Mr.
Brazier: Before the Minister moves on, I urge him to look
specifically at the issue of sulphur content, and ask the industry
which, as he says, is declining for all those reasons anyway, to jump
from the 1.5 per cent. limit to 0.1 per cent.; it can take it down to
0.5 per cent. relatively easily, it tells me. If it is to do so, with
all the implications for costs, carbon issues, refineries
and the rest, I urge the Government to make those points at the
IMO, so that it can be managed in a doable
way.
Jim
Fitzpatrick: My apologies to the hon. Gentleman for not
picking up on that point. I can assure him that we have already
received representations, particularly
from the ferry companies in the North sea who say that it is not
feasible for them, in terms of costs and practical measures. We have
looked at the arrangement and gone back to the IMO. The arrangement is
not supposed to be introduced until 2015, so we have time perhaps to
say that that was—I hesitate to say this—one of the last
things that we signed up to at the Council, and it may not have
received appropriately detailed consideration. We have now
commissioned—or the ferry companies are
commissioning—more research, so that we can satisfy ourselves
that there is a real problem, then go back to the IMO and say that that
has not been scrutinised sufficiently, and try to get some adjustments.
We are on top of this and are aware that it is an issue, and we are
trying to identify exactly what we should do and in which direction we
should travel. I apologise for not responding to that
earlier. The
hon. Member for Cheadle mentioned the ILO convention, and we appreciate
his support. We anticipate ratification by 2010, which is the target
date for the UK, but other nations have to sign up at the same time to
ensure the measure is introduced. I fully understand his ambition for
an EU emissions trading scheme. However, we are putting our faith in
the IMO route, on the basis that the world is moving. There are reports
of China changing its stance and the Obama Administration changing the
US stance. If it is possible to achieve international agreement in the
IMO, that would be far preferable to a European agreement, and I know
that the hon. Gentleman fully supports that. If we said that we were
going in a different direction at a time when all the negotiations,
bilaterals and multilaterals are taking place, and given the effort
that the secretary-general, Mitropoulos, and his secretary are putting
in to try and secure an agreement at the IMO level, it would be
tactically wrong to signal anything other than full support. However,
we have said that if we cannot get that agreement, we would have to
return to our fallback position. That is basically where we are, and I
do not think that there is any disagreement between us and the hon.
Gentleman’s party on our position.
The hon.
Gentleman also raised concerns to which I alluded to in discussion with
Committee members about security at ports and the legitimacy of cargo.
I agree with him about the close scrutiny of the proposals on general
cargo, dangerous goods, and plants, as well as the other matters that
he raised. I am most grateful to hon. Members for their views on the
Commission’s communications, on strategic maritime goals up to
2018, and on a maritime transport space without barriers.
Question
put and agreed to.
5.30
pm Committee
rose.
|
