

378 c209W;378 c207W; 26703

House

House of Commons

Dept for Transport Local Government and the Regions

Statement on what the outcome was of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 6th and 7th December; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement.

Asked by

Jim Hood (Labour)

Answering body

Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

6 December 2001

For answer on

12 December 2001

Answered on

12 December 2001

Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the outcome was of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 6 and 7 December; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including their voting record; and if he will make a statement. [22183] Mr. Spellar: The Transport Council met in Brussels on 7 December. I represented the United Kingdom. The main focus of the Council was on the Galileo satellite navigation project and on aviation security. I am pleased to say that on both issues the outcome was satisfactory from our point of view. On Galileo, Ministers were asked to agree to the release of funding from the Trans-European Networks (TENs) budget to enable the project to proceed to its next phase, and to agree on the management structure that the project would have. I was among Ministers to press for deferral of decisions on the project. I drew attention to the concerns which the recently issued PricewaterhouseCoopers report had raised, on public sector funding, overall cost and lack of commercial benefits. The report made clear that any decision on the joint undertaking would have funding implications, so I argued that a decision on this should not be taken while funding issues were not sufficiently clear. There was also some discussion of the details of the draft Regulation to establish the joint undertaking, but a majority of member states declined the Commission's request for a vote to agree the text. Decisions on the next phase of Galileo were deferred and no formal conclusions were agreed. The Presidency indicated that the Galileo project might be discussed further at the European Council at Laeken later this month. The Council reached political agreement on a regulation establishing a Community framework for airport security standards and monitoring. The Commission had initially insisted on arrangements to oversee member states who were operating more stringent security measures. But in response to concerns which I and others expressed about the need for freedom to respond to perceived security threats it accepted that member states should be free to apply additional measures, provided they were in accordance with Community law. This important measure should ensure that high standards are in place throughout the EU and create a safer environment for air passengers using EU airports. There was discussion of a draft directive on occurrence reporting in civil aviation, on the transposition of JAR-OPS standards into EC law, and on a draft directive on the training of aviation cabin crew. No decisions were reached on the first two issues, and the Presidency concluded that no progress was possible on the third. The UK view is that provision for cabin crew training should be included in the JAR-OPS legislation. The Council noted the difficult economic situation faced by the air transport sector. On war-risk insurance, member states wished to return to a market approach, but the industry was not ready for that yet. In the interim the Commission was prepared to continue to approve state aid measures up to end March 2002, subject to monthly reviews. Ministers also noted the need to consider urgently ways to address possible unfair competition from third country carriers; the Commission will present a proposal in the near future. The Council noted the importance of making early progress on the recent proposal for a Directive to replace the hushkits regulation. The Council reached political agreement on the regulation to establish a European Maritime Safety Agency, which was proposed as part of the ERIKA II package of maritime safety proposals. We are content with the text as agreed. The Council agreed the text of a Directive to simplify reporting formalities for ships leaving and entering Community ports. It was able to accept the European Parliament's position on the proposal, and therefore reached agreement at the First Reading. I and the French Minister, with support from the Commissioner, stressed the need for member states to make quick progress on ratifying the Hazardous and Noxious Substances convention and other maritime pollution compensation Conventions, as the December 2000 Council Conclusions had urged. The Council noted a Presidency progress report on the proposal to update Regulation 3820/85 on commercial drivers' hours and rest periods. Further consideration of this will pass to the Spanish Presidency. I maintained the UK's opposition to the proposal to extend the fitting of speed limiting devices to goods vehicles above 3.5 tonnes and to coaches/buses with over eight passenger seats regardless of weight. I argued that we were not in favour of a threshold below 7.5 tonnes, but that an extension of European regulation to 7.5 tonnes would be in line with UK law. I expressed my doubt that the safety and environmental consequences of fitting limiters to lighter vehicles would be beneficial. The Presidency concluded that Council adopted the proposal by qualified majority. The proposal will now be considered by the European Parliament early in the new year. The Council reached political agreement on a draft directive setting out initial and ongoing training requirements for professional drivers. Following the recent fires in Alpine road tunnels, the Commission reported to the Council that it would propose legislation early in 2002 to improve safety. The proposals will address issues relating to technical equipment, driver information, traffic controls and training of operational staff. We await further details of the proposals, and will need to examine them carefully. The Presidency presented its conclusions on the Commission's White Paper on transport policy, published earlier this year. The Presidency largely agreed with the White Paper's assessment of the negative impact of uneven development of different transport modes, and believed that modal shift and enhancement of quality should be promoted. It hoped the Council would further examine the White Paper and looked forward to Commission proposals to implement the priorities emerging from further discussion. Under Other Business, I raised the issue of the new digital tachograph and the deficiencies in the Regulation on which the specification is based. I had previously written to the Commissioner asking her to propose amendments to address these shortcomings, which would create serious enforcement difficulties. Other Ministers at the Council supported me in asking the Commission to re-examine the issue and bring forward a new proposal to amend the Regulation. I expressed my disappointment at the Commission's response, which did not address the concerns we had put forward. Finally, the German Minister spoke of the safety benefits of ensuring that rigid bull bars were not fixed to road vehicles above 2.5 tonnes, through voluntary agreements with industry. The Commission agreed that this was a useful suggestion, but stressed that it was the responsibility of the Internal Market Commissioner. No votes were taken at this Council.

Date

12 December 2001

Reference

376 c875-7W; 22183

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many visits have been made by nuclear-powered submarines to each Z berth in each of the last five years. - Inc table and fact that to provide details of all movement between Z berths within UK Naval Bases could be provided...

Asked by

Harry Cohen (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

14 November 2000

For answer on

21 November 2000

Answered on

21 November 2000

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many visits have been made by nuclear-powered submarines to each Z berth in each of the last five years. [139053] Mr. Spellar: Since 1995 UK submarines have made 29 visits to alongside Z berths outside of UK Naval Bases. In addition to the alongside Z berths, there are a number of mooring buoys that have Z berth status in Plymouth Sound, at Spithead, off the Isle of Skye, Loch Ewe, off Rothesay, and in Loth Goil and at Mare Harbour in the Falkland Islands. Submarines use these mooring buoys, sometimes for as little as an hour or two, to carry out crew transfers or to take on high priority spare parts, and detailed records are not kept of all such visits. To provide details of all movement between Z berths within UK Naval Bases could be provided only at disproportional cost. Details of visits to alongside Z berths are: _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Location 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Southampton 0 0 1 0 0 Cardiff{1} 0 1 0 0 0 Liverpool 0 2 0 1 0 Gibraltar 4 4 3 2 6 Bermuda 1 1 0 1 0 Hong Kong{2} 1 0 1 0 0 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. {1} Cardiff no longer has Z berth status {2} Hong Kong no longer has Z berth status

Date

21 November 2000

Reference

357 c103W; 139053

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list each of the ports authorised to accept the berthing of nuclear powered submarines in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) British overseas territories and protectorates; if he will indicate for which ports public safety plans, and emergency evaluation...

Asked by

Llew Smith (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

21 November 2000

Reference

357 c103-4W; 139518

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on the security implications for Marchwood Military Port of the siting of a container port and access roads thereto in its close vicinity.

Asked by

Julian Lewis (Conservative)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

23 October 2000

Reference

133808; 355 c39W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what were the reasons for HMS `Ocean's' recent visits to ports for repair; what work was carried out on HMS `Ocean' during her recent visits to ports for repair; and what was the cost of those repairs. - Inc figures.

Asked by

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 December 1999

Reference

341 c360W; 100881;100882

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many Royal Naval vessels made overseas visits during the last 12 months; and if he will list (a) the countries visited and (b) the length of each visit. - Includes fact that list of visits in Library as DEP 99/1991.

Asked by

Tom Cox (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

16 December 1999

Reference

341 c255W;341 c255-6W; 102709

House

House of Commons

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher