[back to previous text]

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.
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.
 
Previous Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 12 May 2009