Supplementary memorandum by The Corporation
Of Trinity House (P 39B)
This Memorandum is submitted on behalf of Trinity
House. It is supplementary to the Memorandum submitted prior to
the giving of oral evidence (Captain Glass and Mr Clark). It is
made in response to the Committee's request for Trinity House's
view on the European Commission's proposed directive on Port Services
(COM (2001) 35 final).
1. Trinity House's view on the Commission's
proposal is given in the context that:
(i) The proposed directive relates exclusively
to the provision of services within port limits. This is generally
outside the operational jurisdiction of Trinity House which has
responsibility for the provision of Aids to Navigation outside
those limits, although Trinity House does have an inspection role
in respect of the aids to navigation provided by the ports to
ensure international standards of reliability and availability
(ii) The port services which the proposals
seek to liberalise do not fall within the remit of Trinity House.
Whilst "technical nautical services" include pilotage
(see Annex to the proposed directive), as a result of the Pilotage
Act 1987 in the UK responsibility for pilotage within the port's
jurisdiction (or within their pilotage area) falls to the competent
harbour authority, usually the harbour authority itself.
(iii) The directive is not concerned with
Trinity House's main function of provision of Aids to Navigation;
its focus is upon the freedom to provide services to enhance competition
within the ports sector against a background of transport regulation
and limited constraints which are proportionate to their objectives
(ie maritime safety).
2. Subject to the above Trinity House is
sympathetic to the main principals of the directive:
That there should be freedom of access
for providers of port services.
That limitation of the numbers of
providers of port services should be justified upon grounds of
space or capacity or, in the case of technical nautical services
(including pilotage), for safety reasons.
Liberalisation of the provision of
port services should not jeopardise safety in ports or compromise
3. It is Trinity House's view in relation
to the safety aspects mentioned above that the proposals should
recognise the paramount importance of clear areas of responsibility
for the provision of technical nautical services and that the
pressure of competition should not override the basic requirements
to provide a safe port environment. The proposed directive is
in Trinity House's view vague in identifying the degree of importance
which is to be attached to safety in relation to the competing
pressures for free and open competition. Trinity House believes
that ports must also provide suitable infrastructure and have
capacity for the volume and type of traffic navigating within
their limits of jurisdiction which must form part of any overall
safety risk analysis.
4. Trinity House welcomes the prospect of
the inclusion of ports in the Trans-European Network (Ten) outline
maps as larger schemesparticularly those relating to port
safety and VTSmay qualify for assistance.
5. Trinity House believes that the proposals
accordingly require further detailed discussion and scrutiny at
member state level to ensure the directive, when it is finally
agreed, is able to allow member states to reflect in their domestic
legislation their own national requirements and those of operators
on a community level.
P B Rowe
30 March 2001