Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on safety rules and standards for passenger ships`

(96/C 212/05)

On 22 March 1996, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 84(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 13 May 1996. The Rapporteur was Mr Chagas.

At its 336th Plenary Session (meeting of 29 May 1996), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by 104 votes to one, with two abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. Some international conventions on passenger ship safety, such as the SOLAS Convention () and the International Convention on Load Lines, exclude from their scope of application passenger ships operating on domestic voyages. This gap in international safety regulations has led to varying levels of safety legislation in the Member States and subsequently varying levels of application.

1.2. Council Regulation No 3577/92 (maritime cabotage) () demonstrated the need to close this gap in order to guarantee fair competition between operators. In its Communication on a common policy on safe seas of 24 February 1993 (), the Commission announced the adoption of common safety requirements for passenger ships. In addition, a Council Resolution of 8 June 1993 () called on the Commission to propose measures to guarantee safety at sea for passenger ships in Community waters.

2. The Commission proposal

2.1. The aim of the present proposal is to guarantee a uniform level of safety for human life and goods on passenger ships when they are on domestic voyages, and to provide a level playing field based on convergent standards which avoid distortions of competition in the Community.

2.2. In order to achieve these objectives, and on the basis of the SOLAS Convention and the International Convention on Load Lines, the Commission considers the following provisions to be necessary:

a) a first set of provisions to divide passenger ships into different classes according to the sea area in which they operate;

b) a second set of provisions to lay down the general safety requirements to be applied to the different classes of passenger ships;

c) a third set of provisions for the additional safety requirements, equivalents and exemptions. Clearly, all Member States have neither the same configuration of coastlines nor the same geographical and climatic conditions, and neither have all passenger ships the same constructional and design characteristics. Therefore these provisions endeavour to offset insufficient or excessive requirements by introducing additional requirements or exemptions;

d) A fourth set of provisions covering inspections and the granting of certificates which will enable authorized organizations to carry out inspections and testify that ships are in a seaworthy condition.

2.3. Finally, the Directive lays down procedures for negotiating within the IMO framework the harmonization of the international safety standards applicable to passenger ships engaged on international voyages and the granting of exemptions to such ships when engaged on short international voyages or on international voyages in sheltered areas.

3. General comments

3.1. In line with previous Opinions and especially its Opinion on the communication on a common policy for safe seas (), the Committee welcomes the proposal for a Directive and, above all, the plan to harmonize the application of safety rules and standards for passenger ships on domestic voyages, thereby avoiding distortions of competition in this area.

3.2. The Committee notes that the requirements laid down in Annex I differ according to class of ship and whether the ships have already been built or have yet to be built. This is the most appropriate approach, since it allows the requirements to be adapted to specific operating conditions, thereby reducing the possible additional burden of structural or equipment changes.

3.3. The Committee has already endorsed the Commission's view that the Community's maritime transport policy must 'secure competitive transport services and ensure that such services take place at a minimal level of risk for crews, passengers, cargo and vessels, for the marine environment and coastal activities` (see footnote 3, p. 21).

3.4. It is necessary to ensure that standards are properly observed. European cooperation within the framework of the Paris memorandum takes on a special significance in this context. The Committee would recall its Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on Port State Control in Community ports () - an area in which a great deal remains to be done.

3.5. In line with earlier Opinions the Committee maintains that the Commission should not replace the Member States on the IMO.

3.5.1. However, this should not stop it coordinating the Member States' participation in this organization. Hence the Committee agrees that efforts must be made at Community level to harmonize the application of the SOLAS Convention rules to passenger ships on international voyages and to the mandatory application, within the framework of the IMO, of the principles laid down in MSC Circular 606 ().

4. Specific comments

4.1. Article 2(m)

To improve clarity, the words 'such State` in the English version should be replaced by 'that Member State` [the wording used in Article 2(n)].

4.2. Article 3

It should be made clear in Article 3(2) that passenger vessels used in inland shipping are also excluded from the scope of the proposed Directive.

4.3. Article 4

4.3.1. The Committee points out that the criteria used by Member States to classify passenger ships vary, and that harmonization is necessary.

4.3.2. Since 'significant wave height` is one of the criteria for defining the classes of passenger ship, swift action is needed to establish a reference framework.

4.4. Article 6

4.4.1. The Committee notes that it is possible for the Administration of the flag State to lay down rules which are equivalent to those of the Convention, for specific operational conditions. Mindful of the fact that a large number of flag States are incapable of carrying out appropriate safety checks on vessels registered or operating under their flag, the Committee would stress the importance of applying paragraph 3 d) and the provisions on Port State Control (see point 3.4 above).

4.4.2. If conformity with the GMDSS () is to be mandatory, the dates laid down for entry into force will have to be adjusted accordingly.

4.5. Article 7

The Committee would stress that this Article must not hamper the laying down of provisions which guarantee a higher level of safety.

4.6. Article 11

The term 'declaration of compliance` (DOC) used in this article must not be confused with the 'document of compliance` (DOC) used in the ISM Code.

4.7. Article 12

In accordance with point 3.5, the Committee considers that the Commission should retain its coordinating role with regard to Member States' positions, albeit with the power to make proposals and give a lead.

4.8. Annex I

4.8.1. Chapter II-1, Part B,1

It should be specified here that the provisions of the Code on Intact Stability only apply to ships of over 24 metres.

4.8.2. Chapter II-1, Part B,8

The Committee draws attention to the need to harmonize terminology, notably the terms 'regulations`, 'rules` and 'standards`.

4.8.3. Chapter II-1, Part B,13

The Committee draws attention to the need to clarify whether all the subdivisions of point 7 apply to existing Class B ships.

4.8.4. Chapter II-2, Part B, 16

The deadline for compliance (1 October 1997) will need to be amended in accordance with the date of publication of the proposed Directive.

Done at Brussels, 29 May 1996.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() Safety of Life at Sea Convention.

() OJ No L 364, 12. 12. 1992, p. 7.

() ESC Opinion 1170/93 in OJ No C 34, 2. 2. 1994, p. 47.

() OJ No L 271, 7. 10.1 993, p. 1.

() ESC Opinion in OJ No C 34, 2. 2. 1994, p. 47.

() ESC Opinion in OJ No C 393, 31. 12. 1994, p. 50.

() Port State Concurrence on SOLAS Exemptions.

() Global Maritime Distress and Safety System.