Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Bill [Lords]

I am always impressed by the ingenuity that hon. Members use to secure an opportunity to make a specific point that is completely irrelevant to the business on the Order Paper. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) should be proud of the ingenuity that he has shown on this occasion, but I do not think that he seriously believes that the Government would use the Bill to put the European directive on the statute book. I am fairly sure that he knows that we could not, even if we were minded to do so. However, he has taken the opportunity to make some important points about the failings and weaknesses of the directive, and I share his view on those. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) that the Government are wholly committed to the IMO and to having maritime agreements agreed internationally. We made that clear during our presidency of the EU in the last six months of 2005, and we are continuing to do so now, as we assist Austria on maritime issues during its presidency—for obvious reasons, Austria’s resources in relation to maritime issues are limited. We have made clear our belief that such agreements should only be agreed internationally. A few weeks ago, when I attended a ministerial conference in Copenhagen, I found unanimity among the maritime nations of Europe on the necessity of such agreements being not regional, but international. One of the pleasures and honours that I have had in the past 10 months as a Minister has been meeting the Shipping Ministers of pretty much every partner state in the European Union. I have found absolute unanimity on that point—complete agreement that we should not impose restrictions on our European fleet that would make it uncompetitive, that we should seek international agreement wherever possible, and that only in the most extraordinary circumstances should we impose in the Union an agreement that has not been agreed by the rest of the international maritime sector. To put our view on the record, the powers in clause 1 are restricted to the implementation of the supplementary fund protocol and the implementation of instruments that revise or replace the civil liability convention, the international oil pollution compensation fund convention, or the supplementary fund protocol. Each of those instruments was adopted through the IMO and it is inconceivable that they would be amended other than through the IMO. There is therefore no need for the suggested definition of an international agreement in amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 2 would provide that an Order in Council would only make provision in accordance with an international agreement. Combined with amendment No. 1, that would mean an international agreement adopted by the IMO. I hope that I have already made it clear that there is no scope in clause 1 to give effect to anything other than an international agreement and that such agreements will inevitably be adopted by the IMO. I hope that I have given the hon. Member for Canterbury the specific reassurance that he seeks. More generally, I assure him that I share his concern that the European maritime sector should remain competitive and that maritime issues should be dealt with through the IMO and not unilaterally.