§ The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin)I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8367/89, 8368/89; and the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport on 22nd November 1989 relating to the Community shipping industry; further notes that Community-owned shipping represents some 25 per cent. of the world fleet; endorses the Government's commitment to liberal shipping policies and to the opening of the coastal and offshore markets (cabotage) of France, Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal and its opposition to subsidies for shipping; and supports policies which will promote vigorous competitive United Kingdom and Community shipping fleets.Tonight we are debating stage 2 of the European Community's common shipping policy, which has become known as the positive measures package. I remind the House of how we reached this stage. In December 1986, the United Kingdom presidency negotiated agreement to a package of important shipping regulations. They are designed to break down barriers that restrict the free movement of intra-EC shipping, to prevent new restrictions being erected, and to safeguard and promote competition in all sectors of the shipping market. They are important measures and provide a firm base for a common shipping policy.When the first package was adopted at the end of 1986, the Council of Ministers asked the Commission to make proposals for the second stage aimed at the harmonisation of operating conditions for further strengthening the competitiveness of the Community's fleets. The proposals made by the Commission that are now before the House are designed to fulfil that mandate.
Proposals are described in detail in the document "A Future for the Community Shipping Industry: Measures to improve the Operating Conditions of Community Shipping". The Commission also produced a related information paper on financial and fiscal measures. Both documents have been made available to the House. The proposals are wide-ranging and complex, and it may help if I describe their main features.
The document "A Future for the Community Shipping Industry" consists of a lengthy Commission communication covering three draft Community instruments and one Commission recommendation. The first draft instrument would establish a Community ship register named EUROS. To be registered on EUROS would carry certain obligations. First, a vessel would have to be on an EC country's register already. Secondly, the owner of the vessel would have to prove a genuine economic link with the Community. Thirdly, the vessel would have to meet a number of employment requirements. In particular, half the ratings and all the officers would have to be EC nationals and their employment would have to be subject to specific provisions on collective wage agreements.
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)I have a question for the Minister relating to annexe 3 of the Department's explanatory memorandum 8367/89 and to section 3(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. That Act refers to the owners of British ships as "British citizens". Are problems likely to be encountered 790 similar to those provoked by the interim injunction of the European Court of Justice with respect to section 14 of the Act?
§ Mr. McLoughlinI shall certainly know what to expect when I give way to the hon. Gentleman in future. If he will contain himself for a little longer, he will see that there is no way that the Government want to accept the EUROS proposals. Therefore, I hope to allay his fears. Perhaps he will allow me to develop my speech so that he can learn why we intend taking the action that we do, which follows in a way upon the requests made to the Department by the National Union of Seamen.
The fourth requirement of EUROS is that every ship registered would have to fly the European flag in addition to her national flag, and every Euros-registered ship would also need to have additional identification marked on her stern.
Those are the obligations attached to EUROS. The main benefit proposed by the Commission is that EUROS vessels would be entitled to operate in the cabotage trades.
§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)What is cabotage?
§ Mr. McLoughlinI am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish me to explain cabotage, but if he does, I shall be happy to do so.
§ Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight)If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) does not know what cabotage is, he has no right to be an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
§ Mr. McLoughlinI believe that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is having a little fun.
§ Mr. PrescottThe Minister still has not explained the meaning of cabotage.
§ Mr. McLoughlinCabotage is the allowance of free trade between member states and between the coastal lines of those free states, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well. I am surprised at the Opposition treating this debate so lightheartedly and that they do not regard these matters as being serious. My Government take these matters very seriously, even if the Opposition do not.
§ Dr. GodmanOn a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked a serious question, and I hope to receive a serious answer.
§ Mr. McLoughlinI was referring to the interventions of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.
The second main benefit is a proposed link between the right to carry food aid with those ships registered on EUROS. It is claimed also that the EUROS concept would help shipowners to transfer their vessels between EC registers and ease recognition of seafarers' qualifications.
The second draft regulation seeks to define a Community shipowner. It accordingly sets up certain tests that would seek to establish a significant economic link between a shipowner and a member state. The key point is that it would draw a distinction between EC nationals and those companies from third countries that establish themselves in the Community.
The third draft regulation makes provision for the liberalisation of cabotage, but that is subject to a number of conditions. First, vessels would have to be on EUROS and to meet the crewing conditions that I have described. 791 Secondly, there is a weight limit of 6,000 tonnes, above which a vessel would have no entitlement to freedom of cabotage. Thirdly, there is an age limit for vessels of 20 years. Fourthly, there is a derogation that allows a member state to require the other EC vessels operating in its own cabotage trades to mirror its own manning requirements. Further restrictions would protect island services.
The Commission also makes recommendations on port state control, in which the United Kingdom has always exceeded the target of 25 per cent. on inspection rates.
We have studied all the Commission's proposals carefully and have consulted widely. Our broad conclusion is that the proposals would not improve the competitiveness of the European shipping industry. As to the basis of the proposals—EUROS—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was one of a majority of Ministers who criticised that proposal at a recent meeting of the Transport Council. Clearly, the case for creating a new Community institution would have to be very strong, but the majority view of our ministerial EC colleagues so far is that EUROS would serve no useful purpose.
The proposed manning and employment conditions would increase the cost of running ships and reduce operational flexibility. We believe that it is objectionable to seek to keep non-EC nationals out of an international industry that operates worldwide. Historically, European shipowners have employed seafarers from Scandinavia, eastern Europe, Africa, the Indian sub-continent and south-east Asia. It may be the Commission's wish to impose protectionist and inefficient employment conditions, but that is not Government policy, and we will continue to fight such forms of fortress Europe.
As to the important issue of shipping cabotage, while the United Kingdom's coasts have traditionally been open to all corners, those of France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain are reserved for their own flagged fleets. As to the Commission's proposal, it is only fair to give it some credit for producing a draft regulation, but it contains totally unacceptable conditions, introduced to protect inefficient operations in some member states. We are prepared to recognise legitimate concerns, such as the need to guarantee regular mainland to island and island to island services, but coastal trades along mainland coasts in Europe must be opened up to all Community vessels, providing of course that they meet the recognised international standards—for example, IMO safety standards. So long as they do that, there is no justification for additional conditions on, for example, the numbers of crew or the age or weight of the vessel.
Our long-standing concern at the obstructionist tactics of some other member states has led us to contemplate retaliatory action. The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 gives the Secretary of State powers to require that any operator trading in United Kingdom coastal waters or the offshore trades would have to be established in the United Kingdom. We would consider using this power only if we were forced to the conclusion that other member states were determined to prevent progress being made in agreeing a sensible Community regulation. The Government do not like the idea of retreating into defensive measures which would deny our shippers the benefit of the present very wide choice of shipping service 792 on our coasts, but we may be forced to take the necessary steps. We are prepared to wait to see how the Irish presidency will tackle the situation, but our patience is wearing very thin and we will not wait for ever.
The Commission sets out its approach to state aids policy in the information document on financial and fiscal measures. The treaty lays down in article 92 stiff tests for state aids to be compatible with the Common Market. It is for the Commission to police that. The information paper sets out the framework within which the Commission proposes to do that in shipping. For example, aid should not be out of proportion to the size of the problem. Aid must be transparent, temporary and on a declining scale. It must not result in creating over-capacity in the industry.
So far, so good. But the Commission seems to accept that one aim of state aids in the shipping sector would be to equalise the difference between the operating costs of employing Third-world crews as compared with European crews. That is a misguided approach.
It is as true for shipping as for other industries that subsidies often lead to a misallocation of resources, and can be a form of protectionism. It is wrong in this great international industry to use public money to preserve jobs for higher paid Europeans which could be done equally well by Third-world nationals. That is a wrong approach in principle and provides an excuse for poorer countries to introduce direct forms of discrimination against European shipping; and the potential costs to the taxpayer are very large. The USA provides an example of the counterproductive effect of subsidies. It pays a subsidy of some £150 million annually to US carriers. Despite this, only 4 per cent. of US international trade is carried in US flagged vessels; 96 per cent. is carried by foreign flagged vessels. For those reasons, we are keen to see the Commission take a rigorous view of state aids in the shipping sector. Existing state aids should be challenged, and no new ones permitted.
I think it will help if I comment briefly on the draft Council resolution described in an unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport on 22 November 1989. It concerns a proposal by the French presidency to pick up priorities from the Commission's proposals and identify an agreed work programme.
Since that document was produced a number of discussions have taken place and a fresh text has just been produced. The substance is much the same as the earlier draft. However, the emphasis has changed. The presidency now seeks to order the issues into two sections. The first section lists those on which there is much common ground. The second section identifies the issues which are said to need further consideration. We are generally content with the references in the first section to port state control, food aid, consortia, research, transfer of vessels between EC registers, the 1986 package and to the recognition of seafarers' qualifications. Those are practical matters which need to be progressed.
§ Dr. GodmanCan the Minister give definitions of "seafarer" and "seafarers' qualifications"? Would those definitions include fishermen and the qualifications that a fisherman needs to go to sea on a United Kingdom registered fishing vessel?
§ Mr. McLoughlinI shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that question. I am sure that hon. Members would wish me to give a proper reply rather than a rushed answer from the Dispatch Box. I shall certainly check it out.
The issues on which more work is said to be needed are Euros, cabotage and state aids. We do not believe that there is any real political will behind EUROS and expect that the idea will wither away, hut the idea that cabotage should require more investigation is wholly unacceptable to us. This is a treaty obligation and it is high time decisions were taken. On state aids, we will continue to argue against the Council seeking to usurp the Commission's competence in this field, and we will continue to oppose the provision of subsidies particularly to intra-EC shipping.
With the support of the House, we will continue to argue accordingly in Brussels and particularly at the Transport Council of Ministers meeting on 4 December. I shall reply later to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).
§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)The Minister, who comes from a mining background and not a shipping background, deserves, some sympathy. One appreciates the complexities and difficulties in the shipping industry, which were illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). He asked legitimate questions, which were difficult to respond to immediately without being conversant with the problems.
The greatest concern was caused by the Minister's speech and the motion before us. Britain continues to pursue the least-cost, maximum-profit approach without taking into account factors that are absolutely critical to the maintenance of the British merchant fleet.
We have to take into account what has happened to our merchant marine and to the European merchant marine which led the Commission to intervene, not relying on market forces but reacting to the market forces that have led to the sorry situation in which Europe does not have sufficient maritime capacity to meet its own economic needs or its strategic requirements.
In examining that question in regard to the British merchant marine, let us take into account what has happened since the Government took office in 1979 and began pursuing the policy of commercial cost at any cost. Britain, as an island nation, has witnessed a massive decline in its Merchant Navy fleet, which has reduced from 1,200 ships to between 400 and 500 ships. The number of seamen is down from about 80,000 to 25,000.
The shipping industry used to be a net contributor to the balance of payments. It now costs us £1 billion a year to maintain and pay for shipping services, contributing to the present massive balance of payments deficit. Britain, as an island nation, is not carrying more than 20 to 30 per cent. of its exports and imports in its own ships. That is the economic reality at the moment. But the greatest concern is caused by the strategic requirement. Britain has a strategic responsibility to maintain the safety and the defence of these islands. For that it needs both a military and a civil Merchant Navy. If anyone doubts that, one only has to consider the recent tragic events in the Falkland Islands. A fleet of a certain size and of a certain 794 mixture of vessels is needed to maintain both this country's military requirements and our maritime contribution to NATO.
The Minister does not have to heed my warnings. The House is being warned constantly by the Defence Select Committee. In its 1988 report, it said:
The British Merchant Fleet continues to decline in size, as do those of our allies. We believe that the implications for our national and collective security are alarming.To a certain extent, the Government responded to those criticisms. They thought that they had better do something about the decline of the merchant fleet; therefore, they introduced legislation to tidy up our overseas register. Dependencies such as Hong Kong, the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands and the Isle of Man offer their flags of convenience to the shipowner so that he does not have to observe the social conditions and pay the wages that are expected to be paid on a British or a European-registered ship.The Government established what they called the Merchant Navy reserve. They said that it was a kind of Dad's Army: "We want you if there's a war, but we have no job for you in peacetime." The seamen that they so loudly praised during the Falklands conflict were essential, they recognised, to Britain's defence requirements, but in peacetime they sacked them and registered the ships abroad.
The Select Committee is concerned about this country's strategic requirements, but what has happened since its 1988 report? We have lost a further 100 ships and 5,000 seafarers. In its 1989 report the Select Committee said:
The availability of merchant shipping for defence purposes is governed by three key factors—the number of UK flagged ships, their accessibility when they are needed and the availability of a pool of British seafarers to man them. There are grounds for concern on all three counts.The Government profess great patriotic fervour. They claim that they are defending the nation's interests and that they are the strongest on defence. However, they cannot provide an adequate Merchant Navy to meet this country's strategic requirements.The Minister refers to pounds and pence, but he has not taken into account the strategic and defence requirements of the nation. The industry believes that we are short of 400 to 500 ships. The Minister should decide what the minimum size of the British merchant fleet ought to be. If it is greater that the present strength of the British merchant fleet, he ought to ponder how it can be increased by the provision of subsidies that will enable trade to return to the British flag, or even the European flag. The Opposition have always demanded that there should be a genuine link between the flag and the conditions on board ship. That question has been discussed at a number of international conferences.
§ Mr. Barry FieldIf the hon. Gentleman reads the document, he will see that in a high-salaried European Community country the difference between its manning costs and those of a Third-world country is 44 per cent. and that, even in the case of a low-wage European Community country, the difference between its manning costs and those of a Third-world country is 15 per cent. How does he expect that gap to be closed when COMECON crews are now available?
§ Mr. PrescottThe hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but before I turn to that aspect I want to emphasise that factors other than cost have to be taken into account 795 if we are to maintain a British merchant fleet. My figures are similar to those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. They come from the Commission's document on fiscal requirements.
§ Mr. Barry FieldWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. PrescottNo. The point has been well made that the cost of manning the ships varies greatly.
Another interesting fact is that 35 of the 38 vessels that were needed for the last Royal Navy exercise were manned by Polish seafarers. According to the NATO-Warsaw pact strategy, the Poles are supposed to be on the other side, yet they are manning our ships to fight Warsaw pact ships. That might cause some concern even to the hon. Gentleman. Even he may wonder whether that is acceptable.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) put his finger on an important point: if the countries of eastern Europe join the Third world in offering low wages, the Community will have to react. I shall be interested in how it will react.
If western capital is invested in eastern Europe, if everything is manufactured in Poland and other eastern European countries and if those goods then flood western European markets, shall we stand aside and say that that has to be accepted in the name of democracy? I have a horrible feeling that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and his hon. Friendds will be clamouring, along with many others, for an end to what they regard as unfair competition. As soon as capital is affected, there are cries from the Conservative Benches, but when labour costs and differentials are at stake, they are prepared to send the work force to the wall. That is what the debate is about; Conservative Members always argue for the protection of capital.
In the EEC generally, the decline has not been as great as in Britain. It has varied from nation to nation—ironically, depending upon the fiscal policies that have been pursued. Nations that have sought to limit the decline by offering financial incentives have been more successful in retaining their fleet. I do not have time now to go into the differences in detail, but my point is that Government intervention of one kind or another can affect the size of the fleet. That is the message: we are not helpless in this matter, and intervention can have an effect.
The documents reject the idea of flags of convenience —the idea that nations should be allowed to take the cheapest possible course. The Commission is concerned to harmonise its transport policy, especially in regard to shipping, because it takes the view that it needs a fleet. This policy is not so different from the common agricultural policy. We pay more for a Common Market tomato, potato or apple than the world market price because we take the strategic view that we should retain an agriculture policy and that we should not pay a French farm worker what a peasant in the Third world is paid. The argument should be the same for shipping, yet the Government treat it differently. We must ask ourselves why. The Community has set out its objectives, and I see no reason why the House should disagree with them.
The Economic and Social Committee of the Community is made up of business men and union 796 representatives from all the member states. In its statement, that committee pointed out that the objective of the policy is to
provide a sufficient incentive for Community shipowners to register their ships within the Community and to man those ships, to the highest possible proportion, with Community seafarers.That is quite clear and it is the view of business men and trade union representatives throughout the Community.The Economic and Social Committee is not entirely sure about the means of achieving that objective, and it is not completely convinced that the Commission's proposals are the answer. As with the social charter, on which we have just voted, the difference between Britain and the rest of the Community is that other member states do not believe that social conditions should suffer in the pursuit of a policy. They believe that there is an obligation to maintain civilised standards and employment conditions. That view is at the heart of the Community's policy of sustaining its shipping.
The Minister rightly explained some of the matters that were under discussion. He mentioned the Community shipping register and the need to show a genuine link between the Community flag and the ship's registration. I only wish that the British Government had the guts to do something similar. All that they seem able to do is to provide opportunities for our shipowners to flag out to the Bahamas, Hong Kong, and the Cayman Islands and thus gain all the advantages arising from cheap labour and less safe conditions. I have heard all the nonsense about inspectors being sent out to inspect the ships, but the evidence relating to flags of convenience is overwhelming. The shipowners lose three or four times as many ships and the ships are not properly insured. Their conditions are the modern equivalent of the conditions that prevailed in the slave trade.
We welcome the proposal to tighten restrictions and the common definition of a Community shipowner. The Community suggests that we should intervene to secure a certain amount of trade for Community shipowners who get their trade from the Community and live in the Community. The Community says, "Why should we not do that? Why should we not sustain a certain amount of trade and traffic for our people?" The process of achieving that is called cabotage. It can be done on a Community basis or on a national basis, by reserving a certain amount of trade, as the Minister honestly said. But because we have pursued with a vengeance a policy of competition, the proportion of British traffic around our coast has fallen from 60 per cent. at the beginning of the decade to about 20 per cent. No doubt the Minister would hail that as a triumph of competitive forces, but many of the countries that will not allow foreign shipping around their coasts are now taking the lion's share of the traffic and laughing at us. They talk about competition as they pinch our trade and take our jobs.
I am quite prepared to consider cargo sharing. What is so strange about that? It was the Government who talked about the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development proposals, which allow countries to retain 40 per cent. of traffic in their own imports and 40 per cent. in their own exports. We said that we would not implement those proposals. We must appear the most stupid people in the world because we are not prepared to take 40 per cent. of our cargoes which could be used to build up a fleet 797 to meet the strategic requirements to which I have referred. Other countries accept such a percentage of their cargoes to meet those requirements and economic aims.
There are two parts to the proposals before us. The first relates to technical matters and research and I was glad to hear the Minister say that he is prepared to discuss those issues in the early stages. With regard to the fiscal measures, the Minister makes it clear that we do not want any subsidies. That is what Mrs. Thatcher said about conditions of our entry to the European monetary system—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)Order. The hon. Gentleman means the Prime Minister.
§ Mr. PrescottOf course, the Prime Minister; that woman at No. 10.
§ Dr. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)Just call her the Queen.
§ Mr. PrescottIs there any advance on that?
The Prime Minister has made it clear that she does not want any subsidies and we have seen the consequences of that for our merchant fleet. With regard to the range of fiscal measures on offer, the British industry wants the subsidy. British shipowners want the subsidy of interest rates and for buying ships. They do not want to pay a reasonable cost for labour; they want to get their labour from the cheapest possible source. That is the heart of the argument.
If we consider the international nature of the operating costs of vessels, it is clear that the insurance, building costs, interest rates and fuel costs are pretty much the same for all operators. The major difference is the social cost. Labour is much cheaper if it comes from the Philippines, Bangladesh or India. The United Kingdom wage rate is very low at $800 a month, especially when we bear in mind the International Labour Organisation convention which states that we should be paying at least $660 a month. However, Bangladesh pays $45 a month, India pays $90 a month, Pakistan $220 a month and the Poles $600 a month. There is no way we can compete against that unless, as some countries do, we consider taxation and national insurance arrangements and then make up the differential between the two.
That is the choice for Europe. We can have an international fleet of a certain size which we can determine. However, it cannot be operated cheaper than a fleet with labour taken from elsewhere in the world in which the seamen do not have to be sent back to their families every few months, they are paid low monthly wages and there are no overtime payments or high national insurance payments. All those factors lead to cheaper labour. The same argument applies to agriculture, as I said earlier.
According to the documents, there may be differences as high as 20 per cent. in the operating costs in Community shipping, and the documents refer to Germany and Cyprus. The Commission's evidence is that the difference can be as high as 20 per cent. although it may be as low as 5 per cent. That is the differential. Are we prepared to pay that price? The Opposition believe that we must answer that question. The issue can be considered in terms of tax, national insurance and interest payments and several countries have done that.
The Opposition reject the view put forward by the Freight Transport Association, which stated: 798
The question of ownership of a particular vessel, or the flag which it is flying, are of little or no significance compared to the freight rate offered and the standard of service provided. Commercial patriotism is simply not a relevant factor in the decision-making process.No doubt FTA officials were on the docks when our ships returned from the Falklands and they were waving their little papers welcoming the British seafarers back. Those seafarers had done a damned difficult job in the Falklands and the House rightly praised them. However, they cost a bit more in terms of insurance and they deliver a higher standard than seamen from Hong Kong, Singapore or Bangladesh.We must decide whether we want a merchant fleet to meet our economic requirements for the balance of payments or for our strategic requirements. We must decide whether we are prepared to pay a little more for it. The motion states that one choice is opposition to subsidies for shipping to support policies which promote vigorous competitive United Kingdom and Community shipping. However, the evidence is clear in Britain. I refer to the loss of 1,000 ships and the loss of 60,000 seafarers —an inadequate fleet to meet our strategic requirements. That is the price that we have already paid for the incompetent ideological bullies of the Government. Britain needs a merchant navy, as does Europe. It is about time the Government were a bit more patriotic about the British Merchant Navy fleet. That is why Opposition Members oppose the motion.
§ Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight)The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) had much to say about civilised behaviour, but he did not have the courtesy to observe the usual custom in the House of welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to his first debate on EEC shipping matters. The hon. Gentleman has earned an unenviable reputation for hijacking every transport disaster around the country and trying to use them for political purposes. He made the remarkable statement that the Government have taken a strategic view of the common agricultural policy, and said that we supported higher-priced EEC potatoes and other vegetables because we thought that there was something strategic about the CAP. It was exactly the reverse. The Government have striven hard to break down the protectionist CAP. We have worked extremely hard and have spoken loudly in Europe about that point. But that is not the point of the debate.
I received a letter from my Euro Member of Parliament in reply to a letter that I wrote to him on 13 November, asking him why snails had been re-categorised as fish in the EEC. I gather that snails were originally categorised by the EEC as vermin, but as they are increasingly popular as food and as snail farming has expanded, they had to be categorised as fish or meat. The reason for choosing the fish category is that, as a mollusc, a snail is more akin to shellfish than to a vertebrate animal such as a cow or sheep. Hon. Members may wonder what on earth that has to do with a shipping debate—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can see you nodding in agreement, Madam Deputy Speaker.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)I was just looking at the motion on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. FieldThe speed of a convoy is only as good as its slowest vessel. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we have met obstructive tactic after obstructive tactic in the EEC in trying to break down the cabotage about which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East appeared to know so little.
If Eros is the statue of love, EUROS is definitely the Marie Celeste of bureaucracy in the EEC. The hon. Gentleman had much to say about the fact that the Government favour the protection of capital and not of employees. The reverse is true. Let us examine the ethos behind EUROS. There are about 320 million citizens in the EEC. Between 1980 and 1986, 138,000—45 per cent.—of the seafaring jobs were lost in the EEC. The point of EUROS is to try to support EEC national seafaring jobs in a Community of 320 million people. It is out of all proportion to the size of the problem.
As I said earlier. the difference between Third-world manning costs and costs in a high-salary EEC member state is about 44 per cent. Even against a low-salary EEC member state, such as Portugal or Greece, there is still a 15 per cent. differential—and, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East admitted, that is before COMECON really gets going in providing crews to obtain hard currency. There is no way that this Government or the EEC as a whole can chase the ever-decreasing manning costs in Third world countries. It is like a dog trying to catch its tail.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the protection of capital. If he had read the documents he would have seen an illustration of a Dutch bulk carrier built in 1986. The breakdown of figures is 21 per cent. for crew costs, 19.6 per cent. for fuel and 41.3 per cent. for capital. The capital is the most expensive item in the shipowner's overheads. It is no longer manning, although we have a long way to go in dealing with that.
There is a small shipping company in my constituency one of whose directors is Dutch. It continually reminds me, and I continually write to remind Ministers, that if that company were to re-flag for a variety of reasons, under the Dutch flag, it would mean one less deck officer, because the Dutch manning requirements for the bridge are less then ours. One concern of the Ship Repairers and Ship Builders Independent Association is the level of the intervention fund and the way that it will be fixed next year. There will be an EEC meeting on 20 or 21 December to consider the shipbuilding intervention fund for next year. There is every reason to believe that the American shipbuilders association will lobby the EEC to try to persuade us to reduce that intervention. The capital costs and the level regime for capital subsidy is one of the aims of the EUROS programme.
I am pleased that the shipyards in my constituency have done very well out of the shipbuilding intervention fund. We have succeeded in selling ships in difficult areas where previously that was not possible. We have taken two ships to Naples and we have just obtained an order for replacement vessels—they were originally Italian-built—to service the Isle of Wight ferry route. Associated British Ports has awarded the contract to an island yard now that it is in the Red Funnel group. I am delighted that we are building ships on the island for our own use.
There are a number of objectives in Euros, and one mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East was that of strategic importance. I have always believed that that argument has long since been lost. I have 800 said that to the General Council of British Shipping and I peddled it around before I came to this House. I was a member of the Territorial Army and one of my last jobs was in the US-UK lock. I have run the shipping plans for the reinforcement of Europe [Interruption.] I have run them in an exercise. I know the amount of shipping required and the way that it jigsaws together. With the Berlin wall coming down and the different regime in eastern bloc countries, the hon. Gentleman will not win his argument. Indeed, the European Parliament and the European Community cannot win that argument for much longer.
Euros contains a perceptive and pertinent point that we should address, but which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East did not pick up. I refer to the balance of payments—
§ Mr. PrescottI did pick it up.
§ Mr. FieldNot really, when one bears in mind what the hon. Gentleman said about the protection of capital, not of labour. I should like to focus on the balance of payments. Although I am, of course, open to the accusation of being an opportunist, I stress that I put this point to my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) when he was at the Department of Trade and Industry and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) when he was Secretary of State for Transport.
If one added together the shipbuilding intervention fund, the business expansion scheme for shipbuilding and all the other fiscal measures that are available, it would be possible to produce a reasonable package to encourage shipowning in this country. The cost of being on the British register and the diverse assistance that we give at the moment are not brought together sufficiently to give a focus to and encourage British shipowning.
The Norwegian register has grown, mainly from the purchase of second-hand ships as a result of the fiscal regime that has recently been adopted there. That is an example of what could be done if an altogether different regime were adopted here. The Treasury is often used as the excuse for not altering policy, just as we use the Whips Office as an excuse for not attending the mother-in-law's birthday party. I advise my hon. Friend the Minister that this matter must be resolved. I notice that when my right hon. Friend responded to the EEC, he said in several instances that the Secretary of State for Transport was responsible, but that is not entirely true. Some responsibility rests with the Department of Trade and Industry and some with the Treasury. I do not want a great new Ministry to be created for this, but we must draw together all our fiscal facilities. If that happened, I believe that British shipowning could be encouraged.
If one listens to the General Council of British Shipping and to the litany of assistance that other EEC countries give their shipbuilders, one begins to realise why we need to pool all our resources. Accelerated depreciation is an option available in Belgium and the Federal Republic of Germany. Greece operates only fixed tonnage taxes, with no corporation tax. Tax-free reserves are available in the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands. Soft loans are available in Belgium and direct investment subsidies are available in France, West Germany and the Netherlands.
801 I was interested to hear my hon. Friend mention port state control. Our enforcement of port state control embodies some of the highest standards among the EEC member states. Although the old arguments about flagging and rust-bucket ships are now slightly hackneyed—some of the flagged-out fleets have recently had some investment —if our EEC partners were to adopt the same level of port state control inspection, with the same degree of professionalism that is found here, I have no doubt that it would remove several ships from EEC trade.
The construction of technical ships is also important to shipbuilding and shipowning. No previous specifications are available for such ships, but our yards have successfully specialised in their manufacture in recent years. My hon. Friend's officials are responsible for supervising the building and specifications of those ships. Recently I was aboard a highly technical Dutch ship, where all the steel and many of the fittings were British manufactured. We did not win the order for building that ship in this country, however, because when the owners discussed it with the yard they found onerous requirements set down by the Department—down to the choice of the linoleum floor tiles. They decided that they could not afford to build that ship in this country given that each Department inspector could lay down the specifications required. My hon. Friend should address that point.
I have already mentioned the business expansion scheme operated by the Treasury; I understand that between £1 million and £1.5 million is available. These days one cannot buy a yacht for the Whitbread round-the-world race for that money, so the scheme does not represent effective fiscal management.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has said that he will not put up with the obstruction of cabotage. The intended function of EUROS could be put to one side if cabotage was removed. It is nonsense that British passenger liners cannot collect passengers from Greece, yet we allow Greek liners to call in at British ports to collect holidaymakers and those who have transferred by flight. We must get to grips with that problem.
I listened with considerable attention to what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said about Government policy. On 11 September I was amazed to see this remarkable statement from him in the Financial Times:
A Labour Government would probably set up a state-owned merchant shipping company as part of a programme to reverse the decline of the UK fleet".I congratulate the Minister on his perception in holding this debate today when we have had an announcement from Sea Containers, a Bermuda-registered company, that it plans to sell its British ferry interests on the Isle of Wight routes to a British-based company, Radiant Shipping. That shows that the sun is still shining on the red ensign.It obviously escaped the attention of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that we had a state-owned shipping company, Sealink. That company's cross-Channel routes were so awful that travelling on a French state-owned cross-Channel ferry was like travelling on the QE2 luxury liner. The Sealink ferries were awful, but the hon. Gentleman wants us to return to state subsidisation, poor-quality service, grubby ships and awful catering. Those ships, now in private enterprise, are clean and well turned out, so much so that British passengers complain when they travel on the SNCF ships. The other day, Sea Containers obtained 49 per cent. ownership of those 802 SNCF ferries so that they can be reliveried and redesigned for better service. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East would have us return to a policy of state subsidisation and all that that entails.
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)I shall put the record straight regarding the graceless comments made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) about the usual courtesies extended to a new Minister. When the Minister made his maiden speech as Minister for Aviation and Shipping on 25 October he was welcomed from the Dispatch Box. Incidentally, he said:
The order gives effect to an interim order of the president of the European Court of Justice … The interim order by the court requires the United Kingdom to suspend, until judgment in the main proceedings, the application of the British nationality requirements for registration of certain fishing vessels set out in section 14(1), (2) and (7) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988."—[Official Report, 25 October 1989, Vol, 158, c. 993.]My earlier question to the Minister was whether it was likely that section 3 of that Act, referring to the British ownership of merchant ships, would come up against the European Commission's hostility and finish up in the European Court of Justice. I am sure that the Minister, given his courtesy, will respond to that question. I am delighted that I have his attention.Paragraph 5 on page 2 of the explanatory memorandum refers to maritime research, and one matter which is to be subjected to research includes the improvement of safety and work conditions of seafarers. Will the research include the working conditions and safety of fishermen? From 1984 to 1988, 135 United Kingdom registered fishing vessels were lost as they went about their extremely hazardous business. When will the Minister introduce a regulation on the carriage of immersion suits on all shipping vessels more than 10 m in length? All French fishing vessels are bound by that regulation. Why does it not apply to British ones?
The Government's dilatoriness over the review of the fishing vessels safety provisions rules 1975 deeply disturbs me. My criticism is directed not against this Minister, who has not been long in the job, but against his predecessors. When will the procrastination and prevarication end and the review be completed? I have been asking questions since Mr., now Sir Albert, McQuarrie introduced his Safety at Sea Bill in 1985.
Referring to the document 8368/89, I repeat the question about the definition of a seafarer. Will fishermen's qualifications be part of the European Community-wide recognition of seafarers' qualifications? If not, why not? In some ports in Scotland, if vessels are decommissioned or tied up for good because of the Government's obligations under the multi-annual guidance programme set out by the European Commission, some fishermen could find work on coastal and other such vessels if we were to achieve a fair and equitable system of cabotage. That is an important question, and I hope that the Minister will give it the serious attention which it requires.
The Minister knows that, under the multi-annual guidance programme, the United Kingdom has to shed more than 20 per cent. of its registered fishing fleet. What will happen to the fishermen who are ditched along with their vessels? The term "seafarer" should include registered fishermen. If they have the qualifications to crew fishing 803 vessels as they go about their dangerous work, they surely have the qualifications to man a coastal vessel as it darts around the islands and mainland coastal areas of the United Kingdom.
Annex 4, paragraph 2, of the same document deals with the derogation that seeks to maintain public services, that is to say, island to island public ferry and cargo services and mainland to island traffic. As I am sure the Minister will readily acknowledge, such services are extremely important to Scotland because its island communities could not survive without the services provided by the famous Caledonian MacBrayne Ferries and other ferry services. That is readily acknowledged by the Scottish Office.
§ Mr. Barry FieldWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Dr. GodmanNo, I am dealing with too important a matter to give way. The hon. Gentleman should sit down. The hon. Gentleman would not give way to me, and I am returning the courtesy.
Those services are very important to Scotland's island communities and no doubt they are important elsewhere in mainland Britain and even in the Isle of Wight. The Minister must fight to maintain the derogation. It is important that we do not allow other companies to enter and offer cut-price services and hence destroy a fine Scottish ferry service.
I look forward to the day when we can have a liberal system of cabotage. Such a reasonable and equitable system would provide work not only for seafarers but for others. It would lead to perhaps two or three score more coastal vessels darting around our coastline and that would lead to more jobs.
I direct the Minister's attention not only to our seafarers but to our shipyards, especially those which specialise in the building of small cargo vessels. One of the finest such yards is in my constituency. I refer to Ferguson's shipyard in Port Glasgow, which must surely be one of the finest specialist small yards in the United Kingdom. I should be delighted if the Minister could help to direct work to that yard.
I have not driven the Minister too hard by a long chalk, and my last question is about the European Community's shipbuilding intervention fund, the sixth directive. How do the Government view that fund? It is a system of aid that is of major significance to the United Kingdom's shipbuilding yards. They cannot hope to compete against the yards in south-east Asia and elsewhere without the assistance of that fund. I should like to hear the Minister's opinion about where the Government stand on the need to continue the shipbuilding intervention fund. If it is to continue, will it stay at the same level, will it be reduced, or will it be increased?
Does it not make good sense, if European Community funds and domestic funds are used in the building of ships, that the services and materials purchased by way of that fund should be purchased from within and not outside the European Community? I can give a concrete example. Harland and Wolff is building shops for the Fred Olsen line. The engines for the ships should be purchased from a United Kingdom marine engine builder. One that could do it without any problem is Clark Kincaid of Greenock.
§ Mr. Ronnie Fearn (Southport)I shall be brief because we wan to hear the important winding-up speech. I should have thought that more hon. Members would be present, because shipping is an important subject. Hon. Members do not turn up for what they consider to be a low-key debate but I think that this is a high-key matter. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) takes a specific interest in the topic and is sponsored by the National Union of Seamen. I asked my staff to phone the NUS offices and we were told that the hon. Gentleman had been briefed this morning, and he was the only Member whom the union briefed. It may respect the hon. Member, but I am a union member as well and I should have thought that the NUS would give me some information.
§ Mr. PrescottIf that is true, it was wrong. Our union usually briefs everyone; a number of Conservative Members have said that, and the Minister referred to it. I shall see that this does not happen again, and I am sorry that it happened on this occasion.
§ Mr. FearnI thank the hon. Gentleman. I am new to the topic and I wanted to find out what the union felt. Perhaps in future it will let me have that information. However, we are both speaking on the same lines.
My interest in, and knowledge of, shipping arises from the fact that my constituency borders the Mersey. Shipping in the Mersey is very important, although there is much less of it now. My local authority of Sefton includes the freeport of Liverpool, which is doing very well. Will the Minister make clear whether what we are discussing will have any bearing on the operation of free ports? Perhaps he will enlighten me, because I am not sure whether this matter has a bearing on free ports and the one in Liverpool would be interested to know.
I note that the Government have chosen to use their own statistics to put a positive light on the shape of the shipping industry. Although there may have been some improvement in the past year, the statistics provided by the EC working group should not be ignored. They highlight a dramatic decline in the shipping industry in Community countries over the past eight years. The tonnage of Community merchant fleets of ships registered with member states halved between 1981 and 1988. When taking into account vessels registered outside the Community but controlled by Community-based companies, the European fleet is down by 28.3 per cent. in 1987, in comparison to 1981. This cannot be blamed on a general decline, as, in the same priod, the world fleet declined by only about 8 per cent.
Competition from countries outside the Community, including Third-world and developing countries where costs tend to be much lower, has led to measures aimed at reducing operation costs being taken by member states. Because of their uneven application, these have heightened the competition between member states. This probably works to the disadvantage of the Community as a whole. Another aspect of this competition is the expansion in offshore or international registers by shipowners wishing to take advantage of lower registration costs and little or no taxation or using non-Community seafarers to reduce wage costs under poorer conditions.
I was most interested to see that by the end of 1987 there was more tanker tonnage registered in the Isle of Man than in the United Kingdom. The expansion in the 805 use of crews made up of those other than member state nationals, or even Community nationals, raises another issue of concern, which is defence. Market forces may provide adequate merchant shipping to meet consumer demand, but who owns, operates and controls merchant ships at a time of national crisis?
Present world events may be welcomed and may lead to the conclusion that the danger of war between the super-powers has receded, but there is no guarantee that that is so. There is certainly no guarantee that another Falklands war will not arise. I sincerely hope, however, that that is not the position and that another war of that sort can be avoided, as I believe the Falklands war could have been. It is important that there are adequate numbers of merchant ships and trained national seafarers at the Government's disposal to meet a national crisis and to meet NATO commitments.
The proposals in the documents, especially the proposals to have a Community register, may go some way to meeting our concern. I am aware that the strict manning conditions attached to a European register of shipping —EUROS—raise concerns that it will act as an impediment to the objective of greater competitiveness of the Community fleets. We should not lost sight of the many social and economic advantages that the Community gains from the employment of Community nationals.
Perhaps more importantly, I support the aim to acquire European standards that embody high technical and safety requirements. I believe that we should be arguing for a high and uniform set of standards to apply to all ships sailing in European waters and into European ports. I should like to see the Commission's work devoted much more to these aims. I welcome the opening of the coastal and offshore markets, and hope that Britain will find that they work to its advantage.
The Government could do more to help our industry. I have no doubt that the British shipping industry does not compete on equal terms with the industries of the rest of the world. In many instances, it works at a disadvantage to most of the countries within the Community, especially in terms of taxation and manning costs. Countries that have focused on these matters in recent years include Denmark, Germany and Norway, and they have all seen a revival of their national fleets. Perhaps it is time that the Government considered ways of reducing manning costs through the remission of taxes and national insurance costs in a way that benefits the employer as well as the seafarer.
I welcome moves to harmonise conditions and practices in the interests of safety and of European unity and strength. I recognise, however, that proposals in the documents before us raise certain pointed questions. There is concern about whether the proposals meet the objectives that are set out. In the meantime, I hope that the Government will consider introducing their own measures to make the British shipping industry more able to compete on an equal footing with the industries of the rest of the world. My right hon. and hon. Friend and I will not be supporting the motion.
§ Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)I shall be brief, as I know that the House wants to hear the Minister's response.
806 I was disappointed by the Minister's opening speech, which suggested that he is presiding over the raping of the merchant fleet. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) talked about the decline of British shipbuilding. That decline began in the post-war period, and the cause of it was the lack of investment in the shipyards. Investment came far too late and on too small a scale from the investors to secure a future for the yards. For example, Cammell Laird, on Merseyside, was still working with gear that dated back to the 1930s, in the post-war period. British capital was not prepared to invest in them. When there are no ships, there are no jobs for seamen. Those were the twin responsibilities of the Government.
The industry appears to have been dismissed. I was a seaman at sea in the SS Crispin when the war started and I know the importance of a strategy for the merchant fleet. At that time, the world and his wife knew that Germany's strategy was not about the Army or the Air Force but to blockade Britain so that ships could not get through and Britain's economy would be strangled and her war efforts defeated.
Like the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), I do not want to see a return to those days, but there are other reasons why strategies should be looked at. Britain could be affected by wars that have nothing to do with Britain. If ships in the Suez canal or the Panama canal or in other parts of the world are affected by war, that will have a direct effect on Britain and we would need our own fleet, manned by our own people, to sustain Britain in such circumstances.
British seafarers and the British merchant fleet have had a glorious history. British ships were once the pride of the world. Britain has built ships for almost every country. It is a sad day when we see it dismissed, as we have done tonight, with such lethargy from the Conservative Benches. I hope that the next Labour Government will ensure a revival of ship repair and shipbuilding so that our seafarers can be employed once again and regain the stature that they had in days gone by.
§ Mr. McLoughlinThis has been an interesting debate for a number of reasons. First and foremost, we have heard from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) a number of criticisms of the way in which the merchant fleet has declined. But he consistently fails to tell us what he would do about it.
§ Mr. PrescottRead our document.
§ Mr. McLoughlinI should have thought that that document would he disowned. According to theFinancial Times on 11 September, it says that the scale of the problem is so great that only a state-owned shipping company could ensure that the United Kingdom could maintain a big enough fleet for the economic and defence requirements. There we have it. The Labour party would offer us a state-owned shipping industry.
§ Mr. PrescottI sent the hon. Gentleman's Department a copy of "Moving into the Nineties", so the hon. Gentleman need not rely on press cuttings. He can see what it says. Many of the proposals that it contains are the same as those coming from the Commission. The Commission recognises that we shall need to reverse the decline in shipping. We recognise that, and that is why our policy is identical to the Commission's.
§ Mr. McLoughlinAs I said earlier, we are concerned that some of the Commission's proposals will create a fortress Europe. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want that. When most of eastern Europe is removing barriers, it seems rather strange for western Europe to be erecting them, and we would not want that.
There was general acceptance of the Government's line on cabotage and the Government need to go forward on that. The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) seemed to be under a misapprehension that the freedom of cabotage already exists. Unfortunately, it does not. Much work remains to be done, but the Government are determined to see progress on that important measure.
To put the matter into perspective, it is right to say that we have the second largest fleet in the Community and overall the Community fleet represents some 25 per cent. of the world fleet. It is no good constantly complaining about the size of the merchant fleet and then expecting it to be able to recruit members. We must be positive about the advantages and opportunities of joining the merchant fleet. It is no good continually complaining about the lack of recruitment and then decrying the industry at every opportunity.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to the comments of the Defence Select Committee and argued that the number of merchant ships currently available to support the Royal Navy and to meet our NATO commitments is inadequate. The Government do not agree with the Select Committee's view. Although the size of the British fleet has declined from its glorious period in the 1970s, British-owned tonnage today still stands at 15.5 million deadweight tonnes. The problem is less of hardware than of ensuring that there is a supply of trained officers and crew. I am glad that the training measures we introduced in 1988 have contributed to a significant improvement in the number of cadets entering the Merchant Navy. The latest figures show an intake so far in 1989 of 460 compared with 110 in 1987. However, I remain concerned that new blood should enter the service, and the Government will continue to monitor the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) made a constructive and useful contribution, for which I thank him. Not least among the points he raised was that relating to the intervention fund. That matter is one for the Department of Trade and Industry but I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) also referred to the intervention fund, and raised the question of fishing vessels. Although the debate is not concerned solely with fishing vessels, the hon. Gentleman made a number of important points. He referred to an old friend of mine, Sir Albert McQuarrie, whom I sat next to when he was a Member of this House. I shall take on board the hon. Gentleman's points and will respond by letter.
I welcome to debates on this subject which he joins at almost the same time that I do, the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). I am sorry that he experienced problems in obtaining some of the information that he required. I am not sure from his speech whether or not he supports EUROS. It has met with very little support, if any. It certainly does not have the support of the National Union of Seamen, and the Government have several misgivings about it. I do not believe that it holds any 808 answers or that it is a serious option which will make any progress. Certainly a number of bodies have refused to give it their backing.
Although the debate has been short, it has been wide-ranging, and it will certainly help to send some messages and to support my hon. Friend the Minister of State who is to attend the Transport Council meeting next week.
We must make some progress on cabotage. I shall not add to my earlier remarks, but if we do not make progress with that aspect sooner or later, the Government will have to consider what action they should take to try to force the issue and make the Commission address it properly. I look forward to future debates. It is certainly an interesting learning curve. I invite the House to support the motion.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 79.
809| Division No. 6] | [10 03 pm |
| AYES | |
| Allason, Rupert | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Amess, David | Jones, Robert B (Herts W) |
| Amos, Alan | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Arbuthnot, James | Kilfedder, James |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Knapman, Roger |
| Atkins, Robert | Knight, Greg (Derby North) |
| Baldry, Tony | Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Benyon, W. | Knox, David |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Boswell, Tim | Lightbown, David |
| Bowis, John | Lilley, Peter |
| Brazier, Julian | Lord, Michael |
| Bright, Graham | Lyell, Sir Nicholas |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Maclean, David |
| Buck, Sir Antony | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Burns, Simon | McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael |
| Burt, Alistair | Mans, Keith |
| Butcher, John | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Mills, Iain |
| Chapman, Sydney | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Davies, Q. (StamCd & Spald'g) | Moate, Roger |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Morrison, Sir Charles |
| Durant, Tony | Neale, Gerrard |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Favell, Tony | Norris, Steve |
| Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) | Page, Richard |
| Fookes, Dame Janet | Paice, James |
| Forman, Nigel | Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Patnick, Irvine |
| Forth, Eric | Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Fox, Sir Marcus | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| Gill, Christopher | Renton, Rt Hon Tim |
| Gow, Ian | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) | Rowe, Andrew |
| Ground, Patrick | Ryder, Richard |
| Hague, William | Sackville, Hon Tom |
| Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') | Shelton, Sir William |
| Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) | Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| Harris, David | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Hawkins, Christopher | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney | Speed, Keith |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Squire, Robin |
| Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) | Stevens, Lewis |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Hunter, Andrew | Summerson, Hugo |
| Irvine, Michael | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Jack, Michael | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Janman, Tim | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Thorne, Neil | Wilshire, David |
| Thornton, Malcolm | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Thurnham, Peter | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Wakeham, Rt Hon John | Wood, Timothy |
| Waldegrave, Hon William | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Walden, George | |
| Waller, Gary | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) | Mr. Stephen Dorrell and |
| Watts, John | Mr. Michael Fallon. |
| NOES | |
| Allen, Graham | Livsey, Richard |
| Anderson, Donald | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Loyden, Eddie |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | McFall, John |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) |
| Beggs, Roy | McKelvey, William |
| Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) | McLeish, Henry |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | McNamara, Kevin |
| Buchan, Norman | McWilliam, John |
| Buckley, George J. | Martlew, Eric |
| Caborn, Richard | Maxton, John |
| Callaghan, Jim | Meale, Alan |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Michael, Alun |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) |
| Cousins, Jim | Morley, Elliot |
| Cox, Tom | Murphy, Paul |
| Cryer, Bob | Nellist, Dave |
| Dalyell, Tam | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Dixon, Don | Parry, Robert |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Patchett, Terry |
| Eadie, Alexander | Pike, Peter L. |
| Eastham, Ken | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) | Prescott, John |
| Fearn, Ronald | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Fisher, Mark | Redmond, Martin |
| Flynn, Paul | Ruddock, Joan |
| Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Galloway, George | Snape, Peter |
| Godman, Dr Norman A. | Spearing, Nigel |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford) |
| Hinchliffe, David | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Home Robertson, John | Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N) |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Wall, Pat |
| Howells, Geraint | Wallace, James |
| Hughes, John (Coventry NE) | Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Worthington, Tony |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) | |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Lambie, David | Mr. Frank Haynes and |
| Lamond, James | Mrs. Llin Golding. |
| Litherland, Robert |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8367/89, 8368/89; and the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum
810
submitted by the Department of Transport on 22nd November 1989 relating to the Community shipping industry; further notes that Community-owned shipping represents some 25 per cent. of the world fleet; endorses the Government's commitment to liberal shipping policies and to the opening of the coastal and offshore markets (cabotage) of France, Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal and its opposition to subsidies for shipping; and support policies which will promote vigorous competitive United Kingdom and Community shipping fleets.
§ Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Among the business that we were to have discussed this evening was the draft Local Government Act (Competition in Sports and Leisure Facilities) Order 1989, but the motion relating to that order has not been moved. My local authority, Leicester city council, was concerned that I should raise a number of points because the order deals with competitive tendering and the privatisation of recreational facilities. Have you, Mr. Speaker, been made aware by the relevant Minister of why the motion relating to the order has not been moved? Do you know whether the matter is to go back to the local authorities for consultation?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am not aware of that. The fact that the motion has not been moved is not a matter for me, but the hon. Gentleman could ask the Leader of the House that question at business questions tomorrow.