Jim
Fitzpatrick: Shipping is already included under climate
change legislation and, as we have said, we are cognisant of the need
to address shipping emissions. As the hon. Gentleman says, we have
worked very hard within the IMO to try to secure an international
agreement. Whereas we were unsuccessful within the International Civil
Aviation Organisation in introducing an international agreement on
aviation emissions, we clearly have pan-European agreement on the
establishment of a European emissions trading scheme, and negotiations
on that are going ahead. If we fail to reach an agreement within the
IMO, we would certainly want to explore the route that he suggests as a
way of bringing shipping into the debate about how to address climate
change—it should do its bit. However, we are still working hard
and are very supportive of the secretary-general and the secretariat.
Equally, heading towards Copenhagen, we are working hard with the
Marine Environment Protection Committee and the IMO, and we will
continue to do as much as we can to reach
agreement. Mr.
Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Will the Minister be
kind enough to describe—to trace in our minds—the
boundary of this single European maritime
space?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I cannot immediately satisfy the hon.
Gentleman by describing the geographical boundaries. We are looking to
put in place, as much as we can, cross-border partnerships with EU and
European economic area partner states. In that regard, the boundary
suggests
itself.
Mr.
Hollobone: This could be confusing, however, because not
all European states are members of the EU or the EEA, which could cause
complications. If we are to get rid of internal sea boundaries,
presumably the external sea boundary will becomes even more important,
given the threats of piracy, illegal immigration and so on. Where in
the documentation is it stressed that there should be increased
security on the boundary of the maritime space to prevent such
problems?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman’s
difficulty with the document is the same as mine: the lack of detail on
some of the policy areas being addressed. As I just said to the hon.
Member for Canterbury, many of these are proposals about possible
proposals, and in that instance there is a lack of clarity about where
the Commission wants to go. It almost sets out ideas and ambitions,
rather than detailed proposals, which will have to come forward in due
course. Co-operation between the EU and the EEA is extremely important,
but as far as I am aware—forgive me—the document does not
outline those specific
boundaries.
Mr.
Hollobone: Are there not urgent problems with, for
example, illegal immigration from the north coast of Africa to the
Canary Islands, which come under Spain’s remit? That sea border
needs to be heavily reinforced to prevent a heavy flow of people into
the EU. Does the document contain proposals for other member states to
assist Spain in preventing this
problem?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I do not think so. We return to the territory
of the matters raised from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon.
Member for Canterbury—the importance of sovereignty, which is
threaded through the document, and how each nation state is responsible
for its own territory. However, given the close working relationships
within the EU, member states already co-operate in dealing with illegal
activity, be it in security, piracy, smuggling, illegal immigration and
so
on.
Mr.
Hollobone: Do any proposals in the documentation offer any
threat to the red
ensign?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: On the contrary, I think. We are proud that
the red ensign is flying over more tonnage now than for many years. The
Red Ensign conference will take place in Gibraltar tomorrow. I regret
that I am unable to attend, although I was invited, and the chief
executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is taking a message
from Her Majesty’s Government, as are the local authorities. We
are proud of the progress that the red ensign has made and we do not
see anything in the documentation as a threat to
it.
Mr.
Hollobone: The UK and France are nuclear powers and they
have nuclear powered ships and submarines. Some members of the EU are
not members
of NATO. Is it true that, under the proposals for a single maritime
space, nuclear powered submarines and ships will be allowed to dock at
any EU
port?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I am relatively certain that the documents do
not go as far as to detail where such vessels may dock. There are
regulations on international maritime policies, dangerous goods and so
on, and all manner of requirements—on size, let alone anything
else—pertain to docking different vessels in different ports. I
do not remember reading anything in the documents that says there will
be a list of ports at which such vessels may or may not
dock.
Mr.
Brazier: The Minister is right to take pride in the
successful expansion of the merchant fleet, which stems heavily from
the tonnage tax introduced some years ago by this Government. Will he
reassure the Committee that no drive in the direction of achieving the
goal of
creating “taxation
rules designed to maintain the competitiveness of Community
shipping”— that
laudable aim, which we would all agree with in principle, is referred
to in paragraph 3.3 on page 4 of the bundle—will lead
specifically to interference with the tonnage tax or, more generally,
to interference with Britain’s sovereign tax raising powers on
such
matters?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I am sure that I can give the hon. Gentleman
that assurance. We are pleased that the tonnage tax, which was
introduced in the Finance Act 2000, has become an important feature of
UK maritime and that it includes the minimum training obligation. I am
sure that he is familiar with that progress and that he does not need
me to quote the figures for him. As we see it, nothing in the documents
offers a threat to those
measures.
Mark
Hunter: May I ask about the cost-benefit analysis in the
impact assessment? It estimates benefit from the reduction in
administrative burden of some €2.4 billion and environmental
benefits, very specifically, of between €182 million and
€365 million. The cost of devising, developing and operating the
measures is estimated at €617 million. To the best of the
Government’s knowledge, are those estimates still considered
accurate? How does the Minister envisage the cost being spread between
the port authorities and the different shipping companies
involved?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I am sorry that I am not able to add much to
what the hon. Gentleman has gleaned from the documents, other than to
repeat that, until specific proposals are made, we will not be able to
drill down into the accuracy of the figures. To a certain extent, those
are ballpark figures. I have expressed our concern at some of the
proposals as outlined in respect of ports and customs reductions,
which, as has been suggested, could lead to reduced administration and
bureaucracy for some ports. We would want to see what would replace
that. Obviously, something would have to replace it, and we would not
want to replace one control with another, more bureaucratic system if
that inadvertently affected our ability to trade.
Clearly, the
Commission would not produce figures that it did not have some
confidence in, but we will have to be somewhat circumspect about giving
the proposals a full rubber stamp until we see the
details.
Mr.
Brazier: The documents call for the implementation of
International Labour Organisation maritime labour convention 2006, and
page 11 of the bundle makes it clear that the Government support that.
I have three questions about that, and perhaps I can put them together
because they are quite brief. First, what consultation have the
Government had on the issue with the industry and the unions, which I
am sure support the measures? Secondly, has the Department undertaken
any analysis of the cost to the industry at this intensely difficult
time for shipping? Finally, if the Department has done those things,
what are the results and do the Government intend to introduce
legislation?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: The conventions are due to be implemented by
2010, so they have been around for some time. They cover a range of
protections for seafarers on issues such as leave and health and
safety. There has been full consultation with partners in industry,
chambers of shipping and others. The costings are clearly out there and
have been endorsed by both sides of the industry. We look to introduce
any required legislation later this year for implementation from
2010.
Mr.
Brazier: Obviously, everybody wants decent conditions for
seafarers, but I do not have to remind the Minister that this is the
most difficult time that shipping has faced for generations. On a
general point, however, one can foresee some of those requirements
ultimately needing a body to administer them. One can see a
shipping version of the European Aviation Safety Agency—the
Minister has the aviation brief and I have the shadow brief. Will there
eventually be a shipping equivalent of EASA to deal with such issues?
If so, does he agree that it should clearly be located in
London?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: It would be wholly inappropriate for me not
to agree with the hon. Gentleman about the location of any
international regulatory agency. The more such bodies that we can have
in this great city, which has responsibility for so much other maritime
activity, the better. That would be useful. There is an organisation
called the European Maritime Safety Agency, which is a shadow of EASA,
but it is not quite so far down the line. EMSA will have a collective
role in due course.
The only thing
that I would say on the hon. Gentleman’s point about the
pressure on UK business is that the standards on red ensign vessels
make it easier for British ships to sign up to international
conventions on protections for seafarers because they have observed
higher standards for years. Therefore, the proposals might not be as
much of a hike for them as for other countries and vessels registered
outside this
country.
Mr.
Brazier: Point understood. I have one more question. The
goal behind much of what is in the documents is a modal shift in the
transportation of goods—from road to short sea routes, and
indeed inland waterways, where some of our continental partners do a
great deal more
than we do, as the Minister knows. If he is signing up to such a modal
shift, will he tell us how he sees it happening in the UK? In
particular—I am aware that this is a cross-departmental issue,
but it is especially important in this regard—what steps, if
any, are his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local
Government taking outside the Port of London Authority area to ensure
that we do not lose even more wharves? If disused or semi-used wharves
keep disappearing, the possibility of reopening inland waterways for
commercial traffic will be shut out for
ever.
Jim
Fitzpatrick: If I may, I shall deal with that in three
sections. The hon. Gentleman referred to London. Wharves in the port of
London are protected. Much effort is put into ensuring that that is
so—sometimes against the feelings of the local community, which
believes that wharves would be more useful as, for instance,
residential development. That model ought to be replicated in other
parts of the country. I am sure that local authorities, when
considering industries that have existed in their areas for many years,
would not want those industries to disappear simply because someone had
taken a short-sighted decision not to protect a wharf. However, such
matters can cause tension in local authority areas throughout the
country.
The hon.
Gentleman made some secondary points, speaking about ports and
shipping, and a trans-modal shift from land to sea. I am sure that my
departmental colleagues will have considered the statistics cited in
the document showing how much UK tonnage already goes by short-sea
shipping. One matter that I have been discussing with them is what has
been happening under the Marco Polo initiative and trans-European
shift. Of 55 applications bidding for the money set aside by the
Commission, only one has been successful due to the rigorous nature of
the application procedure that has to be gone through to avoid state
aid complications and the rest of it.
The Department
for Transport is doing what it can to promote the shift from road to
rail and sea. We are working aggressively with the logistics industry
to assist that move, particularly in these difficult times. I
understand that a review is going on into the application process, to
discover whether it is too rigorous. We want to ensure greater
encouragement for trans-modal shift, and we are following that review
closely. Thirdly,
I was not able to respond fully to the hon. Gentleman when he put in a
bid for EMSA to be located in London. I am afraid that I have to tell
him that it already has a permanent headquarters in Lisbon. However,
given that the Portuguese are our oldest international allies, perhaps
Portugal is the second best place for
it.
Mr.
Brazier: Better than the
French.
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I did not say
that.
The
Chairman: I did not hear it. I call Mr.
Hollobone.
Mr.
Hollobone: To what extent does the single maritime space
reach into the sea lanes off Turkey, northern Cyprus and the eastern
Mediterranean?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: Clear international agreements have been laid
down—they have been negotiated over many years—in respect
of the coastal waters of various sovereign
states.
Mr.
Hollobone: Page 9 of the communication from the Commission
makes specific reference to piracy and armed robbery. It
states: “In
that regard, the most urgent priority is to protect seafarers,
fishermen and passengers on ships sailing off the coast of Somalia, in
the Gulf of Aden or in any other region of the world that could become
problematic in the
future.” To
what extent will policing piracy and armed robbery at sea be left to
the Royal Navy and the French navy rather than to other European
nations? Given that the burden on the United Kingdom and France in
places such as Afghanistan is already heavy, should others not be
pulling their weight rather
more?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: My understanding is that about 14 or 18
nations are co-operating off the gulf of Somalia, sending vessels
there. Control is at RAF Northwood, the UK has provided the
commander-in-chief, and the red ensign fleet is providing logistical
support. There is great co-operation. Indeed, I read a report the other
day—I cannot verify it as yet—saying that North Korea and
South Korea had helped each other to prevent one of their ships being
taken by pirates off Somalia. Such is the international agreement that
those people should not be able to threaten vessels on international
journeys. A large international contingent is co-operating already, but
there is always scope for more international agreement.
The IMO has
been co-ordinating matters, with the United Nations. I have had several
meetings with the IMO secretary-general, Admiral Mitropoulos, who
raised the issue with me and others in the UK Government. He thanked
the UK for the role that we have been playing in supporting the
IMO’s efforts to ensure international agreement to deal with
piracy off the horn of Africa. We can therefore be proud of what we
have done so far. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a case
of encouraging others to make their contribution as
well.
| 
