Explore DfT
 
 

Policy regarding European Community Technical Requirements for Inland Waterway Vessels

Summary of Consultation Responses

  1. This document is intended to be a summary of the substantive comments raised during the consultation. It is not a comprehensive account of every comment raised and response made.
  2. The consultation deadline was deliberately set to the 25th March 2010 with Ministerial approval to meet an EC deadline. This consultation period was much shorter than the Government guidance for normal consultations of 12 weeks. A number of comments were made raising objections to the shortened consultation period without adequate justification.
  3. The majority of comments received concerned the policy of not providing a survey and certification regime in the UK for Community certificates. As a matter of policy the MCA will not offer such a regime, but would not object to independent UK surveying organisations offering the service on behalf of other Member States.
  4. The following table summaries the salient points and the MCA responses:
CommentMCA Response
Consultation   
The consultation did not meet the Government consultation criteria.  More specifically the period was too short, not the suggested 12 weeks and not at a stage where the policy could be influenced. Government guidance on public consultations allows for much shortened periods, under specific circumstances and with Ministerial approval.  A strict deadline imposed by the EC demanded a truncated consultation.  The MCA accordingly put the policy out to the public with explicit Ministerial approval.
Impact Assessment   
The published Impact Assessment (IA) did not fully explore all possible policy options.The IA detailed the policy options that met the UK obligations to the EU and/or maintained the integrity of our more appropriate Domestic safety regime.  The option evidenced in the IA was that which the MCA believe best meets our obligations.
Survey and Certification Regime  
The UK should provide a Community survey and certification regime.  This would allow UK owner/operators to seek Community certification through their own Member State.  The UK is obliged to provide a survey and certification regime for its vessels that are subject to the Directive.

As a result of the UK policy to derogate all vessels on UK inland waters from the requirements of Directive 2006/87/EC, the UK will have no vessels requiring survey.  Any vessel sailing on the inland waters of another Member State would be subject to its national requirements and the Directive, so should be surveyed by the Member State accordingly.

In the specific case of pleasure vessels, the UK does not have a survey regime, choosing to maintain a “light touch” approach regarding their regulation.  It would be anomalous for the MCA to then survey these vessels under the Directive.

The lack of such a service presents a number of problems to the UK owner/operator:

  1. Costs and general inconvenience associated with survey and certification through another Member State
  2. Difficulties due to foreign languages when arranging surveys or necessary work on vessels
  3. Peculiar Member State administrative requirements that frustrate the certification process
  4. Difficulties with varying interpretations from differing Member States.

There will be comparable survey and certification costs from any Member State administration, including the UK, dependant on the vessel’s location and condition.

English is a common language of the Directive, with the document translated and printed in English to aid understanding.

Member States should follow the procedures and guidelines laid down in the Directive.  Any variation to this should be taken up with the Member State in question directly.

Consistent interpretation of the Directive is something each Member State works toward, but local variations case by case are likely to occur.