Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [Lords]

Short of invading them, all we can do is engage with them diplomatically. I encourage Opposition Members to be realistic about what I can and cannot do. All I can do is to engage with these countries, to speak to their Ministers and to raise these issues with them—and I do. We show leadership through the IMO and use international agreements to drag up standards generally. In the world of shipping, we cannot make unilateral decisions that put our industry at a commercial disadvantage to the rest of the world. The best way to progress is through international agreements, and that is what we are trying to reach. We will continue to do the best that we can to get those countries to engage. We should not assume automatically that because those flag states are just that, flag states, they are not alive to some of the issues with which we are dealing. Some of them are considering closely the idea of being part of the audit scheme. We are helping them to make that decision. Other states, although they may be very small places, operate to high standards under their flags and work with other major nations to ensure that their flag fleet is properly inspected. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) asked whether I would agree to a proposal under which we would deny entry into UK ports to vessels that are flagged in states that are not party to the supplementary fund protocol. I suppose that that echoes the issue raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury. I do not think that such action is necessary. It does not matter if a vessel is flagged in a state that is not party to the supplementary fund protocol because that vessel must have insurance to cover the shipowner’s liability. That is a requirement for entry into a UK port. In addition, we benefit from membership of the protocol because we are the ones who will get the money from it should that be necessary. I was asked by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) whether we were considering other issues such as ships at berth using mains electricity or cold ironing, as it is known. I have not received any representations on that, but it is being considered by the UK and other states in the context of sustainable shipping. I will continue to keep an eye on it. During the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Mr. MacDougall) asked about estuarine damage to the Firth of Forth, and other hon. Members asked about the possibility of compensation should there be damage to estuaries. I replied that I was confident that the various funds available would cover us. I can now confirm that that is the case. Money can be paid from the supplementary fund if the damage is caused as a result of a sea-going vessel being involved in an incident. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) asked about the total size of the fund and why we have negotiated a pot that is less than the damage from the Prestige is estimated to cost. That is an unfortunate side effect of the fact that it takes so long to agree such an international convention. When we set out to get states to be a party to the convention, the US$1 billion mark was far more than we thought would be necessary. Subsequently we found that even that was too little, but that is the sum available. After we get all the parties signed up, we need to address that issue. I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman. He noted in his comments that the level of funding seems to have changed by a few million pounds since the debate in the other place. [Interruption.] That, as the hon. Member for Canterbury says from a sedentary position, is down to exchange rates. The amount of money available in the supplementary fund is intended to be 750 million of a unit used by the International Monetary Fund to reflect the average value of currencies across the world. It more or less works out to US$1 billion, but according to how the various currencies move, from time to time it will be 600 million, 602 million or 612 million. The figures that I quoted in my speech are based on the level of the exchange rates on 1 January this year, which are the latest figures available. I was asked by the hon. Member for Canterbury about the EC directive that criminalises seafarers for accidental pollution. I share his concerns about that. We are working with EU colleagues on how that should be addressed. He also asked what we are doing to expand the UK shipping industry. He rightly gave credit to the Government for the increase in the size of the British fleet as a result of the tonnage tax. I remind him that the training commitment that comes with the tonnage tax means that in 2005 and 2006 there are 1,300 UK trainees in cadet ships, so there are many benefits from the tax. I will shortly make an announcement about how I intend to move forward on issues related to the tax to continue to encourage the UK fleet to expand. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) asked me about historic vessels. I am not sure that I will be able to convince him 100 per cent. today, but I undertake to look into the matter further for him. There is no specific exemption for historic vessels, but our view is that they will probably not be affected by the MARPOL convention because they do not use the sort of fuels and engines that generate such pollutants. However, I expect the right hon. Gentleman is not entirely satisfied with that answer, so I shall write to him or, if he serves on the Standing Committee, we can discuss it there. A number of other issues were raised with me by various Members. The hon. Members for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) and for Canterbury spoke about other measures we might take to reduce the threat of pollution. The hon. Member for Kettering asked me why we did not include in the Bill measures to replace single hull vessels with double skin vessels. We do not need to do so because the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 already implement that change. The IMO is engaged on various measures to improve standards, including the issue of ballast water. A ballast water convention was agreed at the IMO in 2004.