Transport Council (Hansard, 16 June 1994)

§ Mr. Llew Smith
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what matters were discussed and what decisions taken at the European Transport Council on 13–14 June in Luxembourg; and how the United Kingdom voted on matters decided by vote.

§ Mr. Dunn
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the outcome of the Transport Council in Luxembourg on 13 and 14 June.

§ Mr. MacGregor
The Transport Council met in Luxembourg on 13 and 14 June. I represented the United Kingdom.
On the first day, the Council discussed a number of maritime safety issues and reached a common position on proposals on the training of seafarers, minimum standards for ship classification societies and lower port fees for environmentally friendly oil tankers.
I gave a presentation on the Donaldson report into the Braer incident off Shetland. I emphasised three recommendations of special interest: port state control, improved ship identification using transponders and emphasis on the "polluter pays" priniciple. I received strong support from all member states and the Commission, which felt that the report was a very positive basis for future work on maritime safety and agreed to further detailed discussion by the Council.
Other items discussed included maritime competition, freedom to provide maritime services and maritime relations with west Africa.
On the second day, the Council reached provisional agreement, subject to a United Kingdom parliamentary scrutiny reserve, on a common position on a directive harmonising conditions for transport of dangerous goods by road. The Netherlands and Spain entered abstentions.
The Commission presented a communication on the way forward for civil aviation in Europe, drawn up in response to the wise men's report published in January of this year. I welcomed the Commission's paper, while emphasising the importance of elimination of state aids and full implementation of the third package of aviation liberalisation measures.
Among the other items discussed was a proposed measure that aims to establish common criteria for allocating train paths to operators and charging for access to the railway network. I argued that the scope of the measure should be limited to international services and drew attention to the special treatment that would be needed where traffic rights had already been laid down —for example, the channel tunnel—or where necessary to get new infrastructure built. The Council also discusssed, but made little progress on, mandates for road transport negotiations with eastern Europe and transport negotiations with Switzerland.
Under any other business, I reported on the review recently undertaken by the United Kingdom into the provision of seat belts in coaches and minibuses. My 634W conclusion from this report was that there was now a good case for requiring the fitting of seat belts to new vehicles. I emphasised the importance of this issue for road safety and asked how work was progressing within the Commission. In its response, the Commission informed the Council that it was working on a directive that would introduce new roof rigidity standards and emergency exit requirements. Existing seat belt legislation was also being reviewed under the guidance of a group of experts and a separate proposal covering the fire resistance of materials was being examined. The Commission was committed to having all these proposals on the table by the end of 1994.
Two votes were taken. On the dangerous goods directive, as noted above, I entered a parliamentary scrutiny reserve and the Netherlands and Spain abstained. On the seafarers' training proposal, Italy abstained.