I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union documents No. 14631/07 and Addenda 1-5, Commission Communication, An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union and No. 14176/07, Commission Staff Working Document on Maritime Clusters; and endorses the Government’s approach to these documents.

Good evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I begin by welcoming the interest of the House in the European Commission integrated maritime policy and the opportunity to set out the Government’s view on that Commission initiative. The subject of today’s debate is indeed broad. It follows directly on from an earlier debate in the temporary European Standing Committee last March on the Government’s position in respect of the Commission’s maritime Green Paper, “Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European Vision for the Oceans and Seas”, which was the focus of a large-scale consultation exercise by the European Commission on its vision for the future development of a maritime policy for the European Union. That debate cleared the way for the Government’s formal response to the Commission’s consultation, and that response is included in the document pack with which hon. Members have been provided for the debate.

The Commission papers that we are discussing today derive directly from the Green Paper consultation. The Commission considered nearly 500 consultation responses from Governments, social partners and other interested parties. Before I turn my attention to the content of the new policy package, I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members to two things that are not contained therein. The maritime Green Paper proposed for consideration the idea of a European shipping register, which could have supplanted national registers, and a European-wide coastguard. In their response to the Green Paper, the Government strongly opposed those suggestions, as did other respondents. I am pleased to report to the House that those ideas do not appear in the new integrated maritime policy package.

The Minister knows of my concern about planned changes to the tonnage tax regime. I would welcome clarity on whether the change in the interpretation of seagoing vessels is being insisted on by the EU, the Department for Transport, the Treasury or at the behest of the Revenue and Customs. The proposals could impose higher costs on UK shipping generally and cross-Solent ferry services in particular.

The tonnage tax is an important issue for the shipping industry. It certainly does not feature, if I recollect correctly, anywhere in the notes that I am about to deliver on behalf of the Department, but I can advise the hon. Gentleman that the threat of a change in tonnage tax regulations that we feared would adversely impact on the success that we have derived from the arrangements in recent years has receded, that the Commission is revisiting its proposals and that the tonnage tax will therefore continue to be to our advantage. In that instance, we are not worried by what is happening in Europe as a result. I can write to the hon. Gentleman to give him much more detail in due course, but the tax is not part of the package that I am referring to this evening.

The EU maritime Green Paper sought to take forward the Lisbon strategy on sustainable growth by stimulating employment in the maritime sector and by applying ecosystem-based management of marine resources and the marine environment. It addressed important policy areas, including the retention of Europe’s leadership on sustainable maritime development, the maximisation of the quality of life in coastal regions, governance issues in the EU and the wider international arena, the reclamation of Europe’s maritime heritage and the reaffirmation of its maritime identity.

Those themes are broadly continued in the new maritime policy package, taking into account the consultation responses received by the Commission. The paper, “An integrated maritime policy for the European Union”, together with its supporting documents, which include an action plan, sets out a vision for a joined-up approach to maritime policy, taking as its premise a perception that all matters that relate to marine areas that surround Europe are, in essence, linked to one another. Therefore, it proposes the idea that all marine-related policies must develop within a governance framework that embraces a shared cognisance of those connections to ensure that the best results are achieved and that positive developments in one area do not inadvertently blight progress or prospects elsewhere. I emphasise that no firm legislative proposals stem from the package at this stage.

The Government note that the European Council conclusions of 14 December 2007 gave a broad welcome to the Commission’s initiative and invited the Commission to progress the initiatives and proposals contained in the action plan, which forms part of the package. We await the appropriate developments.

Turning now to the documents under scrutiny this evening, the lead document in the package sets out the concept of an integrated maritime policy. It provides an analytical framework and a set of objectives that lay the foundations for the accompanying action plan in addendum 2. The other supporting papers contain a discussion of the Green Paper consultation responses, an impact assessment and a summary thereof, and a European Commission staff working document that looks at the connections and synergies between the energy policy for Europe agreed at the European Council in March 2007 and maritime policy.

The lead communication declares that the new package aims to enhance Europe’s capacity to face challenges of globalisation and competitiveness, the effects of climate change, environmental damage, maritime safety and security, energy needs and sustainability. Allied to that goal is a desire to enhance employment and economic growth, underpinned by high standards of research, technology and innovation. The keynote is that the way in which maritime policy is made would be changed. Rather than policy being developed through compartmentalised dossiers, it would develop as an integrated form that recognised the relationships and interactions between different activities in the maritime sphere.

Although the Minister is making a cogent case for considering these matters in the round—indeed, any Government should do so—it appears that the Government’s response accepts to some extent that some matters should be dealt with in international forums by the International Maritime Organisation, rather than being specific EU competences.

Certainly, as the Government, we are always conscious that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, the IMO is the international regulatory body. It is an arm of the United Nations. We believe that it has competence in certain areas where the EU does not. Therefore, we must be aware of the role that it plays, as well as that which the Commission plays.

I was mildly concerned at first that the jargon in the Minister’s speech was his own, but I now see that he is quoting more or less verbatim from various passages to be found in the documents. I endorse the view expressed by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) about the IMO and the importance of our role in that respect. Can the Minister assure the House that, in fact, there will be no question of the House or this country giving up its role as a direct inputter to the IMO in favour of an EU voice?

I can certainly assure the House, as I assured the Greek Transport Minister in Athens yesterday morning, that we would not surrender our national voice at the IMO in favour of a European voice, that we believe that all the very strong maritime nations of the EU have articulated most strongly that they wanted to maintain their separate identity and voice at the IMO and that the EU should not take our place.

Taking things further back, some progress, albeit small in recent years, has been made, particularly with fishing communities, in taking some decision making closer to the communities through management plans and the Scottish fishermen’s voluntary scheme on environmental matters. Can the Minister assure us that such movement will not be jeopardised by the new pan-European scheme that is before the House today and that the interests of the fishing and other maritime communities around these islands will be closely considered?

If I do not come to the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks during my introductory remarks, I am pretty sure that I can reassure him in my concluding remarks. I have already been pulled in the direction of our world role in maritime affairs, but we are not at risk of neglecting localism and the ability of local communities to play an important role in formulating policy. I am sure that my remarks will cover the hon. Gentleman’s point, but if they do not, I shall be happy to return to the issue in my concluding remarks.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being most gracious. How will the marine policy that we are discussing impact on Norway’s management of the waters within its 200-mile limit, and will there be any discussions between Norway and the EU—or have those discussions already commenced?

I will have to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the detail of his question. On maintaining our direct relationship with Norway, obviously we will have to take its views into account when formulating European policy, as we always do.

I have been in correspondence with the Minister on the benefits that ship-routing services can have in reducing the air pollution from shipping. I see that the Government are committed to the idea that it is the IMO that should make the regulations, as the Minister said in his letter to me. My constituent, Aerospace and Marine International, which is based in Banchory, provides a ship-routing service. Will he assist that company by meeting the IMO to discuss taking forward an improvement to the regulation of shipping, in order to reduce CO₂ emissions through the use of that service?

The IMO is actively looking into those issues at the moment. I think that I am right in saying that the next major conference in which the issues will be discussed is in September or October this year. Certainly the IMO is conscious that it is the body that ought to regulate the shipping sector because it is best able to represent international opinion and put together international agreement. It is actively considering the challenge to climate change from salts, knots and CO₂. As for the assurance for his constituent, if he will allow me, I will come back to him on that, because that is a very specific issue.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said that I was quoting from the documents; I would not want to mislead the House, so we are relying extensively on what has been prepared. As I said earlier, we do not have any firm proposals. We have guidance to take us towards where the European Commission wants to get to. There is still a great degree of vagueness about the conclusions.

I welcome the review of European Community labour law exemptions for the shipping and fishing sectors. Will my hon. Friend outline the Government’s likely approach in those negotiations?

I think that I will be able to come back to that point later and will be able to give my hon. Friend some of the reassurance that she seeks. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) asked about the relationship between Norway and the EU. It has just occurred to me that Norway has been involved in the formulation of the EU maritime policy. As he knows, Norway is naturally a key ally for the UK, and obviously we would want to include it and its position in our considerations. I suggested to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) that the next meeting of the IMO was in the autumn; the next inter-sessional meeting will take place later this month. It is the IMO’s marine environment protection committee that meets in the autumn.

Will the Minister give way?

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will make a little more progress; I am halfway through my remarks, and am naturally conscious that the debate lasts only 90 minutes and a number of colleagues clearly want to contribute.

It is envisaged that common tools will be needed, synergetic approaches adopted, and conflicts of interest avoided or resolved. The action plan sets out ways in which the Commission’s overarching vision might be realised through an integrated approach to governance. That includes the use of cross-cutting tools to help policy makers and economic and environmental stakeholders to join up their activities and optimise the use of marine and coastal space in a sustainable manner. Those tools, as set out in the documents under discussion, comprise a more integrated network of surveillance systems for European waters, the development of marine spatial planning, and an EU observation and data network to bring coherence to the existing fragmented maritime data collection initiatives.

The action plan enumerates details of various broad areas of activity, grouped thematically. They include maximising the sustainable use of the seas, the development of a knowledge and innovation base, delivering a better quality of life in Europe’s coastal regions, promoting Europe’s leadership in international maritime affairs, and raising the visibility of maritime Europe. In connection with the latter objective, I hope that hon. Members were aware that last month—on 20 May, to be precise—the European Union celebrated the inaugural European maritime day—the first tangible output of the new integrated maritime policy.

Particularly significant aspects of the action plan address a European network of maritime surveillance; a road map for member states to assist in the development of maritime spatial planning; the development of maritime clusters, which is the subject of a separate document included for consideration in this debate; the creation of a European maritime transport space without barriers; the review of EU labour law exemptions for the shipping and fishing sectors—perhaps that deals with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) raised—ways to cut pollution from shipping, including greenhouse gases; action on marine-based energy infrastructures and resources to facilitate high-level investment; an ecosystem-based approach to fishing; a new maritime research strategy; a strategy to ameliorate the effects of climate change in coastal areas; and the development of integrated maritime policies at national level. It is a lengthy and ambitious programme.

The Government have welcomed the significant effort expended by the Commission in producing that wide-ranging package. In broad terms, the desire for a joined-up approach across marine policy areas is a welcome development. Our seas and coasts have multiple uses. They are used for the movement of people and goods, fishing, the utilisation of energy resources, and leisure activities. It makes sense that measures governing any one activity should not be progressed without an accompanying examination of the impact on all other activities that might be affected. Indeed, that is precisely the approach that the Government have taken in developing our domestic legislation, namely the Marine Bill.

In considering the new policy package, the Government maintain the approach brought to bear in the consideration of the package’s precursor, the EU maritime Green Paper. The new approach must entail the need to respect the principle of subsidiarity, and the need to ensure that new measures add value to existing national, Community and wider international arrangements. Of course, each new proposal needs to be accompanied by a sound business case.

Is the Minister able to explain to the House, or will he publish later, what exactly the Government’s targets are for measuring the added value that we will get from the proposals, and what the performance indicators will be?

I should be happy to come back to that in my closing remarks. Our difficulty, very straightforwardly, is that without the detail of the proposals, we are not able to say, “We like this, but we don’t like that. We want to go this way, and we want to push further in that direction.” To a certain extent, tonight’s debate will obviously be dissatisfying and inconclusive, because we do not have the detailed proposals that we might want to debate and discuss, so that we can decide on what is best for the UK.

In the previous debate, we heard that the document under discussion was being pushed through so that it would be agreed to before the 2009 elections to the European Parliament. Is the same being done with the document that we are considering, and if not, can the Minister give us a time scale for when its provisions are likely to come into effect?

The hon. Gentleman has the advantage on me, as he sat through and participated in the last debate, and I was not present, sadly, to hear my ministerial colleague explain the timetable. We do not have such a timetable, and because the detail has not been worked out, it is not clear what the time scale will be. I will try and get some additional information for the hon. Gentleman to give him some indication how long the process is likely to take.

We have an opportunity to add value by exemplifying an approach that injects the consideration of sustainability issues at the outset of deliberations, combining thinking on energy policy and climate change, and incorporating thorough impact assessments. Consideration of climate change and renewable energy issues would be an integral part of Community and member state development and investment policies. Moreover, the new package represents an opportunity to underpin maritime policy making with ecosystem-based management, which is important for the sustainable use of marine resources. I should welcome the views of the House.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate maritime matters on the Floor of the House, and particularly to debate the EU’s approach to such matters. The House should be grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee for recommending that we have this opportunity.

The subject is under-debated. The maritime sector, if one includes ancillary industries and services ranging from Rolls-Royce’s world-beating engines to maritime insurance and law, is the UK’s third largest industry. It supports almost 250,000 jobs and contributes an estimated £11 billion a year to our economy, yet its national footprint is minuscule. Even though 95 per cent., by weight, of all goods brought into the country come by sea, the sector is almost ignored by the media and wider public, except when there is a disaster at sea, such as the beaching of the Napoli, or when a tanker unleashes a slick of oil, which, mercifully, is extremely rare now.

So I am pleased to speak in the debate, and pleased that it falls so close to the newly introduced European maritime day, one of the items that comes up in the bundle of documents that we are discussing. It is one small item that we, the official Opposition, welcome, although I am a little concerned that it does not seem to have developed much beyond Maritime Ministers meeting in Athens to toast each other with much champagne. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s proposals for extending the reach of the maritime day to the public at large and what measures he will be taking with the industry to boost its public profile. I must say, in fairness to him, that I know he is personally committed to that.

In the three years or so that I have been covering maritime affairs for the Opposition, the European Union’s Commissioner for Maritime Affairs seems to have had something of a change of heart. It certainly needed to change. That directorate used to be one of the worst examples of Euro-fanaticism in the whole Commission. Let us hope that the change of heart is permanent.

One of the issues that has been of the greatest concern and that has reared its head several times is the threat of an EU register and the development of an EU flag for our merchant vessels. I was delighted to hear once again that the Government have pledged their opposition to those plans, and I join them in welcoming the fact that the Commission has dropped the plans in the current document, but vigilance is still important. I see the Minister nodding. Such a proposal, particularly the creation of an EU register, would essentially create a new flag state, demanding a common seat on international bodies such as the International Maritime Organisation and a common coastguard.

As the Minister said, the proposal for the creation of a common coastguard has been dropped. That is a relief, not least because of the nature of many of the coastguards in the European Union with which our own Maritime and Coastguard Agency would have been merged. I shall single out the Greek coastguard, as I dealt recently with a particularly horrid constituency case. After the trial of the coastguards concerned, it became clear that there had been a number of cases of sexual abuse of migrants, and even allegations of throwing illegal immigrants into the sea. Britain has a long and honourable tradition in its coastguard. Not only are there extreme examples such as the Greek one, but a merger would be ridiculous when the circumstances are so different around the European Union. Indeed, some countries have no coastline at all.

The debate provides an opportunity to chide the Government for a moment for allowing the operating conditions of the coastguard to deteriorate to the point where we have had three one-day strikes by the paid employees and one strike by the coastguard volunteers, the very first examples of industrial action by our coastguard—Her Majesty’s Coastguard, as it used to be called—in its centuries-old history. Given that those men and women are responsible for rescues involving up to 50,000 people a year, it seems extraordinary that the staff are so poorly paid and start on salaries of around £12,000 per annum.

I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for giving way. The Public and Commercial Services Union has said that it would cost about £3 million to sort out the dispute. If his party were to become the Government, would it look to meet the coastguard’s demands and end the dispute, which could be done at the stroke of a pen?

The hon. Gentleman intervenes at an opportune moment. I was about to say that I was delighted to be able to announce in the recent debate in Westminster Hall that, after discussion with my colleagues in the shadow Treasury team, although we obviously cannot underwrite a blank cheque, we are committed to a specific review confined to the MCA to look at its salaries in the context specifically of the other emergency services.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Chairman of the Committee that sent the documents to the House to be debated, I cannot see the relevance of this discussion to the documents before us, and it takes away time from the matters that we should be discussing.

The hon. Gentleman can safely leave such matters to the Chair.

I had in fact completed my point on that.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Briefly, once more.

I am not by any means asking for a blank cheque. I am merely asking for £3 million. The one thing that the coastguard unions told us was that they had been reviewed to death by the Government. If the hon. Gentleman’s party became the next Government, can he promise not a blank cheque, but a £3 million cheque and no more reviews?

The short answer is that I cannot promise a specific sum, but our review would be different in that it would be specifically in the context of the other emergency services, a linkage that, to date, has not been acknowledged.

Nevertheless, I share the Government’s strong opposition to the EU’s original plans for merging the coastguard and, like the Government, I recognise that we need closer co-operation between the different coastguard services. I enjoyed my recent visit to the MCA at its headquarters in Dover, and I thank the Minister for facilitating that. I was struck by the points that the coastguard made to me about the importance of developing a better relationship with its French counterparts, which is a relatively recent suggestion.

One plan that does not seem to have disappeared from the documents is the Commission’s ambition, albeit more tentatively stated, to take up a role within the various international organisations relating to the sea, not least the IMO. The Government have not been quite as hostile to that proposal as they have to some others. Their document declares that

“an attempt to seek a wider Community role”

in the IMO

“is likely to be counterproductive”.

That is welcome, but there seems to be more ambiguity over other multilateral organisations. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified whether he thinks that there is any international organisation with a role in shipping in which there should be a greater EU presence at the expense of member states. The plain fact is that different member states have different interests. Some do not even have a coastline, and none has the kind of maritime hub that we enjoy in London. It is essential that British interests continue to be represented in international bodies instead of having a joint EU presence.

While discussing the EU’s relationship with the IMO, I should like to support the Government’s statement on inadequate standards of ships with certain flags. We are all concerned about the quality of control with certain registers but, like the Government, the Opposition believe:

“The correct fora to address this matter are the IMO and the Port State Control MOUs”—

not, by implication, the EU. This is valid across a wide range of issues where the EU has decided to go off on a proposal by itself without consulting the rest of the world. I am thinking, for example, of the North sea and the Baltic SOx—sulphur oxide—emission control area. Because this is an EU rule rather than an IMO one, Intertanko, which represents more than 75 per cent. of the world’s independent tanker fleet, has reported that large numbers of ships not flagged to an EU state have simply decided to ignore the ruling and refused to bunker low-sulphur fuel, preferring—on balance of probabilities, it is a commercially sound decision, however antisocial—the risk of getting caught. That is a classic example of a good intention implemented by a body out of touch with the market leading to unintended consequences. By acting unilaterally, the EU has merely put an extra burden on to its own vessels at a time when there are already other pressures for people to leave European flags and register under other flags. The right way to make progress on these matters is to negotiate them through the long, hard route of the IMO, which can deliver on this.

While discussing the difficulties in persuading companies to flag to the UK, there are two matters obliquely touched on in the documents that the Government ought to be taking more seriously with the Commission. The first is the threat to the UK fleet of proposals to force UK-registered vessels to pay equal salaries to all its EU-national sailors, regardless of the salary the sailor could expect in his or her home state. This will not result in a fairer deal for poorer EU nationals, as the Commission hopes, nor will it result in more UK seafarers being hired, as the unions might hope—all that it will do is put further pressure on companies to flag out instead of paying higher wages. In that way, they will not even have to pay for the training of UK cadets, as the tonnage tax, rightly in our view, demands.

That brings me to the tonnage tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) has already mentioned. I was partly comforted by the Minister’s answer. None the less, it is well known that the European Commission is casting its eyes over the UK tonnage tax, coming on top of the Government’s own restrictions. As I have acknowledged publicly several times, the tonnage tax is an achievement by this Government that we welcome and believe in. However, the changes that were made to lease arrangements were not seen as helpful at a time when owners can see that other countries have introduced their own equivalents to the tonnage tax. More recently, the proposed amendments to the Finance Bill, which have fortunately now been dropped, sent out a worrying signal to the market that the tonnage tax regime may not be stable. Members will have seen stories in the media that Evergreen is considering re-flagging to Singapore, with the future of the tonnage tax at the top of its list of concerns. I was glad to hear the Minister’s answer on this, but if he can strengthen it a little in his final response, that will be welcomed by the industry. We need to make it clear that this is not an area where the European Commission should be interfering.

There is much in the documents about maritime clusters and how the EU should support them. As we all know, the world’s leading maritime cluster is right here in London, and it is, to some extent, threatened by the EU. The Minister must impress upon his colleagues in the Treasury and in the Commission that this, particularly where the tonnage tax is concerned, could be the unwrapping of what has been a considerable success.

The last of the Commission plans that has wisely been dropped is the directive on access for ports. The line-up against that directive has been very interesting. The European Transport Workers Federation has stood side by side with the port of London, Dutch socialists and Conservative MEPs. I was delighted to see that the proposal had gone. One thing that came up again and again in the debates on that issue was the flexible approach that our continental cousins take when it comes to interpreting European regulations—not a situation unique to shipping. I endorse the Minister’s comments about the suggestion that an added duty for the Commission to ensure that all EU ports operate in the same environmental framework and use similar regimes of interpretation and enforcement is important.

There are things in the document to support and a few remaining things that need fairly vigorous opposition. On this occasion, the Government seem, on the whole, to support that which needs supporting and to oppose that which needs opposition. There are areas where we feel that their opposition should be more vigorous but, on balance, it would be churlish to oppose the Government’s motion.

I welcome this important debate, and I would like to thank the European Scrutiny Committee for its work in enabling the debate to go ahead in such a well-informed way.

The maritime sector is vital to the economy of the United Kingdom, with 95 per cent. by volume and 75 per cent. by value of the UK’s international trade transported by sea. In 2004, £330 billion of the UK’s international trade moved through our seaports. Short-sea traffic trade with Europe and the Mediterranean accounted for 39 per cent. of all container traffic in 2004. The industry is important to our economy, and that importance justifies paying attention to the holistic approach to maritime policy we are asked to consider in the development of European integrated maritime policy. In terms of the UK, the issue is national, regional and European. Other perspectives involved in maritime policy include issues such as economic development and regeneration, the environment and security.

The proposals in the documents deal with integration and the setting up of a European maritime policy. In the Government’s comments on what are ongoing discussions rather than firm proposals, it is right that they have drawn attention to the importance of subsidiarity and of having added benefit when considering any widening of competences. I am pleased to see that, in the action plan, developing a European policy is not simply an issue of competence but one of considering decision-making on policy, setting up networks, sharing information and enabling expertise in one area to be used for the benefit of all. That is an important part of developing a European policy.

I welcome the parts of the documents that refer to clusters. Clusters of maritime excellence are important and I have seen their benefit in the work done by Mersey Maritime, which has brought together different sectors in the industry. It has enabled tens of thousands of new jobs to be developed in the sector. It has supported training in the nautical sector and developed courses with local colleges, encouraging young people to become involved in nautical matters. Developing a cluster of maritime industries matters and it is important that that process is led effectively. I would like to see more work done, however, on its implications for Europe as a whole.

I would like to point out three areas where there are significant concerns, and where, looking at the documents, it does not appear that the Government have given sufficient consideration to the policy as a whole. The first concern is about the competitiveness of United Kingdom ports in comparison with the rest of Europe, and in particular whether the privately owned United Kingdom ports compete on a level playing field with the subsidised, nationally owned European ports. Evidence given recently to the Select Committee on Transport showed that the capital costs for a terminal operator of opening a facility in the United Kingdom were three times as much as opening one in other parts of Europe. The question must be asked: why?

The Government’s ports consultation document states that United Kingdom applications for funding from the European regional development fund, the trans-European transport networks or the Marco Polo initiative for short-sea shipping must satisfy the Government as to their compatibility with fair competition between ports. We would not quarrel with that objective, but the question must be asked: is that criterion applied equally stringently in ports throughout Europe or does it concentrate simply on what is happening in the United Kingdom?

My second concern is about the security of ports. The proposals in the documents for increased surveillance of ports are welcome. If that were done properly, it would be effective. However, there is also a proposal in the documentation for a European maritime transport space without barriers. More questions need to be asked about what that exactly means. The proposal talks about simplifying administrative and customs barriers, but what does that mean for growing security needs in cargo and loading in ports?

Legislation enacted in the United States means that from 2010, ships sailing to the USA from foreign ports must be investigated and receive security clearance at their ports of origin. How will that relate to the European maritime transport space without barriers? I understand that some concern has been expressed in Europe about the American proposal, but it is not quite clear what that means. What does the proposal mean for the security of shipping entering our ports? That is an increasingly important question.

My third concern is about freight policy. Attention has already been drawn to the importance of the United Kingdom’s developing a more effective national freight policy. Infrastructure is particularly significant to the development of ports policy in the United Kingdom, and that means having better co-ordinated and integrated freight policy. However, there is a question mark over what is happening with freight from European operators. I understand that there is a proposal to allow European hauliers to operate wholly within the United Kingdom. What does that mean for maritime freight and United Kingdom hauliers? We do not have the answers to those questions, but there is growing public concern about the impact of freight operators from other parts of Europe on the United Kingdom’s already hard-pressed haulage business.

I should like the Government to go beyond the comments that they have already made and consider the specific issues that I have raised, so that as the debate continues and a much-needed European policy develops, we can ensure that the United Kingdom’s interests are protected, although in the context of the also important European dimension.

I congratulate the Minister on his fine précis of the documents before us. Without much effort at all, he could have taken up the entire debate.

Although it is a privilege to debate such an important subject on the Floor of the House, if this debate were taking place in Committee, we would have an extra hour in which to probe the Government and ask the Minister some more definitive questions. The documents are full of high hopes and fine words, but have little substance. The test will be whether the policy can be turned into practical deeds and plans that will deliver for this country and for Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) asked an incisive question about how much value added will result from the policy and what performance indicators will be used to test whether it has succeeded. I wonder whether the Minister will return to that question when he sums up. I think that he used the terms “integrated”, “cross-cutting” and “synergetic” several times, all of which are hallmarks of a good European paper, but the Government must be clearer about how the policy will be delivered and what benefits will flow from it.

The marine environment and maritime areas are not only important to Europe; they are very important to Britain. Europe has 70,000 km of coastline along two oceans and four seas, and the geographical nature of Britain means that it will have a greater proportion of coast than Europe. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said, some European countries have no coastline and will not have such a great interest in this issue.

My hon. Friend makes the important point that several European nations will not have a direct interest. When it comes to the fishing aspect of marine policy, is it not important to have regional management so that only countries with a coastal interest in a particular fishery are involved in its management?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which our party has emphasised in trying to bring some reform to the single fisheries policy and make it more localised.

Surely, the reform of the common fisheries policy that is required is its outright abolition.

That might be the policy of the hon. Gentleman’s party, but the Liberal Democrats realise that it would be very difficult to have a fisheries policy that did not take into account the fact that fish move from one part of a sea to another and that we must therefore have some control over the fisheries of other nations as well as our own.

The documents mention the objective of

“maximising the sustainable use of the…seas”.

The hon. Gentleman talks about warm words from Europe, but are not those yet more warm words from Europe? How does that objective sit with a common fisheries policy that sees us throwing back more fish dead than are landed legally across the whole of Europe every year?

I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I do not think that there is a nation in the European Union that does not believe that there could be some improvement to the fisheries policy.

The hon. Gentleman says that fish swim in the ocean between certain nations, but is not the reality that fish swim from European Union waters to Norwegian waters? Tiny Norway is the most powerful fishing nation in the whole of Europe, but it is outside the common fisheries policy. It has more say and greater control over fishing than any country in the EU.

I thought that Norway might come up at some stage. I am sure that intelligent fish will also recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. It might be that the European Union has negotiations with Norway about fisheries, and perhaps that can be built on.

It is not only fisheries that contribute to the economic importance of the coast and the maritime environment; trade is also important, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) pointed out. Populations also tend to cluster or accumulate in greater densities around coastal areas because of the economic activity that goes on there, and because better climates are often associated with those areas. There is therefore greater population and greater economic activity in those areas, and they are important to the economy of the nations concerned. The tourism industry is important to Britain, and various aspects of this policy reflect that importance. I hope that more people in this country will change their holiday habits and support our coastal towns a little more, and perhaps spend less of their money abroad. Holidays in this country are certainly worth while.

A real problem in the marine environment is that, for too long, it has been regarded as a place in which to dispose of the detritus and waste produced by human activities. It is only in relatively recent years that we have understood that, however great the seas are and however accommodating their chemistry might be, we cannot keep on putting waste into the sea. That applies in physical terms, in regard to plastics, for example, and in regard to chemical and industrial effluent.

The hon. Gentleman started by saying that it was important for the EU to bring all these different strands together. He also talked about warm words. Surely, however, he is giving us a really good example of why the EU is the wrong body to bring these strands together. Chemicals move around the sea just as much as fish do, and the right way to tackle this issue is through the United Nations and the International Maritime Organisation.

I would not disagree. The point has been made that it is important for Britain to maintain its membership of the IMO, and to involve itself in the discussions on the pollution in all our oceans. It is interesting that this debate is taking place on the same day as the first consideration of the draft Marine Bill by the Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. One of the points that was made when we considered it this morning was that the marine management organisation, which is the focal point of the Bill, should be the champion of the oceans. We asked whether the MMO would have enough capacity, manning and resources to be such a champion and to represent Britain on these matters.

The documents state that there could be three ways of achieving the policy objectives. One would be to abandon any EU maritime policy altogether and to achieve the objectives through sectoral approaches instead, sector by sector. Decisions made in that way might be easier, but not necessarily consistent or co-ordinated, and I believe that it was right to reject that option. Another approach that was rejected was the structural or centralised approach, which would have brought together all aspects of maritime affairs in one organisation, integrating all legislation and budgets for maritime policy. That would have involved substantial internal reorganisation, with potential political and cost risks. All maritime policies are part of a wider policy area, and the integration of those policies could fragment other policies. There is, however, agreement to go ahead with a procedural approach that will involve co-ordinating existing methods.

Briefly, on some of the subjects mentioned in the documents, we welcome the emphasis on an eco-system-based approach to fishing and fisheries. We welcome the emphasis on subsidiarity and on decisions being taken as locally as possible, and believe that EU guidance is useful, but we would not be in favour of any over-centralising, top-down approach to policy. Coastal communities vary greatly within countries, particularly across the EU, so a top-down approach would be unlikely to work. However, we welcome the recognition of coastal and maritime importance, as well as the establishment of marine protected areas and the introduction of the draft Marine Bill, which will give powers to do that in England and in the devolved nations.

Does my hon. Friend share my regret that during consideration of the Energy Bill, the Government resisted our attempts to give the MMO authority over some of the offshore installations provided for in that Bill, therefore cutting back the powers of that organisation before it has even been established?

I welcome the idea that my hon. Friend is putting forward, which will perhaps be reconsidered in debates on the Marine Bill. Certainly, comments that have already been made are cautious about how well the MMO will be able to fulfil its functions.

We welcome the potential to reduce pollution from ships, which will lead to cleaner ports, better fuel efficiency and increased use of renewables. We also welcome the emphasis on improved safety for fishermen while at sea, as the accident rate is too high. We should ensure that regulations do not move too far ahead of the international organisations and non-EU countries, disadvantaging the competitiveness of member states. We need to improve public awareness of the economic and environmental importance of maritime and coastal areas.

Again, the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He says that he welcomes measures on pollution, but then says he welcomes recognition that we must not disadvantage our own industries. Does he or does he not accept that the right body to drive up standards on pollution is the IMO, so that we keep a level playing field and people stay within the law?

I do not quite understand the last point. We have made our position clear: we wish the UK to retain IMO membership but believe that things can be achieved working together in the EU. Perhaps the word “synergy”, which the Minister used, might be employed to some advantage.

Lastly, we welcome the fact that it has been decided not to proceed with a European register of shipping and not to have a European coastguard. All in all, there is nothing in the documents that we cannot support, but we would wish to see more substantial ideas coming from the EU, and from the Government in particular, on how the proposals might benefit the coastal areas of the UK.

The documents were in fact considered by the Select Committee on European Scrutiny on 16 January 2008. It is in the eighth report of the Session 2007-08. The time scale is not for proposals by 2009. The extract from the European Council, which is on page 21 of our report, says that the Commission is invited

“to report on progress achieved to the European Council at the end of 2009.”

There is quite a long way to go before it ever becomes legislation.

I can assure the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) that our Committee will be referring any substantive points proposed for legislation to the European Committees. No doubt he will go along and argue those points in detail. Our Committee thinks that to send certain documents to the Floor of the House for debate is to give them a certain status in the public eye which means that people may then go and read the documents that you have taken the trouble to read—sorry, I should say documents that everyone has taken the trouble to read, perhaps including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I am not quite sure. People will then get to know why they are of such import.

The Minister should be commended for the fact that he was very thorough, not only in today’s debate, but in his response to the Committee in his explanatory memorandum. He may have been reading from a report, but it was a report penned almost entirely by him, if my recollection is correct.

I welcomed the first contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) as the new Chair of the Transport Committee. She has learnt her brief very quickly, given that this was sprung on her soon after her selection. I think that Members should also welcome, without churlishness, the fact that our Government have been so much a party to the movement within the discussions and consultation that rejected the European Union shipping register proposal. Our Government also took the lead in putting together forces that led the Commission to understand that it must reject the original proposal for a European Union coastguard. That is part of what the European Scrutiny Committee does in its relationship with the Government, through not a mandatory but a persuasive and, we hope, a supportive system, giving our Ministers strength to go and argue these cases and see off some silly ideas from the Commission.

It is also clear that we have safeguarded our national voice in the International Maritime Organisation. The Commission will come back to us, of course. Let us be honest: it does that. There is Commission creep. The Commission will competence-creep, trying to put itself in a position in which it can speak for the whole of Europe, which may mean asking countries to be a little quieter so that its voice can be heard. I hope that that will be resisted at some point.

We should also welcome any action that advances good maritime governance. I am sorry that such action has not been welcomed by those who thought that it should be done by the IMO. We are not in excellent condition. There is too much pollution, and there are too many problems with flagship sources and the behaviour of people in the maritime industry. The EU must think about what is to the best advantage of its own community, of which we are part.

The idea that all marine-related policies must develop within a governance framework that embraces a shared recognition of those connections to ensure that the best results are achieved must surely be in all our interests. It is not contrary to our membership of the IMO. The Commission staff working document develops ideas in relation to maritime clusters in particular, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend. The Commission suggests that they could play a

“role… in increasing competitiveness, boosting jobs and creating synergies between interrelated sectors.”

We already have maritime clusters in the United Kingdom. Paragraphs 2.8 to 2.10 of our report outline the concept in some detail. We should welcome the possibility of a European network of maritime clusters working together, some of which can be developed in other countries such as France, Germany and Poland. We already have a model, however. The south-west and the north-west, for instance, are working together in a way that I hope can also be welcomed.

As I told the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), the Commission intends to follow its documents with detailed proposals. I assure him that the European Scrutiny Committee will recommend debate on some, if not all, of them. There are also aspects of the Government’s approach that should be welcomed. It strongly emphasises the concept of subsidiarity, as paragraph 2.15 on page 19 of our report makes clear.

We are wary about proposals for more data collection. Paragraph 2.14 on page 18 of the report points out that there is already a collection network, which is not a single organisation but the result of co-operation between a number of research organisations. The possible threat to our competitiveness, which worried the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—the possibility that our competitive advantage will somehow be done down if the European Union takes an overarching role—is a threat faced by a number of countries, and one of which we should always be wary. When we standardise, we lose some of our competitive edge, as the Government point out in paragraph 2.14 on page 18.

That is not quite the point that I was making. Will the hon. Gentleman address the issue of the change in the SOx regime, which was introduced by the EU? It is a laudable goal—everyone wants to see lower SOx levels—but the effect was to disadvantage those on EU registers. Other countries, as the Intertanko survey shows, simply chose to disregard it on the basis that, on the balance of probabilities, they would not get caught even if they were trading with Europe.

The question of illegality is for the IMO, reinforced by the EU. We must work together on this. If IMO rules are not being policed well enough so that any EU country is disadvantaged, that disadvantages the economy of the EU. We are not in competition necessarily with other EU countries on this, although there are some questions about behaviour in the fishing industry where certain practices have been contrary to the interests of UK fishermen—the double-hulled Spanish vessels for illegal fishing, for example. They were found out and faced some penalties, but the UK has faced penalties as a result of not behaving properly in the fishing industry. A number of cases have been brought against UK fishing companies for malpractice. There is an EU dimension and an IMO dimension. They are not contrary, and anything that produces good governance is to be welcomed.

The hon. Gentleman is being very courteous in giving way but I think he has missed my point. This was an EU rule, not an IMO one. The non-EU registered ships were operating perfectly legally at a different level except on their visits to European ports. That is why, on the balance of probabilities, they thought they could get away without conforming to those levels. It creates a perverse incentive to leave EU registers.

I am sure that the Minister was listening to that and that the matter will come up. We would not want that to happen. There have always been scare stories about something that is done in Europe to provide better regulation and standards driving people out, but that is not necessarily the case. We do not give up good standards and practice just because we are worried someone will go somewhere else where they can cheat. Clearly we would not allow them to trade in European waters. The advantage of trading with 500 million people in Europe is attractive, so there are levers we can apply.

The report refers to the importance of involving all parties in the consultation. We heard that Norway, although outside the EU, takes part in these consultations to help form the policy. Similarly, all of our devolved Administrations were involved in it. The report states that Scottish Ministers have considerable interests in the matter, and that of particular interest to Scotland is the protection of the marine environment and biological resources. The report names fisheries that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil). Welsh Ministers also have an extensive interest in the matter, with 70 per cent. of Welsh marine waters designated for their environmental quality and 40 per cent. of the territorial seas. The report also talks about Ministers from the Northern Ireland Assembly. It gives a good model for the Government for many other policy areas in future. If we make policy together by being involved in consultation, whether with partners outside the EU with a similar interest or those in the devolved Administrations, we will get better legislation.

Does the report not also say that the Scottish Government did an additional memorandum because of particular interests in the marine environment which perhaps did not coincide entirely with the UK Government’s position?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a Europe-watcher, from a Scottish perspective. Policy in Europe is made by compromise; by trying not to disadvantage others, but to get the largest advantage for the majority. That is how people get to vote for things, particularly with QMV.

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have certain views about the common fisheries policy that may coincide with his, but it was not the Labour Government who sold out; it was the Conservative Government who sold out many years ago. It is very unlikely that anyone, apart from those with extreme views, would want to abolish the common fisheries policy. The point is how it is applied, whether it disadvantages others and whether it should only be those with marine and fishing interests who make the policy. Whether it is a wider EU matter will be debated. Should there ever come a time when there is an independent country in Scotland—

It’s coming.

The question then would be whether it refuses to join the EU because it could not get the common fisheries policy abolished. I am not going to invite the hon. Gentleman to reply. That question will remain until that comes about, should it ever do so, which I have no great wish for.

The point is that when we involve, as we do involve, the maximum number of people to make policy, we should recognise that that is a good thing. However, it is always a problem if those involved are churlish and want to point score and not really make policy.

I will not detain the House for long this evening. I want to say a few brief words to register a degree of unease about the content of the documents before us.

The Minister knows that I hold him in high regard, but I have to say to him gently that the speech that he read out tonight was just a little on the jargon-heavy side. Just occasionally, it strayed into the realms of the platitudinous. I do not blame him for that, because he was in fact reflecting the content of the documents that we are discussing. Perhaps I might quote for the House’s benefit a few sentences from the Scrutiny Committee’s report, some of which the Minister has already quoted. It states at paragraph 2.4:

“The way that marine related policy is made would be changed so that, rather than being developed through compartmentalised dossiers, it would take an integrated form that recognised the relationships and interactions between different activities in the maritime sphere”,

whatever the “maritime sphere” is. It continues:

“To this end, common tools in policy development would need to be used, synergetic approaches adopted and conflicts of interest avoided or resolved. In essence, the document is a grand plan to control the direction of often disparate but related policy strands under an umbrella of consistency of approach.”

I wanted to share those few sentences with the House. I should explain that I have a degree in law and a diploma in legal practice. I practised for a number of years as a qualified solicitor. I really thought that I knew a thing or two about the use of language to obscure rather than clarify meaning, but I realised on reading that that I was not a professional in the field; I was barely even a gifted amateur.

My concern, which all here should have tonight, is that we sign up to these vague, rather jargon-heavy platitudes and then, when the devil comes from the detail and we say, “We don’t like that”, somebody turns round and says, “Ah no, you signed up to it. Here it is, and it was in the report that you all agreed.” I am quite happy to agree and to commend the Minister on the progress that the Government have made, particularly in getting rid of the nonsense of an EU coastguard and the nonsense of an EU register. I give the Minister and his predecessor in particular, whom I hoped might be here tonight, credit for their achievements in that regard, but I am concerned that what we are doing—what is contained underneath all this jargon—is something of a political pig in a poke.

Perhaps this is one of the platitudes that jumps out:

“The Commission will…promote, within the forthcoming tourism initiative, coastal and maritime tourism”.

As we will soon be aware, those running coastal tourism operations will be hit when they will no longer be allowed to use red diesel. That is another example of a lack of joined-up thinking.

Indeed. In fact, that measure was determined—the House will forgive me if I am wrong—largely before the hon. Gentleman came into the House. I remember quizzing Treasury Ministers on a number of occasions, the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey) in particular, about the Government’s intentions, and it was always the same thing. It was always a case of, “Well, we don’t know the detail of what is being proposed. We’ve got the whole jargon-laden proposal here, and we will make a decision once we have the detail.” Once we had the detail, it was too late.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) is right about the position that has emerged as a result of leisure craft no longer being allowed to use red diesel. It is a mess that adds nothing to the leisure industry, but it will be as important to his constituents as it is to mine. I suspect that it will gain not a single penny for the Treasury’s coffers, and we will end up with something that costs more in its enforcement than it will ever bring in through revenue.

My concern is that when one looks at the list of areas that are included in these papers, one sees a great many things that can be done at EU level, but which would be better done either at nation-state level or within the IMO. I am particularly concerned that we never seem to give any particular elbow to our involvement with the IMO. The potential for developing these areas in a meaningful way is immense. Let us consider some of the provisions envisaged for cutting pollution, including greenhouse gases, from ships. They are fine within an EU context, but I suspect that most of the shipping that operates within EU waters has very little connection with the EU.

Given the situation that faced my constituents some 16 years ago, when a New York-owned, Panamanian-registered floating wreck, which was captained by a Greek, spilled oil over half our coastline, anything that the EU has done with regard to pollution coming from ships is pretty meaningless. The opportunity for real, meaningful change to avoid that sort of ecological disaster comes from meaningful enforcement; from taking hard action through the IMO against flags of convenience; from ensuring proper standards for the training of officers and crew; and from ensuring proper maintenance of shipping. There is far too much substandard shipping carrying oil around the world. That will be addressed only at IMO level, and anything we do within the EU will be meaningless at best, or counter-productive and damaging to our own shipping industry at worst.

I just want to support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Last week, I saw the Border Heather leaving Ardveenish in Barra. It carries fuel from Grangemouth around the coast of Scotland, and probably to the Orkneys and Shetlands too, and it is registered in the Isle of Man. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said, this seems to be a great example of Commission creep.

I think that Commission creep is a slightly pejorative term, but I know the sentiment that underlies it, and I am not without sympathy. I put it no more strongly than that.

I am sure the House would be disappointed if I sat down without making some reference to fishing. The report draws our attention to

“an eco-system based approach to fishing, including the stopping of illegal fishing and environmentally damaging fishing practices”.

Nobody could take exception to that statement, but I would feel much more comfortable with it if it were to have more regard to, and would tie itself more firmly to, the regional elements that we have seen in recent years in the development of fishing policy and a system that involves fishermen, scientists and other stakeholders in the industry all working together. We need them to bring their expertise to bear to get a system that has credibility with fishermen, with scientists and with conservationists. At the moment, the CFP is none of those things.

There is substantial opportunity for co-operation within the EU between maritime clusters, and that is one of the positives that the papers have identified. However, I wish to place on record my disappointment in one respect. Last weekend in Kirkwall we had a major conference on the future of maritime education, attended by representatives of the shipping industry and of academic bodies throughout Europe, indeed the world. It also included representatives of the IMO and even the EU. We did not, however, have a representative from the UK Government. The project that the conference sought to promote—the northern maritime university—could be a textbook example of co-operation between maritime clusters, but the UK Government simply did not care about it.

Unless we take such issues on board, we will miss a huge opportunity for training the next generation of officers and officer cadets, which will be necessary as the shipping industry takes on the massive expansion that the Government say they expect. However, they could not be bothered to send one person to Kirkwall to learn more about it. That was a disappointment.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) who powerfully made the case for international regulation to tackle the pollution of our seas, and for the UK maritime industry. I shall be brief, because we are running out of time and I want to give the Minister an opportunity to reply to the many points that have been made. I suspect that many of those issues will be discussed again when we consider the long-awaited Marine Bill, which was discussed by the Joint Committee today. Hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies will be aware that there is also a Scottish marine Bill that will deal with many of these issues.

I shall focus on the review of European Union law exemptions for the shipping and fishing industries, which I have raised previously. I know the Minister is aware that this issue has been raised in relation to the race relations legislation and the national minimum wage regulations. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will know that the work force who serve the Orkney and Shetland isles on the lifeline ferries are not necessarily covered by the national minimum wage regulations, because they do not cover any of the non-domiciled, non-resident seafarers on all the ships and ferries that leave UK ports. Changes need to be made to UK legislation in that regard, but Europe has a strong role to play in the sector, given that many of the issues do not stop at UK territorial waters.

The European Union is a major bloc, and one of the most civilised areas on the planet, and it is important that we say that we expect the European community to set the highest standards and to push internationally for higher standards all around the world. I think that that addresses some of the points made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. There is not necessarily a conflict between the two. We have seafarers working on ferries that go out of British ports to other EU ports who earn as little as £1 or £1.50 an hour. I would be interested in the Minister’s views about whether the directive is another way we can address that anomaly.

I am most grateful to hon. Members for their views on this new Commission approach to maritime development policy. We have had some good contributions to the discussion over the past hour or so.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) for his kind words and for the common ground between us. Indeed, there has been common ground between Members from virtually all parts of the House, but then, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said, that was not going to be difficult given the lack of specifics. However, there was common ground notwithstanding the comments that were made earlier.

The hon. Member for Canterbury raised several key points, the most important of which was about subsidiarity. I can reassure him that there is no shipping organisation in which the individual voices of maritime nations could be more effectively replaced than the European Union. I do not think that that could be clearer.

The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the tonnage tax, as did the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), and asked for greater clarification. The Government welcomed the European Commission’s decision to consult all member states on issues relating to state aid guidelines on maritime transport. We are working with like-minded member states to ensure that that is a meaningful exercise. In the light of the Commission’s decision, this is an important opportunity. We have withdrawn our re-notification and will not proceed with the legislation to amend tonnage tax rules, which would have reduced the effectiveness and attractiveness of the tonnage tax, until the Commission has completed its consultation with member states.

The Government are grateful for the fruitful dialogue with the UK shipping industry and will continue this engagement. All sides acknowledge the important role that tonnage tax has played in underpinning the success of the shipping industry and remain committed to the principles that the UK tonnage tax represents.

The new Chairman of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), raised the question of EU maritime space without barriers and the security implications. Ostensibly, this is a Customs admin simplification proposal, but more detail will be needed and the Government will look at all the implications of the proposal when it comes forward.

My hon. Friend asked about clusters, which were also mentioned by the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). In England, a number of regional development agencies have already established organisations in their regions to bring together maritime manufacturing interests, such as Marine South West, Marine South East and the Midland Marine Alliance. The Government fully support those initiatives and we look forward to working with the European Commission to ensure that whatever proposals finally emerge will add value to the current arrangements.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) raised the issue of support for fishermen in local communities. The common fisheries policy will remain the key measure for fisheries management decisions across the EU.

You must forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have run out of time. I will write to hon. Members about the issues that they have raised. I endorse the Government’s approach to these documents.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Union documents No. 14631/07 and Addenda 1-5, Commission Communication, An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union and No. 14176/07, Commission Staff Working Document on Maritime Clusters; and endorses the Government’s approach to these documents.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Building Societies

That the draft Building Societies (Financial Assistance) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 3rd April, be approved.—[Ms Diana R. Johnson.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Consumer Protection

That the draft Compensation (Claims Management Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved.—[Ms Diana R. Johnson.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.—[Ms Diana R. Johnson.]