Seafarers’ Wages Bill [HL]
Wednesday 6th July 2022
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 Read Hansard Text
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [HL]
Wednesday 20th July 2022
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, earlier this year, P&O Ferries shamefully sacked almost 800 members of its workforce, without notice and without consultation. At that time, the Transport Secretary responded with a nine-point plan, aiming to prevent companies from benefiting further from such underhand and unacceptable moves. This legislation is part of our response. It is important to stress that this is but one part of the plan, which covers much wider aspects of seafarer welfare that do not require legislation.
This Bill delivers on the Secretary of State’s commitment to deliver on the first point of the nine-point plan: changing the law so that seafarers with close ties to the UK are paid at least an equivalent to the UK national minimum wage while they are in UK waters. Quite simply, it is unacceptable for companies such as P&O Ferries to lay off hard-working employees, with no notice and no consultation, only to replace them with less costly workers. This legislation will remove the incentive for other operators to follow suit and ensure that all seafarers will receive the equivalent of the national minimum wage in UK waters, preventing a race to the bottom that would damage this vital industry.
Under the existing national minimum wage legislation, not all seafarers who regularly call at UK ports are currently entitled to the UK national minimum wage. It cannot be right that seafarers who frequently work in the UK are not entitled to the same remuneration as other workers simply because they work on an international, rather than a domestic, service. In every practical sense, the seafarers who work on routes such as Dover to Calais are working in the UK, and they should not face exploitation by unscrupulous employers who seek to use this gap in the law to avoid paying fair wages.
The purpose of the Bill is to right this wrong. It will do this by making access to UK ports conditional on operators of frequent services providing evidence that the seafarers on board are paid a rate equivalent to the UK national minimum wage for time spent in UK waters. This will bring hundreds of millions of pounds of extra pay to thousands of seafarers over the next 10 years.
It is important to note that this legislation does not amend the National Minimum Wage Act. It instead refers to “national minimum wage equivalence”. I should point out that the Bill has been the subject of a public consultation, where we invited views on both its scope and the proposed compliance process. We have taken enormous care to consider the consultees’ views and have taken these into account in designing the new legislation.
The legislation will apply to services calling at UK ports at least once every 72 hours, on average, throughout the year. This equates to 120 times a year. The operators of such services will be required to provide a declaration to the relevant harbour authority that they are paying their seafarers no less than a rate equivalent to the national minimum wage. This rate will be calculated according to regulations made using powers in the Bill.
This scope definition has been carefully designed to ensure that it includes those seafarers who have close ties to the UK. We listened to those in the industry who told us that inclusions or exclusions based on service type would create market distortion and ambiguity. Fishing and leisure or recreation vessels are therefore the only specific exclusions retained on the face of the Bill. Our analysis shows that this definition captures, for example, the vast majority of ferries on the short straits, without including services such as deep sea container services or cruises. These less frequent services remain out of scope as those seafarers cannot be said to have as close a link to the UK. This definition has been formulated to account for the complexity of categorising vessel and service types, and to ensure that those seafarers with the closest ties to the UK are captured. We will continue to engage with industry throughout the passage of the Bill, and through consultation on the subsequent secondary legislation and guidance.
Ports are our main contact point with these vessels. In order to keep focused on this domestic link, the legislation will make access to ports ultimately conditional on compliance with its requirements. Harbour authorities will be empowered to request declarations from operators within scope that confirm they will pay their seafarers a rate equivalent to the national minimum wage. If they do not comply with the requirement, harbour authorities will be empowered to levy a surcharge against those operators, or they may be directed to do so by the Secretary of State. The purpose of the surcharge is to ensure that not paying the national minimum wage equivalent is not a financially viable option for the operator.
We intend to consult on regulations and guidance on the framework within which the level of the surcharge will be calculated and the exercise of the harbour authorities’ powers in due course. The harbour authority may retain such money as may be raised in this way for the discharge of its functions or for the provision of shore-based seafarer welfare facilities. We are clear that this will not be a profit-making exercise.
On non-payment of a surcharge, the harbour authority will be empowered to deny access to the port, either of its own volition or by direction from the Secretary of State. We intend these powers to provide sufficient deterrent to ensure compliance by operators. We have engaged extensively with the ports industry on this role, and while we accept that this will be an extra administrative burden on ports, we are satisfied that it is proportionate and effective, particularly taking into account the resources and capabilities of the ports and their existing transactional relationship with visiting vessels.
I am clear that this is not an enforcement role for the harbour authority. Beyond accepting declarations, they will not be responsible for checking that operators are complying with the requirement to pay national minimum wage equivalence. This enforcement role will be fulfilled by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, or MCA, which will undertake inspections and investigations. It will also be empowered to prosecute operators who are found to be operating inconsistently with a declaration or who do not comply with investigations. Those found guilty of an offence will be liable to a fine on summary conviction.
As I stated earlier, this Bill is only one part of the Government’s nine-point plan to improve seafarer welfare. We are clear that this legislation will not solve all the issues brought to light by P&O Ferries’ actions, but it is an important step, and it is the right one to take given the parliamentary time available. The Bill is inevitably of limited application as we cannot legislate outside UK jurisdiction and therefore cannot make provision for time spent outside UK waters. This is why we are discussing bilateral minimum wage corridors with other countries to encourage the payment of fair wages on the entire route. As part of the plan, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will bring forward a new statutory code on so-called fire and rehire when parliamentary time allows. The Department for Transport is also taking steps to encourage more ships to operate under the UK flag, and to improve the long-term working conditions of seafarers beyond pay protection. So, although this legislation is concerned only with wages, the Government remain focused on the whole gamut of seafarer welfare and taking non-legislative steps to make much-needed improvements. This legislation is vital as part of our efforts to ensure that hard-working seafarers, who play a critical role in our economy, can no longer be mistreated or exploited by unscrupulous employers.
In closing, I also recognise that some noble Lords may have a slightly more nuanced reason for participating in today’s proceedings: a hugely experienced and deeply committed parliamentarian and public servant will be making his valedictory speech. I know that this House, and so many people beyond it, hold my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern in the highest esteem, and we are incredibly grateful for his many years of service to our country. I am looking forward to contributions from noble Lords on the retirement of my noble and learned friend and, of course, to their wise words on the Bill before your Lordships’ House today. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, if I may, I should like to speak in anticipation of the valedictory speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, before I move to the terms of the Bill. Like all Members of the House here present, I very much look forward to hearing his valedictory address, but, like them, I do so with sadness that this is the last time we will hear the noble and learned Lord speaking from our Benches.
I am in rather a special position—although I think I see at least two noble Lords who were here 43 years ago in 1979. They are both nodding, so I am correct in that assumption. However, I am the only person who has put his name down to speak in this debate who was here when the noble and learned Lord arrived 43 years ago in 1979 as the new Lord Advocate, coming, as I recall, from being Dean of the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh.
Moreover, very shortly after his arrival in this House, I had the honour of working very closely with him on the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980—I think the noble and learned Lord will remember it. It was quite tough on him to take on that Act, which was a complicated one, so soon after his arrival in the House. I believe that the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, funked taking on that task, although the noble and learned Lord has never used those words to me. The nature of that Act was to protect a major UK company from the ravages of US anti-trust law. The entry into the area of US anti-trust laws did not deter the noble and learned Lord, with his swift intellect. I had just come back to this House after four and a half years practising law in New York; I knew something about anti-trust law and I hope I was helpful. Later, I remember working with the noble and learned Lord, when he was Lord Chancellor, on another very complicated Act, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Once again, such an Act needed his great intellect.
My clear memory of the noble and learned Lord throughout his time in this House was of his great intellect and great stamina. At no time was this exhibited more clearly than during the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. It started with a Green Paper for debate on a Friday—I suppose it must have been in early 1990. I will explain the circumstances of that in a moment. The Thatcher Government, after sorting out the trade unions, somewhat bravely decided to sort out the legal profession. It was agreed that the beginning of this sorting out should take the form of a Green Paper—a discussion paper—which was put before the House. Therefore, on this Friday sometime in early 1990, we convened at 10 am and must have gone on past 10 pm or 11 pm, or perhaps just after midnight. The beginning was quite eventful because the Bishop was not here, and the noble and learned Lord had to say Prayers before we could start our business that day. Thereafter, he sat on the Woolsack down there for almost the whole day, never leaving it, always listening to the argument, not even taking any notes but patiently listening to all that was said. He was there for 12, 13 or 14 hours and ended up giving a brilliant extempore summing up very late at night—using, as I mentioned, hardly a note.
It was not altogether an easy debate for the noble and learned Lord. The legal profession on the Bar side was furious with the provisions proposed by the Government of the day, and so were many members of the judiciary. As it happened, exactly on the Bench where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is sitting, I was sitting next to Lord Geoffrey Lane, the then Lord Chief Justice. He rose as I sat beside him and turned on the Lord Chancellor, saying that he had not even had the courtesy to write to him about these measures before introducing the Green Paper. However, Lord Lane had not taken into account the enormously good memory of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. He remembered that sometime earlier, when the Green Paper was being produced, he had received a handwritten letter from Lord Lane to say that he did not think it was appropriate for the Lord Chief Justice to be involved the discussion of these proposals. That placed Lord Lane in rather an awkward position. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, with his characteristic kindness, raised that issue very tactfully only in his final summing up, just referring to having received that letter.
Not only was the noble and learned Lord under attack from Lord Lane, he was under greater attack from Lord Donaldson, who actually used the words, “Take your tanks off my lawn”. Again, the noble and learned Lord received that with great good temper and wisdom.
I remember having the privilege of seeing the noble and learned Lord when he was finishing as Lord Chancellor. It was sometime in 1997, as the general election result had been announced. He very kindly agreed that I could have a brief word with him before he departed from office. Thereafter, he moved to where he is now sitting, the Bench immediately behind the Ministers. It is a Bench that he has used over many years—for 22 years of which I was not here, but I saw him there from 1997 until I left in 1999 and saw him there again when I returned to your Lordships’ House.
Every so often, the noble and learned Lord stands up and give some words of wisdom. I am a bit worried now for the Government and Ministers, who will no longer have those words of wisdom to guide them through their business. I fear they must just live with that, because the noble and learned Lord is leaving us.
I should like to bring everything up to date, because on Monday the noble and learned Lord was sitting in exactly the same place throughout the rather long debates on the Schools Bill. He did not intervene, but he was still sitting there.
It is about time I turned to the Bill itself. I was in the Royal Navy and I remember that the noble Lord sitting opposite was also a national serviceman in the Royal Navy with me. He may have been guilty of a sin, the information thereon I should like to pass on to the House. I remember that in the Royal Navy we saw a lot of commercial ships, and we saw the seaman coming off at various ports all around the world. We all wondered how well they were being treated, what their wages were and whether they were being kept in difficult or squalid circumstances.
I look towards the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, because he was out in the Far East, and I was not, so I was not guilty of this sin, but it was said that in the Far East the Navy was considered not very good with its washing, and Chinese personnel were taken on board our ships while we were out in the Far East. They may have been taken on board the ships on which the noble Lord was an officer; I give him an opportunity to reply. They were kept there, not in very good quarters—I do not know anything about their pay—and then they were dumped when the ship returned from the Far East.
Although my Navy days are long over, the Bill’s terms seem sound and it should be supported.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I look forward to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and will certainly miss his knowledgeable interventions in this Chamber. I regret that I am delaying the House from hearing from him.
This rapidly drafted Bill is the Government’s attempt to avoid a similar scenario to that witnessed earlier this year, when P&O dismissed nearly 800 of its crew with no warning to the Government and no consultation with its staff. The Government took swift action to condemn P&O. Peter Hebblethwaite, chief executive of P&O, told the other place that P&O intended to bring in a different operating model, employing fewer staff paid for only the hours they worked. This implies no holiday or sick pay. This averages at £5.50 per hour, down to a minimum of £5.15 per hour. The current national minimum wage is £9.50 an hour. P&O executives were shameless in their responses to questions in the other place, stating that they had knowingly broken employment law by not consulting unions, although they knew they were legally obliged to do so. In the words of Peter Hebblethwaite:
“We chose not to do so.”
This was a clear gesture to the employment law of the UK—that it could be totally ignored and that P&O would operate its own conditions. UK employment law requires a company intending to make more than 100 employees redundant to give 90 days’ written notice to the authorities of state where the vessel is registered, 45 days in advance of the redundancy date. The vessels concerned were registered in Cyprus, the Bahamas and Bermuda. At the same time as the crews were notified of redundancy, the letters were also sent to the authorities of state. This is not 90 days’ notice, nor 45 days before the redundancy date. The way in which P&O operated was totally outrageous and I fully support the Government in bringing forward a Bill to attempt to prevent this happening again.
The Government have brought forward a nine-point action plan, as the Minister stated, to ensure that seafarers on ships using UK ports are paid the national minimum wage. Everything in the nine-point plan hangs under this first point. This is not a large Bill, but I fear that it may not be straightforward.
Clause 2 specifies what a non-qualifying seafarer is. It appears that a situation could arise where some of the crew on a ship qualify for the minimum wage and some do not. This is not likely to result in what could be described as a happy ship. Can the Minister please clarify this?
Clause 3(3) states that a qualifying vessel must enter a UK harbour or port on 120 occasions a year, which equates to three a week. This is obviously geared towards the ferry industry, where roll-on roll-off ferries operate several times a day on short hauls to France, Belgium and other countries, and on a daily basis to Spain. This is not likely to cover the huge cruise ships which visit far less frequently, at the most weekly, depending on their routes.
I turn now to the declaration of whether the crew are paid the national minimum wage and how it is to be implemented. The Bill stipulates that the harbour authorities in each area will implement the conditions of the Bill, check the authorisations and impose fines where necessary. These fines or surcharges are to be set by the individual harbour authorities and ports and must not exceed level 5 in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where this is £5,000. This figure is not likely to deter an owner operating a profitable route carrying thousands of passengers.
The Seafarers’ Wages Bill brief was unequivocal: harbours and ports should not be involved in setting the fees or monitoring the declarations. Since many ferry operators own their own terminals, they are the harbour authority. In effect, they will be marking their own homework. There is definitely a conflict of interest here. Also, if different rates of surcharges are imposed around the coast, the owners of vessels will choose the ports with the lowest surcharge. The preferred option is for the Secretary of State to set a standard surcharge. It is unclear whether the surcharge is applied per vessel, per crew member on the vessel, or depends on the actual port used. This will need clarification in Committee.
A standard surcharge set by the Secretary of State takes away local discretion. I assume that any surcharges collected would be for the harbour authority to spend on improving services for those visiting the port, and infrastructure projects. Perhaps the Minister can clarify this. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Now, your Lordships can hear from the person you have all really come to hear from.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, as I rise to address your Lordships for the last time, I am standing immediately behind the place from where I made my maiden speech in 1979, moving an amendment in a Scottish criminal justice Bill—which, I am glad to say, was accepted. A short distance may make a big difference in status, as your Lordships have noticed.
I thought, if your Lordships will permit me, it might be of interest to give a summary of the responsibilities I had in the two offices I held, which have now completely changed. Before doing so, I wish briefly to support this Second Reading. For most of the time since 1972, I have been a member of a lighthouse authority with concern for the vital importance of seamen and their terms of service. Our legislation can regulate these for seamen who serve within our territorial waters but, if part of that service is outside those waters, special provisions will be required. This Bill deals neatly with such a case and I give it my full support.
With your Lordships’ permission, I now come to say a little about the two offices I held. The first was the Lord Advocate of Scotland, with the first two responsibilities I will mention shared with the Solicitor-General for Scotland. The first was the representation of the Government in the courts of Scotland, advising the Government on Scots law and, in conjunction with the Attorney-General, on European law, which applied throughout the United Kingdom at that time. To assist in that responsibility, there was a staff of lawyers and other civil servants in the Lord Advocate’s office in London. We had responsibility for drafting Bills for Scotland and those parts of United Kingdom Bills that required special attention to conform with Scots law requirements.
My second responsibility was for the prosecution service in Scotland, consisting of the Procurator Fiscal Service throughout Scotland, the Crown Office in Edinburgh staffed by members of the Procurator Fiscal Service, the Crown Agent at the head of that service and advocates who are appointed from the Scottish Bar to make judgments on the most important cases. Two Members of your Lordships’ House—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead—were in that team. I personally took some of the fatal accident inquiries and prosecution litigations that were the responsibility of my office. That concludes the responsibilities that I shared with the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
I was invited by a number of departments to assist in this House with their legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, earlier gave at least one example of that happening. This gave me an opportunity to know those departments extremely well and I cherish that experience. I was also nominated by the Attorney-General, then Sir Michael Havers, to represent the Government in cases in this House and in the Court of Justice of the European Union. In representation in this House, in one case I had the advantage of having the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, as my junior. Needless to say, we won. As I said, I was invited by a number of departments to assist in this House with their legislation and that was important for developing my chances in later times.
After five years in the office of Lord Advocate, I was nominated by the then Secretary of State for Scotland to be a judge in the Scottish courts. When that became known in this House, I happened to be paying my bill in the Peers’ Dining Room and Lord Elwyn-Jones said to me, “James, I’ve just heard that you have been appointed a Scottish judge. I’m very sorry; I had hoped for better things for you.”
I was appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in 1985 and served in that capacity until October 1987, when I was invited to become the Lord Chancellor as my predecessor and excellent friend, Lord Michael Havers, had resigned on the ground of ill health. So I become the Lord Chancellor, an unprecedented experience for a member of the Scottish Bar who had not been a member of the English Bar.
The first responsibility of that office was to officiate in this House, and that I did for almost 10 years. This involved taking part as the Lord Chancellor independent of the Government when I sat on the Woolsack or stood in front of the Woolsack, but it also involved representing the Government, and when doing so, I stood two steps to the left. It was the Liberal Democrats who were there at that time. Things have changed in that respect, as your Lordships know.
In the House, the Lord Chancellor presided. He represented the House on ceremonial occasions, taking part where appropriate. He received new Members on their introduction, first in his office and then in the House in a ceremony while wearing a hat that Matthew Parris described as a Cornish pasty. He received and visited foreign Speakers of Parliament, Presidents, Prime Ministers and senior judges. He attended meetings of Commonwealth and European Speakers in company, usually, with the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Clerk of the Parliaments or an official of his department. He also attended other ministerial meetings. As noble Lords have heard, he read Prayers if the Bishop was prevented from attending—I think I had three opportunities to do that in the 10 years when I was Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor was a member of the Cabinet. I was given fourth place in the Cabinet on appointment. When Mrs Thatcher retired, I sat next to the Prime Minister and paid her the Cabinet’s tribute on its behalf, the draft being kindly prepared by Robin Butler—the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. I was in the Cabinet as a member of the judiciary and the legislature, the others being members of the legislature.
As a law officer, I had not been a member of the Cabinet. It was a tremendous honour and heavy responsibility to represent the judiciary in the Cabinet, but I felt that it was a very necessary and important responsibility, and I was anxious to discharge it properly. I had the responsibility for the civil law that was not already the responsibility of another department. This included organisations such as the Law Commission, the National Archives and the Land Registry. I introduced to this House legislation that was in accordance with the government policy for the Lord Chancellor’s Department and also other legislation which the Ministers concerned invited me to lead on in this House. I think that the most important of the Bills that I had responsibility for were the Children Act 1989 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. They have both stood the test of time in their structure ever since. Looking back on it, I think that is due to the amount of consent we got in this House and in the House of Commons—of course, I was primarily concerned with the House—and were able to work up in the course of negotiation here.
I also introduced, at the request of the then Home Secretary, a Bill that mentioned the Security Service publicly in Parliament for the first time. I was responsible for various legal aid and other enactments and statutory instruments. I introduced the Courts and Legal Services Bill, which has already been referred to and which came along as a matter of some controversy with the Bar and some of Her Majesty’s judges. I do not intend to describe the detail of that any further than has been done already. I am glad to say that it went through both Houses of Parliament with very little amendment and, so far as I know, nobody has tried to amend its principles since it became an Act.
The Lord Chancellor was head of the judiciary and responsible for the court system and provision for the judges—for example, for training and accommodation on circuit. Toward the end of my time in office, responsibility for magistrates’ courts was transferred to the Lord Chancellor. Like Lord Hailsham before me, I presided over a substantial number of sittings of the judicial committee of the House or of the Privy Council.
I had the responsibility of nominating the senior judges to the Queen and the most senior to the Prime Minister. To assist me in that responsibility, there was a small group of officials in the Lord Chancellor’s Department. This time is sometimes referred to as the “tap on the shoulder” time, but I have to say that I have no memory of tapping anyone on the shoulder as a preliminary to seeking to nominate him or her as a member of the senior judiciary.
The circuit judges and other judges were also appointed on the nomination of the Lord Chancellor and, again, the group in the department assisted. I took the view eventually that it was right that it should be done by a committee interviewing the candidates, including a magistrate, because I thought it important that the judicial quality of the person would be estimated. I made it my business to try to estimate that as carefully as I could. I sometimes had the opportunity of hearing candidates when I was sitting as the presiding judge in a session of a judicial committee, but I also had opportunity to study that in other ways. All the judges I nominated came to this House to be sworn in by me. My wife entertained them and their families in the River Room to tea or coffee as appropriate. I do believe that particular service was much esteemed by the people who got it. I do not think it continued.
As direct rule operated in Northern Ireland, I had similar responsibilities there for the court system and judicial appointments. A senior judge had been killed, the Chief Justice had been shot at and a judge’s home had been blown up, so these appointments were a solemn responsibility. I am humbly thankful to Almighty God that no further damage was done to the judiciary in that way, although the risk continued. I should also like to mention the wonderful way in which the court service in Northern Ireland dealt with its work. On one occasion its headquarters was damaged by an explosion at the weekend, and first thing on Monday morning they were clearing up the broken glass.
The Lord Chancellor had the responsibility of nominating Queen’s Counsel for England and Wales. Again, he was assisted by the group in the department. I consulted the senior judges and considered it right to have regard not only to success of advocacy in court but to the importance of sound advice to clients that might prevent them having to go to court.
This concludes my summary of the responsibilities I held in office. All are now changed, so I hope a record of them may be of interest. I handed over to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who I regret to say is now on leave of absence on account of his ill health.
This House has a special place in my regard and I wish to thank, from the bottom of my heart, all the Members of this House, past and present, who have shared with me membership of it. I feel the same for all the staff of the House. It applies to the Clerk of the Parliaments and all the staff in the offices, the staff of the usual channels, the committee staff, the expenses staff, the doorkeepers and the attendants; it applies to those who help us in the restaurants and in banqueting and with computers and telephones, the police and security, the engineers and the people who help us in many other ways including, of course, the cleaners. I particularly want to mention those ladies whose job it is to clean the huge number of books that are covering our corridors. I have spoken to them very often and it is wonderful to see how cheery they are, considering the nature of their employment. They really do a great job, and I would like to thank all the staff for the help that they have been to me.
I wish to thank my family for all the support they have given me. Above all, I have to thank my dear wife of 64 years for her devoted support and wonderful patience. I have been twice appointed a Life Peer and, having reached 95 years of age, am now being given the opportunity to retire from membership. I do it with gratitude, and the happiest of memories, on 22 July.
I believe that I have been sustained until now by answers to what we pray for at our opening every day. Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, may I be first to congratulate my noble and learned friend and thank him for his many years of service to our country, to this House and to the legal profession? During the course of his speech, he exemplified just why he is held in such high affection by so many of those in the House today.
There is of course no one else quite like my noble and learned friend. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, pointed out, he is not alone in being a long-serving Member of your Lordships’ House—since 1979—nor in being a long-serving Member holding high office in a manner of true distinction. It is rather the way in which his personality has transcended those positions. He has brought a style and composure born out of his natural humility and intelligence, which makes me feel that, while this is a fitting occasion, it is also a very sad day indeed.
My noble and learned friend held the position of Lord Advocate for five years but is renowned for his role as Lord Chancellor, a position he held for 10 years to 1997. When that post was abolished from your Lordships’ House, Lord Howe of Aberavon thought it wrong because of the difference made by what he called the “looming presence” of the Lord Chancellor at the Cabinet table. It was my noble and learned friend who was that looming presence for so long.
He may well have stopped looming at the Cabinet table, but his presence in this House has been no less influential. From across the House, he is admired for his humility and moderation. My noble and learned friend still intervenes from time to time to make a point based not only on his great wisdom and experience but, perhaps most of all, on his humanity. To say that he will be missed from this House and our national deliberations is a severe understatement.
If ever an example were needed of how our United Kingdom benefits from a man who came from such a humble start in the Scottish highlands, the son of a railway signalman, and scaled the greatest heights of achievement and respect, it is my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Throughout his years of service, and particularly during his time as Lord Chancellor, he has been wonderfully supported by Lady Mackay, who has been ever-present at his side. We will miss them both, as they head north to a calm, peaceful and well-earned retirement. All of us are better off for having known them, and we wish them well.
I turn briefly to the Bill—
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
Since I cannot really improve on what my noble and learned friend and the Minister said, I say that I wholeheartedly support the Bill and hope that it will reach the statute book speedily.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, this is a very important occasion. We have just heard the deeply impressive valedictory speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, whose knowledge of constitutional and legal matters and of the proceedings of this House is unequalled. We have appreciated his forensic thinking and analysis, and the sound advice that he has given to this House over so many years. We thank him for that and we shall miss him.
The Bill is the outcome of the need to address poor employment practices and low pay in the seafaring industry. The nine-point plan that the Minister referred to is a very positive set of proposals and reflects the right approach. The Bill, specifically, is a solution to the very immediate problem of low pay.
In practice, it is quite limited. It is reasonable to ask ship operators to provide the necessary declarations on a periodic basis. This will deter companies from paying less than the national minimum wage to ferry crews when sailing regularly to or from UK ports. Since “regularly” is defined as at least 120 times a year, this seems about right. UK-flagged vessels should not face a disincentive to employ UK-resident seafarers. However, it is the application and occasional enforcement of this legislation that we will need to look at closely in Committee.
Put simply, will it work? I think that it can, if all organisations involved own the objective and take responsibility for actions where they can. There does not need to be a big problem with implementation if it is seen as a shared problem. I understand the concerns of the ports that this regulatory work would be new work for them, and there is a strong case for agreeing that any prosecutions should lie with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Overall, this is about a proportionate balance of roles between the stakeholders, of which there are several: the Secretary of State, with powers to enforce the law and, in particular, to direct a harbour to refuse entry; the Maritime and Coastguard Agency; HMRC; and the harbour authorities themselves. These roles will need to be examined in some depth in Committee, not least the role of the Secretary of State and the powers of direction.
We may need to look at the Bill’s compatibility with international law, but I cannot agree with those already consulted who say that we should await international decision-making or that we should legislate for all nine points at the same time before proceeding with this Bill. I also do not think that it is inappropriate to co-opt harbour authorities into the regulation and enforcement of seafarers’ wages. They may have no experience of doing so, but they have experience of a wide range of health and safety regulations, for example. I accept that there may be difficulties with publishing surcharges in advance, but there may not be many cases of this in reality.
Much of the practical implementation of this Bill will lie in secondary legislation. I hope that the Summer Recess will be used to draft that secondary legislation, so that we have copies of the draft guidance and other general secondary legislation when we return for consideration in Committee. I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that this will be possible and is indeed the plan.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I begin by discussing the Bill. For 27 years, I had the great privilege of representing in the other place the constituency of Folkestone and Hythe. That constituency contains many seafarers, many of whom suffered grievously from the deplorable action of P&O. I very much hope that the provisions in the Bill will ensure that action of that kind is not repeated, and I very much welcome its provisions.
The main reason for my brief intervention in your Lordships’ debate this afternoon is to pay tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I had the privilege of serving with him in Cabinet. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde has described his presence, quoting Lord Howe of Aberavon, as a “looming presence” —although that is not quite my recollection. His interventions were always calm and judicious and, as your Lordships would expect, they were always listened to and heeded with respect.
When I entered your Lordships’ House, I watched my noble and learned friend’s contributions to your Lordships’ deliberations with admiration and awe. Not only did he frequently intervene in and influence your Lordships’ debates but he very often shaped those debates, and so often his contribution was decisive in the outcome of those debates and the votes which followed them. No greater tribute can be paid to a Member of your Lordships’ House than to say that. It can be said of perhaps no other. Your Lordships’ House will be much diminished by the absence of my noble and learned friend, and I speak for all of us when I wish him and Lady Mackay a long and happy retirement.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, sadly, I am not someone who can really do justice to the important matter being discussed, the departure of our greatly esteemed colleague the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. However, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, was talking about his very important and on-the-money comments and perceptions, which I have savoured and witnessed; so often they have absolutely gone to the heart of what we have been discussing. I join in regret and, at the same time, massive appreciation of all that the noble and learned Lord contributed.
I turn to the Bill. At the outset, I should say that in the past when I have spoken on maritime matters, I have very often had to declare an interest. I do not have a relevant interest at all now from trade associations and so on—only approaching 50 years of working in the industry.
I thank the Minister very much because, when she offered Members of the House a briefing a few days ago, I was unable to attend. She very kindly came straight back to me and offered to arrange a briefing with officials, which morphed into a briefing with her colleague the Shipping Minister. I am deeply grateful to her and to her colleague. Both of them have constantly exhibited a great concern for the industry, and a desire to get it right. My discussion with the Shipping Minister yesterday was extremely helpful, and I very much share his direction of travel on the Bill.
The whole industry—I think that I can speak for it, notwithstanding what I have just said—absolutely understands the need to do something about this issue. We will not accept again behaviour of the type that we saw, and we are very much on board with the suggestion that seafarers be paid at minimum the national minimum wage. However, I have some concerns about the Bill, which could have unintended consequences and could damage the industry, consumers and our international standing.
First, the Bill proposes a national regime for seafarers that would duplicate and contradict the obligations for seafarers set out in long-established international conventions. This represents a departure from the established international order, where the flag state holds primacy and, with this, full observance and compliance with international rules and systems. There is a concern that this could attract international condemnation from the IMO and other flag states. We should be very careful before doing anything that would antagonise the IMO, given that we are extremely lucky to have it based here in the UK. It is the only United Nations agency based here, and is of great value in terms of our maritime presence and offer.
Secondly, we should be very careful to avoid damaging brand Britain in maritime affairs. The shipping world uses services provided from London and the UK market; the leading shipbrokers in the world are largely British; marine insurance and associated services are massive from London; our brilliant law firms often handle a wide range of disputes from around the world; and so on. There is deep trust in Britain’s maritime offer and performance, and we must not damage the prospects of growing the UK flag. I am talking about a position whereby we could upset the international order by moving from these conventions, which work very well. What about our neighbours? How do they see this? The Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain and Norway will work with the existing conventions; they do not feel the need to bring something new in.
As drafted, the scope of the Bill is very wide, covering not only the ferry sector but all other services, if any vessel makes more than 120 port calls in a year—on average one call every three days. The precise impact is not yet known of this, but I suggest that it risks embracing more than just ferries; this is a Bill very much intended for ferries and the short-haul business. It risks that, which could damage consumers.
Thirdly—this has been mentioned, and the Minister knows it—the ports are unhappy with the prospect of an onerous burden being placed on them. They feel that they are not in possession of all the information; when a ship owner comes and presents an explanation of how they operate things, they do not feel well placed to evaluate that. Concern about this is very widespread in that sector.
Fourthly, it is debatable whether the Bill as drafted will have a meaningful positive effect on the terms and conditions of our seafarers. From my research, almost none of the seafarers employed on ferry routes is paid below the UK national minimum wage. I was unable to identify any, and I have tried very hard. There could be some cleaners and things like that, and I understand that we want to be super-vigilant on this—but with the seafarers I do not think that it is a problem. Indeed, the narrative in the immediate aftermath of the extraordinary action taken by P&O Ferries was about rostering manning levels and wider terms and conditions, rather than the national minimum wage.
This is a highly nuanced issue and I understand that with the Bill the Government are working on a framework agreement with owners. I also understand that the owning community is far advanced in its work on the framework. A suitably agreed framework could address all the Government’s concerns without statutory intervention, with all the attendant risks that I have listed and I hope we will hear about from others too. Such a light-touch solution would be very much in line with how we in the UK have dealt with many issues down the years. I am greatly reassured by the Minister’s opening remarks again and the assurances that she has given us that she will work in close co-operation with the industry and will listen very carefully. I am absolutely convinced and do not doubt for a minute that that is the intention of the department and Ministers on this.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con)
My Lords, I first declare an interest: apart from working in shipping for 40 years and being a director of one of the ship owners’ P&I clubs, I am currently a non-executive director at a green tech fuel additives company which has relevance to shipping.
Today, of course, as many of the earlier speakers have said, is first about the valedictory speech in this House of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. I think I was one of those very few who were here—I think it was said—43 years ago on my first-iteration outing in this place. It was my pleasure and honour to have my hand shaken him as Lord Chancellor when I took the oath all those years ago. As noble Lords have heard today, there are very many greatly deserved plaudits from all sides of this House for his incredible long record of service with distinction.
I turn to the Bill itself. Following the P&O Ferries incident in March this year involving its peremptory sacking of—I think—786 staff, of course it is right that the Government should address the issues coming out of that. As noble Lords have heard, one of the main strange things about this is that, despite its name, P&O Ferries does not have its vessels flagged in the UK. If you were a member of the British public reading about this incident, as I was, and someone in fact who, as I say, worked for a long time in shipping, I immediately assumed that not only were the relevant staff British nationals but the vessels were probably flagged under the UK register. As noble Lords have heard, that is not the case: it is Cyprus, the Bahamas and Bermuda—so-called flags of convenience. There is nothing wrong with that. This is a totally widespread practice in international shipping, but it is perhaps not what was first thought.
Against that background, the Government have brought forward the Bill and, in general, I support what it is trying to do. But I would like to highlight three issues that come out of it. First—I think the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, touched on this—there is the extraterritorial nature of the Bill’s provisions. In particular, there is a suggestion that they may conflict with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and I believe there is a similar submission by the UK Chamber of Shipping.
This leads on to my second question, which I asked the Minister about during the briefing last week. What do other countries involved in some of these frequent ferry services think about what we are doing? I think of France, for example. I live on the Isle of Wight, where we see Brittany Ferries coming in just about every day, as well as Condor and others. What does France think? And what do Germany, Holland and Ireland think? What are they doing to address this type of concern? I note that there is a reference in the briefing to the idea of “minimum wage corridors”, which may be the solution.
Finally, this is really repetition of a point that I have made already, but this Bill will in fact catch not UK flag vessels but foreign flag vessels. The nationality of the seafarers involved is irrelevant. I originally thought that the nexus would be that they were British, but that is not the case; this will catch foreign flag vessels. To take the case of Brittany Ferries, they are presumably French citizens. I am not sure, but I have a feeling that this is not what the British public first thought when they heard of the P&O Ferries case.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think that when they heard of the P&O Ferries case, the British public’s first thought was one of contempt towards an employer who would deal with employees, our fellow citizens and our country in such a contemptuous way.
I start by paying tribute to a most important group within our country: the railway signallers of the west coast of Scotland. They are clearly capable of bringing up and nurturing the most talented of children who end up as the most distinguished Members of this House. Another such railway signaller from the west of Scotland is relevant to this particular Bill. When the national minimum wage came in, a former railway signaller, Mr Jimmy Knapp, was the leader of the seafarers’ union, it having merged into the railway workers’ union and his predecessor from the National Union of Seamen, Sam McCluskie, sadly having had a rather early and unfortunate death.
I recall the discussions. Mr Knapp was the most robust of west-coast Scots; he was clear, lucid and determined. There was never any indication or feeling that the agreements in place with the employers covering the ferries—which he specifically raised—would end up finding a way of outwitting that legislation. That was not the intent of Parliament at the time. If it had been the intent, Mr Knapp would have been very forthright in advising on how Parliament could have improved that legislation.
Times have changed, however, and globalisation has taken hold. Although the specifics of this Bill relate to maritime law, not to EU law, we have had the backdrop of the Laval and Viking cases in 2007 in the European Court of Justice, which significantly opened up the options and possibilities of shifting workers from one part of the world to another part of the world, and into this country.
There is no question whatever, from my experience, that that shift was a key motivating factor in the 2016 referendum for many working-class people. They saw that this imposition of rules and cheaper wages from abroad was not in the British national interest. So, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this proposal—it is in the British national interest. I hope they will go further and look now at the Laval and Viking cases, because there will be future such episodes and it is fundamentally wrong that British workers’ pay and conditions should be undermined by people bringing in a cheaper workforce from abroad. That is not what anyone voted for in that referendum and it is not what people would vote for as an offer at any future general election—I put that to all parties in the House.
Secondly, what cognisance has been taken of the Fleet Maritime Services (Bermuda) judgment of 2015 on peripatetic seafarers and pensions? That judgment, which was a positive judgment in terms of pension rights, seems to totally complement what the Government are doing here. If the Government were to veer away from it, it may actually create some kind of precedent that could be used to challenge any demurral from seeing through this change, which, again, I commend the Government for bringing forward.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I add my words of appreciation for my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. I am a fairly new Member of this House, of only nine years, but he has been a constant presence throughout those nine years and always a source of wisdom. Whenever he gets up, he says something that is worth listening to. That cannot be said of many people, probably including me. We all wish him well in his retirement and he will be missed. That is often said about people, but it is certainly true of my noble and learned friend.
I welcome the Bill. It presents a very interesting contrast with the debate that we held the other night on a couple of nonsensical statutory instruments. It is a response to an action by employers that was just not acceptable, and this is exactly the right one. We need to get the Government behind good employment practice. I am not saying that the Bill is perfect, but I am saying that the driving force behind it is what I like to see when Governments deal with trade unions. As I have often said, I am president of the airline pilots union. The laws of the air are somehow a lot stronger than those of the sea, probably because aircraft are very expensive things and aeroplane technicians tend to talk to each other much more and get things organised. The Bill, I believe, is the product of a Government who have shown they care.
Clearly, we have to look at foreign workers, but I do not look at foreign workers, I look at workers—who are working to increase the prosperity of this country. My family were foreign workers; they all came from Ireland. They spent years contributing to the tax base of this country through working in this country—in the case of my father, working in the National Health Service. I have never looked at people and said, “Oh, they are foreign; they are not British, they deserve something different”. They do not: all workers deserve the same level of respect, and I am sure this Bill will carry that through. It is a way to deal with the problems and it shows what can be done.
I will make one mention of the briefing we got from the British Ports Association, which says that it is inappropriate to co-opt harbour authorities into the regulation or enforcement of port users’ employment practices. I happen to disagree, but if the Minister tends to agree, let me give her a very easy solution. We have a precedent in the certification officer for trade unions, who certifies all the trade union practices in legislation. Let us have a certification officer for port workers and let the port owners pay the levy to finance it. It is quite simple. If they do not want to do that, we can provide an alternative; the Government can provide a certification officer to ensure that these regulations, when they are passed, are implemented. Let us see what the port authorities have to say about that. It is the best way forward and would work things out.
I close by thanking the Minister and her department for the draft. I am sure it will achieve a small amount of debate in Committee but, when I read it, I thought, “At last we have something that reflects the attitude to trade unionism that I have always wanted to see from these Benches”.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in the gap. I declare an interest as honorary president of the United Kingdom Maritime Pilots’ Association and a former harbour commissioner of the port of Fowey in Cornwall.
I am a young boy here compared with the noble and learned Lord, but we had something in common about 15 years ago when there was a problem with lighthouses around the UK. Ships going into UK ports fund those lighthouses and we found that ships going into UK ports were also funding the Irish lights, nearly 100 years after independence. It took a great deal of effort from Ministers of both parties to get the Irish to accept that they should fund their own lighthouses from the revenue from ships going into Irish ports. Of course, lifeboats are a completely different matter, but it was a useful bit of work done by the lighthouse authorities.
I certainly support this Bill. A briefing came to me from the RMT, which calculated that P&O’s labour costs had been reduced by 30% as a result of what it did. That does not bode well for the poor people who used to work for it. Worse still, it could set a precedent for other competing ferries to do the same thing. It is all to do with the changes brought by Brexit, but we are where we are. I have a few questions, which I am sure will come up again in Committee, but I welcome the Bill, which is a good start.
On this business of 120 days, with the ferries that go to Spain from the UK, it is probably not the same ship all the way through the year—sometimes they go only in summer. Can the Minister say how their visits would be counted and qualified?
There are also the freight ships that go across—most are ro-ro, but not all—between the UK and the near continent, although I see that freight is included, which is really good. However, why are cruise ships left out? Some cruise ships just go around the UK, probably because of the Covid regulations of the last few years. Surely, the people who work on them deserve the same protection as those who operate the ferries, at whom this Bill is directed. Also, what about the deep sea ships, the deep sea containers and bulk carriers—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, reminded us, we talked about the other day?
They all have people working on them who, surely, if they are operating in UK waters, deserve the same protections. If people start saying that ship owners cannot afford to pay their crews decent wages, noble Lords might like to refer to an article in the Sunday Times last week which showed that the shipping industry made a net profit of £188 billion last year—so they can probably afford to pay their seafarers a decent wage and let them see some of the benefit.
There is also the question of the offshore oil sector and the boats that support it. So there are many questions there. I am not going to go on because I think I have reached my time limit, but I give notice that I shall have a number of amendments to put down in Committee. I think we need to talk in particular about the role of the ports, as several noble Lords have said.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I have no current interests to declare, but for context I will tell the House that I served for six years as a non-exec on the Harwich Haven Authority, which serves the port of Felixstowe. Before that, I was the first woman to serve on the board of Lloyd’s Register—so I take a great interest in these issues.
It often strikes me that in this island nation, which is totally dependent on goods coming in by sea and has a first-class maritime sector, we very rarely debate maritime issues in this House and in Parliament generally, and we even more rarely have associated legislation. I think it is probably because things work pretty well on the whole. But it is also because there is complex, well-established governance emanating from international organisations and agreements—the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, mentioned the IMO just across the river. It is a reminder that sharing sovereignty is sometimes a necessary and positive thing, and that we need to exercise some caution.
It is welcome to have legislation and a debate this evening, particularly because it has occasioned the valedictory speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who is retiring. In a House noted for its long service, being an active Member in your mid-90s is quite some achievement, but to still be making incisive legal contributions and wise judgments above all in a way that is entirely unconfrontational is a real lesson to those who think that shouting and being unpleasant is how to get what you want. I am sure everyone who has ever listened to the noble and learned Lord has learned from him, so I thank him very much and we on these Benches wish him well.
From these Benches we fully support offering seafarers all the protection we can reasonably give. Many of them work in very trying conditions and are often exploited. The situation at the start of the pandemic, and for quite some time, was horrendous. Many were trapped at sea for months, unable to get home after their contracts had ended, and their replacements were unable to get out to relieve them. The Government’s nine-point plan is extremely welcome, and we look forward to hearing how the Government are progressing with it, and in particular with those elements that require the sorts of bilateral agreements to which the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, referred, such as the minimum wage corridors. I wonder whether the Minister can say whether there are plans to keep Parliament updated routinely, or whether perhaps we need to table some debates. I think the Bill is the only part of the plan that requires primary legislation.
It has come about because of the egregious behaviour of P&O Ferries, which shone a spotlight on the condition of the industry and provided the impetus for some new thinking. But it is worth reminding ourselves that the company was breaking existing law; that is clear. The law was already there, so the idea that new law is of itself a panacea is something we should resist.
I am slightly suspicious about legislation brought in to address one particular set of circumstances. I can hear the Yorkshire tones of my late noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland saying, “You don’t make porridge for one”, and I am a bit nervous that here we are making porridge for one, because it is one set of circumstances. For me, the starting point is always, “Is there some way of doing this other than legislation?” I think these international agreements and corridors might end up being more fruitful, but Governments of all colours reach for the statute book first, I think because if you have a hammer, all problems look like a nail.
The Bill is actually quite limited in scope. In practical terms, it will cover mainly ferry companies on short strait crossings, although the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, brought up some other interesting examples. We will need other measures to protect everyone else, and that will mostly be a matter for the international maritime organisations.
I know that at the start of this process the Government’s thinking was very much about putting the burden of enforcement on to the port authorities, and I am glad that they have listened to the strong objections from the sector about taking on a new, onerous regulatory role. There is already minimum wage expertise in government in the form of HMRC. The legislation puts more of the burden on to the Secretary of State, which in operational terms means the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which will now take on most of the responsibility for compliance, the setting of surcharges and so on. Can the Minister say a little about the resources available to the MCA, particularly in the context of all government departments being asked to reduce staffing numbers by somewhere between 20% and 40%? It might be quite difficult to take on new responsibilities with fewer people.
I know that the Government believe that this a modest extra burden on ports, and I think it is possible to overstate it, but it will largely depend on the systems that we set up for running the system. I hope that great care is taken to ensure that for operators, ports and the MCA alike the systems are streamlined and as efficient as possible. I fully agree with my noble friend Lord Shipley that we need sight of the guidance first, because there are some new responsibilities. In Clause 7, for example, a process is set out which could be quite time-consuming for a port authority. Noble Lords need to have a little sympathy with a sector which has spent millions of pounds preparing for post-Brexit checks that will now never take place.
The surcharges will be established by secondary legislation, imposed by the MCA and levied by port authorities, so we need full consultation with all parts of the sector. In particular, we need clarity and transparency. Those principles are always a good idea, but given that some port operators also own the ferries, they are particularly important here.
I have a couple of questions for the noble Baroness. First, if the MCA finds a breach which results in a levy, does the port authority have to collect it? What happens if it chooses not to? Secondly, some aspects of the legislation can result in summary conviction and fine—for example, in Clause 5. Can the Minister say against whom these criminal charges would be brought? Would it be the master, the owner or the board of the company? Finally, we come to what for me is the most important question of all. The intention is that, where a surcharge is not paid, the Secretary of State can direct a port to refuse entry. On the face of it, this could be a direct contravention of the open port duty as defined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the UK is a signatory. Can the noble Baroness set out what legal advice has been sought and from whom, and whether it can be published, to establish that barring a vessel from a port does not in any way conflict with our international obligations under UNCLOS?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today, but I particularly thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for his contribution. I cannot match the eloquence of previous speakers, but I formally—for want of a better way of putting it—thank him on behalf of these Benches for his magnificent contribution over those 43 years. At a personal level, it has always been a pleasure to listen to his interventions, not just for his tone and style but for his wisdom. It is the sort of wisdom that melds both logic and personal values. In particular, we feel that his view of the world is to try to be more conciliatory. That is an important element in our deliberations. Too often, we lose that sense of trying to work for a common solution, and one always sees his interventions as trying to find out what someone really means and asking if there is some common ground. It is as if he had a personal ambition to make this House a better place for all of us to work. I thank him personally and on behalf of these Benches.
These Benches support the Seafarers’ Wages Bill, which we hope will mean that more workers calling at UK ports earn the equivalent of minimum wage. However, I am afraid that, in the aftermath of the P&O Ferries scandal, this will not be enough to give seafarers the security which they deserve at work. Seafarers kept this country stocked throughout the pandemic, but loopholes in the Bill will mean that many still will not receive a fair wage, and other key issues such as pensions and roster patterns are not even addressed. For this reason, we will seek to amend the Bill to give seafarers greater security at work, crack down on rogue employers and make sure that the P&O Ferries scandal can never happen again.
I turn first to the vessels which are in scope of the Bill. As drafted, vessels docking at UK ports must pay the equivalent of national minimum wage for the time spent in UK waters, but Clause 3 states that this will apply only to ships which
“entered the harbour on at least 120 occasions in the year.”
While most services will be covered by this, for some routes, such as that of the “Pride of Hull”, only slight adjustments to the timetable would allow them to escape paying a fair wage. The Government’s own impact assessment shows that the department considered applying the legislation to ships which dock on 52 occasions a year. Can the Minister explain why they have not pursued this option?
It is also not apparent why the Bill refers to “the harbour” rather than “a harbour”. This could open a loophole for vessels to dock at different ports to escape paying a fair wage. Has the Minister considered that possibility?
On the wages which seafarers will receive, it is disappointing that the passage of the Bill will not mean that a worker’s full wages will equate to the minimum wage. While the Bill states that seafarers must receive the equivalent of national minimum wage for the time spent in UK waters, workers could end up receiving far less than the national minimum wage in total because many European nations have no minimum wage. For example, in the hypothetical situation where a seafarer works for four hours in UK waters, on a national minimum wage of £9.50, and four hours in Danish waters, with no national minimum wage at all, in total the worker would receive an average of £4.25—half of the UK national minimum wage. While I appreciate that the Government are seeking bilateral memorandums of understanding to address this, the uncertainty in government could mean that policies such as these are abandoned. Can the Minister commit to pursuing such agreements in the Bill?
I am also disappointed at the narrow scope of the Bill and the lack of broader protections for seafarers. Despite initially being referred to as a harbours Bill, the Government have stripped back the Bill to focus on the narrow issue of wages, leaving out references to a seafarers’ framework, as well as other commitments from the nine-point plan. While I appreciate that secondary legislation will be introduced to enact other aspects of the framework, Ministers should place guarantees in the Bill, including in relation to pensions, roster patterns and collective bargaining. Will the Minister explain why the Bill is no longer a broader harbours Bill?
On the matter of enforcement and penalties, the P&O Ferries scandal should represent a line in the sand for seafarers’ rights. However, we cannot ignore the fact that bosses ignored existing protections because the fines were too weak. It seems that firms such as P&O are willing to look at fines as a mere cost of existing.
Although we support the inclusion of unlimited fines in the Bill, the lack of a minimum fine raises the prospect that precedents could be set for smaller penalties. Ministers should strengthen the penalties in the Bill to make sure that rogue employers can never again get away with flouting seafarer protection. Will the Minister explain the Government’s position on minimum fines?
Given that the Bill also allows harbour authorities to monitor compliance, as many authorities are also operators, this could end with employers marking their own homework. Will the Minister consider safeguards to protect this system from abuse?
Turning next to the regulatory powers, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to change which services this wage protection applies to. Although we would support the expansion of protections to more workers, there is a risk that these powers could be used to exclude workers. Can the Minister today commit to a principle of non-regression of seafarers’ rights?
Next, on the provisions which mean that harbour authorities will have the power to refuse harbour access in response to non-compliance, the Government must mitigate any risks and ensure that access is never refused when it is necessary for the safety of the crew. Although I am pleased that the Bill contains provisions for when authorities cannot refuse access, can the Minister confirm that this is in full accordance with international maritime law?
Finally, as we consider the implementation and application of the Bill, Ministers should consider the role that trade unions can play as experts in the safety and conditions of seafarers. The current situation means that P&O, Seatruck, Irish Ferries, Condor Ferries and Cobelfret are all still using the low-cost crewing model which P&O imposed on 17 March. As a result, ratings are often receiving below the national minimum wage pay and long contracts that cause fatigue.
The P&O scandal must represent a line in the sand for seafarers’ rights, but in its current state, the Bill falls far short of achieving that.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Before my noble friend sits down, I should be grateful if I could intervene for a moment to apologise to the House, most particularly the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for my absence during the past hour. I had a commitment with the Lord Speaker that neither he nor I could change, but I apologise for not being here. I am greatly sorry to have missed a number of the speeches that your Lordships gave in my absence.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the Bill is clearly not the star of the show today. We have heard so many wonderfully warm words, and I was touched by so many of them, not only from my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay but from all noble Lords who paid him tribute. But I must at least try to get the House back to focus on the Bill, and that is what I intend to do.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and, as ever, I feel a letter coming on. We will try to get it out as soon as we can. I do not know that it will be before recess, but perhaps by the end of next week. I will try valiantly to answer as many of the questions raised as possible. I know that we will be heading into Committee on the Bill on, I think, 5 September, so it will be upon us before we know it. Thinking about it over the recess might be a very wise idea.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the Bill is too narrow. We must balance that with the statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who said, “Oh, the Government are always reaching for legislation”. That is what we are trying not to do in this case; we are reaching for this legislation because it is necessary and fills a gap, but many of the other things we will be delivering in our nine-point plan do not need legislation, so we will not put them in legislation. Noble Lords know that we are overwhelmed with legislation; do not even get me on to secondary legislation, which we must also make sure is completely fit for purpose so that we do not end up overregulating and having too many debates on things that, frankly, do not need legislating. I am content with the scope of the Bill and the extent to which it applies.
There is always that very interesting balance in maritime between the Government being very focused on domestic priorities, for the protection of domestic workers operating with very close ties to the UK, and what is an extremely international market for maritime but which is governed by international laws, conventions, agreements, all sorts of things that make up the maritime ecosystem. We are very clear that we do not want to be upsetting that ecosystem and we are content that this Bill does not do that. We are also very clear when it comes to, for example, access to ports in an emergency or for the welfare of the people on board, a vessel would never be barred from entering a port in such circumstances. Therefore, I am content that this reaches that appropriate balance between the domestic priorities and the broader maritime framework, which is set mostly internationally.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked why there was no longer a harbours Bill. There was a name change. It is nothing more significant than that. I was expecting something called a “harbours something-or-other”, but there was a name change and, lo and behold, we are calling it something which much better reflects the intention, since our target is the seafarers, not the harbours. We are all after the people, and therefore it was quite right that we changed the name.
I think that I have covered the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, as well. I take his point, and he is hugely experienced regarding our international reputation. As we have set out in our nine-point plan, we will be working with international partners. We will not be putting this in the Bill because it is not within our gift to deliver it. That does not mean that we will not work extremely hard; at the moment we are engaging with eight European countries on seafarers protections and welfare more generally, and to explore the creation of the minimum wage equivalent corridors. I do not say that this will necessarily be easy, but there are many like-minded seafaring nations which would want to see certain agreements being reached. Discussions are currently at an early stage, but we are pursuing them as a matter of priority.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the conflict that might exist between ports’ commercial interests and their statutory duties. We are clear that we must be cognizant of that but also, because the Secretary of State has the power to issue directions, it is the case that in the event of any doubt that those two things were not being performed correctly, I am afraid that the MCA and probably the Secretary of State would have things to say. However, I must reiterate that when it comes to the ports, we do not really want them to do very much at all. By the time that we have passed the secondary legislation for the declarations, the declarations will be standard, they will have been consulted on, and we will have discussed them with the various stakeholders, so it will be a very transactional relationship. They have a transactional relationship with visiting vessels already, so it is just one more cog in that particular transactional relationship.
Therefore, the ports will not be performing any sort of enforcement function at all. I note the comments from my noble friend Lord Balfe but, as I said, we are quite clear on what we want the ports to do. I look forward to talking through the secondary legislation when we discuss the process in more detail. If we get the secondary legislation right, if the process is really effective, then the role of ports will be minimised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the term “non-qualifying seafarers”. This is going to get a little complicated, because we are trying to capture non-qualifying seafarers; they do not qualify for the national minimum wage and we want to make them qualify for the equivalent, which we are setting up. We want all workers on vessels with close links to the UK to be covered. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that we are focused on improving the rights of seafarers, both in the UK and by working with international structures.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, mentioned some quite broad elements around workers’ rights and pay and conditions. The Bill seeks to amend the law in a limited and specific way. I will come back to this again and again in Committee: it is about workers with close ties to the UK, in UK waters. That is our focus in getting the Bill through Parliament. He mentioned a Bermuda judgment on pensions, but he is testing my knowledge so I will have to write on that matter.
I sense that we may have some discussions in Committee on the question of services as well. We considered all sorts of different frequency definitions, various types of vessel and the sorts of services they offer. It all got bogged down very quickly and could have ended up causing significant distortions to the market, as people try to change what their vessel does to fit into a different category. We do not want that; we are after simplicity here. We really are.
We decided on 120 days, which is equivalent to once every 72 hours, because we felt it was the right balance between workers on board having a close tie to the UK—I will come back to that a lot—and capturing as many of the vessels that we want to capture. We have analysed past data, which suggest that a large majority of ferry services would be captured in this scope. DfT statistics suggest that, had the policy been in effect in 2019, approximately 98% of passenger ferry voyages would have been captured and 70% of non-passenger ferry voyages carrying freight would have been in scope. Very few bulk, container and other such services would have fallen in scope—for example, for 1999, 7% of fully cellular container voyages to and from UK ports and a tiny proportion of the dry/liquid bulk services would have been in scope. I think we have the right balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned cruises. If it is a UK cruise that stays in UK waters, it will be paying the minimum wage, because that is already in the regulations. However, if the cruise ship is going far away, it will not be covered, because it does not have close ties to the UK, is not back and forth or visiting our shores very frequently. That is the distinction we have made.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am very grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments. She spoke about ships that do not have close ties to the UK, but we are talking about workers on those ships and whether they have close ties. It would be helpful if she could define that now or in writing.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Is it not really about the service? We cannot legislate for UK workers working in international waters or in any country in the world. That is what we must balance here. If we wanted to include cruises, we would have to include every vessel that pops into UK waters. The administration of that would blow up; it is not going to work. We will debate this in Committee, but I think we have reached the right balance. I do not know that noble Lords will be able to convince me that we have not, but I am willing to let them try.
I turn briefly to enforcement, which is a really important point. This is where the MCA will step up to enforce the system as a whole. We expect the cost of enforcement to be about £359,000 over 10 years. That is a relatively small amount in the context of the work of the MCA, because it can be done alongside its many other inspections.
The framework around the surcharges will be set out in secondary legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was concerned about the ports setting the surcharge, but they will not. If a port for whatever reason had a ship approach and thought, “That’s a friendly ship; we’re not going to charge it a surcharge”, the Secretary of State could direct it to charge the surcharge. That gets round the issue where you might have a port and a ferry service operated by the same operator. The Secretary of State’s beady eye will be there to make sure that it does as it should.
I will come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about minimum fines. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised a point about a port being an enforcement authority; it definitely is not going to be. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked about criminal charges. It will be for the ship operator, which is standard for maritime, to suffer any penalties relating to the Bill.
I am going to finish off with my favourite topic—secondary legislation. I think someone said “good”; I am not sure who it was. I am really offended, but I am going to talk about secondary legislation just so we can suffer a little longer. This is important because I have noted that Grand Committee is on 15 September, and we will not have full draft regulations by then. I am sort of thinking that this is probably not the worst idea in the world. We will have detailed policy notes, but as we go through Committee and debate the sorts of things we are proposing to put into secondary legislation, I think having detailed policy notes will be sufficient to aid our thinking, and issues may certainly come up in the discussion that we may want to reflect in the regulations or perhaps draft the regulations in a slightly different way.
I believe I have covered some of the questions asked by noble Lords today.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [HL]
Wednesday 12th October 2022
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 38-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (10 Oct 2022)
Lord Hendy
“(1A) This Act also applies to a service for the carriage of persons or goods by ship, with or without vehicles, between—(a) a place in the United Kingdom and another place in the United Kingdom;(b) a place in Crown Dependencies and a place in the United Kingdom;(c) an offshore oil and gas installation on the UK Continental Shelf and a place in the United Kingdom; and(d) an offshore renewable energy installation within the UK Exclusive Economic Zone and a place in the United Kingdom.”
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by apologising for not being able to be present at Second Reading on 20 July. I am not just sorry to have missed your Lordships’ contributions on the Bill; it is a deep personal regret that I did not hear the valedictory speech of Lord Mackay, who was in my view one of the greatest of our Lords Chancellor. Of course, I was able to read the proceedings in Hansard and watch them on television. I thank the Minister for her Teams seminar yesterday. Again, I apologise that my equipment failed me and I was able to participate for only the first two minutes.
Naturally, the Bill is to be welcomed but it is a matter of regret that it is confined to the national minimum wage equivalent. This is just one of the nine points in the Government’s response to the P&O Ferries calamity on 17 March and, even in that regard, it may not achieve the purpose stated by the Minister in point one of her letter of 31 March, which said that this will ensure that P&O can derive no benefit from the actions it has taken in paying staff less than the minimum wage and it must reverse the decision. The fact is that, even paying the national minimum wage equivalent, P&O will in fact save money over the previous regime.
Apart from the egregious flouting of the law on 17 March, one striking feature of the P&O Ferries saga is that it also threw overboard all the collective agreements that the company had reached with the trade unions over the previous 100 years or so. These contained provisions about, among other things, procedures to achieve changes to terms and conditions, dealing with redundancies, and procedures to resolve disputes. That is why the Minister’s ninth point in the letter was so gratefully received: the creation of “minimum wage corridors” and asking unions and operators to agree a common level of seafarer protection on ferry routes. The Bill could have given legislative support to these excellent proposals and I ask the Minister, first, how the Government will achieve them and, secondly, where she and her department have got to in their bilateral discussions.
Noble Lords need not fear—I have just another couple of sentences to say before I introduce the amendments. The Bill could have gone a lot further in re-establishing terms and conditions beyond the minimum hourly rate, including those that were provided for in previous collective agreements, such as training, pensions, rostering, crewing levels, recognition, disputes, and so on. I wonder whether the Minister and the department have any plans for legislative support in that regard.
One other obvious thing the Bill could have done was to stop up the loophole in Section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, which excludes any penalty to enforce the duty of a ship operator sacking UK workers for redundancy to notify the authorities in the flag state of the vessel. We know this is a loophole because on 19 August this year the Insolvency Service said that a prosecution of P&O Ferries in this regard was not possible. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to say something about filling that lacuna.
With that digression, I turn to the first group of amendments, which concern the territorial scope of the Bill and an aspect of the application of international law. I will speak to my Amendments 1, 15 and 16, while Amendments 5, 23 and 38 deal, respectively, with minimum wage corridors, preventing breaches of maritime law and upholding international agreements to which the UK is party.
I will of course withdraw my first amendment, but it was put in on the footing that I would move an amendment to expand the scope of the Bill from dealing with not just the national minimum wage but the protection of other terms and conditions as well. However, I was advised quite properly by the Public Bill Office that that was not possible within the scope of the Short Title. I am therefore left simply asking the Minister to confirm my understanding that the national minimum wage already applies on vessels working on domestic routes, that those seafarers in the offshore oil and gas maritime supply chain are also covered by the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) (Amendment) Order 2020 and that vessels sailing between the UK and Crown dependencies will be covered either by the Bill or existing legislation.
It is known—or so I am advised by RMT—that Condor Ferries, a low-cost operator contracted by the Governments of Jersey and Guernsey, pays less than the national minimum wage at present. It was not paying that national minimum wage up to 2014. Since then, I understand that Condor has denied union access to the Bahamas and Cyprus-registered vessels and therefore it is not known what rates of pay are operable. Presumably we are right in thinking that the Bill will apply to such vessels.
The one area where no protection is offered, as I understand it, even by the Bill is for the supply chain to offshore renewable installations in the exclusive economic zone, because they are not covered by the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) (Amendment) Order 2020. The amendment that I propose should therefore close that loophole, but it may be that the noble Baroness has another way of dealing with that issue. Again, I am advised by RMT that there has been a recent case of a UK-flagged offshore facility utility vessel in the Port of Sunderland, where seafarers were working 12-hour days at a daily rate of €55, which comes to €4.58, or just over £4, an hour. In effect, by moving this amendment I simply ask the Minister to confirm that all those cases will be covered either by existing legislation or by the Bill.
The second of my amendments is Amendment 15, the purpose of which is to expand the phrase “territorial waters” to include
“the UK Continental Shelf and the UK Exclusive Economic Zone”,
both of which should be covered. What we are considering is the seafarers working on project vessels, floating hotels and other vessels that can be anchored at sites outside the UK’s territorial waters but within the continental shelf and UK economic zone. That is important, because the production of clean energy from offshore renewable sources and the storage of carbon in subsea facilities will see an increase in seafarer employment associated with this work, particularly in the North Sea.
My third amendment in this group is Amendment 16, which would delete Clause 5(3). Its purpose is to discourage operators of vessels from seeking to avoid the obligations under the Bill of providing data relating to the wages of their crew by registering vessels in countries or territories where not so restrictive data protection laws apply. I note that the Bill’s impact assessment does not consider the possibility of operators breaching the data protection laws of a flag state. I wonder whether that is because it was not thought to be a significant problem, but it might well become one if there are operators, such as P&O Ferries, that are quite happy to evade British law.
Those are my three amendments in this group. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 38. Noble Lords might remember that at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and I raised the compatibility of this Bill with international agreements to which the UK is a signatory. Regrettably, the Minister did not address that issue in her reply, nor in her follow-up letters to participating Peers. It is really important that we give this issue an airing today.
There are many long-standing and recognised international conventions, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the international Maritime Labour Convention 2006, to which the UK is a signatory. Earlier this year, the International Labour Organization reached an agreement on minimum levels of wages for seafarers for 2023, 2024 and 2025. This was broadly welcomed by all stakeholders, including social partners. When the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) (Amendment) Order 2020 was published, the department’s Explanatory Memorandum made it clear that these conventions precluded the provisions being applied to seafarers from non UK-flagged vessels, yet that is exactly what this legislation will do. I would like the Minister to clarify for the Committee what has changed between the publication of that memorandum in 2020 and today.
The fact of the matter is that, no matter how well- intentioned the legislation—these Benches do support a better deal for seafarers—a measure that appears to be contrary to the long-established norm that port states should not interfere with the internal running of foreign-flagged vessels, provided they conform with internationally agreed conventions, is something we should avoid. All these agreements were developed over many years, and they reflect the complexities of operating in multiple jurisdictions with very different legal systems and with an international workforce, with many nationalities on the same vessel.
These agreements are not really drafted like legislation —nor could they be, because they come from so many legal jurisdictions. They are about intent, and the intent is pretty clear. I hope the Government will think very carefully about whether they wish to risk disrupting these global agreements, or be seen to be thought of as disrupting them, because it would not be in the interests of the UK, or of any other country, for this established order to start to become undermined; nor would it be in the interests of seafarers.
There is a particular issue for the UK. We have enjoyed strong leadership in the maritime sector; that is something we should protect and preserve. The Government’s own impact assessment says that there is
“a reputational risk that the UK may be seen to be moving unilaterally on seafarer welfare issues rather than seeking improvements exclusively via multilateral channels.”
Does the Minister acknowledge that risk? Can she explain to the Committee what the Government intend to do to mitigate it?
Finally, many noble Lords were struck by the letter from the International Chamber of Shipping, which did not hold back on its concerns about the Bill. Again, I would be interested to hear about persuading not just Members of this House but the wider shipping community that we are still fully on board with these international conventions.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has made the case well. This is from somebody who, I imagine, has not spent her whole life in maritime as I have, so I congratulate her; her points were made well.
We have the IMO close to us here in Parliament. It is just across the way, up the river and on the other bank. We are privileged to have it. If we do not abide by, for example, UNCLOS resolutions and agreements, it will be damaging to our position. I am sure that many maritime people would agree. It is extremely important that we do not behave irresponsibly here, particularly at a time when Britain is open for business. With all the other splendid slogans we have heard, it is important that we abide by international agreements. These were carefully worked out over a long period involving all parties, so I support the amendment.
I say in passing that I also support Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, which is in the same space but on a more restricted, faute de mieux basis and also holds good in that situation.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I do not have any amendments in this group but I think it is appropriate for me to speak to some of the clause stand part amendments I have tabled. Basically, they result from a discussion during the International Chamber of Shipping’s briefing, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred, about whether this Bill is compatible with international law.
Last night, I had the pleasure of joining many people from the maritime sector at an event in Greenwich. I must have spoken to more than a dozen experts in the field who questioned why the Government are doing this at all. They said, almost to a person, that the Bill will not deliver what the Government want. I certainly support its purpose—to protect the employment and remuneration of seafarers—but all the experts said to me that it will not do that.
One useful comment has come from Nautilus about the Insolvency Service work on assessing whether P&O had acted in a criminal manner when it did. Basically, the Insolvency Service is not going ahead with the criminal case while the civil investigation is still under way, but what it is really saying is that it does not think this Bill will deliver. This is from a union that represents many seafarers. It is worth quoting the information from the British Ports Association to put on record that it and other associations are not convinced that the Bill is compatible with the international commitments under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. If we take this uniliteral action, we risk other people who are possibly less responsible than the UK—I do not know whether that is still the case these days—doing the same thing and providing justification for doing things that adversely affect our ships, our seafarers and everyone else.
I hope the Minister can explain why this is being done at all. I will go into details on some later amendments, but will finish on this matter of principle. Presumably, the Government believe that this is compatible with international law, because Governments should not be breaking the law; I am sure the Minister agrees. But two people said to me last night that, within a few weeks of this Bill receiving Royal Assent—if it does—judicial reviews will start flowing. That is a terrible thing to say at this stage of the debate, and I hope it does not happen.
As a matter of principle, whether the Government think that this Bill complies with international law or not, it would be good to hear the Minister tell us about this and particularly about Articles 21, 38 and 42 of UNCLOS, in which the British Ports Association is particularly interested. I look forward to her comments.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the territorial scope of the Bill and the vessels to which this legislation applies. Seafarers across the board deserve proper compensation for their work and I welcome the opportunity to consider whether the Bill, in its present form, achieves this. To this end, I hope the Minister will clarify that all workers on the vessels listed in these amendments are already covered. When we landlubbers think of seafarers, we often picture those who directly control vessels, but the definition is incredibly wide and covers everyone from cleaners to the administrative staff on board. I hope the Minister comments on the Government’s approach to supporting better wages and conditions for all seafarers.
Amendment 5 in my name is a probing amendment and it is key. It seeks information from the Minister on the state of negotiations, particularly those with France and the Republic of Ireland, on the corridor concept. This Bill, which we support, is one small step towards addressing the issue of seafarers’ terms and conditions.
I respect what my noble friend Lord Berkeley just said but, at the end of the day, if these international conventions have achieved utopia for seamen, I would hate to see hell. Wages seem incredibly, unacceptably low in an international world. Perhaps that is not so true in the wider world, but they seem unacceptably low in Europe. I hope the Government put all possible energy into negotiations with other European states to establish these corridors. It sets a precedent for the worldwide consideration that seafarers deserve a better deal than they are getting.
Amendment 23 would prevent the refusal of harbour access where doing so would break international maritime law. In any situation in which harbour access is refused, in framing the appropriate guidance, a Government must have considered the safety and environmental implications of refusal. It moves to the general view that we must work on the international agreements in parallel and seek to ensure, as does the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that the various conventions not only exist but are universally and even-handedly implemented.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the careful consideration of this Bill by all noble Lords. I reiterate what I have already said to noble Lords in private sessions: the Government are listening to concerns and will endeavour to answer in full all the questions raised by your Lordships today. I suspect that some will certainly be in writing, and I may well try to develop on some on some of the things I am able to say today so that we have full information as we head towards Report.
I sense that there are slightly differing views around the Committee, where some people want this to go much further and others are very cautious. Of course, both of those views potentially risk the Bill itself. I therefore just want to make sure that everybody has as much information as I can get out, particularly around the Government’s intent with the Bill and why it is drafted as it is. Noble Lords will have heard the previous Secretary of State speak about the nine-point plan many times, which was in response to the P&O decision that was made back in March. We recognise that this Bill is narrow in scope and potentially also in effect, as we cannot legislate outside UK territorial waters. It is none the less an important part of the nine-point plan that this sits hand in glove with the other work that we are doing to improve the welfare of seafarers to make sure that their terms and conditions are as good as they can be.
The amendments in this first group cover territorial scope and international law and I will try to address them in turn. Amendment 1 from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, seeks to probe the application of the Bill in various circumstances. I completely accept the way that he introduced this and that he had intended some separate amendments that were deemed to be out of scope. It is worth making sure that the different groups of seafarers who he identified in his amendment are indeed covered. To look at it in more detail, on proposed new subsection (1A)(a), seafarers working or ordinarily working in the UK, including UK internal or territorial waters if the vessel is not exercising a right to innocent passage, are already entitled to the national minimum wage. That stems from Section 1(2)(b) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and Article 2 of the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order 1999. That change is therefore unnecessary, and I think the noble Lord would agree.
On proposed new subsection (1A)(b), voyages to or from the Crown dependencies would already be in scope of this Bill under the service definition in Clause 1. Of course, I recognise at this point that the UK Government can legislate only in the waters of the UK; therefore, it would be a similar circumstance as one would have, for example, with a journey to France.
On proposed new subsection (1A)(c), under Article 2 of the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order 1999, a worker working or ordinarily working in connection with the exploration of the seabed or subsoil or the exploitation of natural resources in the UK sector of the continental shelf is treated as if they are working, or ordinarily work, in the UK. Those workers are therefore already entitled to the national minimum wage, so, again subject to the caveat about UK territorial waters, those workers are covered—ditto those who are working on services to offshore renewable energy installations. Again, I note that some of those may be far away from UK territorial waters. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.
I note the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that it is not only the people who are in control of the ship. When I think about this, I do not think about the people in control of the ship but of all the other people on board, who do the really important day-to-day tasks that are sometimes forgotten. I accept that this is about making sure that we cover everybody on board, and I am satisfied that we do.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate and to the noble Baroness for her response, in particular her reassurance that all the seafarers mentioned in my Amendment 1 are covered by the provisions of the Bill. The minimum wage corridors are clearly important and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her update on the continuing negotiations. Is she able to say whether embedding minimum wage corridors in the legislation of bilateral states is under contemplation? She did not mention one matter: the progress towards collective agreements between ship operators and trade unions.
I hear what the noble Baroness said about legislating outside our territorial waters, but I wonder whether the department has considered other ways in which seafarers might be protected. It may be the case that operators in the North Sea will deliberately anchor hotel vessels and so on outside territorial waters to avoid the obligations of the Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she or the department will look again at the problem—if there is one—of operators with ships flagged in other states with less strict or stricter data protection laws saying, when they come to harbours in this country, “I cannot tell you what my seafarers’ wages are, because I am prohibited by the data protection laws of the state in which the vessel is flagged”.
We heard what the noble Baroness said on international law and international agreements, which everybody in the Room considers should be upheld in every way. There may be more discussion on this subject later today. I beg to withdraw my amendment.
“(c) a service performed by a ship which is not required to have a national minimum wage equivalence declaration.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify the scope of the bill from the outset.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all broadly relate to the question of the ships, or the services, that are within the Bill’s scope. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that there is a bit of confusion around. I spent some of the summer talking to various stakeholders—sadly, not at parties. Through the conversations I had, it became clear that there are concerns about confusion and practicality.
Clause 3 will empower harbour authorities to request that operators of services within the Bill’s scope provide the declaration that they are paying seafarers the national minimum wage. The Bill also says that they cannot do the reverse: they cannot make requests if the vessel is not in scope. So far, so good, but the British Ports Association, which, after all, will be doing this, is arguing that in practice it might actually be quite difficult for a statutory harbour authority to determine with certainty whether a service will call more than 120 times a year. It is not difficult to imagine ways in which operators could perfectly legitimately alter their schedules to take them outside the scope. A harbour authority that is directed to make such a request but is not actually sure, or in a position to be sure, that the vessel is in fact in scope could be placed in an extremely difficult position and could be subject to legal challenge. My Amendment 27 is designed to deal with that: to give the Government a chance to reassure harbour authorities that they can stay on the right side of the law.
The situation is further complicated by some uncertainty that has arisen as to whether the Bill applies to vessels or to services. If it is services—from the Minister’s use of the word “services” on the previous group of amendments, I suspect it is—how does one define a service? Is it something that runs to a published timetable? How will the Bill’s provisions work where there is a regular service that occasionally makes a call to another port? How exactly is a harbour authority to establish with some certainty exactly what the position is?
The Chamber of Shipping is arguing that using “services” and not “ships” would bring into scope vessels with minimal ties to the UK beyond calling in to UK ports. I know that that is not the Government’s intention. The Chamber of Shipping’s fear is that, in a highly competitive industry, operators will simply reduce their calls to the UK, which it argues could have implications for supply chain costs and the competitiveness of UK ports. It would be very helpful if the Minister could clarify this services/vessels issue and talk about the assessment that has been made of the potential implications described by the Chamber of Shipping. Those are covered by my Amendments 2 and 6.
Finally, my Amendment 37 relates to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which has looked at Clause 3, particularly Clause 3(4), which would give the Secretary of State power to make regulations that set out the form of the declarations and the manner in which they are provided. The committee had no problem with that. It was not happy with the provision by negative instrument in which the Secretary of State could restrict the circumstances in which a harbour authority could exercise its power. It says in its report:
“We consider that the Government have failed to justify the inclusion of this power in the Bill and that, even if its inclusion could be justified”,
it merits “affirmative procedure scrutiny”. It has said that because, in effect, this power could almost negate the whole Bill if that is what the Secretary of State so chose, which seems a very odd power to give under negative powers. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 9 in my name, which cover the same ground that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, outlined so well. I still get confused—I know that some associations are also confused—as to whether it is one ferry or a service. As the noble Baroness said, how do you define a service? For example, does it matter where the ship is registered? I do not think it does, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s response. Where the contract of employment with the seafarers is concerned, does that make any difference?
I suppose my purpose in putting down the amendment to change the number of visits to a harbour—or the harbour—from 120 to 50 was also to probe whether it matters which harbour it is and what a harbour is. I know that this Bill is designed to support ferry workers, which of course I support, but a lot of other ships go around the coast. Coasters, for one, move china clay, cement, aggregates and other things. I am a former member of the harbour board of the port of Fowey in Cornwall. These ships go backwards and forwards; their crew are probably employed in UK contracts but they might not be. Are they included? If not, should they be?
Ditto with cruise ships. We read about many employees on cruise ships not being well paid. Most cruise ships probably move internationally; they certainly do not come to a particular port even 50 times a year. On the other hand, some smaller ones go around more often. Why should those employees not be protected in the same way as ferry operators? I asked one or two people why they thought it was so important to protect ferry operators. The answer was, “Well, they’re a particular type of crew who usually go home after their shift”. That is an odd definition. I am sure that it is not true when you look at the services to Spain and up to Scandinavia; they certainly do not go home every night. It is important that the Minister sets out the limits of this clause, why it is that way and whether it relates to the ships or the crews.
In relation to ships going across the channel—P&O might have three or four going across; I am sure that the crew get moved from ship to ship—is it a matter of making sure that the ship or the captain produces the documents? How is it recorded that crews who have gone from one ship one week on to another ship another week are covered by this Bill? It is a pretty complicated solution, but it is terribly important for people who may be on one side of the fence or the other. I am sure the Minister can give me a wonderful answer on this; if not, she can write to me.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 8, which is simply an elaboration of the points that my noble friend Lord Berkeley has already made. The proposal here is to delete “the harbour” and insert “a harbour”. What lies behind that is catching those vessels that might do what I understand is referred to as harbour-hopping, where, in order to decrease the frequency with which they are recorded in any particular port, they go to a nearby port every so often to reduce the number.
My second point, which my noble friend Lord Berkeley and I have addressed, and my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe has a slight variant on, is whether 120 occasions a year is far too high. It will exclude a lot of vessels that do weekly ferrying, which we would want to catch. If I may speak for my noble friend Lord Berkeley as well as myself, the reason we think it should be 50 is that, quite often, a ship may be serviced for a couple of weeks a year and it may not therefore achieve the full 52 occasions, even if it is running a weekly service.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I want to clarify what the debate has thrown up so far. I fear that the Government are guilty of mission creep on this, which may have occurred with the very best of intentions, but there is certainly confusion as a result. As outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, a move from 120 calls to 52 would inadvertently bring in a much broader range of shipping.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, just touched on another issue that needs clarity, and I have three specific questions that it is important that the Minister answers clearly. If she cannot do that at this moment, we would all appreciate correspondence on this. First, on the move from “ships” to “services”, can we have absolute clarity on what a service is? How would it be covered if, for example, there is a refitting such as that just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy? I anticipate all sorts of ways in which companies will seek to avoid inclusion through the way they configure services, so we need clarity on the definition of “services”.
Secondly, in summing up the first group of amendments, the Minister again used the phrase
“close ties to the UK”.
This is at the core of the whole thing. Can we have a definition that will stand up in a court of law of exactly what the Government mean by that?
Thirdly, I am sure we would all be grateful if the Minister could address the concerns of the DPRRC, to which my noble friend Lady Scott referred.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con)
My Lords, I apologise; I have only just arrived, because I was detained elsewhere. I want to pick up on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about ferries. Ferries have been referred to, so maybe the Minister can clarify this later. I need to read the Bill again, line by line, but nowhere does it refer to “ferries”. It refers to “ships”. In the current energy crisis, for example, you may have a service of tankers of diesel fuel coming in with the required regularity. They might be caught by the Bill, because of the frequency with which they call on the UK as part of their service, but they are certainly not ferries. The Minister will confirm this later, but I do not believe we should use the language of “ferries”, when we are in fact talking about ships.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this is a useful set of amendments to clarify some of the points. I hope that the Minister will either be able to provide that clarification or, if she wants to worry about the syntax of her reply, supply it in a careful letter.
I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 10 seeks to replace 120 with 52 in Clause 3(3), so I sit alongside my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. My noble friend made a persuasive case for 50, as opposed to 52, and I will need considerable persuasion not to press this point on Report, unless the Minister is able to create a very powerful argument that there would be unintended consequences from that.
Amendment 36 seeks, in essence, to stop the effects of the Bill being, in a sense, destroyed by repeated regulations. Surely the Bill’s minimum requirements are in the primary legislation, and the adjustments to them should really be only upwards, not reducing the requirements.
I also join the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her concern about the DPRRC’s concerns. In my day, if it produced a recommendation, we used to shake in our boots and recognise that some deal or other had to be made with it because of the authority it carried. Once again, I hope the Government will recognise the authority and wisdom of that committee and accede to its suggestions.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am again grateful to noble Lords for sharing their thoughts on this group of amendments. The thrust of the amendments in this group is very much around probing the scope of the Bill in terms of the services and ships to which it applies. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, noted, I will write. I do not think he was implying that my oral replies are not carefully thought through—maybe he was—but the letter will be perfect. Noble Lords should await further information in the letter, but I will try to cover as many points as I can.
I look at this borderline, grey-area conversation that noble Lords are having, and at the back of my mind I keep thinking, “What sort of an operator are you if you will go to a different port in order to drop your frequency down to be just under or over any particular target so that you don’t have to pay your seafarers the national minimum wage equivalent in UK waters?”
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Well, because of that we will come on to why it is so important that the Bill refers to services rather than ships; otherwise, quite frankly, you could do that, and all sorts of very interesting things. I will try to go through some of the amendments and think carefully about how we make sure that we reassure operators and trade associations about what a service is. Indeed, there is a question about what a harbour is. The good thing is that we have a definition of a harbour, in the Harbours Act 1964 and the Harbours Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. That is what a harbour is, so I will put that one to bed.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I just want to comment on the Minister’s last statement, which was very helpful. I think she needs to recognise that the maritime industry has probably got very good PR, but some of what goes on on the ships is highly dubious. I have been honorary president of the United Kingdom Maritime Pilots’ Association for about 25 years—heaven knows why so long, it is very nice of them—and I hear stories about what pilots find when they get on the ships. It is not just that the pilot ladder might break, which sadly does happen occasionally, but that there is a language problem within the ships, or that the master sometimes cannot control the crew and that they will do anything to save tuppence ha’penny. So, I appreciate what she is saying, and in a normal business, she is probably right, but in this sector, it may not be the ferry or the short-haul freight services, but we have to recognise that every penny seems to count and usually it is very bad for some of the crew.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Of course, the noble Lord has much more experience aboard such vessels than me, and I will take his word about some of the conditions on ships. Indeed, we heard during Covid how what happened on ships was very distressing for some people and extremely disappointing. I take all of that on board but I go back to: I cannot fix the entire world today but what I can fix is what is before the Committee in terms of the scope of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned specific types of services, such as coasters—which apparently take English clay around the coast, et cetera—and cruise ships. This is why it is so important to do this based on the service and its frequency rather than what it is actually providing. Coasters might be caught but if they are doing only domestic work they will be caught anyway because they are in UK waters and they are caught if it is port to port within the UK, but if they are doing a run frequently—say three times a week across to France—they will be caught, and I do not see why they should not be. I have no problem with that. Let us catch them. The people working on such vessels most likely have close ties to the UK and those vessels clearly have close ties to the UK because they dock here so frequently, so it does not matter where the ship is flagged or where the employment contract is. It is the fact that it spends a lot of its time in UK waters and enters UK ports on a very frequent basis. This frequency is important.
I note that two noble Lords have tabled amendments to go down to 52 occasions from 120. We looked at this very carefully during the consultation. My current view—and of course we are going to go away and consider this—is that 52 would catch too many vessels that we did not intend to catch and would be overreach in terms of the current settlement with the international shipping community. Again, we might be entering the sort of territory where the unintended consequences would be quite significant. I go back to the fact that this is a narrow Bill, it has a narrow scope, it does a very specific thing, and I would like it to do that specific thing on services which dock here 120 times a year.
Amendments 7 and 8 refer to this issue of “a harbour”, “the harbour” or “harbours”. We have established what “a harbour” is—so that is done—and we are very clear that the service is to a particular harbour. It is not to “a harbour” within the UK because Calais-Dover is not the same as a service running from Calais to any other harbour. The route is specified. It is the same route, not using the same ships, high frequency to a specific harbour. We think that is quite clear.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked for a definition of “close ties”. I do not think I will ever be able to get to that but we have been able to define what a “service” is. Those services have close ties. It is descriptive language to define what these services are, but it is merely that. It is not something that will be legally defined and taken forward.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Do I understand, then, that the Government are unable or unwilling to define “close ties”?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government are very willing to define what these services are and, by implication, those have close ties to the UK. I can probably come up with lots of other clever descriptors to define these sorts of services. A large container ship stopping at the UK once a month does not have close ties to the UK; it is an international container ship, shipping around wheat or whatever it might be shipping. We can think of some other language, but once we have nailed what the service is, where it goes, how frequently it goes and which ships it utilises, then we have defined it. That is it, we are done. That is the definition that works legally because it has hard boundaries and can be fairly well defined, I think.
I absolutely appreciate that Amendment 27 is a probing amendment. We intend to provide guidance to harbour authorities, and that guidance will be consulted on. We can define what the service is but we need to help harbour authorities to fully understand those definitions. We will consult with the industry to make sure that there is absolute clarity. I would not say that the guidance should be put on a statutory footing; that is not entirely necessary in this particular case.
I turn finally to Amendment 37. I have of course seen the DPRRC report. It was published only a few days ago so I beg your Lordships’ leave just to say that, at this stage, we are considering what is in it. We are taking it very seriously; I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that we take all DPRRC reports very seriously. We will publish our response to it before Report so noble Lords will have the opportunity to peruse that. I have no doubt that we will be able to have further conversations about that.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I absolutely shall cover Amendment 36. My apologies, I slightly went off-beam so I thought I had already covered it.
Regarding Amendment 36, the clause as drafted does not allow a Government to amend or reduce the overall extent of services in scope of the Bill. It provides only that regulations may make different provisions for different cases, including for different descriptions of service to which the Bill applies or non-qualifying seafarers. This power cannot be used to amend the Bill and is not intended to be used to alter the scope of the Bill. I slightly thought that I would need to come back to this particular issue to make sure that noble Lords are in agreement as to what we are trying to achieve here. I will give that further consideration.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments and to the Minister for hers. This set of amendments really comes down to the practicalities of statutory harbour authorities trying to manage this legislation, which, we have to recognise, is taking them into a completely new area of endeavour. They are comfortable with environmental and shipping things but we need to remember that this is new. Uncertainty at this stage about fundamentals, such as ships and services and what close ties are, is quite concerning. I hope that the Minister will ensure as a matter of urgency that the conversations that ought to take place with the harbour authorities will take place fairly soon so that we can clear up some of these issues and put them in a position where they feel a little more comfortable with what they are being asked to do.
With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hendy
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to extend the protections given by the Bill. My noble friend Lord Berkeley will speak to the question of whether Clauses 4 and 9 should stand part of the Bill and my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe will speak to Amendment 25, which seeks an impact assessment in relation to roster patterns, pensions and wages, and Amendment 26 on engagement with trade unions.
My amendments are Amendments 3, 13 and 14. I have now convinced myself that Amendment 3 is completely unnecessary. I was trying to ensure that the protection in Section 40 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, which deals with residency of seafarers, or lack of it, would still be a condition for engaging the Act where the seafarer was a regular visitor to UK ports but not resident in the UK. On reflection, it seems that it is not necessary to refer to Section 40 because Clause 2(c) specifically engages the National Minimum Wage Act as a whole, and therefore Section 40.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I speak briefly to oppose Clauses 4 and 9 standing part of the Bill. Again, this goes back to what I spoke about earlier in terms of the legality of this legislation. It comes from the International Chamber of Shipping, which says:
“The vessel declaration requirements envisaged in the Bill … contravene the international frameworks and principles governing seafarers’ remuneration, which confer jurisdiction to the flag State. Notwithstanding the fact that NMWe”—
national minimum wage—
“payments and declarations would be limited to work done while a ship is in UK waters / ports (to address ‘extraterritorial reach’ concerns), this would still amount to an excessive claim to prescriptive jurisdiction, contrary to the fundamental principle of flag State jurisdiction, i.e., that a vessel’s flag State has overall responsibility for the employment conditions aboard a vessel. UNCLOS Article 94 (Duties of the flag State), specifies that the flag State shall ‘exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag’. It would further be contrary to the universal norm that port States will not regulate the ‘internal affairs’ or ‘internal economy’ of visiting foreign vessels (a principle that includes employment conditions).”
This may seem a long way away from ships going between the UK and close waters, but it indicates that what vessels from further afield—which may or may not get tied up in this—will do may be something that the UK finds unpalatable. In other words, if they start doing this to show up the UK as not complying with the UNCLOS requirements, it could be difficult. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me on this; indeed, we may need a meeting with our legal experts to see how important this is and what can be done about it.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, we do not have any amendments in this group, but I take this opportunity simply to make the point that we share the concern of those noble Lords who do have amendments in this group. These are important issues that reflect the reasonable fear that employers could use tactics that circumvent the measures in the Bill.
One thing that has been speculated on is that seafarers could be paid at a lower rate when they are outside UK waters to compensate for the higher rate that they must be paid in UK waters. There are things about which the Government can do nothing, but it is really important that the things that can be got right are looked at carefully to ensure that they are absolutely on the nail. I point in particular to Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to emphasise the importance of monitoring the effectiveness of this legislation and engaging with the trade unions. P&O’s tactics—the audacity with which they were announced surprised everyone, I think—exposed the weakness of the current safeguards. However, if the Government attempt to plug the loophole but fail to do so effectively, I fear that P&O would not be alone and other owners would attempt to do something similar—perhaps not as blatantly as the way in which P&O did it, but it certainly could undermine legislation further if the Government’s efforts here are not fully effective.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak on the two amendments in my name in this group, but I commend the other amendments to the Minister’s study, because it is important to achieve clarity on some of these issues.
On Amendment 25, my original involvement with these sorts of issues was in an analogous industry—transport—where I was a shop steward and subsequently an industrial relations manager. In the crew situation, issues with roster patterns and pensions are every bit as important as wages. The way that rosters are handled in particular can have a serious impact on remuneration and a massive impact on quality of life. It is important that there is a proper impact report on these issues, ideally within 90 days.
This leads on to Amendment 26, because this and other issues would be much enhanced if we could develop a proper relationship with the trade unions. The importance of this from the point of view of the trade union movement is exemplified by an appeal—for want of a better term—to the International Labour Organization from the general secretary of Nautilus; the general secretary of the RMT, Mick Lynch; the general secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady; the acting general secretary of the European Transport Workers’ Federation; the general secretary of the International Transport Workers’ Federation; and the general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation. I read those out to emphasise that this is a heavy coalition of the trade union movement. Their appeal is set out in a document that I hope the Minister has seen, which centres on what happened at P&O. It helps one to understand how broad detailing and managing the employment conditions of crew is and how important it is to get a hold of this to make sure that crews are properly looked after, both in their remuneration and conditions of work. I therefore commend Amendment 26 to the Minister.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, this third group of amendments is broadly concerned with the relationship of this Bill to the domestic national minimum wage. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has already decided that Amendment 3 is not necessary; I agree with him so, if noble Lords agree, I shall just move on.
Amendment 13, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, relates to the calculation of the national minimum wage equivalence and deductions. We have been clear that this will be covered by regulation and is not for the Bill. This also allows us a little more flexibility decades hence, should changes need to be made. Nevertheless, Section 2(5)(c) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 does not prohibit deductions from pay of costs for providing seafarers’ accommodation, food or water, but simply provides for regulations on the matter. We will very much be matching up.
Regulations under the Bill will need to be consistent with the provisions within the Maritime Labour Convention, or MLC, whereby requiring seafarers to meet the cost of food and water is expressly forbidden. We therefore do not need to amend the Bill to account for this. Perhaps the noble Lord might remind the RMT about that, if it feels that seafarers out there are being charged for those things. That is clearly and expressly forbidden.
Regarding deductions for accommodation, under the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, employers on domestic services are permitted to apply a reduction of up to £8.70 per day in respect of the provision of living accommodation, without that affecting the assessment of the worker’s pay for national minimum wage purposes. The MLC does not make express provision for reduction for accommodation, and shipping industry practice is not to charge seafarers for accommodation. It is not our intention that operators should be encouraged to make such reductions for accommodation to reduce their overall wage fee, so we will be considering this in the regulations in due course.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in the debate, and to the noble Baroness for her explanations and her undertaking to look at certain matters again. I share my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe’s regret that she could not go a little further with his Amendments 25 and 26, because we know from the experience with P&O Ferries that the collective agreements were torn up and the role of the trade unions abolished by that employer. Those amendments would have been quite useful to see what the impact would be on industrial relations and whether trade unions would be left with any role, whether over pensions, rostering or any other matter concerning terms and conditions. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hendy
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments also concern enforcement of and compliance with the Bill’s provisions. I have Amendments 4 and 11 but, to deal with this generally, Amendments 12 and 24 seek to impose much higher penalties—detention of a ship or a minimum £1 million fine. Amendments 31 to 34 deal with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report. Amendments 20 to 22 and 31 deal with transferring tariffs from harbour authorities to the Secretary of State. Amendments 30, 35 and 39 depend on the removal of earlier clauses. Amendment 17 deals with naming the particular inspector.
My Amendment 4 is to Clause 3(1), which provides:
“Where ships providing a service to which this Act applies use the harbour of a harbour authority, the authority may request the operator … to provide a … declaration”.
I seek to change “may” to “must”, because it does not seem appropriate that the harbour should be left with any discretion at all. I appreciate that there are to be regulations later on that would give the Secretary of State power over harbour authorities, but one might have thought that it would not be unreasonable to demand in the Bill that harbour authorities demand an equivalence declaration.
My Amendment 11 is also to Clause 3, this time to Clause 3(5). As it stands, it requires that the operator must inform the harbour authority that there is an inconsistency with a declaration. I am seeking for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency likewise to be informed, because it will, essentially, be the regulator. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, this is a bit of a humdinger of a group, but a lot of the amendments are mine. Only four are of substance and the rest are consequential, so it is not as bad as it looks.
The first set of amendments I tabled concern the duty for setting a tariff of surcharges and moving it from the harbour authorities, as currently provided for, to the Secretary of State. I will explain why I think this is important. The practice of harbour authorities surcharging is well established. When I was on the board of Harwich Haven we created surcharges as a way of funding specific objectives, such as channel deepening. They are always done after a process of negotiation with the shipping companies that will pay them. I am not going to say that they are always popular but they are generally accepted. At the end of it all, harbour authorities always have to be mindful of the competitiveness of their own ports. That holds them in check.
The problem is that what is being called a surcharge is not; it is a fine. There is a danger of muddying the water by taking a tried and tested system of surcharging, which is generally positive, and then turning it into something negative when it is really a fine. As I and the BPA understand it, the rate of surcharge or fine will be set by the harbour authorities with reference to the national living wage deficit—in other words, the difference between the actual amount paid to seafarers and the amount they should have been paid under the national minimum wage. The problem with that is that it makes it impossible to do what one normally would with fines and produce a tariff in advance. In the interests of transparency, that is pretty much always the case but in this the authorities could almost make it up as they went along. This puts harbour authorities in quite a difficult position. It would be much better to have a system of fines—and call them fines—and a tariff set by the Secretary of State.
That is linked with my amendment on conflicts of interest. It is really to try to get a sense from the Government about how harbour authorities are to manage this conflict of interest, given that port ownership in this country is very much a mixed model: Holyhead is privately owned, Dover is an independent trust and Portsmouth is owned by the local authority, while it is of course quite common for shipping companies to seek ownership of a harbour or terminal. The Committee can see that there would then be a direct conflict of interest in setting the surcharge or fine, so I would be interested in hearing more from the Government about that.
Then I have a group of amendments about the consequences of a shipping company failing to meet its obligations or to pay. What I envisage is that harbours would still request the declarations and pass them on to the MCA for enforcement. The Government would require HMRC to have the power to investigate vessel operators, and the MCA could levy fines for non-payment. Importantly, in the event of repeated infringements the MCA would have the power to detain the vessel. It sounds much more draconian to detain a vessel—does it not?—rather than deny access, as proposed in the Bill. In fact it is standard practice by port state control. I would not say that the MCA does it all the time, because it rarely comes to that, but it has that power and it is a way of dealing with vessels which do not meet their legal obligations.
Denial of access to harbours is an extremely important matter. It would require a derogation from the open port duty on harbour authorities but, even then, it would be a very draconian step. The International Chamber of Shipping has cited the OECD’s Understanding on Common Shipping Principles, which refers to
“non-discriminatory treatment … in … the assignment of berths and facilities”
and so on. It goes on to promote the freedom for shipping companies to promote the interests of “maintaining a competitive environment”. Can the Minister say whether she has had specific legal advice on compliance with these OECD common principles?
Finally, I have amendments which return to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report. In Clause 11(2), the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to give directions to the harbour authorities to exercise their powers, or not to do so, or to exercise them in a particular way. It is worth quoting from the report. The committee says
“it is capable of being exercised not only in individual cases but generally, so as to have legislative effect: it would allow the Secretary of State to direct all harbour authorities that they must not, for example, impose surcharges or indeed exercise any of their powers”.
The committee finds this “startling”, and goes on to say that this clause
“should be removed from the Bill”.
I would be very interested to hear what the noble Baroness says about that.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, including some clause stand part notices, but first I must say that I support everything the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said about these issues. It will be very hard for ports to be responsible for setting tariffs when they are in competition with the ports next door—it does happen. The other thing that worries me about the ports being involved in this is that, again, it is not unknown for crew members to disappear off a ship or come on to a ship when they are in harbour. We do not need to go into detail, but it is all part of the competition, the regulation and the enforcement, which is terribly important.
On the question of conflicts of interest, again, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that a number of ports are owned by shipping lines, but of course there are also other parts of ports—different quays or wharves—that are owned by a shipping line or by a different company that owns the actual harbour. My question then is, who will be responsible: the competent harbour authority or someone else? Take the Port of London Authority, which is the authority for the whole port, and Thamesport, which now has two or possibly three massive quays there: will the PLA be responsible, and would it like to be seen to be going in, interfering and getting information? I do not know the answer, but there is a conflict there.
Retaining vessels, as the noble Baroness again said, is actually quite common. It happened to us in Fowey about five years ago when a Russian vessel came in. It sat there, the tide went out and I suppose it probably ran aground on the bottom. Somebody went by in a small boat and found a hole in the side of the ship, well below the waterline, into which a dirty rag had been stuffed. The harbour authority, with the MCA’s support, quite rightly prevented that ship leaving until it had blocked up the hole with something better than a rag. Okay, that is not something you see every day, but it does happen.
Things happen to affect the proper management of a port. Sometimes ports are in competition, but they do not want to get into the position where they act as policeman to their own possible part owners, possible customers or anything else. I am sure the MCA and HMRC, as necessary, ought to be involved, so I support the amendments that the noble Baroness has tabled as well as my own.
I shall finish, again, on the legal questions and the scope of the UK port state control powers, which is to do with the ability to levy surcharges—these, as the noble Baroness said, are like a fine—or issuing suspensions via the SHA. The advice from the international chamber is that the Government could potentially be exceeding the powers conferred on them under the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2011, which implement the UK’s international obligations under the IMO’s Paris memorandum of understanding on port state control in UK law. It suggests that the enforcement measures contemplated in the Bill should be aligned with and adhere to title 5 of the ILO MLC convention, which relates to “compliance and enforcement”. That is the third of what might be called my legal challenges to the Minister, which I hope I have put correctly. I can send her the briefing if she would like it; I am sure it would be useful to have a discussion about this when she has had a chance to read it.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, the case for the Secretary of State being responsible for surcharges was very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. To summarise, it sits much better with the Secretary of State. We have a situation in which the port authority is normally providing a service to the owner; the owner-operator is therefore a customer. To be, in effect, levying a fine on your customer is an unnatural state of affairs. In the interests of transparency and consistency, we should have one entity in the land deciding these things. They can vary from port to port and there may be special circumstances, but it is desirable to have one authority making the surcharge across the land.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Mountevans, for joining us on some of these amendments. I will briefly underline some of the points that my noble friend and those noble Lords made.
The complexity of expecting ports to do what is essentially the Government’s job for them will undermine the effectiveness of this legislation. Think about the use of the term “surcharge”. You pay a surcharge when you use a service voluntarily; it has no implication of illegality. If, however, a company finds itself paying a surcharge according to the rubric of this Bill when it becomes legislation, it will have broken the law. In other words, it is paying a surcharge as a fine—and a fine should be called a fine. I urge the Minister to look again at the phraseology here. Let us be clear: if companies are going to be fined, let us call it a fine.
The other issue is the complexity of expecting ports to deny access to the harbour. The international law on denying access to a harbour is complex and it would be difficult for them to do so. They would have to be absolutely sure that there is no question of danger to life. As a result, they will err on the side of caution and it will not happen. As both the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lady Scott said, detaining ships is a normal course of events. It is not done frequently but it is done, and for safety reasons as well. I urge the Government to have the courage of their convictions and give these powers to the Secretary of State, because they are much more appropriately those of the Secretary of State.
It is not as if the Government do not want to be involved, because Clause 11 gives them wide-ranging powers of direction. It essentially gives them control, so the Government want that control behind the scenes but do not have the courage to put their name on the notices. That is a strange approach, so I urge them to rethink the way this is to be done. The impact would be that well-meaning and very important legislation could be undermined. At the same time, it would put our ports in a difficult position, make their relationship with ship owners more complex and create for them, as other noble Lords said, a conflict of interest.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I have a couple of amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 12, which would create a minimum fine of £1 million. Whether that is the right figure, I am not sure, but the real concern is about the size of the owners; I believe that P&O’s owners have made $721 million in the past six months. There is a real risk that, if businesses of this size take an almost doctrinal opposition to the measure—the P&O debacle showed such a doctrinal opposition to reasonable conditions on board ships—a fine that is not substantial becomes just a cost of business. That would be regrettable; I am sure that it is not the Government’s intention but I would value some feedback from the Minister. How does one assure oneself that the fines are sufficiently large to impinge on the decision-making of these companies? There is a concern that good companies do the right thing anyway. The trouble is that we have a very real example in the recent past of one of these companies not doing the right thing; that is what provoked this legislation.
The second area concerns naming the inspector or inspectors. I tabled my amendment here to draw out how the world will know that this is happening. Organisations that have either a principal inspector or someone like that as a named individual are so much clearer as to who will be held to account for appropriate levels of activity. As a minimum, I hope that the Minister will be able to give me a feel for how quickly inspectors will be appointed and how many of them there will be, as well as assure us that there is adequate inspection capability. We know that this whole issue of minimum wage enforcement is pretty difficult in a land situation; at sea, it will be much more difficult to get the details to know whether an offence or the wrong charge has been committed.
With that, I come to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, regarding the Secretary of State having the authority to determine the tariff, which will really be a fine. I think that harbour authorities are about harbours. I can see why they perhaps must be drawn in at one level but when it comes to becoming a policeman, in essence, that is what the state should be doing. I agree with the general thrust that this should be the Secretary of State’s responsibility.
Finally, I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the amendments addressing the DPRRC’s concerns.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, this fourth and final group of amendments is concerned broadly with incentives, enforcement and compliance. There is a wide range of amendments herein. It has been helpful to have this discussion today.
I will start with Amendment 4, with which the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, seeks to make requesting a national minimum wage equivalent declaration a duty rather than a power that can be used with some discretion. The payment of national minimum wage equivalent would be a condition of port entry and so should be a matter for the harbour authority to decide. Furthermore, by making this a “may” rather than a “must”, we are allowing for flexibility in circumstances where there might be overlapping harbour authorities, for example where a vessel transits through one harbour authority’s area of jurisdiction to call at a port within another harbour authority area of jurisdiction. There may be other circumstances that noble Lords can think of where it is not necessary that this declaration is shared every single time. It should be noted that the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct harbour authorities to request a declaration, so there are necessary safeguards against harbour authorities not discharging this function properly.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
The noble Baroness promised to write letters. Will it be a common letter to all of us?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Yes. I tend to do one letter addressed to all noble Lords present. A copy will be placed in the Library. It will be lengthy, but it will be set out by topic and cover, with as much detail as I can, things that I have not been able to cover today and any additional information that would be helpful to noble Lords.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, and to the noble Baroness for her explanation and response to the points raised in this group of amendments. I am very grateful in particular that she will look again at the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendations. I should have said earlier that I am a member of that committee.
I wonder whether, having heard the almost unanimous view expressed this afternoon about the effective delegation of authority to harbour authorities, the Government would be prepared to look at that a little further. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [HL]
Wednesday 26th October 2022
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 38-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (24 Oct 2022)
16:33 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 190 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
17:30 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 161 / Noes: 179 - Amendment 5 disagreed.
Lord Berkeley
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as honorary president of the UK Maritime Pilots’ Association and a former harbour commissioner for the port authority in Cornwall.
In moving Amendments 1 and 2 I will reflect on the purpose of the Bill. Although it was created, as Ministers have said, to avoid a repeat of the frankly disastrous attempt by P&O Ferries earlier this year to change all their seafarers, it was the process that I felt was abhorrent. Clearly, the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the national minimum wage legislation applies to all seafarers when working in UK waters but not within the UK.
We debated the two issues in Amendments 1 and 2 in col. GC 102 of the Grand Committee on 12 October. I would like to start on Amendment 1, which is linked to Amendment 2. The question is: what is a harbour?
My Amendment 1 would leave out the words “the harbour” and insert
“a harbour in the United Kingdom”.
We understood what the Minister told us in Committee, but then it got a bit confusing. She kindly wrote a long letter to us, which was helpful, but she said in the letter:
“A service is defined … as being ‘for the carriage of persons and goods by ship, with or without vehicles, between a place outside the United Kingdom and a place in the United Kingdom’”.
The word “a” is interesting. If it were “the”, as in the Bill, that would be just one harbour, but my argument is that “a” place can be any harbour. This comes into the scope of whether the Government are trying to protect all seafarers who are, shall we say, based in the UK—those who work in UK waters but are not necessarily employed on UK land—or whether this provision just sorts out the P&O Ferries problem. It is my contention that as the Minister referred in her letter to “a” place, that is what should be in the Bill.
I also want to explore why this needs to be confined to Dover to Calais. Many noble Lords will recall that a previous Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling, created a new ferry service between Ramsgate and Zeebrugge to try to sort out the traffic jams at Dover. Of course, that ferry service did not actually exist; I discovered that the head office was in an office owned by a very large manufacturer of construction equipment in the City, but there was no ship or ferry. But Ramsgate is a perfectly good ferry terminal and I can see that ferries might operate between Dover and Calais one day and between Ramsgate and Calais the next; it could effectively be the same service. It is not right to confine the service included in the Bill to just one service, when ships can go round the country. I believe that the seafarers, in all these things, need similar protection.
We then move on to the question of having 52 or 120 days a year where the ship would have to come into a UK port in order to be included under the Bill. Ministers have said that the key is that the service must have close ties to the UK. I suppose I would question how you can define close ties—it is a bit of a woolly concept. I am not going to give any examples, but if you are a seafarer and want to be included, you might wonder whether the company employing you has those close ties. It is a difficult question to answer.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of J&J Denholm, which has shipping and port services interests. I have not participated in this Bill because I thought it was excellent and doing the job that Ministers made clear was its purpose, which was to prevent a recurrence of the appalling behaviour of P&O in its ferry services. That was declared at the time.
We are looking at the provisions in the Bill and the suggestion in Amendment 2 that we should leave out 120 and insert 52. I believe that P&O has something like 15 crossings per day between Dover and Calais, so the Bill clearly deals with the problem that it was presented as seeking to solve. I am not unsympathetic to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who is splendid and very careful in the work that he does in this House. Indeed, we have agreed on matters such as HS2 and others from time to time. But his amendment would completely change the Bill’s scope, and to do that on Report would be quite ridiculous, when the whole thing has been presented to the public.
I am intervening because of representations from the Chamber of Shipping, which accepts that the Bill is right and the number 120 is right, but is concerned that we are drawing in other services. I have no idea what those services are and the noble Lord did not say what they were; I have no idea what the implications and costs are for the administration of the ports and so on. What I do know, however, is that it is not what the Bill was introduced to deal with. Therefore, at this late stage, it would be wholly inappropriate to amend the Bill in this way or to create an unknown administrative burden on the ports.
I guess that the noble Lord chose the number 52 because it meant once a week, but that does not address the problem that has occurred, so I hope my noble friend will continue to resist the amendment. The noble Lord seems to me to be in danger of trespassing on international conventions and rules. The Labour Party has always been a great supporter of the ILO and so on, and of having an international approach. We must tread with care. The Government, in seeking to deal with the P&O episode, took a step in a direction that moved away from the conventions that the flag of convenience should govern the rules on board ships, which was entirely justified. But this amendment is a step too far. As it is Report, I shall say no more.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Forsyth has said. We have set out to deal with the problem of P&O. I have heard nothing from the RMT—it is clearly not that bothered about this side of the House—but this pushes things a bit further than they should go. I hope the noble Lord will not test the opinion of the House.
Lord Greenway (CB)
My Lords, I very much endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, just said. I am very concerned about this amendment, as is the Chamber of Shipping. The Bill is part of the Government’s nine-point plan to address the whole problem of seafarer welfare—an important one nevertheless, dealing with services with close ties to the UK, making regular port-to-port international voyages adding up to 120 calls a year. It is not just about Dover/Calais; ports all around the country will be affected, so it is wrong to concentrate just on Dover/Calais, although admittedly that is where the main problem occurred.
The Government went through extensive consultation on the Bill and came up with the figure of 120 calls a year, which is probably the right balance. I know that the chamber is very concerned that widening the scope of the services affected to those making only a single call a week would draw in a very large number of non-UK ships, subjecting many more foreign companies to UK national minimum wage legislation. In turn, that would provoke a severe reaction from the international shipping community—and I know that the International Chamber of Shipping is especially worried about this. In turn, this could be seen as an even greater infringement of international conventions and an excessive claim to prescriptive jurisdiction.
It would also be impractical for the Government to oversee such a large and diverse number of shipping services calling at UK ports, increasing the administrative burden on ports, as has already been said, and creating uncertainty across different shipping sectors such as coastal, wet and tanker services, dredgers and other services that were never intended to be part of this Bill. Any decision to have a scope in the Bill that is way beyond the original stated intention will seriously damage confidence in the UK as a global centre for shipping; it also risks fewer ships calling at UK ports.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans has taken a greater part in this Bill than I have, so in many ways I am speaking for him. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who is a good friend, that no cruise ship would be affected by this amendment, because cruise ships do not call that frequently and most of them migrate during the winter months. So, I do not think that the effect of his amendment would be as great as he might have hoped, and therefore I hope the Government will resist it.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I want to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his usual attention to detail on these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said that he had not participated before. If he had, he would know that the scope of the Bill has been a persistent topic, and those of us who have been engaged throughout have pressed the Minister on a number of occasions, and in a number of ways, to define it more closely. I am particularly interested in Amendment 2; the key point here is the reduction in the number of visits required to demonstrate close ties and regular links with the UK—the noble Lord has suggested a reduction from 120 to 52.
The argument against that is that it might bring in a new range of services, and I understand the Government’s desire to avoid mission creep. But the truth is that although we all agree with the principle of this Bill—that seafarers should be paid a decent wage—in practice it is very poorly drafted. It has imprecise definitions, penalties that are in practice not going to be imposed—such as the denial of access to the harbour, which will come up in an amendment later—and a very cumbersome structure whereby the Government will rely on harbour authorities to implement the rules. I believe it would not have got this far in its current state if the Government had not been so distracted recently; we are after all on the third Secretary of State in three weeks, and it is difficult to get that continuity.
To address the specific issue of the numbers, the noble Lord suggests that the total is 52. It is easy, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has just pointed out, to base one’s judgments on what happens from Dover; in practice, there are ferry services in the rest of the UK that are in every way similar in structure, ownership of the company and the seafarers involved, but they go much less frequently. It is possible to envisage, for example, some of the ferries between the north of England and Scandinavia and ferries between the south-west of England—maybe Poole—and the north of Spain. Those are regular ferry services that often do not run at all in winter, so a total of 52 may not be out of kilter with what is required.
In the interests of fair wages, it might be worth broadening the definition. I urge the Minister to consider that, and to look, even at this late stage, at the pattern of services throughout the UK. There may well be a case to reduce the total number of services which are caught in the Bill.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I support both my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s amendments. They make it more likely that operators will not be able to evade their obligation to pay at least the national minimum wage equivalent. The behaviour of P&O Ferries in March this year is the very reason for the Bill, and that behaviour shows the lengths to which operators will go to save money on seafarers’ wages. The Bill should bend over backwards to narrow every opportunity for operators to evade their very modest obligation to pay seafarers the national minimum wage equivalent and prevent such behaviour.
It is not just P&O Ferries. The effect of allowing ship operators to evade the national minimum wage equivalent is that they undercut their competitors, which then join the race to the bottom and put at risk the jobs of some 2,000 UK-resident ratings and officers. Like my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I looked at the table provided by RMT. Perhaps he will forgive me giving a correction: he said that the lowest rate was £2.40, paid by Condor Ferries. However, according to the table, the lowest rate is P&O Ferries on the “Pride of York”—a vessel registered in the Bahamas—on the Hull-Zeebrugge route, which pays €2.04 per hour for cooks of Lithuanian extraction. There are a number of other low rates. For example, DFDS’s “King Seaways”, going from Newcastle to Ijmuiden, is on the Danish international ship register and has Polish, Ukrainian, Romanian and Filipino crew, and it pays $2.63 an hour for a cabin steward. I will not read any more examples, but this appears to be a perpetuation of nationality-based discrimination on pay which this legislation should be tight enough to avoid.
I hope the Minister will forgive me for asking before I sit down for her to clarify a point raised in Committee—namely, whether a harbour in one of the Crown dependencies is a UK harbour or whether it will become subject to a national minimum wage equivalent corridor. I did not understand the answer she gave in her very kind letter of 21 October. If it is to become the subject of a corridor, can I ask how negotiations are progressing, and whether they involve the social partners?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, to make some general comments, we welcome the Bill. I think everybody has been shocked by P&O’s behaviour, but this goes a bit deeper than that. I had no idea how badly seamen are paid. It is disgraceful. This is clearly a worldwide problem, and there are problems with addressing it from a singular point of view.
I also object to the criticism of my noble friend by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because this has been a normal Bill. We could not vote in Grand Committee for the usual conventional reasons. It was well debated—the noble Lord would know that if he had been present. Essentially, Amendment 2 is a judgment about degree, and we come to a different judgment than the Government. While we support the Bill in general, we have amendments where we think that a little finesse will make it more effective. A weekly service is the sort of thing that should be within the scope of the Bill. While we will not press Amendment 1, we will support the noble Lord if he wants to press his Amendment 2 to a Division.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for all contributions on this first group. I appreciate the support from Members on my own side; it is always good for the Minister to know that there are a range of views and that people are thinking about the Bill and taking it seriously—it is a very serious Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, mentioned the welfare of seafarers. He is absolutely right and there are mechanisms, which the UK is deeply embedded in and has been for a very long time, which work internationally, as many noble Lords will know, to try to improve the conditions and pay of seafarers. However, that is not under discussion today. As pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, this is an important part of the nine-point plan that Ministers set out earlier in the year, but the Bill is narrow in scope and effect. That is for many reasons but a key one is that we have to be mindful of the extent to which we are legislating; we have to be mindful that we do not overreach, because that might have some very serious unintended consequences that we would later regret. That is why, throughout the drafting of the Bill, we have had at the front of our minds not only international law but our international obligations; that is critical. Although I accept that there are many things that noble Lords would very much like to do for seafarers—and that, probably, on the face of it, I would like to do too —the reality is that, as a Government, we have to be sensible and potentially a bit boring. We must stay in our lane and make sure that we do not overreach, because the consequences would be very significant.
There are two amendments in this group. The first brings back the old chestnut of “the harbour” versus “a harbour”. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for enabling that discussion once more. I cannot go much further than I went in Committee; I just state that it is absolutely important that unless we say “the harbour”, we cannot define what a service is. A service is from one point—the point—to another point. It is of great regret that the word “a” crept into the letter, but noble Lords can imagine that that was the overarching ambition: from a point overseas to a point in the UK, but “the harbour” within a place overseas and a place in the UK. Because we have defined it that way, from “the harbour” to “the harbour”, we capture the high-frequency services that, let us recall, can be serviced by any vessel—you can put another vessel in when one is off being maintained or whatever—but it is always between two specified harbours.
The second part of that definition—the harbour to the harbour—that is very important is
“120 occasions in the year”.
That, essentially, defines a service that has close ties. The second point about this is that unless you define it as “the harbour” to “the harbour”, it would be incredibly difficult to enforce the Bill, because the Bill relies on one harbour authority being responsible for monitoring and enforcement. Individual harbours may be able to anticipate that a particular service will call in its harbour 120 times a year, perhaps because that service has been doing so for years, if not decades. That harbour authority may not be able to anticipate whether a particular operator has services to other ports, so how would the enforcement and monitoring work in those circumstances?
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, brought up an example about, I think, a former Transport Secretary and ships that could be brought in to operate services, but he reinforced the point I am trying to make: it is not about the ships or the specific seafarers on a particular service; it is the service itself that we must make sure falls within the Bill’s scope.
I am content that we have defined the scope well. I am a little disappointed that I have not given sufficient explanation such that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is content, but I feel that we are there and have clarified exactly what would happen. In response to concerns raised about services suddenly deciding to go to another port so that they do not have to pay seafarers a fair wage, as I said in Committee, I do not think that would be commercially viable. I do not think operators would play switcheroo with UK ports because, frankly, their customers would not put up with it. I do not think that point works.
I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment to change “the harbour” to “a harbour”. It would make the entire Bill not worth the paper it is written on, and it would not function in the way that I know the noble Lord wants it to function.
I turn now to Amendment 2, which seeks to decrease the threshold frequency from 120 times a year to 52. The figure of 120 was arrived at following very thorough and extensive consultation and bilateral discussions with industry and other stakeholders. We have looked incredibly carefully at the patterns of services, noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and at maritime traffic data by type to reach the figure in the Bill. The scope of the Bill captures services calling 120 times a year on purpose. It is a very specific number that balances the need to maintain close ties with wanting to do the very best we can for seafarers.
The rationale is clear. It covers the vast majority of passenger ferries, including ro-pax, non-passenger ferries and ro-ro services calling at the UK. Critically, it focuses the Bill on short sea services, which justifies the connection to the UK and therefore the UK-equivalent level protection of pay. We do not want to bring into scope some of the high-frequency deep sea container services. That would not be our intention at all and, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned, would completely change the scope of the Bill and would go against the Government’s intention.
For the UK to impose pay requirements for seafarers on foreign-flagged ships that call at its ports only once week would risk being seen as an overreach by international partners. It would weaken the justification for the UK taking legislative action. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, we must tread with care. I appreciate that the noble Lord’s intention is to protect as many seafarers as possible, but the Government can justifiably legislate only for those with close ties to the UK. To seek to do more could risk making the Bill inoperable and could damage the UK’s reputation internationally.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and to the Minister for her reply. To some extent, these issues were discussed in Committee and many of us suggested to the Minister that there were questions, which the Chamber of Shipping has clearly raised with other noble Lords, about the legality of this from an international shipping point of view. The Minister convinced us—well, she said there was no problem and she thought it would be all right and within scope. The only difference, therefore, is how many times a service goes into a port before it ceases to cause an international problem? I do not know the answer to that, but I cannot believe that, if it is all right to have 120 visits a year, it is somehow illegal to have 52.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of foreign-flag ships. I thought we had established that it applied to any ship, regardless of what flag, so I do not think the foreign flag comes into it at all.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for setting out in more detail what the RMT has sent us, but seafarers who are operating on a service where the cook gets paid £2 an hour might look askance at sea- farers who are getting the national minimum wage because they happen to be going on a short sea crossing where P&O had caused some problems earlier this year. It does not seem logical to me.
Lord Berkeley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reduce the number of visits by a ferry service to one particular port needed to qualify and bring further services within the scope of the Bill.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 2.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Member’s explanatory statement
In response to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in relation to the Bill, this amendment removes a power to restrict the circumstances in which national minimum wage equivalence declarations may be requested.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the thrust of the amendments in this group is to consider the delegated powers in the Bill. I will speak to the first amendment, in my name, and return to the remainder when I have heard contributions from noble Lords. Amendment 3 addresses a concern raised in the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the DPRRC. The amendment removes the power in Clause 3(4)(a) to make regulations that make provision restricting the circumstances in which harbour authorities may request that operators of shipping services provide national minimum wage equivalence declarations.
After reflecting on the comments of the committee, and representations made by noble Lords on this point in Committee, I agree that the power as drafted could have been exercised in a way that had broad effect to amend the application of the Bill, with limited parliamentary scrutiny. That had not been the intention of the clause when it was included, but, after some consideration, the Government are satisfied that the removal of this power would not have any impact on the operability or policy intention of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I stand to speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott: Amendments 6, 7, 8 and 9 in this group. We are pleased to see that the Minister has responded to comments from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and that her amendment addresses some of the issues that it was concerned about. Our amendments also address their comments, and the Government do not seem to have taken all of the committee’s comments on board. That concerns us.
Clause 11 gives the Secretary of State power to give directions to harbour authorities, requiring them to do—or not to do—a number of things. The DPRRC concluded that this was
“a completely open-ended power”
and pointed out that this could modify the whole Bill by directions which are not subject to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. The Government accepted this argument in relation to Clause 3 and put in an amendment, so my question is this: why is the same principle not applicable to Clause 11? I made the point earlier this afternoon that the Bill is, in my view, poorly constructed. I genuinely think that it is quite possibly an error, rather than a considered decision by the Government, that has led to their failure to rectify Clause 11, because there is no logic to making the effort with Clause 3 but not making the effort with Clause 11.
As the Bill stands, the Government are hiding behind harbour authorities by expecting them to do the enforcement work. I understand the points the Minister made in the various debates in that regard, but at the same time the Government want to retain all the ultimate power. That is not satisfactory. It overrides Parliament’s role and parliamentary democracy. It is an abuse of government power and it is bad law.
So my question to the Minister is: will the Government consider responding to and taking on board the rest of the DPRRC’s comments and, at a very late stage—at the last moment—ensuring that there are amendments in line with its comments? If she feels that the Government really cannot do that, will she give an undertaking in this House that they will not depart from the Bill’s basic script and intention—because there is a fear that that could happen, given the very wide-ranging power they are giving themselves in the Bill?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 10, which is designed to do exactly the same thing as the amendments from the noble Baroness. All I can say is that I entirely agree with what she said. It is really not acceptable that the Government can instruct or direct ports to do something, direct them not to do something, and then basically fine them, take them to court or whatever if they do not do what they say. It is all wrong and I support the noble Baroness’s statement. I hope the Minister will consider this and possibly come back with changes, as she did with the earlier recommendations.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I support all these amendments. The Government accepted the committee’s recommendation in relation to Clause 3 and introduced Amendment 3; they should also concede Amendments 6 to 9, and preferably Amendment 10.
The problem is that the Government have made harbours the enforcers of the Bill, in particular by way of imposing surcharges. That reveals the flawed structure of the legislation. The arguments are by now familiar so I will outline only three of them.
First, the national minimum wage equivalent for seafarers should not be enforced by harbours, some of which are wholly conflicted since they share ownership with the shipping lines they are to police. I do not understand how the noble Baroness could say in her letter to us of 21 October:
“The Government is confident that there are no conflicts of interest.”
Instead, the declaration of compliance should be received by, and the prime enforcement body should be, a state authority. The obvious candidate is the MCA.
Secondly, there should have been provision for seafarers or their unions to enforce the national minimum wage equivalent, not least by making the entitlement to it contractual.
Thirdly and lastly, enforcement by way of surcharge is, with respect, inappropriate. It is a penalty and the noble Baroness’s letter to us, of 21 October, says of surcharges that
“Rather than being a punitive measure, its purpose is to make it not worthwhile for an operator to underpay their seafarers.”
Of course that is so, but then there is no distinction of purpose between a fine and a surcharge. One suspects that the real reason that a surcharge is preferred to a fine is that it avoids the stigma of a criminal sanction, which is, if that is true, an unattractive justification given that we are all here seeking to prevent repetition of the disgraceful behaviour of companies such as P&O Ferries. Such companies should be stigmatised by criminal prosecution if they underpay their seafarers.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I thank the Minister for Amendment 3. Moving on to Amendments 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, I am more sympathetic with the Government than any of the previous speakers. These sorts of powers are necessary. Arguably, the way pressure is put on harbours to do the right thing is wrong, but it is the way the drafters of the Bill have chosen.
I wish the Government would get back to the tradition of doing what the DPRRC says, which way back, when I sat on those Benches, we did. However, none of those things will probably happen and, certainly, I do not feel it is an issue over which we would support dividing the House. I would, however, recommend that the Minister allay some of the fears that these clauses have provoked, by reading into the record the statement made to the DPRRC on 25 October, particularly, from the bottom of the page in the report:
“The policy intention is that this power would only be used in the following circumstances”
and all those circumstances, to the end of that document. In the best Pepper v Hart frame, the world would then have easy access to those limitations, much improving the likelihood of the Government sticking to those limitations. Of course, if she wants to amend the document more fully, I would not be averse to her bringing this back at Third Reading. However, I can tell from her demeanour there is not a prayer of that, so would she agree to putting those assurances into the record?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will indeed take option A from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I accept that we do not want our powers to be overreaching. I believe there is a good justification for these powers, and I will happily read into the record the circumstances in which the Government believe it would be justified to use these powers.
I will quickly address the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I do not believe he will press it to a vote because it would remove all of Clause 11 and then it would remove the guidance for the harbour authorities, so it would be incredibly messy.
Let us focus on the second element of the concerns from the DPRRC. We have very carefully reflected on its recommendations. We have looked very carefully at the powers of direction for the Secretary of State in Clause 11. We have concluded that to remove them would significantly reduce the effectiveness of the Bill. These powers of direction form an important part of the compliance mechanism under the Bill. Without that power of direction given to the Secretary of State, there will be no means of correction if the harbour authorities do not exercise their powers under the Bill, or if they exercise their powers inappropriately. Given that noble Lords have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest between harbour authorities’ commercial interests and statutory functions, these powers also provide a safeguard against this risk. I assure noble Lords that the power is not intended to have general effect to allow the Secretary of State simultaneously to direct all harbour authorities to exercise or not to exercise their powers under the Bill, or to exercise them in a particular way. Nor is it intended to modify the character of the Bill itself by means of direction.
“Detention of vessels for failure to pay surcharge
(1) A ship providing a service to which this Act applies may be detained by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section if—(a) a harbour authority has imposed a surcharge on the operator of the service in respect of the entry into its harbour by any ship providing that service, and(b) the operator has not paid the surcharge in accordance with provision made by or under this Act.(2) It does not matter for the purposes of subsection (1) whether an objection has been made to the surcharge under section 8.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would replace the penalty of refusal of access with a more conventional penalty of detention.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, in Committee we sought to deal with a number of operational issues that have been giving us concern. The harbour authorities—the port authorities—do not want the powers they are being given in the Bill; we covered that area very well. They do not think that it is appropriate or that they are equipped. We sought to make amendments to give those powers instead to the Secretary of State, so the irony of the debate we have just had is that if the Government had accepted our amendments, taken the powers away from the port authorities and kept them for the Secretary of State, they would have been in compliance with the instructions of the Delegated Powers Committee. There is a certain Alice in Wonderland quality about this debate—and not for the first time.
I would like to return to one issue. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is not in his place, but in the 22 years I have been in this House the common practice is to have debates in Committee in which we listen to each other, then a gap in which we reflect on what has been said, talk to stakeholders and, crucially, have meetings with and letters from the Minister. Then we come back on Report. If taken seriously, his suggestion that this is somehow too late would render this House completely impotent. Despite his not being here, I wanted to make that point.
I turn to the point about denial of access to a vessel as a punishment for various transgressions under the Bill. Detention in a port is the accepted international way of dealing with all sorts of transgressions. It is well understood and has been done for many years. As the Minister pointed out in her letter to us, it is a considerable inconvenience to the port and therefore never undertaken lightly. The main impact is on the shipping company, which gives it an absolute incentive to comply in the first place.
Denial of access, as opposed to detention, raises a whole host of issues. The International Chamber of Shipping does not believe that it complies with international law. The British Ports Association believes that it would break long-standing UK law by denying access to such a vessel. The Government are expecting harbour authorities to take the risk of costly legal action, at their own expense, when there is this legal uncertainty hanging over them. It is even more ridiculous to expect port authorities owned by ferry companies to deny their own ships access. It is simply not going to happen. As we have just heard in Clause 11, the Secretary of State could overrule the port authorities for a wide range of reasons, which leaves the harbour authorities no comfort all. What possible incentive does the Minister see for port authorities to ever deny access to a vessel? Given the Government’s assertion that this is the ultimate compliance measure, it is really hard to see how it will ever be effective as a deterrent.
If—just assuming for the moment, and giving the Government the benefit of the doubt—a ship is denied access, what might the result be? Presumably the Minister does not expect ships to be bobbing around between Dover and Calais with passengers and crew onboard. In all seriousness, I would like it confirmed that that would not be the way the Bill would work. Denying access in advance is still a massive inconvenience to the passengers who have booked on the ferry. Many will have cars; they might find it impossible to make alternative arrangements. Moreover, the port in which the vessel is docked, unable to leave because we will not take it, is going to be put to significant inconvenience. That is likely to be in another country, almost certainly France. There will be significant diplomatic ramifications if a ship is not allowed to leave the harbour, which could result in all sorts of retaliatory action. I really cannot believe that the Government think this is a sensible way to proceed. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I support this amendment for the reasons put forward by the noble Baroness. In the Minister’s letter to us of 21 October, she said that sufficient notice will be given of a contravention that will result in refusal of access, so that a vessel will not start its voyage. If that is so—which many doubt—the same notice that the vessel will be detained for transgression will no doubt preclude it coming to port as well. If adequate notice is not given, detention is safer for the vessel, its cargo, its passengers and other vessels than if the defaulting vessel is refused access just outside the port in question. The arrest of ships for non-payment of debts that are payable to seafarers, the port or third parties is a common and international practice. I for one am at a loss to understand why the Government do not accept that practice here.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, there is quite a good case for the noble Baroness’s amendment, but I accept that the Government have, I hope, expended an awful lot of effort working through the intricacies of how this will happen. I fear that passing the amendment at this point would unduly stop this extremely important Bill’s progress. I hope that the Government’s judgment is correct, and that they come back very rapidly with emergency legislation if it proves to be incorrect.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the amendment in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, relates to the refusal of access. The refusal of access is one way in which we establish the provision of national minimum wage declarations as a condition of access to ports. If this were replaced by a power of detention by the MCA, this would become a punitive measure and go beyond the voluntary mechanism envisaged by the Bill. Detention of vessels is a disproportionate and inappropriate mechanism in these circumstances. Detention of ships can also carry a significant cost to the port by blocking a berth, which is not the case if they are refused access.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has previously expressed concerns that refusal of access is unworkable as it might result in ships mid-passage being unable to dock, but this is not how the Bill will work in practice. By virtue of the high-frequency requirement, all services captured are almost certain to be on short routes, and access refusal would take place before a ship has set sail from the origin port. As set out under Clause 9, we will set out in detail in the regulations how the harbour authority is to communicate refusal of access, which will ensure that sufficient notice is given to prevent this possibility happening and to provide notice for users of the service to make alternative arrangements. We will of course be consulting closely with the ports on these draft regulations.
As an additional safeguard, the Secretary of State has a power to direct the harbour authority as to how or whether it discharges its power to refuse access, which will ensure that access is not denied where it would cause damage by disrupting key passenger services and supply chains critical for national resilience.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister but I have a quick question. She said in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who moved this amendment, that if the amendment were accepted it would cause a significant cost to the port. If there is significant cost to the port in Dover by this not happening, what about the cost to the port in Calais, or do we not worry about that because it is foreign? It is the same issue, just at the other end of the route.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. It would be costly to the ports and disruptive to passengers.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, which was not wholly unexpected. I happen to think that the Government are wrong. Being an optimist at heart, I still hope that, by the time this gets to the Commons, there will have been an outbreak of reality and that we might come up with something different, in not just this but other parts of the Bill. If not, then the next amendment that we come to discuss, which is about monitoring, will be really important. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Implementation and monitoring
(1) Within 90 days of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the implementation of, and monitoring of the effects of, this Act.(2) The report must include—(a) an assessment of the impact of this Act on—(i) roster patterns,(ii) pensions, and(iii) wages of seafarers;(b) a statement as to whether further legislation will be introduced by the Government as a result of the findings of the assessment under paragraph (a);(c) a strategy for engaging with trade unions for the purposes of monitoring the implementation of this Act, including in reference to conventions of the International Labour Conference;(d) a strategy for monitoring the establishment of minimum wage corridor agreements with international partners of the United Kingdom, insofar as any such agreement ensures that any non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated for UK work at a rate that is equal to or exceeds the rate that would otherwise be required under this Act. (e) an assessment of the interaction between this Act and existing international agreements or international maritime law, including reference to any litigation that has arisen as a result of this Act.(3) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State must publish a report on the implementation and monitoring of this Act.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, P&O’s behaviour shocked all sides of the House. Until that happened, I suspect—I cannot know this—that few of us understood just how badly seafarers are treated. It provoked the Government into introducing this Bill and I thank them for that, but it is only a first step. It also reminded us just how badly some private companies will behave if not restrained by sensitive law and regulation.
The Bill addresses pay, but only in a narrow area. As a former pilot shop steward, and subsequently an industrial relations manager, I know how critical these other issues are. This amendment is our attempt to address them.
Subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) of our proposed new clause address rosters, pensions and wages and require the Government to determine whether further legislation is required. We expect that it will be.
Subsection (2)(c) requires the Government to set out how they intend to engage with trade unions in monitoring the implementation of the Act.
Proposed new subsection (2)(d) touches on the extremely important initiative of establishing international minimum wage corridors, so that seafarers are properly protected for the whole of their employment in these corridors. The Government have already started work on this issue and this amendment will strengthen their arm. It is important for the House to understand what these corridors will achieve. If carried out effectively, they will extend the effect of the Bill so that it has real bite at the two ends of the route—and, I hope, sensibly in between.
Proposed new subsection (2)(e) will require an important assessment of how the Act will interact with existing maritime laws and agreements.
This amendment will strengthen the Bill in a sensitive way. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment because the concerns that we have raised in this House have been quite wide ranging, from the principles of the Bill and its compliance with international law to details of its implementation. We are all agreed that we need to do something about the pitifully low wages being paid to seafarers. I think we were all probably quite shocked to hear from the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Berkeley, just how low they are. But wages are by no means the only problem; rosters and pensions and so on are equally problematic. So we commend the Government for giving this some thought, particularly in the nine-point plan; the difficulty is that if the Bill does not work as intended, nobody is a winner.
We know that the International Chamber of Shipping is very concerned about compliance with international conventions, and we have heard from both the RMT union and the port authorities that they just do not see how the Bill is going to work in practice. We know that the Government do not accept those concerns. That is fine. But it is slightly troubling to me anyway that the key stakeholder groups have not really been listened to.
Rather than re-table amendments on all those issues, I think we have settled on this amendment being the best way forward because it provides an opportunity to review how the Bill is operating in practice and, crucially, how it is fitting with the nine-point plan and with the progress we are making on international wage corridors and so on. We can see how the international shipping community is responding and where the port authorities have found ways of delivering what the Government ask. Crucially, we might be able to work out whether this legislation is resulting in a better deal for seafarers.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment is needed to put the seafarers’ charter in the Bill. There is no doubt about that. Voluntary agreements do not work with employers such as P&O which have shown complete and utter contempt for the law and have avoided working with trade unions fighting to preserve local jobs that really keep the economy going. As a good example, the agency crew on P&O ferries are denied the basic ILO right to organise.
We have mentioned often in this debate the Dover-Calais route, and that must be an absolute priority for imposing conditions that P&O and Irish Ferries have to abide by, stopping them exploiting foreign seafarers on poverty pay for long and exhausting roster patterns. We need more ratings to be trained, but it is disappointing to see that only 60 new ratings have been trained since 2020. It is scandalous at a time when demand for ratings is increasing. The number of UK ratings employed in the industry has plummeted, with almost all the jobs operating in and out of UK ports now held by foreign workers.
Will the Government act now to protect our depleted and declining maritime workforce or are they prepared to see UK seafarers suffer and struggle for survival at the hands of law-breaking profiteers such as P&O? I urge everybody to support this important amendment.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which goes some way to implementing one of the Government’s nine points in response to P&O Ferries’ shameful conduct. That point was the creation of minimum wage corridors and
“asking unions and operators to agree a common level of seafarer protection”
on ferry routes.
In the Minister’s recent letter to us of 21 October, she said that the Government were
“committed to a voluntary Seafarers’ Charter because it avoids confusion, complexity and over-regulation of an industry. It is right to keep this as a voluntary agreement initially, while we monitor the impacts of the Charter. However, we are keeping the need for a legislative basis under review.”
It appears, disappointingly, that discussions have stalled; the last version of the charter has not been circulated since early August, and the forum of employers and trade unions overseeing it appears to have been unilaterally scrapped by the department. The crucial area of roster patterns, which had been agreed by unions and operators —two weeks on and two weeks off—has now stalled, because the Government have proposed that further research is needed. That may be delay the publication of the seafarers’ charter. Is the Minister in a position today to give us a timeline for completion of that vital work?
Still, the principle of collective bargaining lies behind point nine, and also underlies the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. Given the precedent established by P&O Ferries in abrogating without notice collective agreements with unions that had been updated and developed over 100 years, it is essential for the Government to act to restore protection for seafarers by way of upholding collective bargaining, as intimated in the Minister’s letter.
It may be relevant for your Lordships to note that the EU, which of course covers the countries to and from which most of the routes that we are considering go, has adopted a social pillar, which in principle encourages the social partners
“to negotiate and conclude collective agreements”.
Partly in consequence of that, the European Council and Parliament have recently approved a draft directive on minimum wages. Seafarers are excluded on the basis that ship owners and seafarers’ unions will collectively bargain their own procedures to determine minimum wages. The UK should encourage such sectoral collective bargaining. That would be consistent with our obligations under the trade and co-operation agreement.
A return to encouragement of the social partners in the shipping industry to negotiate a comprehensive seafarers’ charter, impact assessed and monitored in accordance with my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe’s amendment, is important. I invite the Government to adopt his amendment.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I will say a couple of words. This clause is a typical “Let’s have a review” clause. In 90 days, it could do nothing at all, of course, because by the time the Act has commenced nothing at all will have happened. We have a failing in this House, and in legislature generally, that we tend to pass Acts and then forget them; they just pass away into the distance. I would welcome it if the Minister could give us some assurance that there will be monitoring of this Act and that we will be looking to see where it goes.
A subject such as this seems to be an ideal one for an inquiry in about a year’s time as to how the Act has affected the industry. I suspect that it will have very little effect on pensions, for instance, and we might well wish to look at a stronger charter overall. Could the Minister assure us that her department will keep this under review? Perhaps some noble Lords could decide in time that it might be a subject that should be looked at by a special committee of this House.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, this final group contains one amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord had to say and to all noble Lords who participated in this debate.
In my response I will have bad news and then good news. First, I will address why the amendment as it stands is not appropriate. As my noble friend Lord Balfe pointed out, I am afraid that after 90 days, to coin a phrase, nothing will have changed. There will not be regulations in place, the guidance will not be in place and there will be little, if anything, actually to report on. Therefore, the fundamental premise of having a report in 90 days will, unfortunately, not achieve what the noble Lord is looking for.
Looking at the detail of the amendment, proposed new subsection (2)(a) goes back to the point that my noble friend Lord Balfe made. It is true that we pass laws but we do not forget about them; there is always the process of the post-implementation review, but we would have to wait five years for that. I accept that that is a long way away and possibly not ideal, but it would cover pensions and pay. I will retain the position that to cover rostering would be a challenge because there are many different impacts on rostering. It may be that we can decouple them but I would not want to make that commitment now.
Proposed new subsection (2)(b) goes beyond the implementation and monitoring of the Bill. I understand that noble Lords wish to probe the UK Government’s plans for legislation, but I cannot say that we currently have plans to legislate further than is necessary. I have already noted that we must tread with caution, but we are already taking action on the areas beyond the matter of minimum pay, which, as I think noble Lords will all agree—indeed, as I agree—is not the only aspect of seafarer welfare that requires attention.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, mentioned the seafarers’ charter; I will get an update for him on where we are with it. In government terms, if the latest version was published in August, that is not as bad as I feared; I thought the noble Lord might have said April. But I will provide a written update afterwards on where we are and what the next steps are, because that is incredibly important.
Turning to proposed new subsection (2)(c), we always engage with the unions and recognise the importance of doing so. We have discussed the Bill with the unions. I do not feel that a written strategy of union engagement would be helpful; it would not be flexible enough and may miss things or include things that are no longer appropriate, and it would mean that we would be too constrained. I am absolutely sure that noble Lords would be the first people to write to me if they felt that unions were somehow being cut out of discussions.
Proposed new subsection 2(d) refers to
“a strategy for monitoring the implementation of”
bilateral wage corridors. Again, I appreciate the noble Lord’s interest in this important area and we are working hard to seek agreements. However, publishing a strategy for the implementation of a bilateral wage corridor may in itself be counterproductive, as many noble Lords discussed in Committee. These corridors will be memorandums of understanding and backed up by domestic legislation in each country, so their implementation will be different in different countries. Proposed new subsection (2)(d) would be a step too far in the current circumstances.
On proposed new subsection (2)(e), we do not consider that the Bill’s proposals interfere with rights and obligations under international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS. We therefore would not deem it necessary to state as much in the Bill.
In potentially better news, although I cannot commit to legislating for a report, I can reassure noble Lords that we are currently looking at governance structures to deliver Maritime 2050. Noble Lords will know about that very important document; it sets out the Government’s vision and ambitions for the future of the British maritime sector. This governance structure will include the delivery of the nine-point plan. Furthermore, the Government are planning annual joint industry and government progress reports—it is almost as though my noble friend Lord Balfe read my notes beforehand. Every year we will have an annual joint report between the industry and government. It will include progress on the nine-point plan, implementation of the Bill, the seafarers’ charter and an update on bilateral wage corridor negotiations. I feel that is pretty much what noble Lords are looking for. On the basis of this reassurance, I hope the noble Lord feels content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I almost feel that the noble Baroness totally agrees with me but not quite enough. The amendment is meant to be helpful—it is helpful. I note that she more or less said that virtually everything in the amendment was right. I just want this in the Bill, so I feel that I have to divide the House on this point.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [HL]
Monday 7th November 2022
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 38-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (24 Oct 2022)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I would like to reflect for a couple of minutes on the Bill and its passage. This legislation, although necessarily limited in scope, is a key part of the Government’s nine-point plan to improve seafarer welfare and working conditions. The Bill delivers on the Government’s commitment to ensure that employees with close ties to the UK are paid at least the equivalent of the national minimum wage while they are working in the UK or its territorial waters.
I reiterate the Government’s intention to continue working closely with ports, the shipping sector and unions as the Bill continues its passage through the House of Commons and, crucially, as we develop secondary legislation. We are very grateful to stakeholders for their constructive engagement and interest in the legislation so far and are keen for this to continue.
I will also take this opportunity to clarify a point I made in Committee about seafarers servicing oil and gas platforms. I had previously stated that seafarers on services to offshore renewable energy installations were also covered by virtue of Article 2 of the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order 1999. I would like to correct the record and confirm that they are not entitled to the national minimum wage under existing legislation but are considered to already be in scope of the Bill if calling at a UK port more than 120 times per year.
As ever, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Randerson, for their constructive approach to each stage of this Bill and to all other noble Lords who contributed, many of whom brought deep and specific expertise. Last but definitely not least, I pay tribute to the work of the parliamentary counsel as well as the House staff, the Bill team, my excellent private office, and my noble friend Lord Younger for his support.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will comment briefly. The Bill is an important first step in the nine-point plan. I am very pleased that the Minister has reiterated her commitment to proceed on that plan; we all wait to see early progress. I will be studying the words relating to the clarification. I thank her and her support staff for the way that she has conducted the Bill. I do not have as many people to thank on my side, but I thank my adviser—who wrote some excellent speeches that the House heard—for supporting this work, and all noble Lords who took part.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches are absolutely committed to the Government’s aim of improving the pay and conditions of our seafarers. During the passage of the Bill, we heard some egregious examples which gave evidence as to why we need the Bill.
However, we do have concerns about the Bill that remain, falling broadly into two categories. One is the issue of compliance with international conventions, a number of which are potentially challenged by this legislation; the second is over issues around implementation and enforcement, which have been raised by the chambers of shipping, the British ports authorities and the trade unions. All of these have been thoroughly debated; although we continue to have reservations, we saw no point in bringing forward any amendments at Third Reading. I know that the Minister is committed to dialogue with the stakeholders and, therefore, we still hope that some practical ways of dealing with some of these issues may yet emerge.
The general health of the shipping industry is addressed in the Government’s nine- point plan. I was encouraged to hear the Minister on Report talking about the annual report prepared jointly with industry; we can all look forward to reading and potentially debating that. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who has been affected by the rail strikes today and is therefore not here, and the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, as well as the Minister’s private office and her team of civil servants for her constructive and always helpful engagement with us.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]
Monday 19th December 2022
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 38-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (24 Oct 2022)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Britain’s maritime industry is respected around the world for its professionalism and high standards. From shipping safety and financial services to seafarer training and welfare, our flag is acknowledged globally as a symbol of excellence, but maintaining that position in a competitive market requires constant progress. In particular, we must continue to invest in people, the men and women who are our maritime industry’s greatest resource, and on whom we rely to uphold Britain’s proud maritime tradition. When that hard-earned reputation for quality and expertise was threatened by unscrupulous employers, as it was earlier this year when P&O Ferries shamefully sacked almost 800 seafarers and staff to replace them with cheaper agency labour, we did not hesitate to take action. That is why, following the sackings in spring, the then Transport Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), set out a nine-point plan to prevent other companies from benefiting further from such underhand and unacceptable moves.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
There is nothing in the Bill currently on changing sections 193 and 194 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to prevent anyone doing what P&O did earlier this year. Is that something the Government are considering?
Mr Harper
The solution we have decided to set out is to ensure that, for operations taking place with a close connection to the United Kingdom, operators have to pay an equivalent to the national minimum wage, so that what they cannot do is replace their staff for cheaper agency labour. That is our judgment on how we think the situation can best be prevented in the future. I accept that other people will propose different solutions, but this is the one we have settled on, and we think it will deal with the issue highlighted earlier this year.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
It is undeniable that P&O has acted appallingly, but I do not understand why there is a need for this proposed legislation. The maritime labour convention came into force on 7 August 2014. That international convention, which we signed up to, applies to vessels engaging in trade, or where a vessel is operating under the flag of a country that has ratified the MLC, or is operating in the waters of a country that is ratifying the MLC. Surely that legislation from the International Labour Organisation takes precedence for all vessels across the world?
Mr Harper
Clearly, given what happened earlier this year, we do not think the existing position is satisfactory. That is why we are bringing forward the Bill. If my hon. Friend wants to set out his argument in more detail during the debate, we will obviously listen with great care, but we think legislation is necessary. The Bill is a major step forward and it will deliver on point one of the nine-point plan, changing the law so that seafarers with close ties to the UK working on frequent services to UK ports are paid at least an equivalent to the UK national minimum wage while they are in our waters.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The concern I have, and I believe other Members in the Chamber have, is that I understand the chief executive officer of P&O said that the average hourly wage for his new crewing model would be £5.50 per hour, yet the minimum wage is much more than that even for under-18s. Can the Secretary of State provide clarification? I want the Bill to be firm, hard and strong—I think we all do—so will he address that issue?
Mr Harper
The legislation will ensure that seafarers with close ties to the UK who are working on frequent services to UK ports have to be paid at least an equivalent to the UK national minimum wage while they are in our waters. As the hon. Gentleman points out, for those aged 23 and over, the current rate is £9.50 an hour. From April 2023, it will be £10.42 an hour. That is clearly significantly higher than the amount the hon. Gentleman just set out. That is the point of the Bill: to discourage the sort of behaviour we saw from P&O earlier this year.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Just to amplify the point from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the chief exec of P&O gave evidence to the Transport Committee indicating that it was common practice to pay below minimum wage level. On the Dover-Calais route, P&O staff used to work—this is the UK-based ratings—one week off, one week on rotas. It is not just about wages. Currently, agency staff, including Indian able seafarers, are working at least 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for up to 17 weeks with no shore leave. That must be a risk to health and safety. Does the Secretary of State remember the Herald of Free Enterprise and the impact of stress and tiredness? Surely, it is about more than just wages?
Mr Harper
It is about more than just wages. That was one of the things covered in the nine-point plan, but we are working on other things, including various seafarers’ protections and measures with our international partners. This specific Bill is to deal with the specific issue of what seafarers are paid. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the issue is wider than that, but the Bill deals with what they are paid. It is focused on that, and I hope it gets the support of the House.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State explain to the House clearly why, in the Bill’s original draft, frequent visits to UK ports was defined as 52 times a year and now it is 120 times a year? That surely makes it far easier for unscrupulous companies to drive through loopholes here and evade paying people the national minimum wage?
Mr Harper
We think the definition in the Bill at the moment will capture the vast majority of the services we wish to capture. We think that defining that in the way that we have makes it more difficult for people to avoid than it would be if we were very specific about types of vessels, for example. I am conscious that a number of people wish to speak in this debate, so I will make a bit of progress before taking any further interventions.
We said from the start that where new laws were needed, we would create them, that where legal loopholes—which the hon. Gentleman referred to—were cynically exploited, we would close them, and that we would strengthen employment rights. That is why the Bill is important. Operators of regular services to the UK will be required to pay their crew a decent wage if they want to access our ports, and it will remove the incentive for other, unprincipled firms to drag down pay for seafarers with close ties to the UK.
Under the existing national minimum wage legislation, not all seafarers who regularly call at UK ports are currently entitled to the UK national minimum wage. It cannot be right that seafarers who frequently work in the UK and in our territorial waters are not entitled to the same as other workers simply because they work on an international, rather than a domestic, service. The Bill will fix that particular issue. I recognise that there are other issues that people wish to deal with, but the Bill deals with that. It does not amend the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, but it makes provision for seafarers on services in scope of the Bill to be paid at least a rate equivalent to the national minimum wage.
Since March, we have consulted extensively with the industry to make sure the measures we are discussing are workable. Those discussions have been productive and are continuing. As was just alluded to, the legislation will apply to international passenger or freight services that call at UK ports on at least 120 occasions in a year, which equates to 72 hours on average. Harbour authorities will be empowered to request declarations from operators of services to confirm that they pay their seafarers no less a rate than that equivalent to the national minimum wage. If they do not provide that declaration when requested, harbour authorities will have the power to impose a surcharge, or may be directed by the Secretary of State to do so. It will not be a profit-making exercise for harbour authorities. They may only use the money raised from the surcharge for the discharge of their functions or for provision of shore-based seafarer welfare facilities.
We hope the surcharge is never required. The point of it is to be a disincentive to operators paying low wages. It will be set at such a rate that it does not make financial sense for operators to underpay staff. If they do not pay the surcharge when it is levied, harbour authorities will be empowered to deny access to the port. That will not be an onerous responsibility for harbour authorities; beyond accepting the declarations, they will not be responsible for checking the details of seafarers’ pay. The enforcement role will be carried out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which will undertake inspections and investigations and, if necessary, prosecute offending operators.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I am curious about denying access to ports. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to granting powers to detain a ship in port? Denying an operator access to a port may simply mean that it moves to a different port of the United Kingdom; detaining a ship would mean much greater risk for the operator, which will surely mean greater compliance.
Mr Harper
We judge that the risk of operators moving to or operating out of a different port is relatively small. The routes on which they operate are the profitable ones, so ceasing to operate on them would not make business sense. We think that denying access to a port is a proportionate response to the problem, so we have settled on that measure as the appropriate solution.
We will draw up regulations and guidance setting out further details of how the legislation will work. They will be subject to consultation to ensure that our measures are practical and effective and that people cannot avoid them. Feedback from the industry has been crucial throughout the process. Ferry operators told us that inclusions or exclusions based on type of service would create market distortion and ambiguity, so the only specific exclusion in the Bill is for
“a service that is for the purpose of leisure or recreation, or…a service provided by a fishing vessel.”
Jim Shannon
I thank the Secretary of State for his graciousness in giving way. Will resources be made available for the extra work that harbour authorities and marine services will have to carry out? If they are already rushed and under pressure, surely it makes sense to employ more people and make more resources available.
Mr Harper
We do not think that the responsibility on harbour authorities will be particularly onerous. Their job will be to receive declarations, not to investigate or do compliance work; those responsibilities will fall to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. As with all our agencies, it will be a question of setting priorities. As the hon. Gentleman can see from the fact that we are introducing primary legislation on the matter, improving services for seafarers is indeed one of our priorities.
Grahame Morris
The Secretary of State is being generous in giving way. On the point about harbour authorities being charged with collecting the surcharge, is there a conceivable conflict of interest where a shipping company owns a port or has an interest in a harbour authority?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point that illustrates why I will have legal powers to enforce whether a port levies the surcharge: to deal with any issues where there is a conflict. He makes a perfectly fair point, and we have thought about how to deal with it.
Our analysis shows that the arrangement that we have set out will capture the vast majority of ferries to the UK, but without including services such as deep-sea container services or cruises. Those services will remain out of the Bill’s scope, because they do not call at UK ports frequently enough that the seafarers working on board could be said to have sufficiently close ties to the UK.
We will continue to engage with industry throughout the passage of the Bill. We intend to consult on regulations and supporting guidance, which will include setting the framework within which harbour authorities will set their tariffs for surcharges and the method of calculating the national minimum wage equivalent rate.
It is important to remember that the Bill is just one part of a wider plan to protect seafarers’ welfare. It will not solve all the issues brought to light by P&O Ferries’ actions, but it is an important step. That is why we continue to discuss seafarer protections and welfare with a range of close European partners, including discussions about the creation of minimum wage equivalent corridors to encourage the payment of fair wages on entire routes. To continue to improve the protection of working conditions for seafarers, we are developing the voluntary seafarers’ charter.
Luke Pollard
There has been a race to the bottom, with P&O Ferries creating a toxic culture, but not all ferry companies are doing the same. Brittany Ferries operates out of Plymouth; it provides a significant lifeline route between Plymouth, Roscoff and Santander that is vital for our exports of agriculture and fisheries products. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is not about P&O Ferries alone? There are examples of good practice among UK ferry operators; it could well be improved, but it is good practice. The race to the bottom that P&O Ferries started is not one in which all UK and French ferry operators want to participate.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. The point of the Bill and the nine-point plan is to ensure that ferry operators that want to operate in a responsible way are not forced out of business or forced to drop their standards by unscrupulous operators. He also makes the point that services to Plymouth are incredibly important; speaking as a south-west Member of Parliament myself, I want to make sure that they can continue.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
May I draw attention to the much better behaviour that we have seen from DFDS, which operates out of the port of Dover? On port-to-port agreements, will my right hon. Friend confirm that some of the issues that have been raised—including rosters, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s overview of the intensity of the Dover-Calais route, and matters outside the simple question of wages—can be better addressed within that framework between our two nations?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend has put an enormous amount of work into the matter, following P&O’s behaviour. She is focused at all times on solving the issues on behalf of her constituents; I know that her conversations with my predecessors focused on fixing the problem in the long term and on supporting operators that want to raise standards in the sector. I thank her for all her work.
The charter that we are developing, in conjunction with the maritime industry and various social partners, will enhance the core employment protections available to seafarers. As part of that plan, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will introduce a new statutory code of practice to address fire and rehire, which it will publish for consultation in due course. My Department is also taking steps to encourage more ships to operate under our flag and to improve the long-term working conditions of seafarers beyond pay protection, as my hon. Friend has just set out.
The measures in the Bill will help to ensure that employees working on vessels that make regular visits to UK ports can no longer be exploited by unscrupulous operators. Following the mass sacking earlier this year of P&O Ferries staff, some of whom had worked for the company for four decades, we promised to act. The Bill demonstrates that we are doing so. We are sending a message to every operator: if you want to serve UK ports on a regular basis, and if you want to carry passengers to and from our country, you must meet our high standards. I commend the Bill to the House.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
May I wish you, the whole House and the staff of the House a very happy Christmas, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Earlier this year, this House stood completely united against the action taken by P&O Ferries. There was total consensus that that criminal act was a national scandal. Some 800 British workers were sacked with no notice—nearly 800 livelihoods were lost because a rogue company made a calculation that it was cheaper to break the law than abide by it. At the time, I stood side by side with many of the sacked crew in Dover. A married couple who had been employees of P&O Ferries for 14 years spoke to me about the reward for their years of loyal service: summary dismissal via a pre-recorded video message, being marched by private security guards off the ships they lived and worked on, and being treated like criminals. That was the human face of P&O’s criminal act. It was the reality of a business model that has been allowed to prevail for far too long on our seas—a business model predicated and dependent on exploitation.
As the Secretary of State knows, Labour supports the provisions in the Bill, but, as we have already heard, it is wholly insufficient. Its test must be whether it will end those exploitative practices that have become commonplace in our maritime sector. Will those responsible for the P&O scandal be brought to justice? Will the Bill stop another P&O scandal? I ask because six months on, this Dubai-owned company, which received millions in taxpayers’ money during the pandemic and which tore up the rights of British workers and bragged about it to Parliament, has continued business as usual. It should be a badge of shame for this country that P&O Ferries and DP World did what they did precisely because they thought they could get away with it. They knew they could exploit our weak employment laws. They made the calculation that it would be cheaper and easier to pay off those workers because this Government would not hold them accountable.
Despite all the Government’s promises, despite all their outrage, P&O’s central calculation was correct, was it not? Earlier this year the then Prime Minister himself said that P&O Ferries would face criminal sanctions. The then Transport Secretary said that it would be placed under criminal investigation. He demanded that the boss, Peter Hebblethwaite, stand down. He even demanded that P&O rename its ships, stating that it was completely wrong for them to sail under names such as Spirit of Britain and Pride of Kent. Six months on, however, that chief executive and those who deliberately broke the law in plain sight have faced no consequences whatsoever, and, as far as I am aware, their ships are still happily sailing under those names.
Workers across the country may well be looking to this Government and asking what exactly is the point of them if they can let P&O get away with all this—because Peter Hebblethwaite has been rewarded with a promotion to another directorship within the company. There has been no criminal prosecution as was promised: the Insolvency Service refused to take forward a prosecution, and chose not to consider the public interest test in doing so. There has been no action against any of the directors responsible. Every day that Peter Hebblethwaite remains in charge of P&O Ferries, other employers who wish to undermine the rights of British workers will find comfort. He is unfit to lead a British company, and he should be disqualified as a director.
I will be grateful if the Minister who winds up the debate tells us whether he agrees with that, and why it is that six months on, the Insolvency Service is still considering his case when the evidence could not be clearer. He bragged about it to a parliamentary Select Committee! Will the Minister bring that case to a conclusion, and use his own powers under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to finally bring this individual to justice?
The fundamental point, however, is this. If P&O Ferries or any of its low-cost rivals wanted to do all this again, nothing in the Bill or anything else that the Government have put forward would stop them. P&O Ferries decided not to notify either the Secretary of State or the competent authorities of the flag states of Cyprus, Bahamas or Bermuda of its dismissal plans—a legal requirement under sections 193 and 193A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—and refused to consult the workforce ahead of their dismissal.
The Secretary of State’s predecessor said:
“where new laws are needed, we will create them…where legal loopholes are cynically exploited, we will close them, and…where employment rights are too weak, we will strengthen them.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 840.]
So why does the Bill contain nothing about notification of flagged vessels, or increased sanctions for those who fail to consult ahead of redundancy? The only way to prevent this from happening again is to hike up the damages that can be paid at tribunals, and/or to slap criminal liability on those who break the law in the same way as Peter Hebblethwaite, who bragged about it. Why have the Government shied away from taking the action that is so clearly needed—and why, six months on, have they still not published even a draft of their promised strengthened code on fire and rehire? It was due for consultation in the summer, but it has still not been published. Even the very little that the Government promised in the wake of this scandal has fallen by the wayside.
Let me now turn to the provisions of this limited Bill. We do, of course, welcome the intention to ensure that operators pay a national minimum wage equivalent to those who have a close working relationship with the UK, but, as we have heard, significant elements of these provisions and their enforcement must be strengthened to prevent avoidance, which we know is rife in this sector. First, the minimum wage provision has an offset allowing employers to deduct costs of providing accommodation. That is clearly ripe for abuse, and must be explicitly ruled out. Then there is the issue of “port hopping”. As the Bill stands, operators fall within the scope of the Bill if they call at a single UK port on at least 120 days within a year. In the case of some routes, such as that of the Pride of Hull, only slight adjustments to their timetable would allow them to escape paying the minimum wage. That period must be reduced. The initial drafting specified 52 visits a year.
There is also the issue of enforcement. In his nine-point plan, the now Business Secretary pledged to involve His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in ensuring compliance with minimum wage legislation, but the Bill does not include a direct role for HMRC, the only expert in minimum wage compliance; and there is no clearly defined minimum fine for breaching the Bill’s provisions.
That brings me to the role of the port operators themselves, which was mentioned in earlier interventions. This is, perhaps, the most troubling aspect of the Bill. Many operators do not just run the ferry services, but operate ports as well. P&O itself operates a port. The Government are potentially asking operators such as P&O to fine themselves. That is utterly perverse, and the Government must think again. I note that the Secretary of State said he would retain powers to decide which ports would enforce fines, but he must set a national tariff for surcharges and designate a Government agency for collecting them.
The P&O scandal was supposed to represent a line in the sand for seafarers’ rights. The Secretary of State’s predecessor was clear about this, saying that the Government would work with
“unions and operators to agree common levels of seafarer protection on…routes.” —[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 841.]
Seafarers’ exploitation is every bit as much about conditions as it is about pay. Baroness Vere of Norbiton, the Minister in the other place, said that the Government would act on that wider exploitation only
“where it is proven that it is appropriate to do so.”
Let me briefly give the House an illustrative example of why that is so important.
An agency worker can be contracted on the Dover-Calais service at the shamefully low rate of £4.75 an hour. As is common in the industry, they could be expected to work up to 91 hours a week, on board, full time, for 17 weeks at a time—not entitled to any pension; not entitled to the minimum wage or any sick pay when outside UK waters. I ask Members to imagine a season of winter storms in the Irish sea or the North Sea, where sleep is almost impossible, and to imagine spending up to 17 weeks on board, responsible for the safety of passengers and that vessel. The industry has already learnt from painful experience about the danger of this kind of exploitation, and of seafarer fatigue. The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster 35 years ago claimed the lives of 193 crew and passengers, but the Bill does nothing to address these dangerous and exploitative crewing and rostering practices. That is why we must see a legally binding seafarers’ charter on the face of the Bill—one that ends the race to the bottom from which P&O Ferries has benefited; one that smashes the business model dependent on the manipulation of vulnerable workers from around the world.
We are a proud seafaring nation. That tradition has been the envy of the world, but the ongoing exploitation of seafarers is a stain on it. With this Bill, we have the chance to drive out these exploitative practices for good, and ensure that another P&O can never happen. That is why Labour supports it today, but will seek to work with the Government to strengthen it in Committee, and ensure that never again can we allow such exploitation to go unchecked on our seas.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to make a short contribution to the debate on this important Bill, as Chair of the Transport Committee. I welcome the Bill, although I appreciate that it is not the full solution to the issues that were uncovered by the disgraceful behaviour of P&O earlier this year. Following that incident, the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee held a joint evidence session, and produced a number of recommendations.
One of those key recommendations was that the omission of seafarers from the extension of the national minimum wage, which happened in 2019-20, should be removed, so that the national minimum wage applies to seafarers on journeys to and from the UK. I am pleased that this Bill delivers on that recommendation, but it is not the whole solution to the problems. I welcome further progress on the nine-point plan that the Secretary of State has outlined today.
I have a number of questions on the practicalities of implementing this Bill, which perhaps the Minister could address in his response. I appreciate that some are quite technical, so if he would prefer to write or address them in the Bill Committee, that would be helpful. The first is to pick up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). International maritime law is very complex. I would like to probe to ensure that nothing in the Bill will inadvertently cut across provisions in international legislation. I am not a lawyer—I freely admit that. I have done a quick scan of the relevant law and I do not think that the Bill has unintended consequences, but one of the duties of Parliament is to prevent that. If the Minister could give me some reassurance, that would be welcome.
The second point picks up on what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) raised on port hopping. Are harbour authorities the best body to enforce breaches of the law? I am reassured by what the Secretary of State said in response to the hon. Gentleman, but I would like to probe a little further. Would the Maritime and Coastguard Agency be a better body to enforce breaches of the provisions of the Bill to prevent the port hopping risk? I do not think it is a serious risk but it is worth exploring further to have a comprehensive settlement.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning my intervention. The concern of Opposition colleagues is in relation to when the ferry operator has a commercial stake in the harbour authority. I wonder whether there should be an automatic pass-through where there is a commercial link, so that powers automatically go to the Government and there can be no suggestion of any conflict of interest in the regulation of those fines and surcharges?
Iain Stewart
That is a fair question. I was reassured by the Secretary of State’s answer that the Government have thought about that. That is why the Secretary of State has the power to intervene when he thinks that the harbour authority has a conflict of interest. I am sure that it will be explored further in Committee. I was satisfied on that point; my concern was with regard to a vessel that might skip around different ports or adjust the timetable, as was mentioned, to get around that. I am not saying that the MCA is the most appropriate body, but I would like to check that.
The third point I want to raise is on the minimum wage corridor that the Secretary of State mentioned. The joint Select Committee session flagged this up. Work is ongoing with a number of European countries to try to establish those, but an update on how those discussions are going would be welcome. This is a good Bill and I welcome it. It is not the full solution but is a very welcome step forward.
Finally, if you would indulge me a minute, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is probably the last time I will speak in the Chamber this year. May I add my good wishes to all the staff of the House for Christmas and the new year? I particularly thank the Clerk of the Transport Committee and her staff who have made me so welcome as the new Chair and have been very helpful steering me in the right direction.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the brand-new Chair of the Transport Committee, and, as someone who serves on the Committee, may I say that it is relief to hear that he is not a lawyer? I also pass on my best wishes to Members—most Members, even in my own party—and Clerks and staff for a very Merry Christmas, and a happy new year when it comes.
When the previous, previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), brought forward the nine-point plan to protect seafarers, I genuinely welcomed the action outlined that day. However, the strength of his words must be followed by the strength and urgency of actions. We welcome the intent behind the Bill to tackle companies that fail to observe even the most basic employment rights while operating from ports in the UK but, clearly, there are areas where this Bill could, should and must be strengthened.
Before I come to the substance of the Bill, could the Minister give us a little more detail on the Government’s progress with their overarching nine-point plan? Clearly, today we are attempting to deal with point No. 1. Point No 7 is on taking action against company leaders who break the law. Earlier this year, P&O and its parent company DP World, achieved the rare—perhaps unique—feat of uniting the Institute of Directors, the TUC, the CBI and the RMT, alongside Nautilus and Members across the House, in their condemnation of P&O’s actions against its staff. The chief executive, Peter Hebblethwaite, appeared before a Joint Committee of Parliament and admitted that his company deliberately broke the law when it dismissed 786 employees with no consultation and no notice.
Mr Hebblethwaite still hangs around P&O Ferries like a bad smell—an albatross around the neck of a company that is now a byword for corporate greed and bullying. He recently had the honour of being named the worst boss in the world by the International Trade Union Confederation, beating out the likes of the chief executive officers of Amazon, Starbucks and Emirates airlines. That is quite an achievement for a relative newcomer. I am sure that his trophy will have pride of place on his mantlepiece.
It is doubtful that P&O’s reputation will ever recover—quite rightly—but as it stands, it is clear that provisions in the Bill will need to be beefed up in Committee. I hope that the Secretary of State and his ministerial team are feeling festive, because I have a list for them. I am sure the House would agree that I have been very good this year.
First on the list is roster patterns. For reasons passing understanding, the Government suddenly rejected the previously agreed roster pattern in the seafarers’ charter to commission further research into roster patterns and crewing levels. That was despite the collectively agreed standard in place at Stena and DFDS, and evidence of the danger that crew fatigue poses to maritime safety.
The RMT gave an example of P&O staff having worked one week on, one week off, as has been mentioned, on the Dover-Calais route where 75% of the jobs were lost. The agency crew who replaced them work much longer—in the case of Indian Able Seafarers, up to 17 weeks for at least 12 hours a day, seven days a week without shore leave. P&O is making bigger savings from that dangerous change to roster patterns than it is from the sub-national minimum wage rates of pay.
Crewing levels must be addressed. For those who do not know, crewing levels are the ratio of full-time-equivalent positions required to maintain the vessel in service for each rank or role required. P&O used operate with a crewing factor of four. They now operate with a crewing factor of just over two. That does not sound safe or advisable. The charter must be incorporated into the Bill if it is to be properly effective. The fact that those operators that seek to exploit workers are complaining should tell the Minister all he needs to know.
The Government defeated amendments in the Lords to reinstate the Government’s previous position of setting the qualification threshold at 52 visits per year. The 120-visit threshold may well allow operators to port hop or design routes to avoid having to make declarations about the national minimum wage equivalent. We must also ensure that accommodation costs cannot be deducted from the national minimum wage equivalent. P&O could potentially deduct over £1,000, and Irish Ferries nearly £500, from a non-qualifying seafarer’s wage if the accommodation offset is available to it under secondary regulations in the Bill.
While extending national minimum wage coverage is welcome, we would like to see ways of introducing other employment protections that are available to those working on land in the UK, such as better rights to redundancy pay, sick pay and consultation, and a clear statement in legislation of exactly how much those rogue operators who try to avoid compliance with the new regime will forfeit to the Exchequer. We will also be looking for assurances on the kind of action that the Government and port operators will be empowered to take against rogue employers. We all saw Mr Hebblethwaite brazenly sitting in front of the Committee happily agreeing that he and his colleagues had broken the law, knowing that the likelihood of any sanctions against them as controlling minds was minimal. Making something against the law is not the same as making people comply with that law. We want to see a sanctions regime that has teeth. The Insolvency Service is still dragging its feet, citing a lack of legal clarity as to whether the dismissed seafarers worked outside Great Britain. The Government must accept amendments to the Bill to close these legal loopholes if they are truly committed to preventing a repeat of the unlawful actions of P&O.
It might be outside the current scope of the Bill, but I would like to see the Government take the lead internationally to amend and improve the current maritime law to boost employment rights for all seafarers around the world, as those changes would also improve the lot of maritime workers here. As a result of this Government merely announcing action, the French Government were prompted into taking similar action. That shows that there is an appetite elsewhere to improve the lot of seafarers across borders and across the water. In the UK Government’s own words from just a few years back, the UK is one of the world’s leading maritime nations, so perhaps it is time to leverage that leadership into a fairer deal for workers across the world, rather than only for those—while fully appreciating our international obligations—who will be covered by the Bill. We also need to ensure that all those who serve the ever-growing offshore wind sector are protected. This Bill does not protect most of those workers.
I very much agree with the Law Society of Scotland’s view that it is unclear how harbour authorities will resource, upskill staff and cover costs to be able to undertake these additional tasks and obligations. Enforcement will be needed for these measures to be of the greatest benefit, and this will require sufficient resourcing. We also anticipate that processes will require to be set up between the Secretary of State, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the harbour authorities to manage the requirements, powers and duties in the Bill in practical terms. It also points out, notwithstanding the point that the Secretary of State made in opening the debate, the deviation of the description of a vessel in this Bill from the description in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which includes every description of vessel used in navigation. This should be addressed not just for consistency’s sake but to close any loopholes that this may unintentionally open.
There is quite a lot to fix, and we have only one Committee day to do it. I think it is fair to say that the Government’s record on workers’ rights has been deplorable. With this one Bill, the Tories claim to be supporting workers while they plan others that will roll back workers’ rights and attack the right to collective bargaining. This Bill will make welcome but small changes for a small number of workers while at the same time the Government are promising new anti-union laws for millions of others. What was originally planned as a limited transport striking law designed to prevent railway strikes seems to have morphed into a wider anti-union move that the Tories claim will save lives and prevent disruption. Despite their claims, it is the Tories themselves who are responsible for this winter’s disruption.
All of this is on the back of the Government’s appalling response to fire and rehire, which has seen hundreds of thousands of workers faced with the threat of redundancy or a lower wage. I am sure that workers who were forced out or who are on inferior contracts at British Airways, British Gas, Go North West, Tesco and Menzies Aviation, to name but a few, will be pleased that the Government are trying to do something, but they will look at these plans and think, “Where was our help in our time of need?” The Government had plenty of opportunity. I brought forward three Bills to deal with fire and rehire, and the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) had a private Member’s Bill, but the Government thought that a simple change to guidance would deal with it. I totally agree with the question from the Labour shadow Secretary of State: where is the code? We were promised it long before now and we have not heard a thing about it.
It might be churlish of me—but I hope the House will allow me a bit of festive churlishness—to point out that the RMT that the UK Government were working closely alongside in March this year, when P&O Ferries put in motion its despicable actions, is the same RMT that the UK Government have been baiting in public and in private over its industrial dispute with employers. Perhaps if other areas of the Department for Transport could revisit that spring spirit and fuse it with some festive spirit, they might remember that trade unions and workers are there to help improve working conditions and will work with Governments of all political stripes—even this one—rather than be reviled and demonised for their work.
I will stop now before I am accused of turning even more into Ebenezer Scrooge. In the Christmas spirit, I will close by saying that this is a welcome Bill that we very much support in principle, but we need to work with the Government to improve it, alongside the trade unions and staff whose working conditions will be improved by it. I look forward to that work and hope that it is as constructive as the Minister has been thus far.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I am pleased to be able to speak in support of this very welcome measure, but this should be only the start of what we do to improve the working conditions for seafarers, and not just in our own waters but globally. It is a fact that when we look at where companies are able to exploit migrant labour and other workers, our shipping industry is perhaps one of the most notorious. Following the successful World cup in Qatar, where lots of issues regarding migrant workers were raised, I think that shining a light on some of the practices in the shipping industry would be welcome.
The act of industrial vandalism perpetrated on British workers by P&O Ferries was absolutely disgusting, and I am pleased that the whole House came together to condemn that practice at the time. I commend the Government for being quite fleet of foot in bringing forward this legislation. It proves that they can be fleet of foot when they choose to be, and I hope to see more of this when problems and, in particular, injustices are highlighted. But of course this Bill is limited to EU traffic, particularly on the short seas—the kind of traffic that goes from and attends our ports in Hull, Dover and Holyhead.
I represent what I like to describe as the ports capital of the UK, in Thurrock, after the port of London moved east from the London docks to my constituency. This has been a challenging period for us. DP World owns the new London Gateway port, the newest deep-sea port in the country. We have been working hard to have good relations with the British management of that port, but we were equally condemnatory of the actions of the parent company, through P&O Ferries, towards those workers. I am keen to ensure that the management at London Gateway understand that we in Thurrock thought that was completely unacceptable. We want to labour that point, not least to protect the thousands of workers in my constituency who are employed by that company. It is important that this House sends a message to companies that wish to invest in our country that there are things we will not put up with, and that what passes for reasonable employment practice in their own jurisdiction will not pass in ours. It is important that that principle is hammered home.
We also have ports in Thurrock that serve European traffic, and they have a very different business model from those to which this legislation is directed. I highlight particularly the integrated port and shipping operation run by CLdN at Purfleet, and Britain’s newest port at Tilbury 2, which also serves the European market. It is a different model because we are talking about unaccompanied roll-on roll-off freight. For example, at Dover the HGV drivers will accompany their cargo straight on and off and hit the road, but those ships arriving from Europe at Purfleet and Tilbury are undertaking a much longer journey to make that crossing. They are not accompanied; a driver drops them off at one end, and another driver picks them up at the other. I register with the Minister that the regulations currently being drafted to address the particular situation of short seas should perhaps be used more sensitively than the regulations covering other kinds of economic operation.
As has been highlighted, these minimum wage regulations are directed at ships that regularly attend British ports. The truth of the matter is that the ports of Tilbury and London Gateway deal with very large ships that make multiple stops around the world. Fifty years ago, some of the people working on those ships would have been my constituents, but today, frankly, my constituents are too expensive. The ships are now staffed by Filipinos, Thais and a lot of Ukrainians—I will come back to them—and we need to think about their welfare, too. I know the Government have made that case through their role in the International Maritime Organisation. If there is one thing for which I am grateful to P&O Ferries, it is for giving us the opportunity to shine a light on how our global seafaring population needs more support and more attention to its welfare.
We have heard about what would be the most appropriate enforcement authority. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), the Chair of the Transport Committee, said about the MCA. I have seen at first hand how the MCA took action to regulate behaviour towards seafarers during the pandemic, when a number of cruise ships were stranded at Tilbury. Frankly, the seafarers on those ships were in a terrible state. They did not know how long they would be stuck there, and their welfare conditions were truly appalling. The MCA took decisive action to improve their welfare.
As we head towards Christmas, people do not worry about how the items they have purchased and wrapped to put under the Christmas tree got to the shop. The fact is that we rely on our seafarers to keep us fed and watered, and they did a fantastic job during the pandemic. The shelves were full when we went to the supermarket because the seafarers kept working. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) is nodding in agreement, and he did a fantastic job of championing them. His door was always open when I was doing my best to represent the welfare of that community, and I thank him for everything he did. He was a truly excellent maritime Minister who did much to elevate maritime issues within Government. We do not worry too much about how things get on to the shelves, but the truth is that many people are paid not very much money and work in terrible conditions to make sure they do.
My annual treat is going down to the Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest in Tilbury to wrap Christmas presents. We give out 3,000 presents, supported by voluntary donations. Every seafarer who passes through the port of London gets a present and a Christmas card from my constituents. The present consists of toiletries, chocolates, some London mementos and a hand-knitted hat made by Tilbury’s knitting community. It is a special thing to do because those seafarers are away from their family, and the gift shows that someone has thought about them.
I particularly highlight the welfare of Ukrainian seafarers passing through the port of Tilbury this Christmas. They are away from their family, and they are clearly very worried about them. I am pleased that we are giving them SIM cards so that they can contact their family. I thank the Department for Transport for funding the wi-fi routers that give us that facility.
I wish this Bill well, and I want it to be on the statute book as soon as possible so that we can raise the standards of behaviour towards seafarers who work on our European seas. I log my clear message to Ministers that we must also do more to raise global standards for our seafarers.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I do not intend to detain the House for very long, but I am grateful to speak in this very important debate.
I am concerned that the Bill simply does not go far enough, but I pay tribute to the former maritime Minister, the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), and the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), for their work in putting the Bill together in such short time.
I have three chief concerns. The first is about enforcement, as there is a clear conflict. When a port operator also happens to be a ferry operator, it is incredibly unlikely to take the necessary action on the measures in this Bill.
Roster patterns are also a major concern. The 800 sacked British ratings—800 men and women—were paid, on average, about £28,000 a year, and they have been replaced, in the Dover-Calais example, by Indian seafarers on £4 an hour. That is bad enough, but the safety-critical issue is the fact that they work 17 weeks on, seven days a week, without shore leave, and they do 12-hour days. We should not need to be reminded of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, in which 193 seafarers and passengers were lost. The Bill desperately needs to be improved on that issue.
I am also concerned about the definition of “regular operator” and “port of call.” For example, the requirement for 120 visits to a port means the ferries sailing out of Hull will not be caught by the Bill, so the number needs to be much smaller—52 visits ought to be accepted by the Government. If a ferry leaves and returns to the same port, that is where it lives and where its crew members would be expected to reside, so 52 visits should help in that regard. As currently drafted, the ferries sailing out of Hull will not be caught by these provisions.
When I visit schools in my constituency, children often talk about the job they want to do. They live and are schooled in the shadow of the docks, and they see those big vessels, so they often think about having a decent, prosperous career at sea. Sadly, they do not have the opportunity to enjoy a career at sea.
I give credit to the hon. Member for Witney and the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield for doing a lot of work in short time to address the P&O Ferries scandal, but the legislation must be improved to prevent the likes of P&O Ferries from treating seafarers in that terrible way.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
It is a great pleasure and honour to speak in this debate, and in particular to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I hope he will not mind if I say that he was always extremely challengingly constructive, and I very much enjoyed and valued the interaction we had when I held that brief. I did think twice about whether I ought to speak in this debate, because as the maritime Minister at the time of this scandal and of the early stages of the legislation being drafted, to a certain extent I am marking my own homework, even if it is the poor old Minister who has to defend things at the end of the debate.
I came to care deeply about this issue during the course of my time as maritime Minister, partly because of some of the seafarers I met in Dover just after this happened, and partly because of the interaction I had with many hon. and right hon. Members across the House. I rise to record just a few thoughts about the Bill and where we go from here. Before I do, I hope I may be permitted a moment of indulgence just to thank the maritime directorate at the Department for Transport, with whom I worked so closely over some tumultuous times. With their good humour, boundless expertise and incredible passion for everything they do, they are a true credit to the finest traditions of their service. It was a great pleasure and honour to work with them, and I thank them for everything they did to see me through the difficult, challenging two years that we had.
The civil service often likes to say it works at pace, and that is often true, but it was never as true as it was during the formation of this Bill. As the hon. Member just said, this scandal broke and we had to take action. The Government of whom I and the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) and the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) formed a part felt extremely strongly about it, so we worked at great speed. All the civil servants who worked on it were incredible in those weeks and months, and I thank them for that. Finally on this note—I apologise to the Members who are not lawyers; I am a lawyer, or a recovering lawyer as I like to say—I am grateful to the civil servants for having allowed me to crawl all over the legislation and pick away at bits of it, and I hope it is slightly better as a result.
Taking a moment to dwell on why this Bill is necessary, the decision by P&O Ferries that we have heard about was despicable—I make it clear at the outset that I am talking about P&O Ferries as distinct from P&O Cruises, which bears no responsibility for it. Those 786 seafarers were made redundant without prior notice or consultation, to be replaced by agency workers who would be paid less than the national minimum. It was an extraordinary moment of shameful behaviour from a company. We will all remember that incredible Zoom call when they were dismissed by video conference. It is emblematic of all the issues we are dealing with today.
When I went back to my constituency that weekend—my landlocked, rural, Oxfordshire constituency—the people at every single door I knocked on were livid at how P&O had behaved, and every single one commended the Government’s strong action. I think the disgust of those in west Oxfordshire and more widely was down to two reasons. First, it was because P&O is an iconic British brand. It is one of those brands that sits along with the Red Arrows, or Cadbury or Rolls-Royce, as a quality marque that shows the country stands for the highest standards not just in products, but in people.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, P&O Ferries violated some unwritten rules of decency, fair play and valuing the people who work for them—all those things that mark the UK out as a special place to live. P&O Ferries took those things, valued them at nought and broke them, and that was a wicked thing to have done. No excuses will do. This is not about P&O’s balance sheet or what it chose to do to try to make recompense to those seafarers afterwards; it is about something very simple: the way that people should be treated. These people have given their lives to learn a trade that is difficult, vital and frequently dangerous, and to be treated in that way is not how Britain does business.
What P&O Ferries did that day was to suggest that those seafarers did not matter. It suggested that people who had devoted their lives and labour in that way did not matter and could be replaced like a machine with something cheaper. That is what the people of west Oxfordshire were angry about that weekend, and that anger is as nothing compared with the anger of the people of Dover and Hull, and rightly so. P&O Ferries violated the British sense of fairness. It is more than just a brand; it is a sense of doing the right thing—of decency, hard work and commitment paying off.
Some months later, Peter Hebblethwaite—he of that truly infamous Select Committee appearance—had the cheek to suggest that the dispute that there was and remains over how he treated his workers was of historic interest, as if the Government should just accept it and move on, as if it did not matter or had not happened. Well, this is a historic matter, but not in the way that Mr Hebblethwaite thought; this is a historic matter, because what this House of Commons said then, and is going to say now in all our different ways, is that maritime really matters, seafarers really matter, ships really matter and how we treat people really matters.
We are going to make sure, through this legislation and everything else, that how P&O treated its seafarers on that day will never happen again; and, more than that, we are going to take a historic look at how maritime and seafarers are treated in this country and ensure that this great industry is treated how it should be, right at the heart of this great country. That is what the nine-point plan that we have heard about already intended to do, and I know that the Government will continue to do more.
I am mindful of time, and others want to speak, so I will not go through the Bill in detail, as many others will wish to do that, as well. I will echo some of the points made by Members from both sides of the House about how it is essential to see this Bill as a starting point. The Bill is important, but it does not of itself solve the issue. Another reason I am pleased to speak today is that this is one of the first times in recent memory when the House has considered maritime legislation as a whole. There has been a lot of specific legislation—bits on safety and so forth—but for the last substantial bit of maritime legislation, we have to go all the way back to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, and even that just pulled together bits of legislation from earlier years.
In the past, Parliament has tended to look at maritime as a functional thing—a way of getting from A to B—and not looked holistically at what it brings to the life of the nation. Of course, what maritime brings to the life of the nation is vast. We are talking about trade, highly skilled jobs, and British influence way beyond these shores. I want to ensure—I know I will have the agreement of many other Members of this House—that the value of what maritime business brings is truly understood by the Government. I am not suggesting wholesale Government intervention, as this is a privately run, privately operated industry, and for the most part is much the better for that, but some measures could be taken, particularly in the areas of regulation and fiscal policy, that could help the maritime sector to grow.
The Department’s excellent “Maritime 2050” programme must be supported and continued, but I would like the Government also to focus on a number of other things that I will briefly talk through. The first is seafarers’ training. We need to expand the training commitment under the tonnage tax and support the work of the Maritime Skills Commission and the Merchant Navy Training Board, because children growing up in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, or in Dover, Tilbury or so many other areas, must be able to look out of their window, to see those vessels and think, “That is a fascinating career,” and should know how to go about achieving it and have the jobs available at the end of the day, such that they can go and do it. Training is key to that. We have to have British seafarers trained—both officers and ratings—if we want to have a thriving merchant fleet.
The second point I wish to raise is about the importance of the UK flag. Ships registered on the UK ship register are not just a matter of national pride, although it is always great to see the red ensign fluttering from the stern of a ship; this is so important because, in simple terms, flying the red ensign makes that ship a floating piece of Britain, which means that the standards we enjoy in this country are more easily applied to it. Increasing the number of ships on the UK ship register is one of the most important things that can be done to help seafarers’ pay, welfare and standards, to which attention has rightly been drawn already. This is about more than pay; it is about welfare and standards as well. This is very complex work, and there is too much here for me to go into at the moment, but a number of things have to be done. Some of this has to be done internationally, and I urge the Government to look at what can be done at the International Maritime Organisation, particularly on the issue of flags of convenience, which is a major part of this.
I also wish to draw attention to the issue of investment in British shipbuilding—a massive topic that, again, I cannot go into in any detail. When we look at the decline of the merchant fleet since the first world war, and even more so since the second world war, we see that the lack of attractiveness as a place to invest in British shipping is a big part of what has happened. Only by increasing British ship ownership, through targeted fiscal measures and creating the right regulatory environment in which to work, can we have the British standards, pay and welfare we would expect, as well as providing the extraordinary strategic reserve that a merchant fleet is able to give, as of course we saw during the Falklands war.
The tonnage tax reforms that were announced last year by the then Chancellor, now our Prime Minister, are hugely welcome. They are due to be reviewed again next year, and I ask the Government to look creatively at what can be done there, through tonnage tax and wider fiscal measures. I would like the Government and the Minister to respond on some of those points.
I shall make a couple of concluding points. As I said at the beginning, maritime matters. We have understood the way maritime matters and the way seafarers matter to this country as never before. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) has just said, during the pandemic we saw them in all weathers, day and night, whether there was covid or whether there was no covid, constantly working to make sure that we had the food, medicine and wider supplies we needed. They were not complaining, and it is vital that we support them in due course. But maritime will matter only when seafarers’ welfare and training matters as much as their wages, and when shipping ownership and the red ensign are given the attention that they deserve.
This Bill is a good start, but it is only a start. There is a wide, delicate maritime ecosystem that needs wide attention, which is what I am asking the Government to give here. There has never been a successful trading nation without its own maritime fleet and without the seafarers to man those ships. Global Britain, an independent trade policy and Britain on the world stage will not count for anything without maritime. Maritime is essential, seafarers are essential, and we must do more.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
P&O Ferries’ actions earlier this year to make 800 seafarers redundant and replace them with agency staff on just over £4 per hour were shameful, illegal and immoral, and they were rightly condemned across the House at the time, and indeed in this debate. But I must say that that would never have happened in the first place if former Ministers had listened to the warnings from the RMT and Nautilus International, and many others, about the loopholes that put maritime workers at particular risk. That advice should have been heeded in the past. The Government could have strengthened protections for workers, and they still can, to end the immoral practice of fire and rehire. That needs to happen.
In the aftermath of this shameful episode, the then Prime Minister and the Government promised that these issues would be dealt with, and that there would be clear and serious consequences, and of course better protections. Six months on, we are yet to see the legal action that was promised materialise, as has been pointed out by the shadow Secretary of State. Although this Bill steps forward, it falls short of the employment protections promised. Indeed, the Secretary of State referred to its narrow scope and its limited impact, and focused on those issues.
The Bill does not take the opportunity, desperately needed, to effectively restore collective bargaining for ferry staff, and raise employment standards across the board. Other hon. Members have referred to rostering, hours and shore leave. What about pensions, apprenticeships and training, an issue mentioned by Members from across the House? Those are other areas where workers can be exploited, and we all know that P&O ferries and others will do exactly that.
The Bill is also a missed opportunity to get the detail right on protecting seafarers. We know the P&O Ferries will exploit any loophole it can, so let us make the protections for seafaring staff ironclad. We need to ensure that a minimum wage equivalent has the tools for strong enforcement measures. We need to end clear existing loopholes that employers such as P&O Ferries and many more are able to exploit, such as moving between ports to avoid the necessary regulations that have been placed in the Bill and operating ferry services while collecting national minimum wage fines as a port authority—there is a clear conflict of interest there, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and the new Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). While amending this legislation to ensure these loopholes are closed and protections are enforced, we still need justice—social justice, employment justice—for the 800 P&O staff and their families, and those responsible need to be held to account.
Grahame Morris
I share my hon. Friend’s anger and outrage at those job losses and the way those men were treated by P&O. Does he share my outrage that the Government have subsequently given £50 million to P&O’s parent company, DP World, in order to facilitate the freeports at Southampton and London Gateway? Is that not absolute nonsense?
Mike Amesbury
I concur on that, and the smell of hypocrisy is somewhat nauseating across the Chamber.
We are still without answers as to why the CEO of P&O Ferries felt empowered enough to tell Parliament—to tell the Select Committee—that they were breaking the law. Why have they still have not faced the consequences for their actions? Why have heads not rolled? Why are Ministers not stepping in to ensure that that happens? Again, we are talking about not only justice for the seafarers concerned and their families, but creating that landscape of good employment and good employment practices in this country.
In conclusion, the P&O Ferries scandal must be the end of the exploitation of seafaring staff in this country, but in its current state the Bill falls far short of that. It is a starter for 10, which I will certainly be supporting it, along with His Majesty’s official Opposition. However, I will also be supporting amendments that will make it far stronger, to ensure that we have a race to the top, rather than a race to the bottom on employment rights. Finally, let me wish everybody a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Not only has 2022 been a year of opportunity, new jobs, higher wages and investment across Dover and Deal, but it has been a difficult and challenging year, with a number of significant and sometimes shocking events occurring around our sea border. Looking back to this time last year, I would not have expected to see a household name, a much-loved part of the Dover landscape, a global company headquartered in the town, become a pariah and a disgrace, not just in the maritime community, but in the business world. That is what the directors of P&O Ferries made it in March 2022. P&O’s management is a total disgrace, and it has put a stain on the name of this great company. In March, I wrote to the Insolvency Service, calling on it to consider director disqualification action against the named directors of P&O Ferries Ltd and its parent company, P&O Ferries Holding Ltd, on the basis of the directors’ misconduct.
The Insolvency Service has a responsibility to uphold confidence in directors and to hold them to account for serious misconduct. The response from the service has been wholly inadequate so far. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to press the Insolvency Service to step in and do its job—to hold those P&O directors to account for their reprehensible, immoral and unlawful conduct. I still have constituents who have not been compensated properly for lost or stolen belongings. I ask the Minister to meet me to see how my constituents can be helped, so that this matter can finally be resolved for them.
In relation to the well-made comments on the intensity of the channel route, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency looked at these issues for Irish Ferries when it came into Dover and for P&O when it tried to stand up its agency workers and was not allowed to do so because they were not good and ready. I ask the Minister to have a conversation with the agency and then for us to meet further to discuss how assurances can be given that the intensity of the channel route is being properly monitored and considered in relation to the safety of workers and passengers on it.
Looking back to the sackings in March, I was glad to take up an offer from Darren Procter of the RMT union to march with the workers, my constituents in Dover Town, along with other prominent local Conservatives. As the local MP, I supported workers in two previous restructurings of the workforce of P&O, working with the unions and speaking to the management of P&O. It was completely untrue, therefore, for P&O to seek to blame predicted union militancy by RMT for its disgraceful management behaviour, because previous restructurings had been by negotiated settlement.
P&O did not even try to negotiate. It just decided that it would break the law. None the less, it is true that, on the day I marched with the RMT, we did see the ugly face of the militant unions and the Labour party. It is also true that the Labour party saw an opportunity to exploit the shocking corporate behaviour of P&O, just as we have heard that it intends not to fully and unequivocally support the measures of this important Bill today.
As I was surrounded by bused-in, hard-left aggressive militants outside the RMT headquarters in Dover, I was rescued by local union members whom I know and who brought me into the building for my safety. Imagine my shock when I saw the leadership of the RMT—Mick Lynch no less—and other trade union barons holding a Zoom meeting with none other than the Labour leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). While I was in that private meeting, I was shocked to hear how the Labour leader and the trade union barons were chatting away about exploiting the P&O situation in Parliament for political gain in those coming days, and how the unions could create a winter of discontent, stoked up by trade unions here. It seemed to me, listening to everyone that day, that they were working hand in glove with the Labour leadership.
Back then, in the spring, I thought that it was just wishful thinking on the part of Labour and the trade union barons. Now Mick Lynch has turned into the Christmas Grinch and the winter of union trouble making is well and truly under way—and not a word of condemnation from those on the Labour Front Bench, and I think that we all know why.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
As a Scottish nationalist MP, there is not a lot of love lost between me and the Labour party. It certainly comes as a surprise to me to hear that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is very much in cahoots with the unions. I think that he could do an awful lot more to stand up for Labour values. However, at the heart of all of this are the hon. Lady’s constituents who were treated incredibly badly by P&O. The issue here is not the RMT union; the issue here is P&O Ferries, which has acted disgracefully. I urge her to try to get back to that point, which is what the Bill is about.
Mrs Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I have made it very clear, as the Dover MP, I have worked very constructively with the RMT, and particularly with the local branch. What I saw that day was the Labour leader on Zoom, and it seemed to me from that meeting that he was looking for political opportunism, rather than having the interests of my constituents at heart. I am therefore very pleased that so many Members on the Opposition Benches now speak so freely about my constituents, but I urge them to fully support the Bill, and not to seek to create division and engage in shameless political opportunism on what they know is a very specific Bill, as they have already done in the Lords.
Richard Burgon
We do not seek to oppose the Bill. We seek to strengthen it and improve it, but I do have a question for the hon. Member. She has repeatedly referred in her speech to “trade union barons”. Will she take this opportunity to make it clear that trade union leaders—of the RMT and other unions—are not barons, because they are elected by their members? Would it not be helpful to stop using this silly, right-wing tabloid language of “barons”? They are not barons. They are elected leaders—elected by many more people than some Conservative Prime Ministers.
Mrs Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think he has made his point about his choice of language, in the same way that I have made mine.
As we look forward to the Bill going through Committee, I urge Opposition Members not to seek to create division in the name of improvement, when in fact they are making amendments that are outside the scope of the Bill. It is this Conservative Government who are prioritising fair pay and equal rights for our workers on land and at sea. We are applying the minimum wage to ensure that we do not see a race to the bottom of foreign crews and cheap labour, helping to secure the future of the workforce on the short straits.
In Dover, the maritime industry is part of our DNA. I just visited Viking’s Maritime Skills Academy in Dover, which trains seafarers in fire and sea rescue safety. Like a number of local businesses, it has worked really hard to support those in P&O who have lost their jobs, and I pay tribute to all those across my constituency who have come together to help. It is a reminder that, from training to deployment, Dover has a central role in the maritime community. With that central role, I would like to see this Bill accompanied by further international steps to improve the pay and conditions of international seafarers.
The conditions for some international seafarers are nothing short of slavery. That point was very well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). We have a moral responsibility to address that. We have taken action to address the use of sweat shops on land in other countries. We must show international leadership in tackling the sweat shops at sea—the shocking conditions for international seafarers, particularly those from poorer countries. We must also go further in completing bilateral agreements with port-to-port European and other counterparts, so as to ensure that standards, safety and training meet the demands of the sea. As I raised with the Secretary of State earlier, it is those bilateral agreements on which we should be focusing the specific needs of the channel routes.
Today’s Bill is one that I strongly welcome. It will help to ensure that the financial incentives that led to the decision-making of P&O Ferries will be neutralised. It will help to avoid the race to the bottom and shore up jobs here in the UK ports. It is an important and focused Bill to plug a gap in employment law to ensure that British workers operating at sea between Dover and Calais will be treated just the same as workers operating in Dover itself.
I would like to finish by saying how grateful I am for the work of a number of right hon. and hon. Friends, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) and my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Robert Courts), for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who all worked so hard alongside me on this P&O situation, understood it for the disgrace it was and showed determination to push forward on the nine-point plan for action. I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister will be following through on that to ensure that such a situation cannot happen in the same way again.
This Bill shows it is the Conservative party that is on the side of seafarers. It is the Conservative party that is the party of the workers. It is the Government who support jobs, training and pay to protect British workers, including all those excellent workers at Dover and those who work on the short straits.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), particularly with some of the late Christmas cracker jokes she was deploying in the Chamber there.
As we approach the recess, many of us will have our usual favourite films and programmes to watch as we rest up on the couch, recovering from the excesses of Christmas and new year celebrations. For some it may be “Miracle on 34th Street”, “Home Alone” or that classic “It’s a Wonderful Life”. I personally look forward to the now-annual mockumentary on Netflix, previously called “Death to 2020” or “Death to 2021”. I have no doubt that the March segment of “Death to 2022” will feature the disgraceful behaviour of P&O Ferries and its chief executive officer Peter Hebblethwaite—who would surely make Scrooge look like Bambi—as it chronicles the outrageous decision to fire nearly 800 directly employed seafarers on these islands.
In watching the Netflix mockumentary, I suddenly remember all the appalling things that unfolded in the year just past. However, for many seafarers, including those who live in my East End constituency, the P&O tragedy is much more than a mere three or four-minute segment of a documentary. While the P&O dispute is long buried in most folks’ memories, it is important to understand how and why we came to that position and how we can improve things.
Although the previous Prime Minister—I mean the second-to-last one—had said that Ministers would be taking legal action, the Insolvency Service quietly dropped criminal prosecution of P&O Ferries. While the actions of P&O Ferries were disgusting and deeply unethical, they highlighted some serious weaknesses in employment law, not to mention refuelling the “fire and rehire” issue that continues to plague ordinary workers and be a plaything of unscrupulous bosses in boardrooms across the land. That is why many of us on the Opposition Benches have been disappointed that the long-awaited post-Brexit employment Bill never materialised and why many of us would, frankly, now be surprised to see one this side of a general election.
The Bill before the House tonight—just a day before we rise for our Christmas recess—is obviously not one that should be opposed, but I think there is a broad consensus in the debate, including on the Conservative Benches, that it is not a silver bullet, nor will it fix the problems it seeks to remedy. The Bill needs significant amendment and improvement, as many of my constituents have made clear.
I was struck by the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) referring to the fact that he represents a rural, landlocked constituency in Oxfordshire. Similarly, in my small city constituency I have a number of RMT members, particularly seafarers, who have worked on P&O Ferries. My constituent from Barlanark wants the Bill improved to increase seafarer jobs and build our green maritime skills base. Another constituent from Easterhouse who wrote to me wants to see the Bill amended to promote collectively bargained terms and conditions, as is the case, for example, in France.
Likewise, another constituent believes the Bill must support domestic seafarer jobs on the international routes that keep the economy of these islands functioning and secure. Lastly, an email from a resident of Sandyhills gets to the nub of the issue here, state-sanctioned pay exploitation, highlighting that P&O Ferries pays under £4 per hour on contracts of up to 17 weeks. Ministers regularly stand up at the Dispatch Box and tell us that work is the best route out of poverty—but not, it would appear, for a seafarer.
Many hon. Members have outlined and will outline how the Bill can be improved, particularly as it moves into Committee, but I want to touch on just a few things this evening. I am particularly grateful to colleagues in the RMT, which I am proud to support, for their briefing on this Bill. More generally, I send my continued solidarity and best wishes to their rail members who are engaged in an industrial dispute. I have certainly been proud to join them on picket lines, and I have no expectation that my party leader will ask for me to be fired or anything like that as a result of doing so.
However, coming back to the Bill, it would be fair to say that it must be widened in scope. In my opinion and that of many others, it is too narrowly drawn, a point made by peers when it started its legislative journey in the other place. The Bill would, I believe, benefit from being widened in scope to tackle some of the wider conditions that P&O and other operators use to exploit and recruit crew on pay and conditions that undercut UK-based seafarers and responsible operators.
Fundamentally, in its current form, the Bill does not address the nationality-based pay discrimination on ships that routinely work from UK ports, regardless of flag or crew nationality. There is a real risk that this Bill’s passing unamended would lead to avoidance techniques such as changes to port call schedules, which have already been referred to. Basically, port-hopping becomes more likely the more frequently a vessel calls at a UK port.
The RMT briefing, for example, makes it clear that at 120 calls per year, it would be far easier for operators to make very modest changes to scheduled port calls in order to avoid this legislation, whereas 52 calls would be far tighter and was, I understand, the Government’s intention when the Bill was launched. Looking at the Hansard from when the Bill went through the Lords, I can see no legitimate reason why the Government departed from 52 weeks after the consultation, especially when there was widespread support for it from trade unions.
Baroness Vere is on record in the other place saying:
“I do not think operators would play switcheroo with UK ports because, frankly, their customers would not put up with it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 2022; Vol. 824, c. 1506.]
In short, the Minister is saying that it will be all right on the night and we should just leave it to market conditions to dictate the direction of travel. However, I remind Ministers that the whole reason we are in this sorry mess in the first place is precisely a lack of regulation and an increasing tolerance for casino-style decision making on the part of bosses who have shamelessly, and unquestionably, exploited staff. We should learn that leaving it to the market will not necessarily be helpful.
There is one other aspect of the Bill I want to draw to the attention of the House before I conclude. It relates to offshore wind and the renewables sector, something particularly pertinent to Scotland. At the moment, as I understand it, crew working on vessels servicing the offshore oil and gas industry are entitled to protection when it comes to national minimum wage legislation, but that protection is not extended to crew, sometimes on the same ships, who work instead on offshore windfarms in the UK exclusive economic zone. That point was respected by the Minister in Grand Committee in the House of Lords, so it is clearly an issue for the Government. As an MP from Scotland, where we have a burgeoning offshore and renewables sector, that gap concerns me greatly and I believe it must be plugged.
All that makes the point that the Bill before the House tonight falls short of what is expected following the P&O debacle. The unintended consequences of not tightening things up will, once more, lead to future Parliaments having to come back and fix issues that have been highlighted in this debate and will only prolong the injustice faced by seafarers.
I started my remarks tonight by talking about the films we all watch during the Christmas holidays. I rather fear that, if this Bill was made into a film, it could quite easily be called “A Missed Opportunity”. Let us ensure that that is not the case, and instead bring the Bill into dry dock for major repair and improvement when this legislation is considered in Committee.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I have listened to all the contributions with great interest. There is clearly a consensus developing that, although this Bill is a step in the right direction, it is completely inadequate to the scale of the situation seafarers face.
Who can forget those appalling scenes when balaclava-wearing, handcuff-trained security guards were sent on to the ships to remove P&O workers? That was a real wake-up call about the reality of employment law in this country and more widely. What worries me is that the Bill is full of loopholes—ones that will be exploited by unscrupulous employers. Before I was elected as a Member of Parliament, I was for 10 years a trade union lawyer representing workers, including seafarers. Time and again, I saw ruthless employers exploit loopholes in well-intentioned laws and get away with treating workers like dirt. We cannot allow that to go on. Far from the divisive language of the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), we need to work together to improve the Bill.
What are some of the loopholes? I mentioned in an earlier intervention my concern that when the Bill was drafted, frequent use of a port was defined as a ship calling at a UK port 52 times in a year. That has now been increased to 120 times a year. I am still not clear on why that is the case, but it is logical that if we define regular use of a UK port not as 52 visits but as 120 visits, that is a great loophole for port-hopping and for unscrupulous employers to avoid paying the national minimum wage when they should do so.
There is also a lack of legal clarity on whether dismissed P&O workers resided in Britain. The Insolvency Service has still not pursued legal charges against P&O. The TUC rightly says that that loophole continues in the Bill, and it is therefore clear that it must be closed. It cannot be acceptable for this House to be content with a Bill that, following the P&O scandal, does not close the loopholes that allowed P&O Ferries to get away with its behaviour in such a horrific manner.
The Bill does not go far enough on employment protections. We need stronger protections in law. P&O is currently making more savings from the intensive roster patterns forced on agency workers, for example, than it does from paying below minimum wage. It is clear, then, that the national minimum wage provisions in the Bill are not enough on their own, because firms can still undermine workers’ rights if minimum wage protections are not coupled with broader employment protections. We see deductions taken from workers’ pay for their accommodation, for example, which is completely outrageous.
The Bill does not protect all seafarers, by the way, as has already been mentioned in discussion about workers in the offshore renewables sector. If we want, as we do, a future of well-paid, green and unionised jobs that help us to tackle climate change and solve the ongoing energy crisis, we need to ensure that those jobs are well paid, secure and unionised, not part of a race to the bottom. We need to ensure that offshore workers in the green sector have proper protection as well.
As the Bill progresses, I will introduce or support amendments to close legal loopholes and prevent port-hopping—that is essential—and, crucially, to inscribe a seafarers’ charter into law, expand collective employment rights, and ensure that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has the powers and resources to enforce employment protections. We have already heard in the debate about the conflicts of interest for companies that run ships and have financial interests in ports. We also need the Bill to be changed so that minimum wage rights for seafarers’ working in offshore renewables are equalised with the entitlements for those working in the offshore oil and gas industry.
The Bill needs to be amended and strengthened or it will be a huge missed opportunity, which we cannot allow to happen. We all remember the strong feelings in the country, which were reflected on both sides of this Chamber, about what happened at P&O, but we must ask ourselves these questions. First, is it right that, as we have heard, P&O’s parent company benefits from Government funding to the tune of £50 million for London Gateway freeport? More importantly and more fundamentally, is it right for this House to be content with legislation that is a tiny step in the right direction—that is why we are not opposing it—but does not go far enough?
The Seafarers’ Wages Bill needs vast improvement if it is to be worthy of its name and if it is to prevent what happened at P&O from happening again. If we do not improve it, people outside this House will be very disappointed indeed, because the Bill will not match the speeches made in this House back then and tonight.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). Like him, I feel that a consensus is emerging in this place tonight. We all welcome the Bill, but we welcome it as a first step and see the flaws in it. I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) that there is not really any opposition to the Bill, and reassure her constituents that everybody in this House feels very strongly about what happened to those workers who had given their careers, and in many cases their lives, to P&O.
As the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) said, P&O is an iconic company in this country. To many people, it epitomises our seafaring tradition and the merchant marine—people see that in P&O. Like Cunard, P&O is synonymous with the image of Britannia and the waves, so when I look back to March, it is not easy to put aside the shock that came with the news that it had treated almost 800 of its staff so shamefully. It is clear from the reaction in the House tonight that none of us here has been untouched by what we remember from that time. The RMT estimates that 75% of those 800 UK seafarers worked on the Dover-Calais route, as well as on services out of Hull, Liverpool, Cairnryan and Larne. Just about every port in the UK was affected and had constituents who were affected, and landlocked constituencies had families who were affected by what happened. What was also significant about it was that it exposed a major flaw in UK employment legislation as it affects seafarers, and the potential for that major flaw in UK law to be exploited by others.
The Liberal Democrats support the Bill, which has three main principles at its core. Seafarers with close ties to the UK who work aboard services in scope of the Bill but do not qualify for the UK national minimum wage will receive fair pay. The Bill will disincentivise the race to the bottom that we have talked about in employment standards among operators. It will protect the reputation of the UK maritime sector, of which P&O is such an important part, following the disgraceful actions of that company.
However, there are flaws in the Bill. The Liberal Democrats in the other place had three main concerns: the lack of sufficient protections for seafarers; compliance with international conventions and agreements—of which the Bill potentially challenges a number—and the practicalities of implementation and enforcement, which have been raised by the UK Chamber of Shipping, the British Ports Association and trade unions. The RMT in particular wants to see changes to the Bill, including amendments to prevent port-hopping and other avoidance techniques by operators, and to introduce collectively agreed standards for roster patterns, pension rights, crewing levels and training schemes.
When the Bill moves forward into Committee, I urge the Government to take on board those concerns and to ensure that the Bill is improved in the way that I think we all—on both sides of the House—would like to see, for the wellbeing of seafarers, not just at the moment but in the future, in an industry that is in the DNA of this country.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Most of the points of detail have been raised by other Members, so I will not focus on those. I will vote for the Bill, but—I am not being party political here, because when it comes to the treatment of seafarers, I have been critical of every party that has been in national Government—the Bill is a mouse, and I do not think that it is a mouse that is going to roar. That is my worry about it.
I was pleased at the cross-party anger about P&O’s behaviour. I had expected that to result in a real opportunity to tackle the way in which seafarers are treated, and not just by P&O but historically. I have checked Hansard, and the first time I raised in the House the application of the minimum wage to seafarers was in the 2002-03 Session, which was 20 years ago. I blame the Chamber of Shipping, which has been mentioned, and its influence on successive Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments. Time and again, we have pointed out what is technically, in employment terms, a feudal relationship with many seafarers and the way they are treated. It is also a neo-colonialist relationship, given the recruitment practices across the globe. It is a level of exploitation that we would not tolerate in any other sector. People are working long hours in unsafe conditions, on low pay and with limited training. When they complain, they are replaced by labour that is brought to this country from across the globe. They are severely exploited.
Every time we have debated the issue and the Chamber of Shipping has realised that the game is up and that change is necessary—largely through public opprobrium, as happened with P&O, though perhaps not on the same scale in the past—successive attempts at reform by this House have resulted in a standard strategy to be pursued, which is that the Chamber of Shipping, working with the Government, obfuscates, seeks to limit change and the effectiveness of that change, and drafts trench warfare in legislation.
I will give a few examples. In 2002 I said that we should ensure that the minimum wage applied to seafarers in this country on the basis of the Race Relations Act 1976. When lobbying on the Race Relations Act, the shipping industry secured an exemption—the only sector that gained such an exemption. As a result, it was able to exploit workers. We ran a campaign and the Government put their hands up and said, “We accept that there is a wrong here, so we will ensure reform.” That reform was that people could be discriminated against based not on their race but on their nationality. What is the difference? That was the change in legislation.
From 2007 to 2009 we ran a campaign and I raised the issues in this House. When we sought to give some form of legal protection to people, we were told that they could have that legal protection only if they had employment links to this country—and that was ill defined. It just went on like that. I have example after example of us campaigning for reform and being met with obfuscation and the drafting of trench warfare, and the reform was largely frustrated. It just went on like that.
I raised the issue of accommodation charges in 2014. Again, the argument was that the charges would be relatively limited and that there would be no major impact on the seafarers. The companies then started increasing the charges and they got to ludicrous levels. What could the seafarers do? They had no choice over where they were going to sleep at night. They could not hire a separate boat to sleep on. The companies were ripping them off.
I can remember about 40 of us turning up to a Statutory Instrument Committee thinking that we had achieved a major victory—it was wonderful—whereby the minimum wage was going to apply to British waters. We all thought that meant territorial waters, but then there was a change of definition and we found that it applied only to internal waters—which just about applies to the Norfolk broads, to be honest.
That is what has happened year after year. I have had 20 years of this, so Members will understand my sense of frustration that leads to anger. That is why I think this Bill is a mouse. We will work together to improve it—that is what we will do. We will try to eradicate the loopholes that have been set out by virtually every Member who has spoken so far, including on the number of times a port is used, the way in which measures are enforced and the way in which the surcharge is defined. The Government cannot leave the definition of the surcharge to the harbour authorities. There will be another race to the bottom because they will want to attract companies to use their harbour on the basis that their surcharge is so low. Let us work together as a House to resolve those issues with this mouse of a Bill.
The Bill does not solve the problem of fire and rehire. I was with the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) in Dover. I think she has misunderstood what was going on in the RMT office. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) was receiving a briefing from the RMT that was offered to the Prime Minister and the leaders of other parties as well. I was in the room at the time, and there was no plotting or anything like that. It was about trying to ensure that points were raised in this House so that the Government could act more effectively.
Mrs Elphicke
I have notified the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras that I will be raising this issue. I was in that meeting along with a member of my team. It was very clear that what I was observing was not a conversation with the Labour leader but a conversation led by the Labour leader about what might happen the following week, including some very disparaging references about the Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), whom he sought to embarrass. I appreciate the perspective of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I recall him being there.
John McDonnell
We were both in the same room, but I suppose that it is like people witnessing an accident, in that there will be different interpretations. By no means was I calling the leader of the Labour party’s conversation an accident—that would be grounds for expulsion.
The Bill does not outlaw fire and rehire. That was used by P&O, whose example was followed very quickly by Heathrow airport in my constituency. If this Bill is the first stage of a reform package, we need to see the rest of it pretty promptly. That means not just introducing minimum wage legislation but looking at the wider exploitation of seafarers, including accommodation charges and safe crew levels. I am really worried. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) mentioned the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. Time and again, evidence is emerging that the exploitation of seafarers is not just about wages, but about how few seafarers there are on any particular ship and how the training they receive does not guarantee safety. Therefore, we need legislation to be introduced rapidly to ensure that seafarers are not only properly paid but properly trained, and that any ship that sails around our ports has an adequate number of crew on board.
At some stage—this applies to the overall debate as well as to this Bill—we will have to have another discussion about the regulation of the sector. This Bill relates to how it abides by payment of the minimum wage. I do not believe that the concept of harbours levelling the surcharge and then it being implemented or, I suppose, inspected by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is going to prove effective. That is a division of responsibility and I do not think it will work.
As other hon. Members raised earlier, the idea that a ship or company can simply be excluded from operating out of a particular harbour will not prove effective either. We must demonstrate seriousness of purpose, which is why the unions are arguing for detention of the ship when there is a refusal to abide by the measures that are going through in this Bill.
I hope that we will rapidly hear a report on the progress of the seafarers’ charter, which I thought would be included in the first legislation that we saw to attack the issues around seafarers and P&O in particular. I would also like to have had some strong evidence of the agreements that are coming forward in the cross-country negotiations taking place on these issues; can we have that in the new year? I also throw in that it is not just about the wages earned week by week, month by month, but about pensions, which are another form of wages. Seafarers’ pensions have been eroded over the years and, as a result, it is difficult to attract people to the job because of low pay, lack of pensions, insecurity and, to be frank, unsafe working conditions.
My final point comes back to the Chamber of Shipping. I am angry that, throughout the whole period that these activities have been taking place, when low pay has been inflicted on seafarers and their pensions have been under attack, shipping companies have taken £2 billion in tax relief from tonnage tax—in fact, they have laughed all the way to the bank. The tonnage tax has failed, and it has not produced the jobs that we were promised or encouraged the companies to behave as dutiful employers. I urge the Government to bring forward the whole programme of legislation that was promised as part of the development of the nine-point plan, as well as the seafarers’ charter, early in the new year. Unless we have that, there will be no secure employment and the long-term future of the sector will be at considerable risk.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate. It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I will speak in support of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and raise an important issue about seafarers’ pensions. I commend my hon. Friend for her speech and her well-made points. Seafarers working on British vessels and providing services to British ports should be paid at least the minimum wage; I hope that those highly skilled workers, who carry out difficult and dangerous work, would be paid well above that basic minimum.
I take this opportunity to raise an important issue about seafarers being treated properly by their employers. As the House will know, I have been raising the issue of the outstanding £146 million debt owed to the merchant navy ratings pension scheme by P&O Ferries and ultimately by its parent company DP World. This important issue affects thousands of P&O workers and pensioners as well as seafarers across the maritime industry, who are members of the same industry-wide pension fund.
The sad fact is that, despite repeated requests and years of waiting, DP World has still not paid the money it owes. That is despite the precedent it set by paying debts it owed to the merchant navy officers pension scheme and the precedent P&O Ferries set by making additional voluntary contributions to the merchant navy ratings pension fund before P&O Ferries was taken over by DP World in 2006. To make matters worse, DP World seems to have the money that it owes to the pension scheme, as it spent a similar sum on sponsoring an international golf tournament—in fact, it spent more on the golf tournament, which cost it about £147 million to sponsor.
The debt to the scheme needs to be paid, and pension schemes such as the merchant navy ratings pension fund need to be properly supported. Scheme members and employers deserve to be reassured about their pensions and the future of the scheme. The scheme has about 14,000 members and a large number of employers contribute as well as P&O Ferries. Those employers range from relatively small shipping firms to large Government organisations, including the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the British Antarctic Survey. Because the merchant navy ratings pension scheme is a “last man standing” pension scheme, other employers could in theory be asked to cover the cost if an employer left the scheme. It would be wrong for there to be a risk, however distant, of the taxpayer or other employers having to pay that unpaid debt.
As we have heard, DP World is taking part in the Government’s freeport scheme, so there seems to be a more immediate risk that taxpayers could indirectly subsidise or support an employer that is not fulfilling its obligations. It is important that schemes are protected and treated properly by their members, and confidence in pension schemes needs to be maintained at a high level. I am sure that P&O and DP World do not intend to be seen as the Scrooges of the shipping industry, so I ask them to look into the matter urgently and think again. I hope that they will now provide the funding and financial reassurance needed. They should do the right thing this Christmas for pensioners, workers and fellow employers. I ask the Minister to encourage them and, if necessary, to take further action to ensure that they do that.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I appreciate being given the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I declare an interest as a proud member of the RMT parliamentary group, and I support the maritime sector and our seafarers, as well as those involved in the dispute in the rail sector with Network Rail and the train operating companies.
I was present in the House when the actions of P&O became apparent on St Patrick’s day. Those actions represent the lowest point in industrial relations in this country for many years. There are some parallels with Tiny Rowland, the unacceptable face of capitalism, and some of the excesses that went on with the asset stripping of Michael Slade and others, but this is about as low as it gets.
I was buoyed up by the response from Ministers, including the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), the former shipping Minister, who was incandescent. I was under the impression that the will in the House and the country was such that measures would quickly be brought before the House to take P&O Ferries to task—to fine it and to take appropriate action against its chief executive. The chief executive was arrogant and flippant in his presentation to the joint session of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee; he was almost boastful that he had not consulted with the unions and had broken the law. I am therefore disappointed that it has taken nine months—we are now in December; it is almost January—to have a Bill intended to address the issues. I will support the Bill, but I have reservations and I hope that it is possible to improve it in Committee or even on Report.
Certainly, the Government cannot claim that the issue came as a bolt from the blue, because the unions, particularly the RMT, warned them about it in 2020 when an order was introduced to extend the national minimum wage to seafarers in UK territorial waters. It then warned them again in 2021 when there were issues with Irish Ferries, which was operating services between Dover and Calais and undercutting P&O and DFDS. I will outline some of my concerns with the Bill, in the hope that we can secure the best deal for seafarers, which is an outcome that I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see.
Successive Governments have convened legal working groups on seafarers and the national minimum wage. I think the first was in 2009. We have a major problem with seafarer care that the minimum wage alone cannot address. We were promised a review of the Equality Act 2010 regulations, but that has not happened, which is a major failure in the Government’s seafarer policy. The powers in the Bill to make secondary regulations disguise the complexity and the narrowness of the legislation. I ask the Minister: will the UK national minimum wage age bands apply to the national minimum wage equivalence declaration? P&O, of course, dismissed apprentices, as well as hundreds of directly employed seafarers, but does the Minister consider a £4.81 hourly rate for apprentice seafarers fair? The Maritime Skills Commission’s ratings review, which is extremely welcome, should look at this aspect of the Bill, but it is vital to avoid putting in place any more barriers to training more ratings in the UK.
As well as training, the Government must facilitate employment opportunities. I fully understand the sentiments expressed by hon. Friends who represent ports where there are opportunities, particularly for young people to have a career at sea, but the Government have a role in ensuring that those jobs are not taken by agency workers from overseas.
When the Bill was in the other place, the noble Lord Hendy discussed the lack of national minimum wage protection for crew working in the offshore wind and offshore renewable supply chain beyond the UK territorial waters limit. Crew working on vessels servicing the offshore oil and gas industry across the UK continental shelf are entitled to protection under national minimum wage legislation, but crew working on offshore wind farms in the UK exclusive economic zone—sometimes on the same ships—are not. That is unfair, and it leads to serious exploitation.
There is exclusion of UK seafarers from a growing labour market directly linked to the UK economy. It is incredible: there will be 100,000 new jobs in the North sea, but young men and women from the coastal communities will not have the opportunity to take up those positions. Those jobs, and that market, are funded by the UK taxpayer. Also, operators should be prohibited from deducting accommodation costs. My colleagues have already mentioned how much Irish Ferries and P&O were deducting.
Rosters have been mentioned. The Bill recognises to a certain extent that national minimum wage avoidance is a problem in the UK shipping industry, but it does not fully cover wider employment rights issues, such as the hours and roster patterns that seafarers work; neither do the raft of secondary powers that the Bill creates. On Report in the other place, the Minister openly stated that the Government are not seeking to influence roster patterns—I believe that the Secretary of State said the same thing today—or any other employment conditions through the Bill. To give this legislation a greater chance of successfully countering the actions of P&O, Irish Ferries and others who are trashing UK seafarer jobs and the maritime skills base in order to increase their profits, the seafarers’ charter should be put in the Bill.
On the seafarers’ charter, we really need a maximum roster pattern of two weeks on, two weeks off, in the ferry sector. I urge the Minister to work with the Labour party and the trade unions on the Bill, and on the seafarers’ charter, so that we get this right, restore jobs, get fair pay agreements, and start training programmes in the ferry sector. Members have pointed out that P&O is making bigger savings from its changes to roster patterns than it was from having rates of pay that were below the national minimum wage.
In the other place, the Government rejected the previously agreed roster pattern in the charter. It is commissioning further research on roster patterns and crewing levels. That is despite a collectively agreed standard being in place in Stena Line and DFDS. I refer the Minister to Cardiff University’s crew fatigue study for P&O in 2012, the EU Horizon 2020 project, and the World Maritime University’s EVREST report. All that evidence has been shared with the Government. I am surprised and disappointed that the Government have not taken action to tackle low-cost operators, particularly in view of the issues of crew fatigue and safety.
Others have raised the issues of port-hopping and avoidance techniques. I asked the Secretary of State about that when he appeared before the Transport Committee. The criteria are too loose; we need to have a look at that. Port-hopping remains a genuine avoidance technique, and it becomes easier to use the more frequently a vessel calls at harbour. I support the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and Nautilus International in specifying that the threshold in the Bill should be 52 calls at a harbour per year per vessel, rather than the 120 that the Government suggest.
In conclusion, the Bill is an opportunity to mandate better pay and employment standards, to restore the principle of collective bargaining conditions at P&O and across the ferry sector, and to ensure fair pay and safe, decent employment conditions for decent, hard-working seafarers. The Bill’s scope must be widened to tackle avoidance techniques, and to help to standardise fair pay and collective conditions, starting in the ferry sector. I hope that the Minister will address the concerns that I have raised, and ensure the best possible deal for seafarers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I say how pleased I am to have heard the comments of right hon. and hon. Members? In particular, it was a real pleasure to follow the forensic contribution of the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris); he has a vast wealth of knowledge on this subject. I thank him for sharing it with all of us in the Chamber; it was good to have those points strongly reinforced.
I warmly welcome the Bill. It makes complete sense that those who spend a considerable amount of time in British ports should be paid at least the minimum British wage—indeed, they should be paid more. In my constituency, there are many seafarers and fishermen from the Philippines; they spend a lot of time in Portavogie. It is not only morally correct but our responsibility to ensure that those seafarers are looked after financially.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) outlined his case very clearly; unfortunately, he has had to do so over a great number of years. As he said, every time he thought an agreement was reached, another obstacle—another reason for saying no—was found. How frustrating that must be! Our hope is that this legislation will be the start of something firm, strong and final that gives the reassurance and the protection that the seafarers want. He also referred to fire and rehire. I wholeheartedly endorse what he said on that, as others have done. Perhaps the Bill could deal with that issue. If it could, then we will have achieved something above and beyond what we hoped for. It would be good to have provisions in place to deal with that.
The issues surrounding P&O Ferries have proven instrumental to the fishing and trading industry. I echo what has been said about P&O. I am outraged by how people wearing balaclavas strong-armed and man-handled the workers off the P&O boats. I watched that, that day; it was the same in Larne harbour as in other places. There was something totally wrong, outrageous and disgraceful about it in a democratic country—a country of freedom, where we stand up for the rights of others. We watched what was happening on TV, and we could do nothing about it. I hope that the legislation will be strong and firm, and will give the protection that is necessary.
A combined number of 800 staff, including in Northern Ireland, were made redundant at start of the year, in additional to a £100 million loss year on year. P&O stated that the business is not viable in its current state. P&O’s chief executive officer stated that the average hourly rate for agency workers under the crewing model would be £5.50, yet the minimum wage in the United Kingdom is higher than that for those 18 and over.
I read the comparisons by the International Labour Organisation—for Hansard it is important to put this on the record. It stated that the recommended basic wage for an able seaman is $648, around £550 per month, based on seafarers working eight hours a day, or a 48-hour working week. That equates to around £2.66 an hour. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) has quoted that figure in this House on numerous occasions, and it is disgraceful that that should be the wage for people on the international seas. I know that control over what we do in British waters is with the Minister in the House, but we are all outraged by that sort of wage for seafarers across the world. Such a wage is unheard of, and impossible for those working to live on. The Government must step in and ensure that seafarers are rewarded for their work in British ports—I think the Minister has given that commitment, but we want to see a bit more strength in that if we can.
I hope that the Bill will pass, because if it does, harbour authorities will have the power to request ship operators covered by the Bill to declare that their seafarers are paid at a rate at least equivalent to the national minimum wage for their work in the UK or its territorial waters. In addition, as the Minister said earlier, harbour authorities can refuse access to the harbours if operators fail to pay the surcharge and the additional payment. Those are the sorts of penalties I wish to see in law, and like others, I wish to see stronger, firmer laws and greater protection and penalties. We should hit these people in their pockets, and that will have an effect because they are very much money orientated.
I commend Relate NI—this is a different issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is linked to seafarers so I wanted to put it on record. It is working with the Seafarers’ Charity to provide free counselling for current and retired seafarers, fishermen, and anyone who works with them. It provides finance and counselling or advice about isolation due to being out at sea or homesickness. It provides six fully funded sessions for seafarers, their dependants, children and wider families, which is incredible support for those who are based at sea and possibly not earning much money. We all recognise the good work that Relate NI does, and I wanted to put that on the record in the House and thank it for all that it does and for stepping up.
In conclusion, there is more we can do to ensure that seafarers working in British ports a certain number of times each year are properly paid. This debate is all about that. This is about protection and a Bill that makes a difference. It is about ensuring that people want to be seafarers and have that as a vocation or job that will give them great confidence for the future. It is not possible, and more importantly it is not fair, for staff to be so severely underpaid for the decent work they do. One old saying, which I think is important, is “a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work” and that is what we want from the Bill. I look to the Minister to give us that reassurance, and I welcome the Bill. This is a giant step in the right direction, but as others have said, particularly the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, we want the Bill to have teeth, because with those teeth comes protection, which is what this debate is all about.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Today represents the 41st anniversary of the Penlee disaster when eight brave members of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution set out on a stormy night off the coast of Cornwall to rescue the crew of the Union Star. Having rescued four of them, another 16 were lost at sea. Today we remember the pain of that community in the south-west, and the bravery that those people show on a daily basis.
The maritime sector is responsible for transporting 90% of global trade and supplying the world with food, fuel, medicines and goods. The world’s 1.9 million seafarers are key workers. We as a nation ask a lot of them, and they do not let us down, as has been pointed out tonight, particularly during the pandemic. We owe our mariners and seafarers the most protection, and I use the word “protection” deliberately. We must protect their rights as workers, protect their pay and conditions, and protect their future.
We have seen what happens when bad bosses go rogue. We are a proud seafaring nation that was once the envy of the world. How could a Dubai-owned company, which was given millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money by this Government during the pandemic, sack 800 staff and seemingly get away with it? It has got away with it. It knew we have a weak Government, who might talk a good game—after all, at the time both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport said that the company would be criminally investigated and sanctioned. But that has not happened.
Peter Hebblethwaite, who was described by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) as the world’s worst boss—I have noticed it is a crowded field—cynically trampled on workers’ rights, and has gone unpunished and faced zero consequences. When P&O pulled the rug out from underneath its staff, and sacked them illegally over a pre-recorded Zoom call, I can honestly say that never in my political life had I seen such blatant abuse of workers’ rights at such a scale. That must not happen again. The Bill is supposed to strengthen protections for workers, and we will work with the Government to set out what the Bill can do. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said that the Bill does not address the situation that happened with P&O, so let us not fool ourselves. Until we start with criminal liabilities, and hike them up, as well as protection against criminal negligence, such companies will continue, and are continuing, to get away with it.
First, we will press for a reduction in the number of port visits to UK ports from 120 to 52 times a year. We will amend the legislation to ensure that HMRC’s involvement is stronger, and that its role is clear when it comes to ensuring that bad bosses comply with the minimum wage. We ask that the Bill ensures that fines are mandated for non- compliance with the national minimum wage, and that they are punitive enough to act as a deterrent. We will ask in Committee that if directors of those companies fail to pay the national minimum wage, they should be found criminally responsible. Our amendments, if accepted by the Government, will ensure that port operators are not their own authorities and are not marking their homework. There must be firm guidance on surcharges, and the Secretary of State should be responsible for establishing a method for collecting those fines. We cannot give ultimate power to port operators—bear in mind that P&O operates a port, and it is inconceivable that it would potentially be responsible for fining itself and its business competitors at the same time. We know that bad bosses will exploit any gaps in the Bill, and it is incumbent on us to ensure that a third party collects the fines, not individual port authorities.
We have had a full and thorough debate, and I thank hon. Members who have, towards the end of the year, turned up to participate in it. First, I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who said that the Bill is not the whole solution to the problem. He is absolutely right. I hope that, some time after the Bill has passed, his Select Committee will take it away and reflect on how successful it has been. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) is a doughty champion for the docks in her constituency, and she was exactly right to say that P&O’s action was a disgusting act of industrial vandalism. I note further that her council has been declared bankrupt tonight, so I wish it all the best and hope that it can come through its current problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) is another doughty campaigner who, in a tour de force, eloquently described the working conditions that these workers now face, with weeks and weeks at sea, on for 12 hours a day, seven days a week. He is right that the Bill needs improving,
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) for being the Minister through such turbulent times for both aviation and maritime. He put in a shift—in my opinion, on some days there is no fairness in politics. He said that P&O’s actions did not appeal to a British sense of fairness. I would say that they could not have happened in any country with proper employment laws. That is what really needs to change if we want to make progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) talked about morality. I rarely go into morality in politics because there is rarely a black-or-white day in this business, but he described P&O’s action as immoral—it was—and the Bill as a missed opportunity.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) started well, and I am sympathetic to the crisis in her coastal community. However, she strayed into errant Whips’ lines. She kept saying that Labour Front-Bench Members were silent on something, but she did not say what that was. I am happy to give way if she wants to tell me what we are silent on. On her criticism of unions, as a fellow traveller of faith, I will lend her my copy of Pope Leo XIII’s 1892 encyclical “Rerum Novarum”, which stood up for the rights of trade unions to organise. Labour Members will always stand up for that right.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) took us down a Netflix line for a while. He said that seafarers get poverty pay. It is poverty pay, but it is worse than that, because people now cannot get into these jobs. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) made a great speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said that the legislation is like a mouse. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) said that DP World’s pension deficit is the same as the amount it spent on a golf tournament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) talked about a bright future for our coastal communities and how those jobs that could have been the future of those communities now cannot be accessed. Labour will work constructively with the Government to strengthen the Bill by closing the loopholes that we know bad bosses will exploit and to ensure that our seafarers are protected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I thank hon. Members for all their contributions and join the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) in commemorating, 41 years on, the memory and service of the eight RNLI lifeboatmen from Mousehole who operated the Penlee lifeboat.
I think that everyone in the Chamber agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who put it bluntly by saying that all of us, especially at this time of year, are reliant on those who operate our ports and bring everything into our country. Ninety-five per cent of all of our trade travels by boat, and a lot of that comes into her constituency. That is why it is so important to all of us that we see the Bill progress.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Robert Courts) and for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) and, across the political divide, the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Easington (Grahame Morris), who all made the point that everyone in the House was shocked by the behaviour of P&O earlier this year, and they have come together in wanting to do something about it. It was particularly gratifying to see both the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) supporting the legislation and wanting to see good standards and raised standards not only through the Bill but through the Government’s nine-point plan.
I am glad that those on the Opposition Front Bench broadly welcome the Bill, as do the SNP representatives. I just point out to the SNP Front Bench that the RMT did meet my hon. Friends in the Department on Thursday. We are always happy to engage with unions and anybody else who is interested in bringing things to a head in that regard.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) was also very kind to praise the Government for dragging the French to start looking at issues in this space. I am glad that he is supporting those of us on the Government Benches who are leading our European partners forward on legislation in this space. More broadly, I am delighted that everyone across the House is supporting where we are going, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whose voice it is always a pleasure to hear.
I think we can all agree that the Bill is not a silver bullet, but it is a starting point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney said. I pay tribute to previous Ministers, including him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) who brought it forward. I look forward to picking up on many of the issues raised at later stages if I cannot address them at the Dispatch Box today.
I want to turn first to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), the Chair of the Transport Committee, who raised three points. First, on the International Labour Organisation, the measures in the Bill will be stronger than what it has brought forward. They are compatible with the ILO, but they will be stronger than what it has as a baseline. On which is the best body—the harbour authorities or the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—the MCA will have the power to investigate and prosecute offences under the Bill. It is responsible for the enforcement role, although port operators will collect the moneys. He made another important point on minimum wage corridors. We are looking at that across the piece at the moment. I mentioned France, but we are looking at other European counterparts for where we can have routes to really drive forward standards for workers across the country.
John McDonnell
Will the Minister write to us with some form of timetable on the agreements and when they will be ready?
Mr Holden
I would be delighted to update the right hon. Gentleman at a future point. We can perhaps go into that further in Committee. If he raises it at that point, we can perhaps take it further from there.
Those were the three points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South. I want to touch on a few more points.
One main point was the concern, expressed by many hon. Members including the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), about the potential for port hopping. The key thing is that the Secretary of State has the power to direct anybody who is trying to abuse the system.
On the civil investigation and the ongoing matters mentioned by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) relating to P&O, I think we can all agree about Mr Hebblethwaite—the way that he has tret his workers is totally unacceptable. Given the ongoing civil action, it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment at this time. However, after that point I will be happy to comment further.
I want to draw Members’ attention to the broader issue regarding the Government’s nine-point plan. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock made a point about global standards, which was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). We want to see them leading the world with the highest standards possible.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock and for Dover, the hon. Member for Easington and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney all mentioned training and quality. They are part of the seafarers’ charter, which we want to see driven further forward.
On rostering, an important point mentioned by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East and for Weaver Vale, and my County Durham neighbour the hon. Member for Easington, we have commissioned an independent assessment of rostering and I look forward to its conclusions.
Offshore wind was mentioned by several hon. Members, including Members from Scotland. Under article 2 of the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order, on working in connection with the exploration of the sea or subsoil, basically if you are in the UK’s exclusive economic zone, there is a difference between that and the continental shelf. I look forward to further debate on that in Committee. It is a technical area, which is worth us looking at further.
The Bill marks great progress on the Government’s nine-point plan. It is a step forward, delivering a suite of measures to improve seafarers’ protections and welfare. It is not a silver bullet and will not solve every problem, but it will incentivise operators to pay fair wages, particularly for those with the closest ties to the UK, and recognise the pivotal role that they play in the movement of the UK’s goods and services. It will drive best practice.
Beyond the Bill, the UK will continue to be a leading voice on the international stage as the home of the International Maritime Organisation. That proximity will help us to work more closely with counterparts across the seas in driving forward better standards, as we have already seen from the reaction of France, Denmark, Belgium and other continental neighbours. We will continue to make progress on the rest of the nine-point plan and will work with our international partners to ensure a fairer deal for seafarers.
I wish you a merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall save my merry Christmases for the rest of the House until tomorrow evening when I reply to the Adjournment debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 17 January 2023.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords] (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(1) any expenditure incurred by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.
Seafarers' Wages Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 17th January 2023
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 January 2023 - (17 Jan 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public, and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have a couple of preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to [email protected]. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. I hope that we can take these matters formally.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 17 January) meet at 2.00pm on Tuesday 17 January;
(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 17 January.— (Mr Holden.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Mr Holden.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members by email.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and groupings list for today’s sittings is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and groupings list shows the order of debates.
Decisions on each amendment, and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill, are taken when we come to the relevant clause. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first; other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in that group. I ask Members to stand in the normal way if they want to speak on a particular amendment, including the SNP spokesman as well—that would be really helpful. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance.
Clause 1
Services to which this Act applies
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out “any kind” and insert “every description”.
This amendment would bring the definition of ship into line with that under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 67, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
‘“place in the United Kingdom” includes energy installations within the UK Exclusive Economic Zone.’
Clause 1 stand part.
Amendment 43, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
‘(a) who is employed or engaged in any capacity on board any ship providing a service to which this Act applies,
(b) whose employment or engagement on board the ship is carried out in relation to the provision of the service, and’.
This amendment would bring the definition of seafarer into line with the definition of “seaman” under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 48, in clause 4, page 3, line 18, leave out “or its territorial waters” and insert
‘, its territorial waters, or within the Renewable Energy Zone as specified by The Renewable Energy Zone (Designation of Area) Order 2004.’
This amendment would ensure that seafarers engaged in work supporting offshore wind installations are covered by Act.
Gavin Newlands
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies, and to lead this worthy but anaemic debate. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will be generous when discussing the amendments before us. The amendments are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East.
A couple of these amendments are straightforward. Amendment 42 would change the definition of a ship or vessel, and amendment 43 would ensure consistency in the definition of a seaman. The amendments are intended to ensure that the legislation aligns with existing definitions of both “seaman” and “ships” in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. I thank the Law Society of Scotland for highlighting these issues.
Having differing definitions in law between the Bill and existing legislation for no apparent good reason—although we will hear what the Minister says—does not seem to be a particularly efficient route to go down. After all, the workers that the Bill is intended to cover are already seamen under current definitions and, on the face of it, the Bill does not aim to change that.
Similarly, if there is already a legal definition of a ship in statute, it seems useful to maintain that definition here. Indeed, when the Bill was in the House of Lords, Baroness Vere made a similar point in relation to the definition of a harbour, pointing to the existence of the Harbours Act 1964. Therefore there should be no reason why a similar principle cannot apply in this case. If there are good reasons why a new definition specifically relating to the provisions in the Bill is needed, I will be happy to hear it, but logic would suggest that using the existing definitions would be far simpler.
Amendments 67 and 48 are designed to deal with the fact that workers operating in the renewables industry, which will be increasing exponentially in the coming years, are currently excluded from the Bill. There are two methods of dealing with that under the amendments. They relate to the UK exclusive economic zone and to the renewable energy zone. The exclusive economic zone almost entirely matches the renewable energy zone, save for an area just under 200 miles north-west of Cape Wrath and more than 100 miles north of North Rona. Because our proposal is aimed particularly at protecting those seafarers engaged in work supporting renewables installations in UK waters, it seemed more appropriate to try to use the renewable energy zone rather than the EEZ, but we have given both a try. If the Minister wants to accept either, I will be perfectly happy with whichever one he chooses.
At the moment, the Bill’s extent is limited to the UK and its territorial waters—that is, the 12 nautical mile limit. That excludes the EEZ and REZ, which go to 200 miles. Our proposal would simply ensure that ships and seafarers engaged in work to support renewables installations were not inadvertently omitted from enjoying legislative protection simply because those zones are not listed in the Bill while territorial waters are referred to.
I note that the Minister in the Lords, Baroness Vere, had to correct the record after incorrectly stating that these workers were already covered by national minimum wage legislation. Workers in the oil and gas industries are entitled to national minimum wage protection. It would be ludicrous if their colleagues doing the same difficult and dangerous job, but supporting renewable industries, were denied the right to protections and to national minimum wage equivalence. This is, on the face of it, a fairly minor proposal. However, it would help to protect thousands of workers—a number that we hope will grow hugely over coming years—and would ensure that renewables were not just better for the planet but better for our workers.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Would it be convenient to discuss amendment 67 at this point, Mr Davies?
Grahame Morris
Thank you, Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced some measures to address the appalling injustice experienced by the P&O seafarers, 800 of whom were summarily sacked by Zoom on 17 March in the most appalling fashion. However, I cannot help reflecting on the fact that this is something of a missed opportunity. I understand that the terms of the Bill are, by their very nature, narrow. Nevertheless, it is complicated legislation and it does throw up a number of anomalies, which I hope the Government will recognise and address during Committee or perhaps at Third Reading. Given the overall situation that we face with the reduction in the number of UK-based seafarers, this is a golden opportunity.
Two former Shipping Ministers are members of the Committee. With the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, we have had previously a discussion about the opportunities, given the huge public investment in offshore wind and offshore renewables more generally as part of the zero-carbon strategy, to provide employment opportunities, particularly in coastal towns such as mine. Sadly, that opportunity has been missed.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
As the hon. Gentleman has cited me, I ought to be driven to action, so let me say this. He will remember that, as Minister, I commissioned the “Maritime Growth Study”, and part of that study was a consideration of exactly the matters that he is describing. We need to recruit, to skill and to retain more UK seafarers. That is something that, frankly, most Governments, of all persuasions, have neglected over a long time, so the problem is deeply rooted. We have allowed the erosion of our merchant navy for a considerable time, so I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said. Skills matter, people matter, and jobs matter.
Grahame Morris
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with his comments. My wish, and indeed that of the maritime trade unions—RMT and Nautilus International—is that the seafarers’ charter and the Government’s nine-point plan embodied in the maritime 2050 strategy be placed on the face of the Bill. That would address many of their concerns, which were echoed by the right hon. Gentleman.
I respectfully point out that the noble Lord Hendy raised the issue of the lack of minimum wage protection for crew working in the offshore wind and offshore renewable energy supply chain beyond the limits of the UK’s territorial waters. At present, crews working on servicing offshore oil and gas across the UK continental shelf are entitled to protection under the national minimum wage legislation that this Bill relates to. However, crew who sometimes work on the same ships but service the offshore wind turbines in the UK exclusive economic zone are not entitled to that protection. That would seem unfair to any impartial observer and is leading to serious cases of exploitation. It is a glaring anomaly that the Bill should address.
We also have the exclusion of UK seafarers from the growing labour market, which is directly linked to the UK economy. These jobs would not exist but for a huge investment from the UK Government and the UK taxpayer. It is quite a travesty that we are not providing the protections that would ensure those jobs go to UK-based seafarers. I would like that to be addressed. That is the purpose of amendment 67.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. We hope to work co-operatively with the Government. The common good dictates that workers should be treated with dignity and respect in the workplace, and at the least they should be paid the national minimum wage, but as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North pointed out, international maritime law is incredibly complicated legislation when it comes to looking at economic terms and the definition of ships. Renewables hold a very positive future for the United Kingdom. We need to ensure that this sector comes within scope of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington suggested.
Labour has tabled multiple amendments, along with other colleagues on the Opposition Benches, to extend the definition of to whom the Bill applies. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings in his often-erudite way points it out: this is about making Britain a greater maritime nation. That depends on the jobs on offer and the skills we train our maritime workers with. We must ensure British workers can get those jobs on our coastal waters and that when they do they are fairly paid, with at least the national minimum wage.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I do not want to detain the Committee for long, but I want to speak briefly to this issue. The rapidly falling number of British ratings in the maritime industry is a crying shame, and the former Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, is right: all Governments of all political persuasions have failed to address that issue. They have addressed officers, to an extent, but they have not anywhere near sufficiently addressed ratings.
The Bill could be dramatically improved were the Government to agree to include energy installations. That area is growing exponentially. The Bill is a golden opportunity to recruit, train and encourage kids in schools in my constituency who live in the shadow of the docks, looking over at those vessels going out to sea and wondering whether they could possibly dream of having a job in that industry.
I commend the Government on bringing forward this legislation in good time. The former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), and the former Minister, the hon. Member for Witney, must have worked incredibly hard to put together this complex legislation—this area is particularly complex. However, we could go further and do better, and I call on the Government to think carefully about including energy installations in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Davies, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members present for taking part. It was particularly gracious of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, and indeed the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, to note the complexities around international maritime law relating to this piece of legislation. I will address some of those points a little bit further when I address some of the amendments later on.
Broadly, the Bill will play an important role in improving seafarers’ welfare and working conditions, and I am pleased that, today, we are taking another step towards it becoming law. There is broad support for the Bill, and I hope that during the course of our discussion, I will be able to address colleagues’ concerns and questions relating to the amendments. I have tabled several broader amendments in my own name: while they may appear great in number, the majority of them—as Members will see when we go through them—are consequential on a small number of changes to the Bill that will improve the functioning of the legislation.
To address hon. Members’ concerns, following on from our continued stakeholder engagement, particularly as we develop our secondary legislation, we have identified some areas of the Bill that would benefit from the improvements made by our amendments. As hon. Members have said, the Bill was introduced at pace to respond quickly to P&O’s disgraceful treatment of its seafarers. It is right that we continue to listen to stakeholders and examine how the Bill will function, and I make no apology for taking every opportunity to ensure the right outcome for seafarers.
Clause 1 sets out the services to which the Bill will apply, namely services for the carriage of persons or goods by ship, with or without vehicles, between a place outside the United Kingdom and a place in the United Kingdom. In other words, the Bill applies to international services, as the majority of seafarers on domestic services between places within the UK will be entitled to the UK minimum wage under existing legislation.
Grahame Morris
I recognise that this is a complex piece of legislation and that trying to understand its finer points is quite testing, but could I seek a point of clarification in relation to apprentices? As I am sure the Minister will recall, when Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive of P&O Ferries, dismissed those 800 seafarers, he also dismissed the apprentices. Will the Minister indicate whether the wage bands in the UK national minimum wage, to which clause 2 refers, will apply to apprentices as well as the hundreds of directly employed seafarers? The apprentice wage is £4.81 per hour, which does not seem like a princely sum to me.
Mr Holden
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. The banding is an issue that we will address fully through the UK national minimum wage equivalence in the regulations that will come forward at a later stage. We intend for it to mirror the national minimum wage in the UK, and will set that out through secondary legislation. There are exemptions for services provided by fishing vessels and services for the purpose of leisure or recreation, in line with other maritime employment legislation and to account for the different remuneration practices in those areas.
Grahame Morris
I do not mean to be picky, but can I just point out a contradiction? The scope of the Bill covers seafarers who are working on the continental shelf on oil and gas installations and the servicing of those, but not seafarers who are in the offshore wind turbine energy sector or those working on the continental shelf. It seems a contradiction to leave out that whole section of seafarers.
Mr Holden
I thank the hon. Member for his point. Everybody will be covered if on a boat that moves to and from those platforms at least 120 times a year, but the expansion of the UK’s exclusive economic zone to cover that area would bring, as other hon. Members have said, particular complexity regarding international maritime law. I will come to that when we address the amendments to clause 2.
Gavin Newlands
I hear what the Minister is saying—that workers will be covered under the Bill if they visit a harbour 120 times or more per year—but that might not be the case for some. Clearly, the hon. Member for Easington and I are not going to get what we desire in this Committee this morning. Would the Minister commit to the Department for Transport looking at this issue six months after the passage of the Bill to see who is actually being covered by the legislation?
Mr Holden
I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman before Report with any further details.
For the reasons I have set out, we cannot accept amendment 67, but I do understand the concern about the national minimum wage entitlement for workers on energy platforms in the EEZ. Offshore wind farms and the renewables sector are critical to meeting our net zero target. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy regularly reviews the national minimum wage legislation to ensure that it is fit for the current workforce and businesses. We hope that this national minimum wage equivalence legislation will also reflect those changes over time as well.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I thank the Minister for bringing forward this important Bill. We in Ynys Môn, like others across the UK, were very shocked by the actions of P&O in Q1 last year. Holyhead is the second busiest ro-ro port in the UK, and Stena is one of the island’s largest employers. It is working with the Isle of Anglesey County Council on its freeport bid.
I wanted to sit on this Bill Committee because Anglesey is known as energy island. We have a significant amount of renewable energy. We have Morlais and Minesto, as well as BP Mona and BP Morgan looking at offshore wind. The Bill is focused on improving protections and welfare for seafarers, which is important in these challenging times, and is particularly important for Anglesey, which certainly needs investment in apprenticeships and skills. In terms of this amendment, will the Minister confirm that those who are looking to invest in the renewable sector and in ports can be reassured?
Mr Holden
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—[Interruption.] I did not quite catch what the hon. Member for Glasgow East was saying from a sedentary position. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn raises some important points. I know she has been a massive campaigner, whether on that nuclear power station in her patch or, as she has raised more specifically today, on the issues around the freeport and the port of Holyhead, which is crucial for our work across the Irish sea. I can confirm to her that the sector is incredibly important, and we recognise how important such jobs are for her community and for coastal communities around the country. That is one of the reasons we are bringing forward this legislation today.
Clause 2 sets out what is meant by a non-qualifying seafarer. This is a person who
“(a) works on a ship providing a service to which this Act applies”—
as defined in clause 1—
“(b) whose work on the ship is carried out in relation to the provision of the service, and
(c) who fails to qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of that work merely because, for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the person does not work, or does not ordinarily work, in the United Kingdom.”
Paragraph (c) clarifies why they are referred to as “non-qualifying”—they do not meet the criteria—and that is why they need the protection that this Bill provides.
I appreciate that the intention of amendment 43 is to bring the definition of seafarer into line with the definition of “seaman” under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as is the intention of the amendments to clause 1 in the name of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. However, it is vital that we maintain consistency with the terms used in other employment legislation, such as the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015. That is where the terminology in the Bill comes from.
There is a risk of incorrect interpretation if we were to accept the amendment, as it may lead to the Bill being interpreted differently from other employment legislation, which is not our intention. Therefore, we need to retain the word “work” in this Bill, rather than moving to “employed or engaged”, as the amendment seeks. There are lots of different connotations of the word “employed” in particular. I hope the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North can see from what the Government are proposing that we do intend to cover all the issues he raises.
Amendment 48 seeks to extend the application of the Bill to the exclusive economic zone. Although we hope that appropriate wage rates will extend beyond our waters—indeed, we are having international conversations with partners, particularly those around the North sea, to try to ensure that—this Bill has been carefully calibrated after thorough consultation to focus on work undertaken close to the UK as part of ensuring that the Bill does not interfere with rights and obligations under international law, in particular the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. However, as discussed on amendment 67, seafarers on services from UK ports to offshore wind installations in the EEZ would be covered by the Bill for the portion of their journey that takes place in UK territorial waters, provided that the service calls at a UK port 120 times a year.
Gavin Newlands
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I hear what he is saying on the definitions. The amendments on the definition of vessel and seafarer were intended as probing amendments to ascertain why there was a difference. We will keep an eye on any potential unintended consequences, but I will withdraw the amendment. I am disappointed by what the Minister said about those in the offshore renewable industry. I hear what he said: he thinks that they will be covered. He has promised to write to me before Report; if the issue is not dealt with satisfactorily, we may well revisit it on Report. However, on the basis of his answers and his promise, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Power to request declaration
Mr Holden
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 3, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
“(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which this Act applies will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least 120 occasions during a relevant year.
(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a national minimum wage equivalence declaration (in the rest of this Act, an ‘equivalence declaration’) in respect of the service for the relevant year.
(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 11(2)(a).
(3A) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”
This is the first of a number of amendments concerning national minimum wage equivalence declarations. Taken together, they impose a duty on harbour authorities to request declarations (as it stands, the Bill confers a power to do so). Declarations are to be requested in respect of years determined by regulations and must be provided within a period set out in regulations. Also, as a drafting change, “national minimum wage equivalence declaration” is abbreviated to “equivalence declaration”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 44, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, leave out “the harbour” and insert “any UK Harbour”.
Amendment 45, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, leave out “120” and insert “52”.
Government amendments 2 to 6.
Amendment 46, in clause 3, page 2, line 23, leave out “the harbour authority” and insert
“all relevant harbour authorities to which the declaration is applicable”.
Clause 3 stand part.
Government amendment 7.
Amendment 47, in clause 4, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) pension and other payments to be made that formulate a part of seafarer remuneration in relation to a service to which this Act applies.”
Amendment 62, in clause 4, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) provision prohibiting deductions from remuneration for accommodation costs, food or other entitlements.”
Amendment 49, in clause 4, page 3, line 16, at end insert—
“(5A) The national minimum wage equivalent must not be adjusted to account for accommodation, food, or other items exempted from being charged to seafarers under international convention”.
This amendment will mean that deductions cannot be made for food, accommodation or other exempted items under convention and will facilitate future changes being made with respect to changes in permissible deductions.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 39, in clause 14, page 9, line 13, at end insert—
“‘equivalence declaration’ has the meaning given by section 3(2);”.
See Amendment 1.
Amendment 40, in clause 14, page 9, line 25, at end insert—
“‘relevant year’ has the meaning given by section 3(4A);”.
See Amendment 1.
Clause 13 stand part.
Government new clause 1—Offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration.
Mr Holden
As currently drafted, clause 3 confers on harbour authorities the powers to provide that the operator of a service within scope of the Bill provides a national minimum wage equivalence declaration. The nature of the declaration is set out in clause 4, so I will address it when we turn to that clause, but it is essentially a declaration to the effect that they pay any seafarers on board who do not qualify for the national minimum wage at least the national minimum wage equivalent for the time that they worked in the UK or its territorial waters.
A harbour authority may not request an equivalence declaration in respect of any year unless it appears to the authority that ships providing the service will have used the harbour on at least 120 occasions in that year. Clause 3 also includes a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the form of the national minimum wage equivalence declarations and the manner in which declarations are to be provided. Finally, it makes it an offence for an operator to operate a service inconsistently with the declaration and fail to inform the harbour authority within a certain period.
Clause 4 sets out the nature of an equivalence declaration. As it stands, subsection (1) provides that an equivalence declaration in respect of a service to which the Bill applies is a declaration to the effect that either
“there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service”
or non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be paid at least the national minimum wage equivalent for their work on that service in the UK or its territorial waters.
The national minimum wage equivalent will be at an hourly rate specified further in regulations—the hon. Member for Easington asked about that earlier. Regulations may make provision for the hourly rate at which non-qualifying seafarers are remunerated in any period in respect of any work, which may include any provision referred to in subsections 2(2) to (6) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, or provision relating to currency conversion. Regulations may also make provision for whether, or the extent to which, a non-qualifying seafarer’s work in relation to a service is carried out in the UK or its territorial waters.
In making regulations under clause 4, the Secretary of State must
“seek to secure that a non-qualifying seafarer is…remunerated at a rate equal to the national minimum wage equivalent only if their remuneration is in all the circumstances broadly equivalent to the remuneration they would receive if they qualified for the national minimum wage.”
That essentially means that we will seek to ensure that the total pay that a seafarer receives for time worked in the UK and its territorial waters is, as a result of the regulations, no less than if they had qualified for the national minimum wage.
We will run a public consultation on the regulations, and my officials are working closely with stakeholders and officials in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to draft them. As the public consultation takes place, I hope that hon. Members will be able to see what happens.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The port of Dover is one of those directly affected and, given the situation in relation to P&O, which affected so many seafarers in my constituency, it is a particular concern. In relation to clauses 3 and 4, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could confirm that he will take into account the considerable concerns of port operators about how the declarations—with the regulations underpinning them—will be managed and administered, because that is not within the usual business of port operators; it is an exception to the way in which they ordinarily operate. I know—I say this on behalf of the port of Dover in particular—that although of course they will play their part in ensuring that seafarers have the right terms and conditions, they want to ensure that they know what they have to do and how they are supposed to do it, that there is no room for dispute and that they are given the support that they need to be able to administer this.
Mr Holden
I thank my hon. Friend for those points. They are particularly important. I do not think that we would be here today if it was not for her huge campaigning efforts on behalf of her constituents in relation to the awful actions of P&O. I absolutely agree with her that how this is implemented must be taken into account. I am sure that her port will be consulted as part of the broader consultation as regulations are brought forward, and I urge her and other interested hon. Members to take part in the consultations as we move forward.
Amendment 1, tabled in my name, turns the discretionary power to request an equivalence declaration into a mandatory duty—this is quite an important change, which hon. Members mentioned at earlier stages—where the harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least 120 occasions during a relevant year. Reasonable grounds may include a service’s schedule in previous years, or may arise from the normal communications that a harbour authority would have with operators using its ports.
The period within which a harbour authority must request an equivalence declaration will be determined by regulations, which will come forward. A harbour authority that fails to comply with its duty to request an equivalence declaration will be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. The duty will be subject to directions made by the Secretary of State, which I will discuss in further detail when we come to clause 11, which has an important bearing on this aspect of the legislation.
This amendment is part of a larger set of amendments that will also make the formerly discretionary powers for harbour authorities to impose surcharges, and to refuse access to their harbour, into duties, which is something that Opposition Members raised extensively at earlier stages. As things currently stand, where a harbour authority does not exercise its powers in the circumstances provided for in the Bill, the Secretary of State has powers to direct harbour authorities to do that. We want to see it turned into a duty because, through continued engagement with port stakeholders, we have been informed that harbour authorities are unlikely to exercise their powers without being directed to, and the direction-making power actually was intended as a back-up power and was not intended to be used as the primary means of ensuring that the regulations are met and a minimum wage equivalent is paid. It would be a significant administrative burden on the Department if every instance had to have an imposition from the Secretary of State, and that would undermine the effective functioning of the legislation.
The change from discretionary powers to duties will strengthen the Bill by ensuring that harbour authorities must request declarations, impose surcharges and refuse access to their harbour where appropriate, without requiring the intervention of the Secretary of State at every juncture. The intention is that we will ensure that operators of services in the scope of the Bill are made subject to the requirements, and the process will be made simpler for harbour authorities.
Amendments 2 and 5, tabled in my name, are consequential on amendment 1. Amendment 2 expands the existing power in clause 3(4) by adding a new paragraph that allows regulations to make provision
“as to the period within which equivalence declarations are to be provided”
by operators. Where an operator does not provide an equivalence declaration within that period, the harbour authority must impose surcharges under the new clause 2. This ensures that the point at which their duty begins to apply is clear to harbour authorities.
Amendment 5 makes provision for declarations to relate to a fixed relevant year, starting on a date to be set out in regulations. Providing a fixed relevant year will ensure that harbour authorities and operators are all working to the same period, providing consistency and certainty for harbour authorities to comply with their duties, reducing administrative burdens and making enforcement much more straightforward.
Gavin Newlands
On amendment 5, was any thought given to the possible unintended consequence of setting a specified date in regulation, namely that it might allow operators to consider means of circumventing the legislation through port hopping? As was passed on to me, it is Nautilus’s belief that, for that reason, it should be a 12-month rolling period. Has the Department considered that?
Mr Holden
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I will come to the broader concerns around port hopping that hon. Members have raised at previous stages. We do not think it will be an issue. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman at a later stage; if he continues to have an issue, perhaps he can raise it then.
Amendment 5 makes provision for declarations in a fixed year. These amendments are therefore necessary to ensure the effective functioning of the Bill, and will do just that.
Amendments 3 and 4, tabled in my name, abbreviate
“national minimum wage equivalence declaration”
to “equivalence declaration”—that is all. This is a minor drafting change intended to improve the Bill by simplifying a frequently used term.
Amendments 39 and 40 to clause 14 are consequential on amendments 1 and 5, and give the phrases “equivalence declaration” and “relevant year” the same meaning as in clause 3.
Amendment 7, tabled in my name, allows for equivalence declarations to be provided before, during or after the year to which they relate, and for declarations to relate to part of a year. The amendment will prevent any gaps in coverage in declarations and requires harbour authorities to request a declaration whenever it becomes clear to them that a service is in scope of the Bill. A harbour authority must request a declaration from an existing service before the relevant year starts if it has reasonable grounds to believe that a ship will call at its harbour 120 times during the year. In the event that, part way through a year, a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing the service will have entered the harbour at least 120 times, it must request a declaration part way through that year, or at the end of the year if it was not clear until that point.
Amendment 6 removes subsections (5) and (6) of clause 3, which provide for the offence of operating inconsistently with an equivalence declaration. New clause 1 provides for an offence adapted to the proposed new system for equivalence declarations. Amendment 6 and new clause 1 therefore also cater for the fact that an equivalence declaration may, as a result of amendment 7, be provided before during or after the relevant year to which it relates.
Subsections (2)(a) and (3)(a) of new clause 1 mean it will be a criminal offence to operate a service inconsistently with a declaration from the start of the relevant year or at the time a declaration is provided during a relevant year. This will ensure that the new offence covers all circumstances in which an equivalence declaration may be requested, and provides legal certainty to operators as to when they may be guilty of an offence.
Clause 13 provides definitions of “harbour” and “harbour authority” that align with the definitions in the Harbours Act 1964 in England, Wales and Scotland, and the Harbours Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 in Northern Ireland. This will ensure consistency with existing legislation and help to clearly identify the relevant authorities for the purposes of the Bill. The clause also currently provides that where there is more than one harbour authority in respect of a harbour,
“the Secretary of State may by direction specify which of them is to be treated as the harbour authority in respect of the harbour”
for the purposes of the Bill. This provision is intended to avoid any uncertainty as to which is the relevant harbour authority for a particular harbour, and avoid multiple harbour authorities exercising powers in respect of a single service, which will help to ensure that the Bill’s provisions are applied consistently and effectively.
Gavin Newlands
I thank the Minister for giving way once again. Perhaps I should have intervened slightly earlier, as I have a query about amendment 7. The amendment allows for declarations to be made for part of the year. As it stands, declarations relate to 120 visits a year. If it is a partial year—say six months, for ease—will it still be 120 visits over those six months, or will it be a pro rata number of visits for that partial period?
Mr Holden
My understanding is that it is for the whole year. The schedules for these operators are based on a whole year; it is very rare that they are not. These are big operations that do not dip in and out. They are not easy to set up; they often involve long-standing arrangements with port authorities, and are based on the whole year. However, if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me following this sitting, I will obviously respond to any particular issues or examples he wishes to raise.
Grahame Morris
I hope this intervention does not prejudice the fact that I would like to speak to amendment 67, which stands in my name and that of a number of colleagues.
Grahame Morris
Could the Minister give a bit of clarification in relation to Government amendment 1? I welcome the fact that the amendment creates a duty, rather than a power; presumably, that was in response to the concerns raised on Second Reading about the conflict of interest. Let us not forget that some harbour authorities are owned by shipping companies, and may well be reluctant to apply sanctions and fines if there is a conflict of interest.
Regarding the level of fines, proposed new subsection (3A) to clause 3 refers to
“a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”
Could the Minister indicate what level of fine that is? My information is that it is £2,500. Would it not be advantageous to set it at level 5, which is unlimited? A fine of £2,500 does not seem like much of a disincentive.
Mr Holden
I thank the hon. Member for the first point he made, about the amendment creating a duty rather than a power. That is exactly why we have done this; hon. Members from across the House made the point, and I am glad that we have got there.
I am fully aware of the issue around level 4 and the levels of fines. I will write to the hon. Member about the specifics, and we can discuss them during the Bill’s later stages, but my understanding is that there were specific reasons behind that decision, related to different fine levels in different parts of the United Kingdom; I raised that issue myself in earlier discussions with officials. We will happily look at it again, because as the hon. Member has rightly said, I do not want it to be a lesser offence for the port operator to not comply with its duty than to comply with its duty. That is a very sensible and important point, and I will happily write to the hon. Member to explain why we have arrived at our position.
Opposition amendments 44 and 46 aim to change the applicability of the Bill from “the harbour” to “any UK harbour”, and from “the harbour authority” to
“all relevant harbour authorities to which the declaration is applicable”.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill refers to “the harbour” rather than “a harbour” in order to keep the focus on particular services calling between two specific ports. The scope of the Bill encompasses services calling at the harbour in question at least 120 times a year. In particular, the effective enforcement of the Bill relies on there being one harbour authority responsible for monitoring and enforcement of a service. Individual harbours may be able to anticipate that a particular service will call in that harbour 120 times in the year, especially if that service has done so in previous years or via volume of a new service. However, it would be very difficult for a harbour to anticipate whether a particular operator will have services to other harbours that would amount to 120 calls in harbours in the UK per year.
The amendments would also create confusion about which harbour authority should request an equivalence declaration, and which is therefore responsible for imposing a surcharge. For example, if an operator operated two services using the same ships interchangeably, with one calling at one port 60 times a year and another calling at another port 60 times a year, which would be responsible for requesting a declaration or imposing a surcharge?
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will start by returning to some of the comments I made on Second Reading. The Bill is far too narrow in scope. Considering the egregious behaviour of P&O, we could be doing much more. I hope the Minister will look at some of the amendments.
I rise to speak to amendments 44 to 47 and 49 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. I should point out that amendment 49 is not dissimilar to Labour’s amendment 62, which we clearly support. In speaking to these amendments, I also want to oppose Government amendment 1, which would doubtless knock out our amendment 45. I will deal first with the issue of port hopping and national minimum wage equivalence.
In clause 3, the requirement to produce a declaration of national minimum wage equivalence is applied to services that call at a harbour 120 times a year. That is the result of a change made following consultation on the draft Bill, which had proposed covering ships that called at a port or UK harbour 52 times a year—once a week. In July, in response to the consultation, the RMT—the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, to which I pay tribute—proposed that the definition in the Bill should be this:
“Seafarers working on ferry services that are frequently operated from UK ports (at least once a week).”
However, following consultation, the Government changed the Bill to apply it to services calling 120 times a year.
The impact assessment says that part of the reason for the change is this:
“The more regularly a seafarer calls at a UK port, the closer their ties to the UK.”
I certainly believe, as I think the Government did, that calling at a UK port once a week is a sufficiently close tie between a seafarer and the UK economy. Indeed, their lordships speaking in support of the shipping and ports industry stated that the Government’s plans contravened the international maritime conventions, specifically the UN convention on the law of the sea.
It is my understanding that the British Ports Association has legal advice that the Bill will not work and will be subject to legal challenge, including on the ground that it infringes the UN convention on the law of the sea. Indeed, the International Chamber of Shipping has also raised the matter, as the shipping industry’s de minimis crewing practices and flagging policies rest on the assertion of innocent passage in international waters between states.
Grahame Morris
The hon. Gentleman is making relevant and sensible points. On the issue of the 120 days, we have concerns, which I am sure he shares, that there are so many exclusions that the Bill will be like a colander—full of holes. The original proposal was 52 times a year, or once a week. What will be the impact of the Bill on the offshore continental shelf with respect to the frequency of the use of supply vessels? Will the figure of 120 days effectively exclude them from the legislation? I suspect it will.
David Linden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which gets to both the nub of the issue and a source of real concern for me. He is right to talk about the colander effect, and not making the legislation sufficiently tight means that in many cases companies will exploit the measure, as has he eloquently outlined. Let us be honest: the legislation was introduced because a company sought—within the law—to exploit people, and it would be a dereliction of duty by the House and by the Committee if we did not seek to tighten the Bill in such a way as to ensure that industry cannot get away with using such practices.
Gavin Newlands
My hon. Friend has referred to the House of Lords, but on Second Reading in this place, the Secretary of State said in terms of the number of visits to harbour:
“We think the definition in the Bill at the moment will capture the vast majority of the services we wish to capture.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2022; Vol. 725, c. 66.]
The Secretary of State referred to “the vast majority”, but this relates to the national minimum wage. Why should we be happy with a majority, rather than ensuring that all employees get the minimum wage?
David Linden
Even if people were not around last night, it will not come as a huge surprise that the Government are not particularly wild about standing up for workers’ rights. We on this side of the Committee happen to be of the view that we should be doing everything we can to try to support workers—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich chunters. I am more than happy to give way if he wants to stand up and speak. If he wants just to make a wee bit of noise behind the Minister, he is welcome to do so.
We support returning to the stricter criterion of 52 calls per year, which is what amendment 45 seeks to do. This is a key test of the Government’s commitment to seafarer welfare, and they failed in the Lords when they narrowly defeated Lord Tunnicliffe’s amendment that aimed to restore the criterion of 52 annual harbour calls.
National minimum wage and domestic employment law are difficult to enforce and apply in the maritime sector. That is why employers such as Stena Line, which employs UK crew on international routes from UK ports in Cypriot-registered vessels, enter collective bargaining agreements with domestic maritime trade unions. The UK Chamber of Shipping estimated that up to 45 major ferry routes served the UK economy in 2020, but that is subject to change. For example, P&O closed Hull-Zeebrugge in October 2021, but DFDS opened an unaccompanied freight service between Sheerness and Calais earlier that year.
In my view, the Bill should cover crew working for operators of containers, bulk carriers, cargo ships and vessels working in the offshore energy supply chain, as well as ferries. In 2018, the RMT estimated that extending the national minimum wage to cover domestic and offshore energy routes would bring 13,000 seafarer ratings into scope. The impact assessment for the Bill estimates only the cost to employers, not the number of seafarers who would be covered by the Bill.
I am concerned that the Government have dismissed out of hand the unions’ concerns over avoidance techniques. Port hopping, as we often refer to it, remains a genuine avoidance technique that becomes far easier to use the more frequently a vessel calls at a UK harbour. At 120 calls per year, it would be far easier for operators to make minor changes to scheduled port calls in order to avoid the legislation. A threshold of 52 calls, which was in the Government’s original proposals, would be far tighter. It was changed only after consultation with industry, although the trade unions supported 52 calls. I go back to the point that if the Bill is about protecting workers—the very workers who were so cruelly shafted by P&O—then it is incumbent on the Government to listen to the voices of those workers and trade unions, not the voices of industry. That is the whole reason we are here.
Disappointingly, the Minister in the Lords, Baroness Vere, was unconvinced that that avoidance technique could be used. She said:
“I do not think operators would play switcheroo with UK ports because, frankly, their customers would not put up with it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 2022; Vol. 824, c. 1506.]
The translation of that is, once again, “Leave it to the markets. The markets will dictate.” If we have learned anything over the course of the last few months in this House and during the P&O debacle, it is that simply leaving it to the markets is not a great idea. I am not reassured that the logistics market will self-regulate. The recent merger between Cobelfret and Seatruck Ferries, two operators who have been paying seafarers below national minimum wage on regular international services from UK ports for years, frankly, also increases the prospect of avoidance techniques.
I hope that has outlined just some of our concerns on the issue. For those reasons, I will formally seek to divide the Committee and vote against Government amendment 1.
Mrs Elphicke
I will take the opportunity to speak to these clauses and amendments. They cover the short straits, and first I will comment specifically on the issue of 120 calls per year. Looking at the short straits, according to figures from the UK Chamber of Shipping, the number of port calls meets the threshold by 30 to 40 times in relation to the Dover-Calais and Dover-Dunkirk lines: around 4,000 port calls that are made would come within the legislation. Whenever we set a threshold, it is important to set it with reference to the matter that we are addressing. The evidence is very clear that 120 days is a relevant and, indeed, low threshold in relation to the particular services that we are seeking to address within the remit of this important Bill, which, as has been discussed, very much has my short straits of Dover at its heart.
I am conscious that some good points have been made in relation to seafarers more generally. I hope that we can show some global leadership on this issue. I have been pleased to have the opportunity to speak at great length about seafarers’ rights with my hon. Friend the Member for Witney when he was Ports Minister. Although I can understand the remit being extended in the way that is being sought within the remit of the Bill, we need to look at seafarers’ rights more generally, as well as those bilateral agreements.
I now turn to amendments 47, 62 and 49. The Minister made some helpful comments in introducing this section, but I ask him, if I may press him further, for an assurance of the position, particularly relating to the calculation for food and accommodation. If I were to work in McDonalds—indeed, I did so for a very long time and enjoyed it greatly—I could have a certain amount of food on my food break if I were to work for four hours. If I were to work for the entire day, I would get much more McDonalds food—very tasty. That food would be free to me as a worker and that is the principle that we want to see for those at land and within our waters.
However, I think that some of the concerns that have been raised must not be seen only through the lens of our own domestic legislation in relation to the minimum wage and its calculation. I have taken some time to look at how these issues are treated within our national minimum wage legislation on land and issues such as accommodation—staying on ship would not, in my view, fall within the current definition of “accommodation” and its applicability for national living wage purposes. But it is right that these issues have been raised and that they are looked into carefully as we go through because, in relation to the operation of seafarers, particularly on these routes, our domestic provisions are not the market provision for these matters. The market for this is global; the conditions are global and international. When we talk about common market practice, it is within a global and international setting, with different countries applying different regimes to their seafarers.
When it comes to seafarers’ rights, we tend to think that this means countries who are very international, such as the Philippines and others, but I will give the Minister a directly relevant example to this food and accommodation issue. The Danish Maritime Authority allows for seafarers’ food subsistence allowance to be deducted from the calculation of national minimum wage. It is a matter for negotiation, either collective agreement or individual contracting, but, none the less, in the application of their calculation of national minimum wage, they do—
Grahame Morris
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I recognise the examples of Denmark and one other seafaring nation—I have forgotten which one at the moment—but they have sectoral collective bargaining. Their standards and pay rates are generally much higher. I hope she would acknowledge that. We are looking at a far lower level—just at the national minimum wage, without all of the package that I want to refer to in relation to pensions, accommodation and other things, roster patterns in particular.
Mrs Elphicke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I would like later to come back in the relevant section in relation to roster patterns, which are very important.
I am giving the Danish example as a reason why we need clarity to exclude the provision from our calculation of national minimum wage. It is not appropriate or correct to exclude food and accommodation when someone is on their ferry. They work—too often—two weeks on, two weeks off. They are stuck on that ferry. They must have food and a place to put their head down. They will probably have a poor night’s sleep or a poor day’s sleep when they are off rota. It is absolutely essential that we have clarity so that, unlike in Denmark and other countries, for the purposes of our application of the minimum wage legislation in relation to seafarers operating in our own territorial waters, it would be the same if I was working at McDonald’s, or anywhere else, or working at sea. I ask the Minister to reflect on this matter and to consider whether he can give us some more assurance that that is indeed the intent behind the Bill, because it is a very important point, given the fact that there is different maritime practice even among European neighbours from a business perspective.
If I may, I will touch briefly on the desire to have improved rights for seafarers. The Minister has mentioned bilateral discussions. Again, it would be helpful for us to understand whether the bilateral discussions coming up in March with our Prime Minister and President Macron are intended to include some of the issues around seafarers that we have mentioned, because it will only be through a strong bilateral arrangement across short straits that we can ensure that we get the best possible safety and working conditions for our seafarers.
Grahame Morris
I agree with much of what the hon. Member has just said. I may have misunderstood—[Interruption.] Well, it is the first time; every day is a school day.
Can the Minister clarify something that he said earlier, which may well address our concerns? It is in relation to amendment 62. Did he indicate that on the point just made by the hon. Member, namely that, as the amendment says:
“provision prohibiting deductions from remuneration for accommodation costs, food or other entitlements”
will be addressed through regulation by the Secretary of State? I see that he is nodding, so that is good news indeed.
If I may, I will speak to amendment 62, which was tabled by my colleagues on the Front Bench and I, and amendment 47, which is very similar and which was tabled by the SNP. Both amendments address a broader question. I appreciate that the Bill is trying to address one specific issue by putting in place measures to prevent the actions of rogue bosses, such as the management of P&O, from being replicated by other ferry operators; I understand that.
However, what the Government must understand is that the motivation for P&O and others—I know that we will come on to nationality-based pay discrimination later—is that P&O made far more savings from changing the roster pattern and reducing the crewing than it did from reducing the wages by paying staff, who were mostly able seamen from India, less than the minimum wage. The Government must acknowledge that and if we are going to address this issue, we need some remediation.
Karl Turner
I remind the Committee of the disaster of the Herald of Free Enterprise—193 passengers and crew lost their lives. The inquiry found that that disaster was down to one issue: crew fatigue. My concern is that that could happen again. Five or six months on, two weeks off, seven days a week, 12 hours a day—it is obvious what could occur.
Grahame Morris
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention and for reminding us of the consequences of fatigue and of reducing staffing to unsafe levels. It is not just a matter of opinion and a concern expressed by the RMT and Nautilus International; a number of academic studies from Cardiff University and others, which I believe the Department has copies of, demonstrate just how important it is that we address this issue.
Mrs Elphicke
I had expected to speak on this issue when we reached new clause 5, but since we are talking about roster patterns, I will comment on it. The capsizing of the Herald of Free Enterprise was an absolute tragedy that we—the RMT and all of us down in Dover—come together to remember every year. It is such an important thing to remember, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East for mentioning it in this context.
Does the hon. Member for Easington agree that what we have seen, particularly in relation to Irish Ferries joining the short sea route, is that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has a role at the moment in making sure that the standards of training are appropriate? We saw that the roster patterns, training patterns and crewing patterns in relation to Irish Ferries coming into Dover were changed from those that applied elsewhere in its operations. We also saw the MCA take action in relation to P&O when it tried and failed to stand up its new structures. I would like to see the MCA be stronger and firmer, and taking better action—
The Chair
Order. I have been very generous with interventions, but I must remind Members that interventions are supposed to be just that: interventions, not mini-speeches. If we could back to interventions being interventions, I would very much appreciate it.
Grahame Morris
Thank you, Mr Davies. I will hurry along.
To reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Dover, I say to the Minister—I am sure he is aware of this—that some academic studies into crew fatigue were published in 2012 by Cardiff University. Further research is provided by the EU’s Horizon project and the World Maritime University’s EVREST report, and all the evidence highlights the dangers of crew fatigue caused by long hours. I believe the replacement crews on the Dover-Calais ferry were working 12-hour shifts, seven days a week, for up to 17 weeks without a break, when they slept on the ship. That must be a cause for concern in terms of health and safety.
In conclusion, I say to the Minister that we really need a maximum roster pattern in the seafarers’ charter. For the ferry sector, two weeks on, two weeks off is the pattern favoured internationally and by the maritime unions, for health and safety reasons as much as anything. I urge the Minister to work with the maritime trade unions and the Labour party in respect of this issue, and on refining the seafarers’ charter to get this right and to help restore jobs, fair pay agreements and training programmes, starting with the ferry sector.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I rise to speak in favour of amendment 62, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, on the deduction of accommodation, food costs and other entitlements, and of amendment 45, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, on preventing port hopping.
The intention of amendment 62 is to prevent operators from deducting accommodation, food and other costs from the national minimum wage equivalent. We do, of course, welcome the intention to ensure that operators pay a national minimum wage equivalent to those who have close working relationships with the UK, but as we have heard, significant elements of the provisions and their enforcement must be strengthened to prevent avoidance, which we know is rife in the sector.
First, the minimum wage provision has an offset allowing employers to deduct costs for providing accommodation. That is clearly ripe for abuse and must be ruled out explicitly. We know that P&O could potentially deduct £1,035 and Irish Ferries nearly £490 from a non-qualifying seafarer’s wages, if the accommodation offset is available to them under the secondary legislation provided for in the Bill.
Mr Holden
I will not go over all the points that I made earlier, but I will address some of the specific issues raised by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover mentioned bilateral meetings between the Prime Minister and the President of the French Republic. There have been positive discussions between officials to date; I do not know if this will be raised specifically, but the discussions have been very positive. The Transport Secretary is also hoping to visit France at some point in the not-too-distant future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover and the hon. Members for Easington and for Wakefield mentioned deductions. We will have a proper public consultation on the draft regulations in this space. I have already noted—as I hope hon. Members have—the Low Pay Commission’s recent recommendations that this issue should be looked at. I hope hon. Members will take part in the consultation and contribute to the regulations as they are being drafted, without feeling the need to press specific amendments to a vote today.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North raised the issue of the British Ports Association. We have not seen its legal advice—if he would like to share it with us, that would be lovely—but we do not believe it has a strong legal position.
Sir John Hayes
My experience as a Minister was that Government lawyers never assured us that we were in a strong legal position on anything—at most, they offer a 50:50 chance. The Minister might want to think again about the comments made in Committee; the terms and conditions seem to be critical. The Government—the Minister, in particular—deserve great praise for this legislation, but it would be a grave error to get pay right but not get terms and conditions right at the same time.
Mr Holden
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We are looking into the terms and conditions, which will be there in the regulations, and we will have a wide public consultation. He is absolutely right: we want to get this right.
The legal issue raised by the hon. Member for Wakefield was about legal risk in the 52 versus 120 days element. When a ship stops at multiple points in Norway, for example, then has one trip a week to the UK, to argue that it should be covered by UK legislation rather than Norwegian legislation would put it into a very difficult international legal position. Under international maritime law, that would expose us to greater legal risk for the entirety of the legislation, rather than on specific points. I hope hon. Members understand.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East made a number of comments. On the broad issues, at least, I say to him that the Government have raised the threshold at which people pay income tax, taking millions of people out of tax. They have introduced the national living wage and reduced the age at which people qualify for it. Moreover, and in a massive and long-term benefit for huge numbers of people, they have expanded auto-enrolment in pensions to hugely benefit working people. His comments were broadly ill judged and, in a certain way, bringing forward this conversation today shows our commitment to delivering for working people. While I appreciate that everyone in the Scottish National party is an expert on ferries these days, I am not sure they are when it comes to this legislation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 9.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 10 to 12.
Amendment 63, in clause 6, page 4, line 37, at end insert—
‘(6A) An inspector may request information from—
(a) an officer of Revenue and Customs, or
(b) Maritime and Coastguard Agency,
if they consider it necessary for either of the purposes specified in subsection (2), and the authority to which the request was made must respond within 14 days.”
Clause 6 stand part.
New clause 8—Report: evidence of nationality-based pay discrimination—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must produce and publish a report setting out any evidence of nationality-based pay discrimination against non-qualifying seafarers.
(2) The evidence referred to in subsection (1) must include, but need not be limited to, aggregated data drawn from—
(a) minimum wage equivalence declarations requested by harbour authorities;
(b) information provided in response to notices under section 5;
(c) evidence from inspections under section 6; and
(d) any other sources of information as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Mr Holden
As previously, I will address the clauses and speak to the amendments, including those from the Opposition. Clause 5 allows the Secretary of State—in practice, operating through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—by notice to require operators to provide information for the purpose of establishing whether a service is being operated consistently with an equivalence declaration provided by the operator. It is an offence for an operator to fail to provide information required by the Secretary of State under this clause or to provide information that is false or misleading.
An offence under this clause is punishable on summary conviction by a fine in England and Wales, or by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The sort of information that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency may request under this clause may include, but is not limited to, payslips, seafarer employment agreements and payroll information.
Clause 6 empowers an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to board a ship in a harbour in the United Kingdom or enter any premises for the purposes of establishing whether a service is being operated consistently with an equivalence declaration, or of verifying information provided under clause 5. In practice, this will be an inspector from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which is responsible for enforcement in many areas in this sector and is the most appropriate agency for the job.
It is an offence for any person to intentionally obstruct an inspector in the exercise of their powers; to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement imposed by this clause, or to prevent another person from completing such a requirement; or to make a statement that the person knows is false or misleading, or recklessly make a statement which is false or misleading, in purported compliance with a requirement imposed under this clause. Such an offence is punishable on summary conviction by a fine in England and Wales, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
This clause, together with requests for information under clause 5, will allow the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to play an enforcement role in checking whether a service is being operated consistently with a declaration. In practice, this will be done through intelligence-based checks in the event of credible evidence suggesting a service may be being operated inconsistently with a declaration and random spot checks. It is important to distinguish the enforcement role from the harbour authority’s role in the compliance process, which is mostly administrative. Harbour authorities are not required to make inquiries as to whether a service is being operated consistently with a declaration.
Amendment 8, tabled in my name, is consequential on amendment 7 to clause 4, which allows for equivalence declarations to be provided before, during or after the year to which they relate and for declarations to relate to part of a year. Amendment 9 is a minor drafting change to abbreviate “national minimum wage equivalent declaration” to “equivalence declaration”, as discussed with respect to amendments 1, 3 and 4.
Amendment 10 to clause 6, tabled in my name, is consequential on amendment 7 to clause 4, which allows for equivalence declarations to be provided before, during or after the year to which they relate and for declarations to relate to part of a year. Amendments 11 and 12 to clause 6 are consequential on the abbreviation of “national minimum wage equivalence declaration” to “equivalence declaration”. In particular, amendment 12 changes the word “declaration” in clause 6(4)(c) to “statement”, so that this is not confused with the term “equivalence declaration”.
Opposition amendment 63 to clause 6 seeks to ensure that inspectors are able to access the appropriate information from Government agencies in order to exercise their enforcement powers. This is unnecessary, as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will be the relevant enforcement agency and so will already have access to its own information. We have discussed data access with His Majesty’s Customs and Revenue, and it is considered unlikely that it would hold relevant information on seafarers in the scope of the Bill, as they are not already entitled to national minimum wage. As such, we do not consider it necessary to include information-sharing provisions in the Bill, as the MCA is the relevant authority.
Opposition new clause 8 would require the Government to produce and publish a report setting out any evidence of nationality-based pay discrimination against non-qualifying seafarers. Under the Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011, limited nationality-based discrimination is permitted. Under the Bill, we will not have the relevant evidence to which the new clause refers. Nationality is not relevant to whether someone is a non-qualifying seafarer, so we do not intend for declarations to require operators to provide information relating to nationality. Such information would also not be requested by a notice under clause 5, as it is not relevant to whether the national minimum wage equivalent is being paid. The Government are conducting a post-implementation review of the Equality Act 2010, which will consider nationality-based pay discrimination. I request that the Opposition do not press the new clause.
Mike Kane
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 63 and new clause 8. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield gave specific examples of deductions made by Irish Ferries and P&O; as he said, this is all about compliance. In his nine-point plan, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), now the Business Secretary, pledged to involve His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in ensuring compliance with minimum wage legislation, but the Bill does not include a direct role for HMRC, which is the only expert in minimum wage compliance. That is like delegating something to a port and harbours board, to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency or to anybody, but it is not the Government taking responsibility for the matter. That clearly must be addressed, and I ask the Minister to address it. Port operators are not experts in minimum wage compliance or in establishing whether the minimum wage is being properly enforced.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency officials will need to be trained in labour market enforcement issues, and HMRC national minimum wage enforcement officials will need to be trained in seafarer and maritime employment practices and law. What provision is there in the Bill for that? I do not see much at all. However, the Department for Transport told the trade unions that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has stated that there is no disproportionate risk of seafarers not being paid the national minimum wage. If this is not enforced properly, it is wide open, and I think most Members with any common sense will think it is wide open. On 24 March, Peter Hebblethwaite, the former chief executive officer of P&O Ferries, openly admitted to a joint sitting of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that P&O Ferries was paying an average well below the national minimum wage. How does clause 5 tackle what Peter Hebblethwaite said to this House?
Amendment 63 would ensure that an inspector may request from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or the Maritime and Coastguard Agency such information as is necessary to ensure that the operator is compliant with the national minimum wage. Further, complaints of non-payment of the national minimum wage have been consistently submitted to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. [Interruption.] I am slightly interrupted by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—that will be His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on the phone right now, agreeing with my comments to the Committee. Complaints have been submitted by the RMT on behalf of foreign seafarers, but the third-party process does not require His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to report back on the outcome or progress in investigating those complaints. How will we, as elected Members, and the industry see how the measures in the Bill progress once they have been implemented by Parliament? There is no provision for that. Amendment 63 would ensure a timescale for response of 14 days, so that the outcome of the measures in the Bill will be crystal clear and transparent.
Gavin Newlands
I rise to support amendment 63. Given the stroppy point at the end of the Minister’s last contribution, I reassure him—[Interruption.] Oh, it was a humorous point; well, that is for each individual to judge. I point out to the Minister that the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) has been retained as the Scottish Government’s ferries tsar from now on, so we will not have to worry about that. For the purposes of Hansard, that was sarcasm, lest I have to correct the record at a later date.
The point that has just been made is essentially this: as the Bill currently stands, the Government are hiding behind harbour authorities by expecting them—and with the amendments before us, now compelling them, under fear of prosecution—to carry out the enforcement work. Given the complex nature of the issues we are dealing with, I understand what the Government are doing, but maritime employment rules and minimum wage rules are complicated.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency will need to be trained in labour market employment issues. HMRC employment enforcement officials responsible for enforcing the minimum wage will need training in seafarer and maritime practices and maritime law. Additional resourcing and time will potentially be needed to make this work. The MCA is responsible for the enforcement of the Bill’s powers, but is not named or listed in clause 6 or anywhere else. A dual role for the MCA and HMRC national minimum wage inspections must be clearly established, otherwise the Bill could have unintended consequences for qualifying seafarers’ existing national minimum wage rights.
The nine-point plan included a specific action to ask HMRC to dedicate UK national minimum wage resource to the maritime sector. The Department for Transport has told trade unions that HMRC has since stated that there is no disproportionate risk of seafarers not being paid the national minimum wage. I have no clue how it has come to that conclusion, given everything that has gone on, and that statement is despite Peter Hebblethwaite’s open admission to the joint Select Committee on 24 March that P&O ferries are now paying an average well below the national minimum wage, not to mention the evidence amassed by the RMT and detailed in annex 2 to its briefing.
The Government should consider using redundant Brexit customs processing facilities built at great expense in ports that host operators and vessels in scope of this Bill to provide bases for the inspectors from the MCA, HMRC and the International Transport Workers’ Federation, which will assist in the enforcement of the legislation. The MCA and the ITF perform essential port state control functions to protect and uphold minimum international seafarer welfare standards in the maritime labour convention. It is for that reason that we support new clause 8 in the name of the hon. Member for Easington.
I suspect the Government may not accept the new clause, but it would be pretty obscene if we were to see evidence of nationality-based pay discrimination. We very much support the new clause. I hope the Minister is generous, for a change.
Grahame Morris
I support the arguments put forward by my colleagues on the Front Bench. Will the Minister give some clarification? I noted what I thought was an assurance in his comments. Our amendment 63 is an attempt to make the enforcement process clearer, in terms of ensuring that the inspectors have the requisite not just powers but information, from HMRC in particular, in order to carry out the task that the Bill assigns to them. I wonder whether the Minister could clarify—maybe I am missing something; I heard him say that it would be the Maritime and Coastguard Agency that would be the inspectors. Could that function be delegated to the harbour authority or to staff of the harbour authority acting on behalf of the MCA? I would appreciate if he could clarify that point in his summing up.
Nationality-based pay discrimination is the elephant in the room. We must get to grips with it. I realise that the issue is incredibly complicated because of international treaties, but we need to get to the kernel of the issue because this is what is happening. Unscrupulous ferry operators in the sector are displacing UK-based seafarers on a “fire and rehire” basis, which Labour finds anathema.
There were Conservative MPs who were incandescent at the tactics employed by P&O Ferries on 17 March—St Patrick’s day—in that terrible action it took. We must see if we can address that, and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North made a good suggestion about using the expertise from the International Transport Workers’ Federation as part of the collective effort, particularly where the issues relate to seafarers from overseas. I wonder if the Minister might consider not only that, but the suggestion to use the facilities that were built—at some cost to the public purse—for the Brexit customs processing facilities and consider whether those not being used adequately could also be used for that purpose.
Mr Holden
I would like to provide some clarification on the points made initially by the hon. Member for Easington. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is the relevant enforcement agency, not the harbour authority. Furthermore, it would be unlawful to delegate powers in this space to harbour authorities, so I wanted to make that clear. In response to a point made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency does not need to be named in the Bill because it enforces on behalf of the Secretary of State. This is normal drafting for Government agencies that are subsidiaries of Departments.
The Department has obviously engaged extensively with HMRC on this issue. The truth is, as this is not enforcing national minimum wage legislation but trying to get the national minimum wage equivalent, the amount of information that HMRC holds in respect to many of these people is either nil or incredibly limited, as many of them will not be UK taxpayers. HMRC has been clear that it is happy to share anything it can to make enforcement easier, but it is not in the exact same space. HMRC already enforces national minimum wage for seafarers who qualify for it, but within this legislation we reflect that much of that falls out of the normal scope of UK legislation.
Gavin Newlands
On that point, if I can refer back to the point I made in my speech, does the Minister agree with HMRC—despite all the evidence to the contrary: not just P&O, but many other operators—that there is no disproportionate risk of seafarers not being paid the national minimum wage? Does he think that that is credible?
Gavin Newlands
Of seafarers particularly not being paid the national minimum wage compared to other sectors.
Mr Holden
Part of the issue here is that we are trying to address the national minimum wage equivalence. This is beyond normal UK territorial extent, which is the issue at stake here, which is why we are doing legislation that goes beyond our normal boundaries and does butt up against some of those international maritime obligations that we have, whether that is the case for inland ferries or anything else within the UK. I am not an expert on what HMRC has said, but I assume that what it has said is correct. I imagine there are other elements in the broader economy, where perhaps there are greater language barriers and piecework, where HMRC targets the normal national minimum wage legislation and where it sees the greatest abuses. That is why I am sure HMRC is quite clear in its thinking.
I urge Members, based on what I have said in response to the amendments, to withdraw them, and, if not, to support the Government and vote down the Opposition’s amendments.
The Chair
With the leave of the Committee, I will put a single question on these amendments.
Amendments made: 10, in clause 6, page 4, line 7, after “is” insert “or at any time was”.
This is consequential on Amendment 7.
Amendment 11, in clause 6, page 4, line 8, leave out “a national minimum wage” and insert “an”.
See Amendment 1.
Amendment 12, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, leave out “declaration” and insert “statement”.—(Mr Holden.)
This is consequential on Amendment 1.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Imposition of Surcharges
Mr Holden
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 7, page 5, line 8, leave out subsections (1) to (4).
This is the first of a number of amendments and new clauses which, taken together, require harbour authorities to impose surcharges (as opposed to merely allowing them to do so) and set out the circumstances in which they must do so. The circumstances are related to the fact that equivalence declarations may be provided before, during or after the year to which they relate.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 64, in clause 7, page 5, line 32, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
‘(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for a national tariff of surcharges by which the amount of the surcharge is to be determined.”
Government amendment 14.
Amendment 50, in clause 7, page 5, line 33, after “regulations” insert—
“, where the minimum surcharge to be imposed on an operator where Subsection (2) applies shall be no less than 300 per cent of the difference between the amount calculated as the national minimum wage equivalence for the operator and the amount in total paid by that operator”.
Government amendment 15.
Amendment 51, in clause 7, page 5, line 36, leave out “specified by a harbour authority”.
Amendment 52, in clause 7, page 5, line 37, leave out “the authority” and insert “each authority”.
Government amendments 16 and 17.
Amendment 65, in clause 7, page 5, line 43, leave out paragraph (e).
Government amendments 18 and 19.
Amendment 53, in clause 7, page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
‘(8) Monies collected by a harbour authority under this section must be transferred to the Secretary of State at a frequency of not less than twice per calendar year for disbursement towards the costs of shore-based welfare facilities for seafarers.”
This amendment would ensure that revenue from surcharges is passed to the Secretary of State for Transport rather than being held by harbour authorities and would direct UK Government spending to welfare facilities.
Amendment 54, in clause 7, page 6, line 3, leave out paragraph (a).
Government amendment 20.
Clause 7 stand part.
Government amendment 21.
Amendment 55, in clause 8, page 6, line 10, leave out “specified by a harbour authority”.
This amendment is consequential on earlier amendments relating to the surcharge.
Amendment 57, in clause 8, page 6, line 14, at end insert—
‘(2A) Any objection must be made to the Secretary of State within a length of time which may be specified by regulations. Any objection made after this time period will be considered void.”
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to set a time limit for any objections to be lodged.
Government amendments 22 and 23.
Amendment 56, in clause 8, page 7, line 1, leave out “to direct the harbour authority”.
Clause 8 stand part.
Government new clause 2—Imposition of surcharges: failure to provide declaration in time.
Government new clause 3—Imposition of surcharges: in-year declaration that is prospective only.
Government new clause 4—Imposition of surcharges: operating inconsistently with declaration.
Mr Holden
I rise to speak to the Government amendments, the Opposition amendments, clauses 7 and 8 and Government new clauses 2 to 4.
As drafted, clause 7 empowers a harbour authority to impose a surcharge on an operator. The power applies in the event that the operator fails to provide an equivalence declaration under clause 3, or if it appears to the authority that the operator has committed an offence under clause 3(5). Where such a determination is made, the harbour authority may impose a surcharge on the operator on any occasion when a ship providing the service enters the harbour.
The amount of the surcharge is to be determined by a published tariff of surcharges set by the harbour authority in accordance with regulations made under the clause.
Grahame Morris
On that specific point, I am sure the Minister can clear up the issue I want to raise. The surcharge relates to ports and harbour authorities competing with one another. Will the surcharge be consistent or will it vary from one port and harbour authority to another?
Mr Holden
That will be clarified through the tariff regulations, which we will introduce. It will depend on the nature of the ship and the size of it, but we aim for consistency in terms of different vessels in different areas, and a tariff will be established.
The clause provides a power to make regulations that will make provision to—
Mr Holden
I hope that what I am about to say will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. The clause will make provision for publication of a determination to impose surcharges; set out how the imposition of a surcharge is to be notified to the operator; set out the period within and the manner in which a surcharge must be paid; and make provision for notification of a surcharge to the Secretary of State and publication of the fact that a surcharge has been imposed. Surcharges paid under the clause may be retained by the harbour authority for the delivery of any of their functions, or for shore-based welfare facilities for seafarers.
I turn to Government amendments 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20. As with the Government amendments to clause 3, these amendments, along with the amendments introducing new clauses 2, 3 and 4, will make the previously discretionary powers of harbour authorities to impose a surcharge mandatory duties, and set out the circumstances in which these duties should be exercised.
As discussed in relation to clause 3, from our continued engagement with port stakeholders we have been informed that harbour authorities are unlikely to exercise their power to impose a surcharge unless directed to. The direction-making power was intended as a back-up power and was not intended to be used as the primary means. However, this is all part of addressing that issue and ensuring the effective functioning of the Bill.
New clauses 2, 3 and 4 therefore set out the circumstances in which a harbour authority is under a duty to impose a surcharge. In summary, new clause 2 sets out surcharges to be imposed when an equivalence declaration is not provided in time; new clause 3 sets out when a declaration relates only to part of a year; and new clause 4 sets out when a service is operated inconsistently with a declaration.
Amendment 13 amends clause 7 to remove the discretionary power for harbour authorities to impose surcharges, which is now replaced with the new duties set out in new clauses 2, 3 and 4. As a result, there is no need for regulations that make provision as to the publication of a determination to impose surcharges and that will be removed by amendment 17. Subsections 1 to 4 of clause 7, which are removed by amendment 13, are replaced by new clauses 2, 3 and 4, which provide for duties to impose surcharges and the circumstances in which those duties apply. Amendment 14 is consequential on amendment 13.
Amendment 16 provides that a duty to impose a surcharge is subject to direction-making powers of the Secretary of State under clause 11, as amended by amendments 32 to 34, to not comply with their duties or to comply with their duties in a particular way. I will discuss the powers of direction in greater detail when we come to clause 11. It also provides that a harbour authority that fails to comply with a duty to impose a surcharge is guilty of an offence and liable, as previously mentioned, on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. As with the offence for not requesting a declaration, this will be enforced by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and is essential to ensure that the Bill functions properly.
Amendment 19 provides for regulations to make provision requiring a harbour authority that has imposed a surcharge to notify the Secretary of State if the surcharge is not paid in the required timeframe. It is necessary for the Secretary of State to be aware of circumstances where harbour access is likely to be refused, in order to monitor the operation of the Bill, take steps to mitigate disruption caused by the refusal of access if necessary, which will be pertinent in relation to very busy sea lanes, and consider if a direction should be issued to the harbour authority under clause 11(2), as amended by amendments 32 and 33, in circumstances where the refusal of access might cause damage to key passenger services or national resilience. Amendment 52 is consequential on amendment 44 to clause 3.
This group of amendments also relates to clause 8 of the bill, which provides a process for the making of objections to surcharges imposed by harbour authorities under clause 7. As the Bill currently stands, an interested party may make an objection to a harbour authority’s determination to impose a surcharge, the tariff of surcharges specified by a harbour authority, or the imposition of a surcharge or its amount.
The Secretary of State will then consider the objection and any representations made and may decide to approve the decision to which the objection relates, or to direct the harbour authority to revoke the determination, revise the tariff, revoke the imposition of a surcharge, or increase or decrease the amount of the surcharge. The Secretary of State will communicate the decision to the harbour authority and the objector and publish it online.
The Secretary of State may also direct the harbour authority to repay any surcharges required as a result of a decision under this clause. If a harbour authority does not comply with a direction given by the Secretary of State under the clause, they will be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. It should be noted that where an objection has been made to a harbour authority’s determination to impose a surcharge, an interested person cannot make another objection to that same determination. I shall respond to other amendments as they are moved.
Seafarers' Wages Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Tuesday 17th January 2023
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 January 2023 - (17 Jan 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members that the Committee will finish at 5pm, regardless of where we have reached in our discussions.
Clause 7
Imposition of surcharges
Amendment proposed (this day): 13, in clause 7, page 5, line 8, leave out subsections (1) to (4).—(Mr Holden.)
This is the first of a number of amendments and new clauses which, taken together, require harbour authorities to impose surcharges (as opposed to merely allowing them to do so) and set out the circumstances in which they must do so. The circumstances are related to the fact that equivalence declarations may be provided before, during or after the year to which they relate.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 64, in clause 7, page 5, line 32, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for a national tariff of surcharges by which the amount of the surcharge is to be determined.”
Government amendment 14.
Amendment 50, in clause 7, page 5, line 33, after “regulations” insert
“, where the minimum surcharge to be imposed on an operator where Subsection (2) applies shall be no less than 300 per cent of the difference between the amount calculated as the national minimum wage equivalence for the operator and the amount in total paid by that operator”.
Government amendment 15.
Amendment 51, in clause 7, page 5, line 36, leave out
“specified by a harbour authority”.
Amendment 52, in clause 7, page 5, line 37, leave out “the authority” and insert “each authority”.
Government amendments 16 and 17.
Amendment 65, in clause 7, page 5, line 43, leave out paragraph (e).
Government amendments 18 and19.
Amendment 53, in clause 7, page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
“(8) Monies collected by a harbour authority under this section must be transferred to the Secretary of State at a frequency of not less than twice per calendar year for disbursement towards the costs of shore-based welfare facilities for seafarers.”
This amendment would ensure that revenue from surcharges is passed to the Secretary of State for Transport rather than being held by harbour authorities and would direct UK Government spending to welfare facilities.
Amendment 54, in clause 7, page 6, line 3, leave out paragraph (a).
Government amendment 20.
Clause 7 stand part.
Government amendment 21.
Amendment 55, in clause 8, page 6, line 10, leave out
“specified by a harbour authority”.
This amendment is consequential on earlier amendments relating to the surcharge.
Amendment 57, in clause 8, page 6, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) Any objection must be made to the Secretary of State within a length of time which may be specified by regulations. Any objection made after this time period will be considered void.”
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to set a time limit for any objections to be lodged.
Government amendments 22 and 23.
Amendment 56, in clause 8, page 7, line 1, leave out
“to direct the harbour authority”.
Clause 8 stand part.
Government new clause 2—Imposition of surcharges: failure to provide declaration in time.
Government new clause 3—Imposition of surcharges: in-year declaration that is prospective only.
Government new clause 4—Imposition of surcharges: operating inconsistently with declaration.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris.
At the close of the morning sitting, Mr Davies happily interrupted me in full flow about the Laffer curve. I often hear hon. Members talk about the Laffer curve, and earlier the Minister referred to all the tax giveaways implemented by this Government, but I remind Government Members that we are the most taxed society in modern history. Government Members enjoy talking about the nanny state and postcode lotteries, but I worry about how the clause will be implemented by different harbours. The Secretary of State will have enormous powers—a Labour Secretary of State could be implementing the regulations—and will have to play judge and jury between the various ports, harbour companies, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and others. That is my big worry about the clause.
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 64 in my name and the names of Opposition members of the Committee. The Bill as drafted poses a risk that the surcharge regime will be different between harbours, and too small to have any effect on operator employment practices. Operators could choose to pay the surcharge to continue to use the ports, avoiding any penalty charge set out in clause 9. Will the Minister tell us what happens to penalties if they are charged? Where do they go? Will he seek to fund onshore mariner and seafarer welfare services from the charges? I am keen to hear more about that.
Many operators do not just run ferry services but operate ports as well—P&O itself operates a port. So the Government are potentially asking operators to fine themselves, which is perverse. Ministers must think again.
I note that the Secretary of State said he would use retained powers to decide which port could enforce fines, but he must set a national tariff for surcharges and designate a Government agency to collect them. Agreements and publication of the tariff of surcharges are subject to secondary regulations set out in clause 7. That could undermine the unlimited fines that can be imposed on operators for offences created elsewhere in the Bill, because the tariff will be based only on the differential between the amount paid the seafarers and the national minimum wage equivalence for UK work. Our amendment would give the Secretary of State the powers to set a national tariff of surcharges, which the harbour authorities would then enforce under direction. That would prevent ports from being prosecuted by competitors, and prevent harbour authorities from competing on the level of surcharge company operators would have to pay. That surcharge should not be given to the harbour authorities to use as they see fit, but should clearly be given to support seafarer welfare facilities. It would be wrong for operators to spend on their own businesses the fines levied for exploitation of seafarers. That is why we support amendments 53 and 54 in the names of SNP colleagues.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I will address amendments 51, 52, 55, 56 and 58, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East. We will also be supporting amendment 64—we have signed the amendment —in the name of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East.
Ultimately, we want this legislation, in whatever form it takes at Royal Assent, to stick. That is what we are seeking to ensure today. The surcharges and penalties envisaged have to be realistic to have any effect. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East raised the possibility of operators who own ports surcharging other operators who use those ports. If we end up in a position where operators allege sharp practice on the part of other operators and take legal action, it is workers who will be caught in the middle. P&O Ferries can afford the lawyers; poorly paid staff cannot. Setting a national tariff will remove the element of discretion from harbour authorities and ensure that all harbours and all operators across the board pay the same surcharge, regardless of which harbour has jurisdiction.
With all due respect to the harbour authorities, shifting the onus to the Secretary of State would also be a clear sign of how seriously the Government will take infringements. It is one thing for an operator to take on a port, but quite another to decide to take on the Department for Transport, if they know they are in the wrong. The likes of P&O might have deep pockets, but ultimatel, there will be no escape from a law that is properly enforced by the state.
As things stand, the level of surcharge that will be levied on operators in breach of the legislation is set entirely by the harbour authority, with reference to the regulations that will be laid at some point by the Secretary of State. My concern is that if the level of surcharge is set too low—we spoke this morning about the level of fines that could be levied—there would be no or very little disincentive for operators to pay below the national minimum wage equivalent. We saw with P&O that even flagrant lawbreaking was no disincentive whatever.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I completely agree with the line the hon. Member is pursuing here—that the fines should present a disincentive to breach the provisions of the legislation—but would he clarify a point on the minimum surcharge? The amendment says it would be
“no less than 300 per cent of the difference between the amount calculated as the national minimum wage equivalence for the operator and the amount in total paid by that operator”.
We learned in the debates on the previous clause that more than 50% of the savings that P&O were making were not from wages but from the changes in roster patterns. Should that be taken into account as well?
Gavin Newlands
I thank my colleague on the Transport Committee for making that point. It is very important, and he is absolutely right. I spoke about the impact of rostering on Second Reading. I am sure we will come on to the seafarers’ charter and the issues around that later on. My amendment seeks to amend the Bill in front of us, but I would love for us to be taking the whole situation into account, rather than just the wage. We will discuss that point in more detail a bit later on.
The Insolvency Service refused to undertake criminal proceedings against P&O Ferries or its corporate leadership, despite Mr Hebblethwaite’s appearance in front of the Select Committees’ joint hearing, when he freely admitted that he and his colleagues conspired over a lengthy period of time to systematically break the law and treat their workforce dreadfully. P&O clearly took the view that the chances of facing any real penalty for their actions were slim and, ultimately, they were proved to be right.
The Bill sets no minimum level of surcharge that would be levied on operators found to be in violation of the law. If the surcharge is set at a rate lower than the difference between compliance and non-compliance, there is nothing to prevent rogue operators from paying below the national minimum wage equivalent, making a declaration to that effect, paying the surcharge and still sailing away with full pockets, exactly as P&O Ferries did. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I remind colleagues not to have private conversations during Committee sittings.
Gavin Newlands
Thank you, Ms Harris. Amendment 50 would make clear the cost operators would face if they were caught flouting the law. It is deliberately punitive. We picked 300%, but I would be happy to go higher.
The amendment would also have the effect of continually updating itself through reference to the national minimum wage equivalent rate, rather than to an absolute cash figure. We know that those involved in drafting statutory instruments will have their work cut out to say the least over the coming months if the Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is passed. My amendment would save them the trouble of updating this legislation every time that the rate needs to be updated. Indeed, the Government’s own response to the consultation on the Bill stated:
“We envisage that the rate of surcharge will be set by the SHA with reference to the NMWe deficit, which is the difference between the amount that seafarers are actually paid and the amount they would have been paid if they had qualified for NMW for that work.”
All our amendment would do is ensure that the reference to that deficit is fixed and a deterrent, rather than just a price that they pay for doing business.
I am sure that the current Secretary of State wants to see rogue operators caught and held to account, but he may not always be in this place or be the Minister. If future Ministers and Secretaries of State place less value on seafarers’ wages and conditions, they can amend the regulations, without much recourse to this place and probably without much fuss, to remove any deterrent effect that a surcharge may have. Of course, it is open to set a surcharge higher than 300%, but my amendment would ensure that the minimum is fixed in statute and cannot be amended without a new Bill and Act, thus making it more difficult to remove.
I would be happy to hear from the Minister what the level of surcharge is because, to be honest, it was quite difficult to pick up what he was saying in his oration before the Committee adjourned this morning. It was rather like a horse-racing commentary, so I did not quite pick up his opposition to our amendments. Maybe he is backing our amendments; I did not actually hear. I would be happy to hear what he actually thinks about these issues.
I will now speak to amendments 53 and 54. The Bill makes no orders or compulsion on where the proceeds of any surcharge levied by harbour authorities should go, as the hon. Member—and sometimes Friend—for Wythenshawe and Sale East said. Given that the reason for the surcharge is the mistreatment of workers, it seems apposite that the proceeds of a crime such as this should be directed to its victims. It would remain open to the Secretary of State to direct money to the harbour authority in question to spend on welfare facilities for seafarers, but that would be a decision for the Secretary of State, not for the harbour authority. Equally, it would be open to the Secretary of State to spend the money directly through the Department for Transport or other agencies, or to divert it to one of the many charities and trade unions that provide welfare services to seafarers in our ports and harbours.
We all hope that no surcharges will actually need to be levied under the legislation; equally, we all know that P&O Ferries is one of a number of operators that do not treat their staff with the respect and dignity that they deserve. When harbour authorities and the Secretary of State start to exercise their powers and collect surcharges, we need to ensure that those moneys do not disappear in a black hole somewhere or get set aside for the general running costs of a port. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Bill, as it stands, allows. I would be happy to hear some clarification from the Minister regarding exactly where these moneys will go and whether the regulations will make clear that the surcharges are not to be spent keeping the lights on or building more infrastructure to handle the implications of Brexit. That is not what should happen. My amendment would end that possibility once and for all.
I forgot that I had so many amendments to speak to. Amendment 57 is essentially aimed at ensuring that any objections to a surcharge being levied are made in a reasonable timeframe. It is not too great a stretch of the imagination to foresee a company—again, such as P&O Ferries—being levied with a surcharge, procrastinating on payment and, months later, objecting to the surcharge, thus prolonging the process even further. Setting a time limit would prevent these kinds of frivolous uses of the objection procedure while still allowing genuine objections to be lodged. I can see nothing in the Bill to prevent objections being lodged and then withdrawn, so it would still be open to trade unions and others to lodge on a holding basis, as it were, while retaining the right to explore their options along the way. If the Minister will advise what time limits for objection will be in the regulations when laid, I may well be happy to withdraw that particular amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I thank everybody for coming back. I am sorry that my speed of speaking was so swift earlier; I shall try to keep these comments at a more temperate pace. I will pick up on a couple of points from hon. Members, then enter into a little more of the briefing.
Tariffs or surcharges will be set by each harbour authority, but they will be in accordance with the regulations made under clause 7. As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, we also hope that the surcharges will never be required, but we need to have them to ensure proper practice. Opposition amendment 50 seeks to set out in the Bill how the surcharge is to be calculated. Currently, the Bill provides that harbour authorities will set the tariff of surcharges in accordance with the regulations. It is important that the surcharges disincentivise operators from not providing equivalence declarations, and we agree that surcharges should be high enough to act as a disincentive. We will consult on the levels of the tariffs to be set in the regulations. We do not want to commit to setting the level in the Bill, but please be assured that we are going to take everything into consideration in the drafting of the regulations.
Amendments 51, 52 and 56 seem to be designed to take responsibility for setting the surcharge away from the harbour authorities. Harbour authorities have been given this duty given their proximity to operators as their customers. The tariff must be set in accordance with regulations, but harbour authorities are well placed to determine within those regulations what the surcharge should be in each case. However, we will consider this position further before Report.
Amendment 53 would remove the option for harbour authorities to keep the surcharge for any of their functions, and would mean that moneys would be transferred to the Secretary of State for disbursement . The Bill already allows moneys to be spent by the harbour authority for the purpose of shore-based welfare facilities. I can see that to make the Secretary of State an intermediary places great faith in the speedy actions of the Government in all cases, but there is a possibility that this transaction would put a significant administrative burden on the Department were it to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and would delay seafarers seeing the benefit of this money.
Amendments 54 and 68 would remove the harbour authority’s ability to spend moneys collected from the surcharge on the discharge of their functions. This is not intended to be a profit-making mechanism, but I am happy to review this function as intended before Report, because we need to ensure the surcharge is high enough to act as a disincentive.
Amendment 65 would remove the power to make regulations providing for the notification of a surcharge to the Secretary of State. The power to make regulations providing for the notification of the surcharge to the Secretary of State is an important mechanism to deter non-compliance. The mechanism of the Bill relies heavily on the monitoring of enforcement, and, as the imposition of the surcharge is a duty under the Bill, it is important that the Secretary of State is notified in this process.
I understand the importance of making it clear that it is the imposition of the surcharge that must be notified to the Secretary of State. I have thus tabled Government amendment 18, which provides for notification to the Secretary of State of the imposition of a surcharge. I hope colleagues are reassured by that.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful for the explanation. The Minister said amendment 65; did he mean amendment 64 in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State to set regulations? Can the Minister have a quick look at that? It is a point that in the earlier clauses he had indicated he was going to look at again before Report, so that we have a consistent level set by the Secretary of State in regulation. Could the Minister clarify that?
Mr Holden
The hon. Member is quite right. I should have been referring to amendment 64. What I was referring to in that section was Government amendment 18, which relates to Opposition amendment 65. I am about to come on to amendment 64; I did try to reference the hon. Member’s comments earlier, but I will come on to them now.
Amendment 64 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out a national tariff of surcharges, as I indicated earlier, removing any role for harbour authorities in setting surcharge tariffs. The surcharge is an important mechanism to deter non-compliance, and the Government consider it reasonable and proportionate for harbour authorities to play some role, alongside the national tariff setting under clause 7. It is envisaged that a schedule of rates for the surcharge will be set by the harbour authority with reference to the estimated difference between the amount that seafarers are paid and the amount they would have been paid if they had qualified for national minimum wage. This is expected not to be an exact calculation, but to be based on estimates of the number of seafarers involved. The detail of how that will be worked out will be set out in regulations, and we will work closely with industry to ensure we get it right. It is important that surcharges are relevant to the circumstances of the service in scope, and harbour authorities are well placed to make that call given their proximity to services. We have, however, heard the concerns raised by the ports industry and others, so we will consider the matter further ahead of Report.
Gavin Newlands
On Government amendment 15 and the tariff of surcharge being at the discretion of harbour authorities, how much consideration has the Department given to the possibility of surcharge shopping and other conflicts of interests, both of which have been raised here and in the other place?
Mr Holden
That is a fair point. We have considered the matter, but we will be setting a national tariff in regulations following wide consultation, which will then be looked at by the individual harbour authorities. The cost implications of operators changing routes in order to shop around between what we expect to be minor cost differences mean that we do not expect it to be a particular issue.
Amendment 57 would allow for regulations setting a time limit under which an objection to a surcharge can be made. We think it is unlikely that there will be delays in objections to surcharges, but we are none the less happy to continue to consider that point ahead of Report, because it is important to get these things right and to have the right disincentives. We do not want to create strange situations that could act against seafarers’ interests.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Amendments made: 14, in clause 7, page 5, line 32, leave out second “the” and insert “a”.
See Amendment 13.
Amendment 15, in clause 7, page 5, line 33, leave out from “regulations” to end of line 35.
This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 11(3) (see Amendment 34).
Amendment 16, in clause 7, page 5, line 37, at end insert—
“(6A) A duty to impose a surcharge is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 11(2)(a).
(6B) A harbour authority which fails to comply with a duty to impose a surcharge is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”
See Amendment 13.
Amendment 17, in clause 7, page 5, line 39, leave out paragraph (a).
See Amendment 13.
Amendment 18, in clause 7, page 5, line 43, after “notification of” insert “the imposition of”.
This is a drafting clarification.
Amendment 19, in clause 7, page 5, line 44, at end insert—
“(7A) Regulations may make provision requiring a harbour authority that has imposed a surcharge to notify the Secretary of State if so much of the period within which the surcharge must be paid as is specified in the regulations has expired without the surcharge having been paid in accordance with regulations under subsection (7)(d).”
See Amendment 13.
Amendment 20, in clause 7, page 6, line 6, at end insert—
“(10) In this Act, ‘surcharge’ means a charge under section (Imposition of surcharges: failure to provide declaration in time), (Imposition of surcharges: in-year declaration that is prospective only) or (Imposition of surcharges: operating inconsistently with declaration).”—(Mr Holden.)
See Amendment 13.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Questions to surcharges
Amendments made: 21, in clause 8, page 6, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).
This is consequential on Amendment 13 and the amendments relating to it.
Amendment 22, in clause 8, page 6, line 36, leave out subsection (7).
This is consequential on Amendment 13 and the amendments relating to it.
Amendment 23, in clause 8, page 6, line 41, leave out paragraph (a).—(Mr Holden.)
This is consequential on Amendment 13 and the amendments relating to it.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Refusal of harbour access for failure to pay surcharge
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 25 to 28.
Amendment 58, in clause 9, page 7, line 32, at end insert—
“(e) where there is need to provide crew with access to urgent medical or welfare facilities or undertake crew repatriation.”
Government amendments 29 and 30.
Amendment 70, in clause 9, page 7, line 32, at end insert—
“(3A) Where a harbour authority may not refuse access to a harbour under subsection (3), it may instead detain a ship providing a service to which this Act applies, provided that the conditions in subsection (1) are met.
(3B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the detention of a ship under subsection (3A).”
Clause stand part.
New clause 6—Detention of vessels for failure to pay surcharge—
“(1) A ship providing a service to which this Act applies may be detained by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section if—
(a) a harbour authority has imposed a surcharge on the operator of the service in respect of the entry into its harbour by any ship providing that service, and
(b) the operator has not paid the surcharge in accordance with provision made by or under this Act.
(2) It does not matter for the purposes of subsection (1) whether an objection has been made to the surcharge under section 8.”
Mr Holden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris.
As currently drafted, clause 9 allows harbour authorities to refuse access to a harbour if an operator has not paid a surcharge as required in accordance with the Bill. The provision is intended to incentivise payment of surcharges and to make payment a condition of access to UK harbours. There are exceptions where a harbour authority may not refuse access: in cases of force majeure; where there are overriding safety concerns; where there is a need to reduce or minimise the risk of pollution; or where there is a need to rectify deficiencies on the ship.
Grahame Morris
The Minister is being very helpful. Will he list the categories that fall under, or explain how he would describe, “force majeure”? He mentioned a couple of categories. Is that an exhaustive list?
Mr Holden
I will happily provide the Committee with a full list ahead of Report stage. We are talking about serious incidents where life is at risk, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with further detail.
The method of communicating refusal of access will be set out in regulations. The clause provides that nothing in section 33 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 prevents refusal of access to a harbour under this section. Access can be refused, irrespective of whether an objection has been made under clause 8. This revision is a key tool in ensuring compliance with the policy intention of the Bill.
The amendment imposes a mandatory duty on harbour authorities to refuse access to a harbour, instead of a discretionary power to do so, as I mentioned earlier with regard to implementing the surcharges. As with those amendments to clauses 3 and 7, the reason for the amendment is to ensure the effective functioning of the Bill so that harbour authorities do not simply wait to be directed by the Secretary of State.
Grahame Morris
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. In this group, I will speak to amendment 70 in my name and to new clause 6.
The Minister explained the reasoning behind his proposal to refuse access to a harbour. Amendment 70 proposes that the ship should be detained within a port. That is far more in line with international maritime law. The denial of harbour access is a matter of some concern. For harbour authorities or, indeed, the Secretary of State to suspend access is dangerous and likely to be ineffective. I therefore support the detention of non-compliant vessels within a UK harbour. The trade unions, the RMT—National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—and I believe Nautilus International, also support that view, in order to provide a punishment for non-compliance that is more in line with international maritime regulatory standards governing operators’ behaviours.
I respectfully point out that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s port state control powers, which already exist under the maritime labour convention, are the only mechanism for inspecting crew employment and welfare standards. Every month, foreign flag vessels detained following those inspections are posted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on the Government’s website. The power that I propose would be a welcome addition to the port state control responsibilities that the MCA discharges for foreign flag vessels working from UK ports.
Only denying access to ports is not a realistic or sustainable punishment, especially as it relies to some extent on vessels not sailing to the UK if they are found to be non-compliant. Amendment 70 and new clause 6, in relation to vessels that fail to pay the surcharge, would be much more effective. There is also the possibility that capacity in another port would be blocked, if a ship were detained outside the port, perhaps in another harbour or even in a different jurisdiction. It is not clear whether the bilateral agreements the Government are negotiating—the Minister referred to them earlier, in particular that with France, but there are also those with Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Denmark and Norway—would take account of that. I would be interested in the Government’s response to that point.
There is a welfare issue. It is outside the scope of this Bill, but there have been occasions where, certainly during the course of the pandemic, a number of vessels were laid up. I do not know if comes under the category of force majeure. Many tens of thousands—even hundreds of thousands—of seafarers were unable to access proper conditions. I know there were issues about the spreading of infection and so on, but putting that to one side, surely in terms of welfare it would make far more sense to detain the vessels within the port, rather than outside.
Gavin Newlands
I rise to speak to amendment 58. I am minded to support amendment 70 and new clause 6 in the name of the hon. Member for Easington. Perhaps counterintuitively, I am looking to add another exception to the list that could allow a rogue operator’s ship access to harbour, because I do not want seafarers or workers caught in the middle. As things stand, where an operator has been refused access for not paying the surcharge even when a crew welfare issue has been identified, such as a long overdue change of crew, the Bill would allow harbour authorities to continue blocking access to the operator. That could put the crew in the middle of a tug of war between the harbour authority and the operator.
We do not want a situation where the harbour authority is legally able to prevent access to a port when a ship has genuine need to seek access to ensure the safety and health of its crew. I know that most harbours take their responsibility for crew welfare seriously, but we do not want a situation where rogue operators are able to say, “We would love to take crew welfare seriously, but we couldn’t access the nearest harbour because we didn’t take it seriously in the first place, by paying below the national minimum wage.” There should be no excuses when it comes to employee safety.
Adding crew welfare to the list of exceptions to the harbour authority’s right to refuse access would provide some extra piece of mind for seafarers, and ensure that they have the protections, not the operator. It is the seafarers we are looking to protect. The amendment would clearly not prevent harbours from refusing access where the five conditions do not apply and, on that level, does not seek to water down the options available to hit those who refuse to pay a surcharge.
The Neptune declaration was established during the covid pandemic as it became clear that public health restrictions on access to ports were severely impacting on the capacity for ships to change over. Part of that declaration is a commitment that operators should make all reasonable efforts to accommodate crew changes, including when the vessel has to make a reasonable deviation. That should apply even as we have moved beyond the worst of the pandemic, and our legislation should reflect that declaration, which is why we have tabled the amendment.
Mike Kane
I rise to signal our support for amendment 70 and new clause 6 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington, who spoke well about seafarer welfare.
To give a personal example, over the past 30 years, my wife and I have enjoyed the hospitality, archaeology and beauty of the Orkney Islands. Over those 30 years, we have seen the number of cruise ships docking at Kirkwall go through the roof. There are days when the visitor numbers can double the population of the islands. When I visit the beautiful St Magnus Cathedral in the heart of Kirkwall, I now see—around the back or further up the high street—the welfare lines of mariners waiting for handouts or warm clothes, or going to the post office to send telegrams or money back home to their loved ones. Those lines get longer and longer every year.
I echo the concerns that the power for harbour authorities to suspend access to operators that are not paying crew at least the national minimum wage in UK territorial waters is probably dangerous and ineffective. I would welcome the Minister’s consideration of that. By denying ships access to those harbours, we are denying those crews, who are some of the poorest people in society—they are flown in from all over the world to give us the leisure experience we want on cruises—access to give welfare to those back home. That is less a political and more a humanitarian issue that our ports and harbours increasingly have to deal with.
Mr Holden
I thank hon. Members and welcome the spirit of amendment 58, which aims to provide urgent welfare facilities when they are needed. The Government believe, however, that those would be covered by clause 9(3), under which crew would be provided with access to urgent medical or welfare facilities or to undertake other emergency measures. We support the intention behind the amendment; in urgent cases concerning safety, a ship should be able to access the harbour under the framework that we have set out. Where an incident was not safety-related or related to the welfare of the crew and was therefore not covered by the force majeure exception, the ship would not be permitted access to the harbour.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The concern, and I am pleased to hear the Minister has some sympathy for it, is that we do not want seafarers caught in the middle of the bad behaviour of bosses. I appreciate that the provision to which he draws our attention relates to that, but will he further consider whether that needs to be broader to protect seafarers?
Mr Holden
Members on both sides of the Committee are raising a similar issue about welfare. As an additional safeguard, the Secretary of State has the power to direct a harbour authority not to comply with its duty to refuse access. That will ensure that access is not denied—this has to be in rare circumstances for the Bill to work—where it would cause damage by disrupting key passenger services and supply chains. There are rare instances in which the Secretary of State has an overriding power, but on the broad swathe of trying to provide welfare, our view is that that is covered already under clause 9(3).
Gavin Newlands
Will the Minister tell us what part of clause 9(3) would cover the welfare of seafarers? Clause 9(3)(a) is on force majeure and paragraph (b) is on overriding safety concerns—might it be that one?
Mr Holden
The Bill states that
“a harbour authority may not refuse access to a harbour—
(a) in cases of force majeure;
(b) where there are overriding safety concerns;
(c) where there is a need to reduce or minimise the risk of pollution;
(d) where there is a need to rectify deficiencies on the ship.”
Both force majeure and overriding safety concerns for the crew, as well as for the ship, would be covered.
Members can be reassured that the list of exceptions directly reflect the circumstances in which access to a port may be provided. Existing legislation— namely regulation 13 of the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2011, SI 2011 No. 2601— also covers this issue. I therefore think that the area of safety and crew welfare in exceptional circumstances is covered by legislation and the extra powers that are available to the Secretary of State.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Does the Minister think that clause 11(2), which contains the power for the Secretary of State to direct harbour authorities
“to exercise, or not to exercise, any of their powers under this Act”
might be relevant here?
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend is right; that is exactly what I referred to following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. We have the provisions under clause 9(3) and those under clause 11 on the directional powers of the Secretary of State. We have a belt-and-braces approach, which is why I do not think Opposition amendment 58 is required.
New clause 6 is also aligned with amendment 70 and is basically about whether ships can be brought in. The Bill provides for a voluntary compliance mechanism whereby the provision of equivalence declarations, and payment of surcharges if a declaration is not provided, are conditions of access to ports. If an operator chooses to neither provide a declaration nor pay a surcharge, it will be refused access.
If that were replaced by a power of detention by the MCA, as new clause 6 seeks to do, that would be a disproportionate and inappropriate mechanism. Detention of ships can carry significant costs to the ports and wider local authorities in relation not only to looking after them, but by blocking berths. For some small harbours, this can also be particularly challenging as it blocks other access to the port. That is not the case if ships are refused access.
I have heard concerns that refusal of access is unworkable as it might result in ships mid-passage being unable to dock. However, we do not expect the Bill to work that way in practice. By virtue of the requirement that harbour authorities request an equivalence declaration only when ships providing a service call at a UK harbour on at least 120 occasions in a year, all services captured are almost certain to be on short routes, and notification of refusal of access would take place before the ship has set sail from the port of origin.
As set out in clause 9, we will set out in regulations how the harbour authority is to communicate refusal of access. Once a harbour authority has imposed surcharges, the operator will be on notice that ships providing the service will be refused access to the harbour once the period for payment of the surcharge expires, if it remains unpaid. There is an additional safeguard regarding the Secretary of State’s powers of guidance in this circumstance.
We are satisfied that the compliance process of surcharges and refusal of access, supported by the enforcement powers of the MCA, is an appropriate and effective mechanism to incentivise payments. I hope that the new clause is withdrawn.
I also say to the hon. Member for Easington that, fundamentally, the business model of these operators is that they can get things in and off the ships. By stopping them getting access to the ports, we would disrupt a business model that, by design, is on a tight turnaround. They will not survive long if they are unable to get those things into ports quickly. This is also about driving compliance with the national minimum wage equivalent for seafarers, which is what we are trying to achieve. I urge the hon. Member not to press the new clause.
Amendment 24 agreed to.
Amendments made: 25, in clause 9, page 7, line 23, leave out “and”.
This is consequential on Amendment 26.
Amendment 26, in clause 9, page 7, line 24, leave out from “with” to end of line 25 and insert—
“regulations under section 7(7)(d), and
(c) the period within which the surcharge must be paid has expired.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 24 and is meant to clarify the circumstances in which refusal of harbour access is required.
Amendment 27, in clause 9, page 7, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to any surcharge imposed under subsection (3)(a) or (4) of section (Imposition of surcharge: failure to provide declaration in time) which would, if paid, be required to be refunded under subsection (5) of that section.”
This amendment is consequential on the new clause to which it refers.
Amendment 28, in clause 9, page 7, line 28, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This is consequential on Amendment 24.
Amendment 29, in clause 9, page 7, line 32, at end insert—
“(3A) The duty under subsection (1) is also subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 11(2)(a).”
This is consequential on Amendment 32.
Amendment 30, in clause 9, page 7, line 32, at end insert—
“(3B) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”—(Mr Holden.)
This is consequential on Amendment 24.
Amendment proposed: 70, in clause 9, page 7, line 32, at end insert—
“(3A) Where a harbour authority may not refuse access to a harbour under subsection (3), it may instead detain a ship providing a service to which this Act applies, provided that the conditions in subsection (1) are met.
(3B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the detention of a ship under subsection (3A).”—(Grahame Morris.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 31.
Amendment 59, in clause 11, page 8, line 2, after “may” insert—
“following consultation with relevant stakeholders”.
This amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders before giving guidance to harbour authorities as provided in clause 11(1).
Amendment 60, in clause 11, page 8, line 4, after “may” insert—
“following consultation with relevant stakeholders”.
This amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders before giving directions to one or more harbour authorities as provided in clause 11(2).
Government amendments 32 to 36.
Clause 11 stand part.
Government amendments 37 and 38.
Mr Holden
Clause 10 specifies that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, proceedings relating to offences under the Bill will be prosecuted by the Secretary of State. In practice, the Secretary of State will do so through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. In Scotland, all criminal prosecutions are brought by the Lord Advocate.
This provision ensures that there is a clear and consistent process for the prosecution of offences under the Bill, and that such proceedings are handled by the appropriate Government agency. The clause is a critical component of the Bill’s enforcement mechanism and it will help to ensure compliance with its provisions.
Clause 11 as drafted will give the Secretary of State the power to give guidance to harbour authorities on how to exercise their powers under the Bill. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to issue directions to harbour authorities, requiring them to exercise or not exercise their powers under the Bill or to exercise them in a particular way.
Grahame Morris
The Minister is being patient and I appreciate that. Will he clarify the difference between “guidance” and “direction”? I ask because, on an earlier clause, we agreed that harbour authorities will now have a duty rather than a power. I wonder whether the Secretary of State’s “guidance” is a weaker term than a “direction”. Will he explain the difference?
Mr Holden
As drafted, the Bill is weaker, and that is why we are replacing the provisions with a duty in all these areas, in order to strengthen the requirement. Whether, in some such areas, it was “guidance” or other wording, there will now be a “duty”. That makes the Bill harder, ensuring that the harbour authorities have to do things.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Further to the intervention from the hon. Member for Easington and given that what we are debating is on the face of the Bill, are we talking about statutory guidance that will be issued? Guidance, as the Minister knows, is complex, in law and in statute.
Mr Holden
I think we are talking slightly at cross purposes on this point. We are removing some of the things that were guidance for harbour authorities and an element of duty is now being opposed on them. That is what the Government amendments do.
The powers in clause 11 include the power to direct our harbour authorities to impose or not to impose a surcharge, whether generally or in any case or circumstances, and to impose a surcharge of an amount specified in the direction instead of the amount determined by the harbour authority’s tariff. That provision was intended as a safeguard in the event that a harbour authority did not impose surcharges in circumstances where an operator had not provided an equivalence direction, and to provide an incentive for the harbour authority to perform its role objectively.
Harbour authorities would have been required to have regard to any guidance under the clause and to comply with any direction given to them under the clause. Failure to comply with a direction under the clause is an offence punishable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. That provision was designed to help to ensure compliance with the Bill’s provisions and to achieve its policy objectives.
Government amendments 31 and 35 remove the Secretary of State’s power under the Bill to give statutory guidance to harbour authorities. That is a consequence of changing harbour authorities’ powers under the Bill to mandatory duties. We will still provide guidance to harbour authorities, which we intend to consult on, but that will not have a statutory basis. Amendment 36 is consequential on those changes. The reason why there will not be a statutory basis is that harbour authorities will already have a statutory duty.
Sir John Hayes
That answers my question. Essentially, the statutory duties need the guidance about those duties to be issued, rather than it being of itself statutory guidance. The Minister has made that abundantly clear in an eloquent and persuasive way.
Mr Holden
I thank my right hon. Friend for his generous assessment of my ability to describe the Bill’s provisions.
Government amendments 32 to 34 redefine the circumstances in which directions may be given to harbour authorities by the Secretary of State. As the powers are now duties, there is no longer a need for the Secretary of State to direct harbour authorities to exercise their functions. If they do not exercise those functions, they will be liable for prosecution, so the Secretary of State does not need to intervene. Amendment 15 to clause 7 is consequential on that change.
Gavin Newlands
I rise to speak to amendments 59 and 60, which, as the Committee will be pleased to hear, I can dispose of in fairly short order. On clause 12, I will speak to amendments on removing some of the Secretary of State’s untrammelled powers. That argument happens in just about every Bill Committee—certainly every Bill Committee that I am on—because scrutiny and accountability are a good thing. I know that it is out of fashion for Governments to willingly draft scrutiny into legislation these days, but amendments 59 and 60 seek a stakeholder consultation before the Secretary of State can direct harbour authorities, which would provide for an additional layer of scrutiny.
A requirement on the Secretary of State to consult will help to ensure the openness and transparency of the Secretary of State’s actions. Imposing a duty to consult will ensure that any guidance is exposed to critical comment from stakeholders, which may improve said guidance. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that the power in clause 11 was “a completely open-ended power”, and that the whole Bill could therefore be modified by directions that are not subject to any form of parliamentary scrutiny.
The Government accepted that argument in the other place in relation to clause 3 and amended it appropriately, so I would be very keen to hear the Minister’s explanation of why the same principle is not applicable to clause 11, taking into account that, in responding to the points about the powers to direct in clause 11, Baroness Vere said:
“We have looked very carefully at the powers of direction for the Secretary of State in Clause 11. We have concluded that to remove them would significantly reduce the effectiveness of the Bill. These powers of direction form an important part of the compliance mechanism under the Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 2022; Vol. 824, c. 1513.]
Our amendments do not seek to remove the powers, merely to add a layer of scrutiny. [Interruption.] I slow down as I am about to conclude, to allow the Minister to get back to his seat. What could possibly be wrong with an additional layer of scrutiny?
Sir John Hayes
I intervened on the Minister earlier, on the issue of guidance, because, now that he is clear that the guidance issued is of a more general nature—rather than the specific statutory guidance that would have been necessary to effect the provisions of the Bill, which will now be provided by powers in the Bill implicitly—that provides the opportunity for the Minister to ensure that that guidance is contextualised around the broader narrative.
I mentioned earlier the 2015 “Maritime growth study”, which I commissioned regarding skills and recruitment of people to the sector. That study also recommended that the Government develop
“a vision and set of strategic objectives”
with “quantifiable targets and goals”. I wonder if, in issuing guidance around this Bill to those in the sector, the Minister can ensure that the context is precisely the delivery of those recommendations.
If I might add to that briefly, that report also recommended a ministerial working group for maritime growth to implement a national strategy accordingly. I wonder whether any progress has been made on that. The Minister may not have an immediate answer to that, but I would welcome his further reflection on it during the passage of this legislation.
Mr Holden
I thank both the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and my right hon. Friend for their views on this. Just to be clear, Opposition amendment 59 would require the Government to consult with relevant stakeholders before issuing guidance. As per amendments 31 to 35, tabled in my name, there is no longer a provision for statutory guidance, given the responsibilities under the new duty. However, as we intend to provide some guidance to harbour authorities, I would assure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that we intend to consult widely on any guidance that is issued, and it is unnecessary to say as much on the face of the Bill.
On the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings raised about the broader maritime growth strategy, I would be very happy to write to him with any specific updates that we have. I know that this is an important area that he feels passionate about.
Opposition amendment 60—this will be similar to my response to amendment 59—would require the Government to consult with relevant stakeholders before issuing directions. As per amendments 32, 33 and 34, tabled in my name, directions can only be made to instruct the harbour authority not to comply with its duties in a particular way. The need to use those powers of direction might arise when there are issues of welfare, national resilience, or the need to import medical supplies, and a ship should not be refused access. Such scenarios may be very time-sensitive, and the need to consult could significantly slow down that process. We assure hon. Members that we will consult where possible, but on that specific point—it is the reverse, as it were—it would not be appropriate to make that a legal requirement on the face of the Bill because of those issues.
Amendments 37 and 38, tabled in my name, change the power to make a direction to specify a harbour authority in respect of a particular harbour regarding the power to make those regulations. That is consequential on the amendments to convert harbour authority powers into duties, as, now that harbour authorities are required to request declarations, impose surcharges and refuse access to harbours, it is important that they have clarity on the relevant harbour authority for a particular harbour. The amendments will further ensure consistency and reduce the administrative burden of giving directions on a case-by-case basis.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Guidance and directions
Amendments made: 31, in clause 11, page 8, line 2, leave out subsection (1).
This removes the Secretary of State’s power under the Bill to give guidance to harbour authorities, in consequence of changing harbour authorities’ powers into duties.
Amendment 32, in clause 11, page 8, line 6, leave out
“exercise, or not to exercise, any of their powers under”
and insert
“not do anything they would otherwise be under a duty to do by reason of”.
This and the following amendment redefine the circumstances in which directions may be given to harbour authorities.
Amendment 36, in clause 11, page 8, line 16, leave out subsection (6).—(Mr Holden.)
This is consequential on Amendment 31.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Regulations
Gavin Newlands
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 12, page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations made by a Minister of the Crown under any of the following provisions may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament—
(a) section 3 (power to request declaration);
(b) section 4 (nature of declaration);
(c) section 7 (imposition of surcharges);
(d) section 9 (refusal of harbour access for failure to pay surcharge).
(3A) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations made by a Minister of the Crown under any provision of this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
This amendment ensures that regulations under clauses 3, 4, 7 and 9 of the Bill are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 66, in clause 12, page 8, line 33, leave out
“is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either”
and insert
“may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each”.
Clause stand part.
Gavin Newlands
I was on tenterhooks there: I was not sure whether I would have to leave expeditiously for the Standing Order No. 24 debate application in the Chamber, but thankfully that has been resolved.
As trailed when I spoke previously, amendment 61 seeks to amend the legislation in a similar fashion to Labour’s amendment 66. I am not precious about which amendment the Minister accepts. Clause 12 concerns the power to make regulations by statutory instrument and currently sets out that regulations made under the legislation are subject to the negative resolution procedure, as is always the case these days—other than for those in respect of clause 15, I should add in fairness. Given the potential nature and impact of the provisions that may be made by regulations under clauses 3, 4, 7 and 9, it would be appropriate for such regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to enhance the scrutiny of the regulations of this Parliament. At one point, the Government were keen for this Parliament to “take back control”. I hope the Minister can exert that with these amendments.
Mike Kane
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 61, in the name of the SNP Members, and amendment 66. The proposal is self-explanatory but important. The regulations under the Bill hand very broad powers to Ministers. It would be important for the House to consider and approve the regulations that will be made.
Grahame Morris
The ground has been very well covered. I am just wondering, particularly in relation to amendment 61, tabled by my colleagues from the SNP, about the impact of the earlier Government amendments. The Secretary of State has quite extensive powers in relation to the declaration, the imposition of surcharges, and directions to harbour authorities. I am sure that that must have been taken into account, but it does seem, given the extensive powers being conferred on the Secretary of State, that it would be reasonable to have reference to the affirmative procedure in the Bill and to specify which sections require delegated power for the Secretary of State. Therefore I support amendments 61 and 66.
Mr Holden
Clause 12 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide further details on the implementation of the Bill’s provisions. The regulations made under the legislation will be subject, as it stands, to the negative resolution procedure. The regulations may make different provisions for different cases, for example to take account of different types of ship services, such as freight ferries and container ships, and different non-qualifying seafarers—for example, there may be different surcharge rates according to age. The regulations may also confer discretion on specified persons and contain consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provisions. This provision gives the Government the flexibility to adapt the regulations as needed to ensure that the Bill’s provisions are effectively implemented and to achieve the Bill’s policy objectives as quickly as possible.
Amendments 61 and 66 seek to ensure that regulations under clauses 3, 4, 7 and 9 are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, rather than the negative resolution procedure as currently. We expressly considered why it is appropriate that each regulation-making power was negative in our delegated powers memo, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise any concerns about the procedure for the remaining regulation-making powers in the Bill. Indeed, the only regulation-making power that the Committee recommended be subject to the affirmative procedure has now been removed from the Bill.
Although we have tweaked certain regulation-making powers, we do not consider that this changes the appropriateness of the negative procedure, and we will be providing a supplementary delegated powers memorandum for the Committee to consider in due course. Switching to the affirmative procedure is not a good use of parliamentary time and would slow down the implementation of the Bill. I request that the amendments be withdrawn so that we can get on with protecting seafarers as quickly as possible.
Gavin Newlands
I thank the Minister for that response. Surely it is for Parliament to decide the best use of parliamentary time. I think we have let the Minister off with enough this afternoon, so I will push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 41.
Clause 15 stand part.
Mr Holden
I will be very swift, because this is very much just definitions and terms. Clause 14 provides definitions of terms used throughout the Bill to ensure clarity and consistency in the interpretation of its provisions. The definitions will help to ensure that the Bill is applied consistently and coherently, and will facilitate its effective implementation. Clause 15 provides for the extent, commencement, and short title of the Bill. Amendment 41, in my name, removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords and is a purely procedural matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Extent, commencement and short title
Amendment made: 41, in clause 15, page 10, line 1, leave out subsection (6).—(Mr Holden.)
This removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration
“(1) The operator of a service to which this Act applies is guilty of an offence if—
(a) the operator provides a harbour authority with an equivalence declaration in respect of the service for a relevant year, and
(b) subsection (2) or (3) applies.
(2) This subsection applies if the equivalence declaration is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and—
(a) the service is operated inconsistently with the declaration at the beginning of the relevant year, or
(b) at any later time during the relevant year the service starts to be operated inconsistently with the declaration and the operator fails to notify the harbour authority within four weeks of—
(i) the fact that the service has started to be so operated, and
(ii) the time when it started to be so operated.
(3) This subsection applies if the equivalence declaration is provided during the relevant year and—
(a) at the time the declaration is provided the service is being operated inconsistently with the declaration, or
(b) at any later time during the relevant year the service starts to be operated inconsistently with the declaration and the operator fails to notify the harbour authority within four weeks of—
(i) the fact that the service has started to be so operated, and
(ii) the time when it started to be so operated.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or
(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”—(Mr Holden.)
This is connected with the group of amendments introduced by Amendment 1. It provides for an offence of acting inconsistently with an equivalence declaration, in place of the offence in clause 3(5) and (6). It caters for the fact that a declaration may be provided before, during or after the year to which it relates.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Imposition of surcharges: failure to provide declaration in time
“(1) This section applies if—
(a) a harbour authority requests the operator of a service to which this Act applies to provide the authority with an equivalence declaration in respect of the service for a relevant year, and
(b) the operator does not provide an equivalence declaration in the prescribed form and manner before the end of the prescribed period.
(2) If the prescribed period expires before the beginning of the relevant year, the harbour authority must impose a charge on the operator of the service in respect of each occasion when a ship providing the service enters its harbour between—
(a) the beginning of the relevant year, and
(b) whichever is the earlier of—
(i) the end of the relevant year, and
(ii) the time when the operator provides the authority with an equivalence declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year in the prescribed form and manner.
(3) If the prescribed period expires during the relevant year, the harbour authority must—
(a) impose a charge on the operator of the service in respect of each occasion when a ship providing the service entered its harbour between—
(i) the beginning of the relevant year, and
(ii) the end of the prescribed period, and
(b) impose a charge on the operator of the service in respect of each occasion when a ship providing the service enters its harbour between the expiry of the prescribed period and whichever is the earlier of—
(i) the end of the relevant year, and
(ii) the time when the operator provides the authority with an equivalence declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year in the prescribed form and manner.
(4) If the prescribed period expires after the end of the relevant year, the harbour authority must impose a charge on the operator of the service in respect of each occasion when a ship providing the service entered its harbour during the relevant year.
(5) But charges imposed by a harbour authority under subsection (3)(a) or (4) must be refunded if—
(a) at any time after the end of the prescribed period the operator provides the authority with an equivalence declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year in the prescribed form and manner, and
(b) the declaration is within section 4(1C) or (1D).
(6) For the purposes of this section, in relation to an equivalence declaration which an operator of a service is required to provide—
‘prescribed period’ means the period within which the operator is required to provide the declaration in accordance with regulations under section 3(4)(za);
‘prescribed form and manner’ means the form and manner in which the operator is required to provide the declaration in accordance with regulations under section 3(4)(a) and (b).”—(Mr Holden.)
This and the following new clauses set out the circumstances in which surcharges must be imposed. In summary, surcharges are to be imposed when an equivalence declaration is not provided in time (this new clause); when a declaration relates only to part of a year (NC3); or when a service is operated inconsistently with a declaration (NC4).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Imposition of surcharges: in-year declaration that is prospective only
“(1) This section applies if—
(a) a harbour authority requests the operator of a service to which this Act applies to provide the authority with an equivalence declaration in respect of the service for a relevant year,
(b) the operator provides the declaration during the relevant year in accordance with regulations under section 3(4), and
(c) the declaration is within subsection (1B) of section 4 (and not also within subsection (1C) of that section).
(2) The harbour authority must impose a charge on the operator of the service in respect of each occasion when a ship providing the service entered its harbour between the beginning of the relevant year and the time the declaration was provided.”—(Mr Holden.)
See NC2.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Imposition of surcharges: operating inconsistently with declaration
“(1) This section applies if—
(a) the operator of a service to which this Act applies has provided a harbour authority with an equivalence declaration in respect of the service for a relevant year, and
(b) either—
(i) the operator notifies the authority that at a specified time after the declaration was provided the service was, or started to be, operated inconsistently with the declaration, or
(ii) the authority has reasonable grounds to believe that, at a time after the declaration was provided, the service was, or started to be, operated inconsistently with the declaration.
(2) The harbour authority must impose a charge on the operator in respect of each occasion when a ship providing the service entered or enters the harbour between—
(a) the time mentioned in subsection (1)(b)(i) or (ii), and
(b) the end of the relevant year.
(3) But if after the time mentioned in subsection (1)(b)(i) or (ii) the operator provides the harbour authority with a fresh equivalence declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year, the authority must not impose a charge under this section in respect of an occasion when a ship providing the service enters the harbour after the fresh declaration is provided (unless this section applies again by reference to that or a later declaration).”—(Mr Holden.)
See NC2.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 5
Implementation and monitoring
“(1) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the implementation of, and monitoring of the effects of, this Act.
(2) The report must include—
(a) an assessment of the impact of this Act on—
(i) roster patterns,
(ii) pensions, and
(iii) wages of seafarers;
(b) a statement as to whether further legislation will be introduced by the Government as a result of the findings of the assessment under paragraph (a);
(c) a strategy for engaging with trade unions for the purposes of monitoring the implementation of this Act, including in reference to conventions of the International Labour Conference;
(d) a strategy for monitoring the establishment of minimum wage corridor agreements with international partners of the United Kingdom, insofar as any such agreement ensures that any non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated for UK work at a rate that is equal to or exceeds the rate that would otherwise be required under this Act;
(e) an assessment of the interaction between this Act and existing international agreements or international maritime law, including reference to any litigation that has arisen as a result of this Act.
(3) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament.”—(Mike Kane.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 7—Report: remuneration of seafarers—
“Within one year of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out an assessment of—
(a) the impact of this Act on the remuneration of seafarers, and
(b) whether there is any evidence that, as a result of this Act, seafarers have been dismissed and re-engaged on lower wages at or closer to the National Minimum Wage.”
Mike Kane
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 5 and 7. Earlier this year, the House stood completely united against the action taken by P&O Ferries. We had oral questions that day in the House, and the former Minister, the hon. Member for Witney, was at the Dispatch Box when the news filtered through that this company had sacked some 800 British workers with no notice. Eight hundred livelihoods were lost because a rogue company made a calculation that it was cheaper to break the law than to abide by it.
A married couple who had been employees of P&O for 14 years spoke to a colleague of mine about the reward for their years of loyal service—summary dismissal by a pre-recorded video message, and then being marched off the ships that they lived and worked on by private security guards, treated like criminals. That was the human face of P&O’s criminal act. It is the reality of a business model that has been allowed to prevail for far too long on our seas—a business model predicated and dependent on exploitation.
The P&O scandal was supposed to represent a line in the sand for seafarers’ rights. The Secretary of State’s predecessor was clear about that: the Government would work with
“unions and operators to agree common levels of seafarer protection on those routes.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 841.]
He was right, because seafarers’ exploitation is every bit as much about conditions as it is about pay. Baroness Vere of Norbiton, the Minister in the other place, said that the Government would act on that wider exploitation only
“where it is proven that it is appropriate to do so.”
Let me briefly give the House an illustrative example of why that is so important. An agency worker can be contracted on the Dover-Calais service at the shamefully low rate of £4.75 an hour. As is common in the industry, such workers could be expected to work up to 91 hours a week, on board, full time, for 17 weeks at a time. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East reminded us of the Herald of Free Enterprise and what happened there. Outside UK waters, those workers would not be entitled to any pension, the minimum wage or any sick pay. I ask Members to imagine a season of winter storms in the Irish sea or the North sea, where sleep is almost impossible, and to imagine spending up to 17 weeks on board, responsible for the safety of passengers and that vessel.
The industry has already learnt from painful experience about the dangers, but the Bill does nothing to address exploitative crewing and rostering practices. That is why we must see a legally binding seafarers’ charter on the face of the Bill—one that ends the race to the bottom from which P&O Ferries has benefited; one that smashes the business model dependent on the manipulation of vulnerable workers from around the world. That is precisely what our new clause 5 is about.
Turning to new clause 9, the then Prime Minister himself said that P&O Ferries would face “criminal sanctions”. The then Transport Secretary said that it would be placed under “criminal investigation”. He demanded that the boss, Peter Hebblethwaite, stand down. He even demanded that P&O rename its ships, stating that it was completely wrong for them to sail under such names as the Spirit of Britain or the Pride of Kent. Six months on, however, that chief executive—
Mike Kane
Thank you, Ms Harris. That chief executive stays in place. The point is that if P&O Ferries or any of its low-cost rivals wanted to do that again, nothing in the Bill will stop it from doing so. That is why new clause 9 is important, because it clearly establishes fines and personal liability for a failure to abide by the legislation.
Mike Kane
Indeed. Given the track record of shameful companies such as P&O, we have to change.
My final concluding remarks, Ms Harris, are to thank you for your excellent chairing for the first time in such a Committee. I also thank Mr Davies for his excellent deliberations as Chair this morning, and the Minister, because the Bill was brought to the House in the right spirit, for trying to do something. Members across the Committee recognise that, and I thank all those who participated and contributed. With that, I also thank staff at the Department for Transport and the Clerks of the House.
Mrs Elphicke
It is to be noted that new clauses 5 and 7 concern reports about whether more needs to be done. I think we agree across the Committee and more widely that what happened in the P&O case was a spark to firm action going forward.
We touched on the issue of roster patterns earlier on, but I want to address it specifically. We know it is something the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has looked at on the short straits. For me, the new clauses do not address the fundamental question of who will be responsible for ensuring appropriate and safe working conditions on that route. That responsibility sits with the MCA, but concerns have rightly been raised about individual operations, and new clause 5 will not go any way to addressing those particular concerns. I think the bilateral agreements being discussed may form a route to looking at some of the issues, particularly those that apply to the route between Dover and France.
Turning to pensions and wages more broadly, this is the first piece of legislation of its type. There are a number of mechanisms in this place, including the Transport Committee, which has shown to be diligent in its support of not just the P&O workforce but transport matters more generally. There are additional forums in this place that provide the correct routes and opportunities to assess whether this legislation is reaching its objectives and intent.
On new clause 7, it is important that the remuneration of affected seafarers is assessed and considered. I have been encouraged during discussions I have had on remuneration with DFDS, which operates on the Dover-Calais route, to hear that it embraces the opportunity to have these conversations about improving conditions for seafarers. But as regards the Bill, part of the nine-point plan is a comprehensive approach to tackling this issue following the appalling actions of P&O. Overburdening the Bill with additional requirements for statutory reports and assessments may actually delay the important work we all have to do—be it bilateral or voluntary agreements or other options.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I am interested in why the hon. Lady thinks putting the requirement to report into a statutory format would create a delay. How on earth does she believe it would delay anything?
Mrs Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Let me explain. This Bill is a piece of legislation that has been brought forward very quickly—in a number of months. I think we would all agree with that, considering the time that things take in this place, but it has a number of journeys to continue on. The first reports under the proposals here would take some time—within six months for the first report. This work is ongoing with the Department right now. I do not want to wait six months. What happens if France says, “Let’s not conclude the bilaterals. Let’s wait for your report.” It is absolutely right that Transport Ministers and the Secretary of State keep us updated and that they are accountable in this place to us all, as they are through the Transport Committee and on the Floor of the House, to make sure that the legislation does what it says, but I do not want to be waiting on a report for six months or a year; I want action now for the workers on the short straits.
Gavin Newlands
I rise to support new clause 5 and must start by congratulating or commending—through heavily gritted teeth, it must be said—the DFT drafting team for drafting the Bill so narrowly that the only recourse we have is to ask for reports on the protections for seafarers on these very important issues.
New clause 5 follows the work done on the seafarers’ charter, work which unfortunately appears to be stuck in the long grass. One of the reasons given by the Minister in the Lords to oppose the original amendment by Lord Tunnicliffe was the 90-day timeframe. The hon. Member for Dover has just said that she does not want to wait. The original amendment was for 90 days; we have had to up that to six months, because the Government rejected that amendment and referred to six months.
The issues outlined in the new clause are real and serious. We have reports of seafarers employed by P&O Ferries—that is, the people employed to replace those they sacked illegally—working 17 weeks straight on board. That is simply unacceptable. A tired and overworked crew is a dangerous crew at sea.
Karl Turner
The crucial point about safety is that the Dover to Calais run involves an incredibly fast turnaround and the work is incredibly intensive. It is not just that these exploited seafarers are working 17 weeks on, 12 or 13 hours a day, seven days a week. They are going to and fro, and the most dangerous part of that run is pulling into the harbour and coming back out. The work is intensive and incredibly dangerous. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Gavin Newlands
I could not agree more—rather them than me. It is bizarre that sometimes we argue around the fringes of these issues. We are talking about such dangerous and onerous work for weeks on end, and we are quibbling over whether we pay them the national minimum wage or not. It beggars belief. We cannot trade safety for the profits of DP World.
This is not just an issue of fairness at work. It is an issue of human and environmental safety. It is just over 30 years since the Braer wrecked on Shetland and caused an ecological disaster that I suspect we all remember well, even three decades on. If we have seafarers around our shores working 17 weeks straight with no oversight and no action, sooner or later we will have another Braer or, even worse, a Herald of Free Enterprise.
Similarly, on wages and pensions, we know what many seafarers are expected to put up with. The key point of this Bill is to prevent wages falling below the national minimum wage equivalent, but we also hope it will have the additional impact of improving wages across the board in the industry. If minimum wages go up, there could be benefits for those who are already earning more than that floor.
We know that the Government currently support a voluntary charter for seafarers, and the Minister repeated that again today. I say in all sincerity to the Minister and the Government Members sitting behind him: what good is a voluntary charter when we have operators such as P&O Ferries, which was content not only to break the law but to sit in front of a Select Committee and freely admit to breaking it? A voluntary charter has about as much legal effect as the back of a fag packet, and if P&O Ferries is happy to break the law, it will not look back as it smashes a charter to shreds.
Putting these elements of the charter in the Bill will at least give the Government firm legal ground in assessing how this legislation has benefited the industry and its employees. Again, the new clause calls for nothing more than a report, as the hon. Member for Dover said, on the main issues from the charter. It commits the Government to nothing, except a report. If the Government are serious about a real seafarers’ charter developed in partnership with trade unions and aimed at protecting exploited workers, they have nothing to fear from accepting this new clause.
I turn to new clause 7 in the name of the hon. Member for Easington, and supported by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East. Last July, we saw the publication of the nine-point plan for seafarers. No. 6 on that plan was to develop a statutory code for “fire and rehire” practices, and failures to engage in employee consultations. Sadly, that has progressed no further.
Members may remember that I have certainly highlighted and challenged companies that have used fire and rehire over recent years since its first big deployment in this country by British Airways. Many Opposition Members have repeatedly asked the Government to bring in legislation to end it, as is the case in most of Europe, with some of us introducing multiple Bills to that effect. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Government felt that a simple change to guidance would solve the worst of the problem.
Fire and rehire seems to be used disproportionately in the transport sector, by British Airways, Menzies Aviation and Go North West to name just three. Elements of it were deployed by P&O Ferries last year—another charge to add to its self-declared rap sheet, which the RMT said amounted to one of the
“most shameful acts in the history of British industrial relations”.
While some Government Members may have views that differ from mine on the RMT, I hope they would at least agree with them on the depths to which P&O Ferries plumbed last year.
Seafarers are particularly vulnerable to fire and rehire. The particular circumstances of the maritime industry, surrounded by international treaties and conventions, mean that workers are subject to greater exploitation overall than those on land. We saw with P&O how that exploitation can be deployed by a company that is happy to willingly and publicly break the law and make no secret of it. It is a practice that has absolutely no place in a modern society. Our workplaces are not those of a Dickensian novel, yet the legislation that regulates the power dynamic between employer and employee is stuck in the Victorian age.
The UK is almost unique in Europe on fire and rehire. Most other countries in Europe have embraced modernity and made their employment laws fit for the future. P&O Ferries could not have pulled off its scam in most European countries, just as BA’s parent company did not attempt fire and rehire in Ireland or Spain. New clause 5 would not prevent fire and rehire in itself—amendments 71 and 72 tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East would have offered greater protection but they were deemed out of scope, so I will not refer to them any further in case I am called to order by the Chair.
However, new clause 5 would ensure that any instances, attempted or otherwise, in connection with seafarers within scope of this legislation are reported by the Secretary of State to Parliament. That will give this place the opportunity to again look at legislation not only in this specific sector, but also across the whole economy. Hopefully by that time, Government Members will finally have made the jump from warm words to tough action, and we will see legislation put on the books to put an end to fire and rehire and an end to these rogue companies. It quite frankly a disgrace that the UK lags so far behind the rest of our neighbours. We can start the process of remedying that disgrace and dragging our employment laws into the 21st century by adopting this new clause.
Sir John Hayes
I rise briefly to address new clause 5, which has much to recommend it. The hon. Gentleman was right to talk about a seafarers’ charter, which has been long called for. He was right to recognise the need for engagement with the trade unions. When I was the Minister, I had a positive dialogue with the RMT maritime section, as my former shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, will know. It is also right, as I said earlier, that we understand that pay should be seen in a broader context, as the new clause recommends. I called earlier for a strategy that looked at the whole maritime sector, pertinent to the matters we have been discussing today, which would identify common concerns across ports, business services, manufacturing, engineering, science and all the other ancillary industries linked to maritime.
It seems critical to recognise that seafarers are particularly vulnerable to exploitation because of the peripatetic nature of their employment. Where people take advantage of that vulnerability, we need to act. We have moved on from the dark days when economic liberalism prevailed and we thought the free market would solve everything—at least I hope we have. This country has a proud maritime past. One thinks of great seafarers such as Drake, Captain Cook and Lord Nelson, who are heroes, whatever the liberal bourgeoisie, with their doubt-filled, guilt-ridden preoccupations, may think. We can have a maritime future that is just as great, but that must be built on the right terms and conditions, pay and circumstances for our seafarers.
My only reservation about the new clause, which is why despite teasingly suggesting that I might support it, I will not, is that it does not actually go far enough. I would want to do still more. The Government are to be commended for introducing the legislation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dover in particular is to be commended for championing the interests of seafarers on the back of the awful events that have been reflected on today, when P&O behaved so disgracefully. I say to the Minister let this be the beginning of new thinking about how we can revitalise the maritime sector by doing right by the people who work in it.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the new clauses.
New clause 7 is in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. We are using the F-word, aren’t we: fire and rehire. In the context of this new clause and new clause 5, I remind Members of the awful circumstances of the sacking of the seafarers on the P&O Ferries. The Minister has brushed aside all attempts by the Opposition to amend the Bill and address concerns about the number of days in port. That means that the Bill’s scope is incredibly narrow. I am afraid that many seafarers who might have anticipated being afforded a degree of protection will be terribly disappointed. Given the powers we have conferred on the Secretary of State, I think it is completely reasonable to suggest that the Government should produce a report within a year of Royal Assent to assess whether they have been effective. Indeed, the Minister and his predecessors have suggested that if those powers are not effective, further measures would be introduced to ensure that seafarers are protected from unscrupulous rogue employers.
New clause 5 relates to important issues that the Government need to address, not least the fact that the 2018 regulations were breached by P&O Ferries. When Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive of P&O Ferries, addressed a joint session of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee—the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and I are members of the Transport Committee—he was quite open about the three areas of law that he had breached. In fact, he was quite boastful, which was shaming in my opinion. I believe that the 2018 regulations, which P&O Ferries breached, are up for revocation under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. I understand, however, that an agreement was reached to retain a number of labour protections in UK law, so I am looking to the Minister for some reassurance on that. If that is the case, I hope that appropriate action will be taken to keep those protections in place for those who Members on both sides of Committee acknowledge to be an extremely vulnerable employment group because of the nature of their work.
Before we lose sight of it, the whole purpose of the Bill is to protect pay, working hours, pensions and other remunerated conditions of seafarer employment on ferries. We rehearsed many of the arguments on Second Reading, and it is the belief of many on the Opposition Benches that the Bill’s scope needs to be widened to more effectively cover employment issues, as well as minimum pay, for seafarers working on those ferry routes.
I am rather disappointed about the seafarers’ charter. I know that it has had a number of iterations; we have at least two former Shipping Ministers on the Committee: the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and the hon. Member for Witney. I think it started off as the—this is a bit of a tongue-twister—fair ferries framework agreement. It was then the fair ferries charter and then the seafarers’ charter. But it still has not been published, as far as I am aware, and it is only voluntary. If it were in the Bill and we could have some confidence that employers would have to implement it, we would have major reassurance.
Mr Holden
I will write to the hon. Member for Easington on the specific issue of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. I will start now by saying that there have been some strong and robust improvements from this Bill, not the least of which is the imposition of a duty on the harbour operators, which I think goes a long way to addressing many of the concerns expressed at earlier stages by hon. Members.
I would like to reflect on a couple of comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. She mentioned the bilateral agreements and how important they are. With us legislating in this way and other countries now starting to look to the legislation for their own societies, perhaps the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North will reflect on how it is Britain leading the way in this space—a little.
In terms of the Laffer curve, I did not think I would see my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East perhaps come out on the same side of things, but they do seem to have reflected a general, cross-party consensus that it is important to act in the best interests of working Britain. That is entirely what this legislation is designed to do.
Regarding fire and rehire, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members but is outside the scope of this Bill, I want to put it on record that BEIS will be launching a consultation and code of practice on fire and rehire shortly.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Can the Minister tell the Public Bill Committee how many consultations and letters BEIS has issued about fire and rehire? There is cross-party agreement in this House about what the problem is, so why do the Government have to take forward yet another consultation on it?
Mr Holden
I do speak for the Government but, on the specifics of what BEIS has been up to, I urge the hon. Member to speak to a BEIS Minister. But I do understand the broad thrust of his point. Where we are taking action here today is regarding seafarers.
The hon. Member makes quite an important point: how many consultations and reports can be had? The Opposition are currently proposing two more reports in their new clauses 5 and 7, both of which seek to legislate for the Government to produce a report. The first seeks to legislate for the Government to produce a report within six months of the Bill being passed on its implementation and monitoring. A number of the points that are sought to be included in such a report are well beyond the scope of the Bill. As hon. Members have said, the Bill is focused very much on the remuneration of seafarers who do not qualify for the national minimum wage. Six months after the Bill has been passed, there will be little to report on—hopefully very little indeed, as people will be complying with it. Indeed, the Bill will not be brought into force until secondary legislation is in place, and it is not expected that that will be the case within a short space of time after the Bill has passed.
Let me turn to the detail of the new clause, in particular subsection (2)(a). As a matter of course, we will be conducting a post-implementation review of the Act within five years of it being passed that will cover pensions and pay, as covered in the impact assessment. In any event, pensions and roster patterns are outside the scope of the Bill, and any effect on rostering would be indirect and challenging to distinguish from other factors.
Subsection (2)(b) goes beyond the implementation and monitoring of the Bill itself, and is therefore out of scope. We do not have plans to legislate further than is necessary, but that does not mean that we will not take action on areas beyond the matter of minimum pay, which we all know is not the only aspect of seafarer welfare that requires attention. As hon. Members have mentioned, as part of the nine-point plan, a new seafarers’ charter will be launched as a voluntary agreement, which aims to improve long-term employment and welfare conditions for seafarers. It covers a far wider range of employment protections than is currently covered by the Bill.
Gavin Newlands
The Minister confirms again that the seafarers’ charter, when it is published, will be voluntary. Does he think that P&O Ferries and other operators—perhaps Irish Ferries—will sign up to the charter?
While I am on my feet, I forgot to say in my earlier contribution that I also add my thanks to everyone on the Committee, given that this is my last contribution on the Committee. I thank the team, the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, Hansard and of course yourself, Ms Harris, and your glamorous assistant this afternoon, Mr Davies, who chaired us so ably this morning.
Mr Holden
I hope that people do sign up. The entire aim of the Bill is not to have people being fined but to drive best practice, so I hope that, in time, operators that have not operated in a positive way towards employees in the past, in a way that we would like to see, will sign up.
Karl Turner
The Minister must accept that, when we consider the shocking and utterly disgraceful behaviour of P&O Ferries, companies such as that—and Irish Ferries, which I respectfully submit is equally as bad—will not do anything if it is just a “hope”. We need to put things in statute to force these bad employers to behave in a way that is acceptable. That is the truth of it. Hoping is not enough; unlimited fines are necessary as well.
Mr Holden
As the hon. Member will know, we are indeed legislating, but we are looking at the seafarers’ charter. The Government are not opposed to looking at this again if the voluntary charter is not successful, but it steps in the right direction. We will see how it plays out. I do not want to see a race to the bottom; I want to see standards rising, and we think that the voluntary charter will be a step in that direction. We have had to legislate in order to deliver another element of what we are looking to do.
Karl Turner
The analogy for fining a company such as P&O Ferries 2,500 quid is a bit like slapping a parking ticket on the windscreen of a Bentley for parking in a disabled bay. They are just laughing at it. In reality, the fines need to be punitive. They need to be threatening and to make the company realise that if it behaves in this intolerable, disgraceful manner, it will be fined savagely and brought to justice. That is the only way we will get the results that the Government want—I agree that the Government intend to do the right thing, but we need the punitive tool to make it happen.
Mr Holden
I appreciate exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I think we have strayed a little from new clauses 5 and 7.
The scope of the Bill is limited to ensuring that seafarers are paid the equivalent of the UK national minimum wage and it is not concerned with broader relationships. Furthermore, there is no requirement for crews to be unionised, so it would be an unusual requirement to put so much focus on that, as the new clause proposes. That does not mean that the Government are not looking to work with the unions, as we have done throughout the process and will continue to, as we look at the regulations to come.
The requirement to publish a strategy for monitoring the establishment of corridors would also be out of the scope of the Bill. In any event, it would be inappropriate and potentially counterproductive to provide a running commentary on live negotiations with international partners, such as those with the French Republic, which I mentioned earlier.
On proposed subsection (2)(e), we do not consider that the proposals in the Bill interfere with rights and obligations under international law, including the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. We therefore we do not deem it necessary to state as such in the Bill, or to have an obligation to assess the interaction between international law and the Bill on the face of the legislation.
Measures taken under the Bill will not interfere with the right of innocent passage, so as to breach the obligations under UNCLOS. The Bill requirements will apply and be enforced only as a condition of entry to UK ports in which the UK has jurisdiction over visiting ships, and where the right of innocent passage does not apply. Vessels visiting a port are not in innocent passage and not merely passing through territorial sea, so associated restrictions on the exercise of jurisdiction as set out in UNCLOS do not apply.
The measures that may be taken under the Bill can be applied only to a narrow subset of services with a close connection to the UK: services on a regular scheduled service, determined by clear, objective criteria—for example, services for the carriage of persons or goods by ship between a place in the UK and a place outside the UK that will have entered the harbour on at least 120 occasions in the period of a year. Given the huge number of additional areas that the new clause would bring in scope, I cannot accept it.
New clause 7 would require an assessment of the impact of the Bill
“on the remuneration of seafarers”
and also whether there is any evidence that, as a result of the Bill,
“seafarers have been dismissed and re-engaged on lower wages at or closer to the National Minimum Wage”
within one year of the Bill being passed. This is simply not feasible. Again, one year after the Bill receives Royal Assent would be far too early to see the real impact. I have already made the point that we will naturally be looking at the legislation five years after implementation. Also, as I have said, there will already be a delay between Royal Assent and the Bill becoming fully operative.
In any event, it is not necessary to include that as a requirement on the face of the Bill. As a matter of course, we will conduct a post-implementation review. I hope I have provided colleagues with enough reassurance to withdraw new clause 7 with confidence.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
David Linden
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. I am conscious that I am the only thing stopping people getting out of this room, but I want to reflect on the fact that the Minister said, “Let’s not look at commissioning reports.” I do not necessarily agree and I did not vote that way, and actually, new clause 9 is specifically about putting into statute how to deal with some of the directors. For the remainder of the debate, I will refer to the new clause as “the Hebblethwaite amendment”.
Throughout this Committee’s proceedings, we have spoken about the importance of teeth and of tightening things up. One reason why we have come to this point and why the legislation is necessary in the first place is the actions of company directors and bosses who have decided to act in such a way as to exploit the workers, as was the case at P&O. If we are going so far as to pass the Bill, which the SNP supports—although we would have liked to have seen more amendments to it—let us at least make sure that it has the teeth to deal with the some of these individuals, who are not exactly reputable.
Let us start with Peter Hebblethwaite, the CEO of P&O, who was paid £325,000 a year before bonuses. Let us remember that this is a man who admitted to a Select Committee of this House that he knew that the action he was undertaking as company director was illegal, but he proceeded anyway, and he had the gall to say that he would do it again.
I absolutely agree with the RMT’s general secretary, Mick Lynch, who said:
“Gangster capitalists should not be rewarded for their appalling employment practices; they should be punished with the full force of law.”
That is exactly what my new clause seeks to do: to make sure that we have in statute the ability to deal with these capitalist gangsters who seek to ride roughshod over seafarers, if hon. Members will pardon the pun.
Let us not forget that this man was responsible for the unlawful sacking of 786 seafarers by a pre-recorded message on Zoom in March last year. He is already out there promoting himself again, scot-free—I think he has had a promotion at DP World. The kind of person this legislation would manage to tackle, if they fell foul of it, is one who admitted breaking the law when questioned by members of a Select Committee, as I said, and who used handcuff-trained, balaclava-wearing security guards to remove dedicated, unionised seafarers, replacing them with non-unionised workers, many of whom are paid a fraction of the UK minimum wage. After experienced crew were fired, the UK coastguard repeatedly detained P&O Ferries’ ships for a lack of crew training, including fire safety and lifeboat drills. He was responsible for a non-unionised P&O Ferries crew from Malta working 17 weeks straight with no shore leave. Let us not forget that this is a gentleman whose company took millions of pounds from the British Government in subsidies during covid-19. I could go on about how utterly unfit Peter Hebblethwaite is, and how he has caused so much distress to many constituents of the hon. Member for Dover.
Karl Turner
Is it right that an obvious calculation that would have been made about sacking 786 British seafarers and replacing them with exploited, poorly paid staff was that nothing was going to be done in terms of person liability? It was almost encouraged. Indeed, I would go further to say that it was done on the basis that, first, nothing would happen personally, and secondly, this particular Tory Government would turn a blind eye. That is the truth of what happened, is it not?
David Linden
The hon. Member is spot on. The reality is that this gentleman factored in that he would appear before a Select Committee, that it would be uncomfortable and that he would probably have to get some crisis comms advice. I rather suspect that Peter Hebblethwaite is walking around waving the fact that he has been able to withstand all this pressure from Parliament as a feather in his cap. He will see it as some sort of virtue that he can sell to future employers. The hon. Member is absolutely spot on: the fact that there is no personal liability means that these kinds of directors will behave with impunity.
New clause 9 does not mandate Members to vote for a report. It mandates us, on a moral basis, to vote for action to ensure that a company director who was as egregious as Peter Hebblethwaite can never again get away with that. Members of this House have a responsibility to stand up for their constituents. On that basis, I have tabled the new clause.
Mrs Elphicke
I wish to speak about this new clause, because we are all of the view that Peter Hebblethwaite should not be allowed to be a director. I made a formal complaint to the Insolvency Service on directors disqualification for the whole of that board. The Insolvency Service has still not completed its civil proceedings, although it has said that it is not minded to take criminal proceedings. It is clearly unacceptable that company bosses are allowed to act in that way and that directors disqualification does not apply.
This is a specific Bill dealing with a specific set of circumstances. I would like the relevant Department to look at why the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 and the criminal obligations in the Insolvency Service did not apply to this specific case. I have made representations to the appropriate Ministers accordingly.
I completely agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, except his view that the Government have not taken any action. Throughout the P&O situation, we have walked literally shoulder to shoulder in support of people.
Karl Turner
I think the hon. Lady misunderstood what I said; perhaps I was not clear enough. I did not say that the Government have not taken action. Of course they have—we have a Bill. That is a start. It is not strong enough by any stretch of the imagination, frankly, but it is a start, and I commend the Ministers who were responsible for putting it together on an incredibly speedy timescale. However, the fact is that the calculation was made that the Government would turn a blind eye. That is the suggestion that I put to the Committee, and I think it is right. That was the reality of it—that nothing would happen.
Mrs Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. That is clearly rubbish, because the Government at the time, including the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), took immediate action—action that no one expected to be taken—as did the Minister at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney. I was involved directly in that action along with the then Secretary of State, the then Prime Minister and a number of Government Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, in relation to this issue. That action is the reason why we have the nine-point plan and why we have the Bill.
Opposition Members will always say that whatever the Government do does not go far enough. However, I have to say, in representing the people in Dover who were specifically affected by P&O, that I am very proud of the action that we have taken across the Chamber and so far in this House. I want to see the Bill put on the statute book at pace.
David Linden
The hon. Lady is talking about the importance of taking action. Other than a pretty toe-curling Select Committee appearance and a couple of bad media interviews, the only action I have seen so far is that Peter Hebblethwaite has received a promotion. He is still able to act as a company director, so for the sake of the hon. Lady’s constituents, I ask her to reflect on the fact that until such a time as Peter Hebblethwaite is unable to act as a director and get away with such behaviour in future, that action will not be enough.
Mrs Elphicke
As I said, I do not think that Peter Hebblethwaite should be a director and I am taking steps to ask the Insolvency Service to remove him.
Mrs Elphicke
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. What we have seen with P&O is why I think the right place for tackling this is through the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which I have been encouraging to look at this issue. P&O did not do this once or twice, but three times: it promoted someone to be chief executive who did what the bosses wanted, and then that person either got a payout and got moved on, or got a payout and got promoted. We have seen a pattern of behaviour where people at the senior level have been rewarded for doing what is in the owners’ interests, to the detriment of the company as a whole. We need to look at that, because that pattern of business behaviour is very clear on the face of it and it ought to have been clear to Companies House. We should look at that in relation to not just P&O, but other companies.
Karl Turner
I am sorry that the hon. Lady thinks what I said was “clearly rubbish”. The point that I was making—I will try to be calm—is that there was no deterrent. That should be the test. If she is satisfied that the Bill will deter all the bad employers from potentially following suit and making the same calculation—that things cannot be affected in a way that deters them from taking such terrible actions—that is fine, and she is content with the Bill. My point is that the Bill does not provide a deterrent, but the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow East definitely does by making that director personally liable.
Mrs Elphicke
I think we have already explored how adding the odd report here or there will not be the game changer that is needed to ensure that acts like this do not happen again. That is why the Bill is part of an overall strategy and a nine-point plan, as the Government have set out.
New clause 9 would go considerably further than the obligations that already apply to non-compliance with the minimum wage regime. That regime includes criminal and civil penalties, so I do not think that the new clause would sit with the existing provisions on the statute book for civil and criminal liability in relation to the minimum wage regime. It is important that enforcement is effective and that it works. New provisions should fit in with existing legislation, and not conflict with or confuse it.
I fully share the sentiment of making those responsible for P&O—not just Peter Hebblethwaite but other directors on the board—personally criminally responsible, but unfortunately the new clause does not get us to that position. Personal liability is not just about wages; we need to ensure that there is appropriate liability and responsibility for the very serious issues that we have discussed with respect to safety at sea. Although I support the sentiment behind the new clause, I do not think that it would achieve the objectives that have been expressed.
Karl Turner
I had not intended to speak, but I am afraid that I have been motivated by the hon. Member for Dover to say a few words. I am confused. I am not trying to be awkward or to put her under any particular pressure, but I am truly confused by her suggestion that the new clause does not fit, as I think she said, with minimum wage legislation. Frankly, that is just nonsense. She will have to answer to her constituents who go on those ferries day in, day out—passengers, not crew.
The tragedy is that, because of what P&O Ferries did, the crew are exploited foreign workers. The passengers are probably worried, as I would be if I was travelling on one of those ferries, about seafarer fatigue. They are probably worried about the fact that people are doing 17 weeks with very few rest breaks. They are working seven days a week, for 12 and 13 hours a day, and might be charged for accommodation and grub. That is the problem that people will foresee. Respectfully, the hon. Member should think carefully about not supporting the new clause. It is no good saying that she respects the sentiment; she ought to agree with the new clause and vote with the Opposition.
Mrs Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I ask for a bit of latitude in responding. It is disappointing that Opposition Members are determined to get their headlines and try to make a point of difference. They are trying to say that we on the Government Benches are not working for the people and the seafarers when we are the people leading this legislation. I was clear that the new clause does not go so far as to work for safety. On rosters, asking for a report is not a serious attempt to deal with the issue. We know that a serious attempt will mean the rosters being dealt with outside this legislation. The Minister has set out issues in relation to—
Karl Turner
Thank you, Ms Harris, but I have to answer the hon. Lady. After the terrible incident in which P&O Ferries sacked 786 men and women British seafarers with the deliberate intent of replacing them with exploited people who are on £2 or £3 an hour, what came next was the MCA tying vessels up—arresting those P&O ferries—because they were not considered safe. I am sticking within the scope of the new clause, Ms Harris. I think there are one or two of us here who are lawyers; there are at least two barristers on the Conservative Benches and, although it has been a long time since I was in practice, I am certainly qualified as a lawyer. To those of us who are lawyers, the very idea that those directors should not be held responsible in law and there is going to be no personal liability is just—[Interruption.] I am sorry if the Minister—the yawning Minister—is incredibly bored. He must forgive me if I am keeping him awake. This is an important point. The idea that personal liability should not apply is frankly pathetic. [Interruption.] I am not trying to make a political point. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. This is not appropriate behaviour from either side. I call Karl Turner to finish up.
Karl Turner
I was accused of making a political point. I am not. I have to answer, Ms Harris; I cannot be accused of making a political point when I am not.
The reality is that the new clause would provide some deterrents. Currently, the Bill contains no real deterrent. I want to work with the Government.
Gavin Newlands
Does the hon. Gentleman not share my astonishment at some of the comments from the hon. Member for Dover and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who said they could not support new clauses and amendments because they did not go far enough—that ire should be directed at the Minister—yet here we have a new clause that confers personal liability and they cannot back that either?
Karl Turner
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. This new clause would provide an actual deterrent to prevent other bad employers from copying what happened with P&O Ferries. I can see that I am testing the patience of the Chair, so I am going to conclude there. Thank you for your indulgence, Ms Harris.
Mr Holden
Just before we finish, I want to say that it is a pleasure to have served under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Harris. We are both virgins on the Bill Committee Front Benches in our respective ways, under the supreme guidance of Mr Davies, which has been superb.
The new clause would create criminal offences for directors of companies operating a service to which the Bill applies where the service is operated inconsistently with an equivalence declaration or the operator has failed to comply with a request for a declaration. While I understand and share the anger against some of the bosses who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover mentioned, carry out such underhand employment practices, introducing such offences to the Bill would not improve its effectiveness. There is already a robust compliance mechanism that will provide a severe disincentive against operators that pay less than the national minimum wage equivalent.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
This is the Seafarers’ Wages Bill, and I think we all agree, across the House, that further action and other Bills are needed. However, this Bill will be a disincentive to companies that think they can act improperly and take on cheap foreign labour rather than looking after staff on a proper minimum wage or more. That is exactly what the Bill is meant to do.
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend makes a very sensible point. The Bill is a big step in the right direction in delivering for seafarers and countering some of the issues we have seen.
It will already be a criminal offence for operators to operate a service inconsistent with a declaration, and we do not think it is necessary for directors to be held personally liable for that offence. It would not be appropriate for directors to be guilty of an offence of failing to provide a declaration, as there is no obligation for them to do so. While the intention is that surcharges will be a sufficient disincentive against operators failing to pay at least the national minimum wage equivalent, it is open to operators not to provide an equivalence declaration, in which case surcharges will be imposed.
The existing compliance mechanism of surcharges for failure to provide a declaration and the criminal offences for operating inconsistently with a declaration will have considerable financial and reputational implications for operators. I do not think anybody here today can say that P&O Ferries has not experienced a reputational impact—not only that, but a legislative impact—from its behaviour over the last few years. Personal liability for directors is therefore not necessary.
I want to leave one thought in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The Insolvency Service is currently undertaking a civil investigation, which, among other things, will assess various individuals’ fitness to be directors.
Mr Holden
As the hon. Member knows all too well, he and I are very much on the same page and would like the Insolvency Service to report as soon as possible, but it is an independent organisation and we cannot comment on ongoing investigations. The entire basis of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow East, which Opposition Back Benchers have spoken about too—that they want something that could disqualify someone—is there in what is being looked at. It is maintained via the Insolvency Service. While I cannot comment on the individual case, I think it is clear that what everybody wants to achieve is already there. I understand why Members are trying to invent another offence, but it is not necessary, as what the hon. Member for Glasgow East seeks to achieve can already be done through current legislation.
David Linden
I am not sure that is the case, given that Peter Hebblethwaite can continue to act with impunity and had a promotion recently.
I will not seek to make this party political; I have been tempted to in the past, but I will not. I was interested in the point the hon. Member for Dover made in an exchange that was probably the hottest point of our proceedings today. I offer a hand of friendship; I will act as the Cilla Black of Parliament and bring us all together. If the hon. Lady says that she appreciates the sentiment behind new clause 9 but wants it to go further, I am happy to work with her.
On that basis, I will not press the new clause to a Division in Committee, but I ask the hon. Lady to join me for a cup of tea at some point to help me look at how to strengthen it. Then we can bring it back for a vote on the Floor of the House during remaining stages. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 7th February 2023
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 February 2023 - large print - (7 Feb 2023)
16:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 274 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:24 - The House divided: - Ayes: 210 / Noes: 278 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 285 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Implementation and monitoring—
‘(1) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the implementation of, and monitoring of the effects of, this Act.
(2) The report must include—
(a) an assessment of the impact of this Act on—
(i) roster patterns,
(ii) pensions, and
(iii) wages of seafarers;
(b) a statement as to whether further legislation will be introduced by the Government as a result of the findings of the assessment under paragraph (a);
(c) a strategy for engaging with trade unions for the purposes of monitoring the implementation of this Act, including in reference to conventions of the International Labour Conference;
(d) a strategy for monitoring the establishment of minimum wage corridor agreements with international partners of the United Kingdom, insofar as any such agreement ensures that any non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated for UK work at a rate that is equal to or exceeds the rate that would otherwise be required under this Act;
(e) an assessment of the interaction between this Act and existing international agreements or international maritime law, including reference to any litigation that has arisen as a result of this Act.
(3) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament.’
New clause 4—Directors of companies operating services to which this Act applies: personal liability for non-compliance of operator—
‘(1) A director of a company operating a service to which this Act applies (the “operator”) commits an offence where the operator has committed an offence under—
(a) section 5(1); or
(b) section 6(5)
of this Act.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine, or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.
(3) Where a person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may make a disqualification order against that person if that person is registered as a director of any company registered in the United Kingdom.
(4) The maximum period of disqualification under subsection (3) is 15 years.’
New clause 5—The role of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the role of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) in enforcing the provisions of this Act.
(2) The report in subsection (1) must include assessments of—
(a) the extent to which the MCA has sufficient resources to undertake such enforcement, and
(b) the efficacy of such enforcement.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay this report before both Houses of Parliament before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.’
Government amendment 1.
Amendment 30, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after “Act” insert—
‘“place in the United Kingdom” includes energy installations within the UK Exclusive Economic Zone.’
Amendment 24, in clause 3, page 2, line 5 , leave out “120” and insert “52”
Government amendment 25.
Amendment 31, in clause 4, page 3, line 30, at end insert—
‘(c) pension and other payments to be made that formulate a part of seafarer remuneration in relation to a service to which this Act applies.’
Amendment 32, page 3, line 40, at end insert—
‘(9A) The national minimum wage equivalent must not be adjusted to account for accommodation, food, or other items exempted from being charged to seafarers under international convention.’
Amendment 40, page 3, line 42, leave out from “Kingdom” to end of line and insert
‘, its territorial waters and the UK Continental Shelf.’
This amendment would ensure that the legislation is in line with the existing regulations providing entitlement to the NMW for seafarers working from a UK port to an offshore oil and gas installation on the UK Continental Shelf and returning to a UK port.
Amendment 33, page 3, line 42, leave out “or its territorial waters” and insert
‘, its territorial waters, or within the Renewable Energy Zone as specified by The Renewable Energy Zone (Designation of Area) Order 2004.’
Government amendments 2 to 7.
Government motion to transfer clause 6.
Government amendments 8 to 10.
Government motion to transfer clause 7.
Government amendments 11 to 15.
Amendment 34, in clause 11, page 8, line 9, after “regulations” insert
‘, where the minimum surcharge to be imposed on an operator shall be no less than 300 per cent of the difference between the amount calculated as the national minimum wage equivalence for the operator and the amount in total paid by that operator’
Government amendments 16, 26, 17, 18, 27, 19 and 20.
Amendment 36, in clause 13, page 10, line 15, at end insert—
‘(e) where there is need to provide crew with access to necessary welfare facilities or undertake crew repatriation.’
Government amendment 28.
Amendment 37, in clause 15, page 10, line 30, after “may” insert
‘following consultation with relevant stakeholders’
Government amendment 29.
Amendment 38, in clause 16, page 11, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations made by a Minister of the Crown under any of the following provisions may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament—
(a) section 3 (power to request declaration);
(b) section 4 (nature of declaration);
(c) section 7 (imposition of surcharges);
(d) section 9 (refusal of harbour access for failure to pay surcharge).
(3A) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations made by a Minister of the Crown under any provision of this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’
Amendment 41, page 11, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’
Government amendments 21 to 23.
Mr Holden
It is a pleasure to report to the House, to move Government new clause 3, to speak to the other amendments and to be able to listen to the important debate we will have on the Bill’s remaining stages. Over the past few months, the Bill has been subject to scrutiny and debate not only in Committee but through the ongoing debate in this House and in the other place. I am pleased that we are moving forwards together towards seeing this important legislation on the statute book and seafarers seeing the benefit of increased wage protection. I will first introduce the new clause and a number of the amendments introduced by the Government.
The first group—amendments 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 23 —relates to the powers to request information from harbour authorities to monitor their compliance with their duties under the Bill. New clause 3 provides the Secretary of State with the power to require harbour authorities to provide information for the purpose of establishing whether, or to what extent, they are complying with their duties under the Bill. In practice, this power will be used by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides an indicative list of the sort of information the MCA might require in order to establish whether a harbour authority is complying with its duties, including information about equivalence declarations and surcharges. It will be an offence for a harbour authority to fail to provide the information required in the manner and within the period specified by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, to provide false or misleading information, or not to inform the Secretary of State within four weeks if the information becomes false or misleading. The penalty for this offence is an unlimited fine in England and Wales and a fine not exceeding level 5 in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
This new clause is necessary following amendments made in Committee that mean that harbour authorities are now under a duty to request declarations, impose surcharges or refuse access to their ports in the circumstances set out in the Bill. It is a criminal offence for a harbour authority to fail to comply with these duties. The new clause will therefore ensure that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has the necessary information to carry out its enforcement role and to bring prosecutions if necessary, in line with its powers of enforcement of operators in clause 6.
Government amendments 5 and 23 and subsection (3) of new clause 3 all relate to savings for data protection regulation, making it clear that the Bill is not intended to override any existing data protection obligations. Subsection (3) of new clause 3 provides that a requirement to provide information
“does not require a harbour authority to provide information to the extent that doing so would cause the authority to breach the data protection legislation”.
The data protection is defined by amendment 23 as having
“the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018”—
that is, all relevant UK data protection legislation.
Amendment 5 makes it clear that the data protection saving in clause 6(3) applies in relation to the UK’s data protection legislation as well as to the data production laws of other countries or territories. In new clause 3(3) and clause 6(3), the amendments clarify that in determining whether the provision of information would cause a breach of the data protection laws, the requirement imposed by subsection (1) of the clause is to be taken into account. This is to make it clear that the disclosure of information may be authorised when pursuant to a legal obligation.
It is an offence under clause 6(5) of the Bill for an operator to fail to provide information required to the Secretary of State or, in practice, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. However, at present clause 6 does not specify the time within which this information is to be provided, as several hon. Members pointed out in Committee. Amendments 6 and 7 will therefore make it explicit that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency can specify the period within which the information must be provided, and that it is an offence for the operator to fail to provide the information within that period and in the manner specified. The same applies for requests for information from harbour authorities under new clause 3. These amendments will provide greater clarity for harbour authorities and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
Amendments 9 and 10 are linked to new clause 3 in that they extend MCA enforcement powers in consequence of Government amendments made in Committee to impose duties and corresponding criminal offences on harbour authorities. These amendments will extend the powers in clause 7 for inspectors to board ships or enter premises for the purpose of establishing whether harbour authorities are complying with their duties or to verify information provided under new clause 3. These amendments will allow the MCA properly to enforce the duties on harbour authorities and to bring prosecutions where necessary if the duties are not being complied with.
The next group of Government amendments relate to new offences for false and misleading declarations. As currently drafted, an operator commits an offence under clause 5 in two broad circumstances: first, where it provides an equivalence declaration and the service is operated inconsistently with that declaration at the time that it is provided, or from the beginning of the relevant year if that is later; and secondly, where an operator provides a declaration and subsequently starts to operate the service inconsistently with the declaration and fails to notify the harbour authority of that fact within four weeks.
Clause 5 does not currently cover circumstances where a declaration is provided during or after the relevant year, and the service was operated inconsistently with the declaration for a period of that year in the past, such that the declaration is false or misleading at the time it is provided. This is why I have tabled amendments 2 and 3, which create a new criminal offence where an operator provides a declaration that is false and misleading in so far as it concerns the operation of the service before the declaration was provided.
Amendments 4 and 8 are consequential on this new offence and extend the Secretary of State’s enforcement powers to include establishing whether a declaration is false or misleading. In practice, enforcement will be carried out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Amendment 4 extends the purposes for which the Maritime and Coastguard Agency may require an operator to provide information under clause 6 to include establishing whether an equivalence declaration is false or misleading in so far as it concerns the operation of the service before the declaration was provided.
Amendment 8 extends the power in clause 7 to provide that inspections of ships or premises may be carried out for the same purpose. Related to that, amendments 11 to 14 provide that harbour authorities must impose surcharges on an operator if they have reasonable grounds to believe that an equivalence declaration provided by the operator is false or misleading about the time before the declaration was provided. That mirrors the approach taken when an operator provides a declaration and the harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the service is or was being operated inconsistently with that declaration, ensuring that surcharges are imposed in both circumstances.
Taken together, these amendments strengthen the enforcement of the Bill and will mean that operators that seek to pay their seafarers a rate lower than the national minimum wage equivalent cannot avoid the consequences through such dishonest means.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for these amendments, as the issues to which they relate were raised by Opposition Members in Committee and on Second Reading. What is the position on the fines? Does he remember our discussion about whether level 4 fines are enough of a deterrent? A level 5 fine is unlimited and may be a greater deterrent, although the Secretary of State will still have discretion on whether to apply it.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I welcome the introduction of a criminal offence, but I wonder who will be prosecuted and held liable in that instance. Will it be a company director? At what level of the decision-making process will an individual be held liable? I would be happy if the Minister secures wisdom and inspiration over the next few minutes.
Mr Holden
I will address that point later in my speech.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), I agreed in Committee to consider raising the maximum penalty for harbour authorities guilty of failing to comply with their duties under the Bill—I think the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was also referring to this—from a level 4 fine to an unlimited fine in England and Wales, or a level 5 fine in Scotland and Northern Ireland. On reflection, I decided to do so. That is why the Government tabled amendments 25, 26, 28 and 29 and subsection (6) of new clause 3.
These amendments will bring the penalties into line with those for service operators that commit an offence under the legislation. As hon. Members will remember, we discussed in Committee the possibility of a harbour authority also being an operator, which would create a discrepancy. We know that the reputational impact clearly did not stop P&O Ferries doing what it did, which is why we have this Bill.
To answer the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, the fines will be levied on the company, and they will be unlimited fines, except in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where level 5 fines are limited by legislation—the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland have not yet changed their legislation, so it will be up to them to mirror these changes. This will send a strong message that harbour authorities must comply with their duties under legislation. I thank the noble Lord Tunnicliffe for his interest in the level of fines when the Bill was considered in the other place.
Amendment 1 adds a regulation-making power to clause 1 to allow the Secretary of State to specify matters that must or must not be taken into account in determining whether provision for the carriage of persons or goods between two places by ship on two or more journeys constitutes a single service. Amendments 21 and 22 provide that this power is subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Bill applies to services for the carriage of persons or goods by ship, with or without vehicles, between a place outside the UK and a place inside the UK. The concept of service is not defined in the Bill, but it will be a question of fact whether ships on the same route are providing the same service, which will need to take account of all the circumstances of the particular case.
By adding a power to specify in regulations the factors that must or must not be taken into account in determining what is a service for the purpose of this Bill, we will be able to clarify the intended meaning of “service” if needed, such as if there is an inconsistency in interpretation across or between different harbour authorities and operators. This provision therefore allows the Department to react, if necessary, to how the definition of “service” is interpreted over time. This will ensure consistency in the application of the Bill, and it is therefore necessary for the effective implementation and delivery of policy objectives. Because the measure will be made through the affirmative procedure, hon. Members will be able to provide a degree of scrutiny.
We recognise this is a broad power with potential to adjust the interpretation of “service,” which is the Bill’s central concept. We plan to use the power only to clarify the intended meaning of “service,” if needed, not to alter the services in scope of the Bill. It is intended that the power will be used only if necessary and only in relation to circumstances that may become apparent once the Bill has been enacted. That being said, we accept that a high level of scrutiny for this power is appropriate. As such, the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 15 requires the tariff of surcharges to be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, as opposed to being specified by the harbour authorities. In other words, the amendment will switch the duty for setting the surcharge tariff from the harbour authorities to the Secretary of State. I thank the noble Baroness Scott of Needham Market for raising the issue in the other place, and the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) tabled a similar amendment that sought to reduce the role of harbour authorities in the compliance process by taking away their duty to set the surcharge rate, giving that role to the Secretary of State.
The surcharge is an important mechanism to deter operators from paying below the national minimum wage equivalent. We still consider that harbour authorities are reasonably placed to set the tariff of surcharges, given their proximity to services, but we have heard the concerns raised by the ports industry and, as promised, went away after Committee to consider it further. Having done so, we tabled amendment 15 to switch the duty for setting the surcharge tariff under the Bill from harbour authorities to the Secretary of State. This will not fundamentally change the compliance process, as ports will still have a role in imposing the surcharge, but they will not set the rate. I hope this alleviates the concerns that some Members expressed in Committee about the role of harbour authorities.
Amendments 16 and 18 to 20 are consequential on amendment 15. Amendment 16 removes the requirement for harbour authorities to publish the tariff of surcharges, as this will now be set in regulations. Amendments 18 to 20 make consequential changes to clause 12 to remove the ability to object to a tariff of surcharges specified by a harbour authority.
Amendment 17 confers a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying a time limit on objecting to a surcharge under clause 12. I promised in Committee to consider this further, in response to an amendment tabled by the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Glasgow East (David Linden). I had been considering it before Committee because there was a concern that things could drag on and, having considered it, I agree that a time limit on objections will provide greater certainty for harbour authorities by preventing objections from being raised long after a surcharge is imposed. We intend for the draft regulations to be subject to public consultation, and we will work with stakeholders to determine a reasonable length of time in which objections will be required to be made following the imposition of a surcharge.
Amendment 17 states that surcharges may be applied only for the purpose of providing shore-based welfare facilities for seafarers. The objective of this amendment is to ensure that funds collected from surcharges are invested in the welfare of seafarers and cannot be used for the functioning of harbour authorities. A similar amendment was tabled in Committee by the hon. Members for Glasgow East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, and it was supported by other Opposition Members, who expressed concern about a conflict of interest where a harbour authority and an operator are owned by a connected company, thereby weakening the surcharge’s financial disincentive. I thank the noble Baroness Scott of Needham Market for raising this conflict of interest in the other place. Although we do not think it is likely in practice that such an operator would seek to avoid paying the national minimum wage equivalent, and would instead continue to pay the surcharge to its connected company, this amendment reduces that theoretical risk. It is also in line with the Bill’s overall intention of improving the welfare of seafarers.
We understand that ports may object to amendment 17, as they might have used surcharge funds to cover the costs of administering the Bill. However, we do not expect surcharges to be paid routinely, so harbour authorities could never have relied on the surcharge to cover the costs of administering the Bill—they are minimal costs that harbour authorities should be able to cover through their harbour duties. This Bill leaves it open as to how the money can be applied to shore-based welfare facilities and so harbour authorities will have some flexibility on that. I hope that hon. Members will see that in tabling these amendments the Government have listened to the concern from across the House and from stakeholders, and that the Bill is better for it.
I will now turn to the amendments tabled by hon. Members of this House. Amendment 24 would require harbour authorities to request equivalence declarations from operators of services that call at their harbour on at least 52 occasions a year, instead of 120. That would mean that services calling at UK ports once a week, on average, would be brought into the scope of the Bill. The measures that may be taken under the Bill can be applied only to a narrow subset of operators with a close connection to the UK: those on a regular scheduled service determined by clear, objective criteria. This represents a focused and proportionate means to address a specific issue and avoids any wider impact on the diversity of shipping that makes use of UK ports. The figure of 120 has been arrived at following thorough consultation and bilateral discussions with industry and others.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I recognise that this measure was based on data carefully collected. However, does the Minister not accept that the figure of once a week would bring into scope an awful lot of shipping with seafarers who do have a close connection to the UK, and that once a week might be a fairer figure?
Mr Holden
I understand what the hon. Lady is saying and I will address that point directly in a moment, after I have gone through the main points of why we are pushing back on this suggestion. The rationale for the high-frequency criterion is to ensure that seafarers affected by the policy are only those with close ties to the UK by virtue of their working on services that regularly call in UK ports. That covers the overwhelming majority of passenger ferries. We have assessed this using Department for Transport data, which has also been backed up by the Chamber of Shipping’s written evidence to the Public Bill Committee. Crucially, this focuses the Bill on the short-sea services, clearly justifying the seafarers’ connections to the UK and therefore a UK-equivalent level of pay protection. Reducing the frequency with which services must call at UK ports before coming into the scope of the Bill’s requirements to include weekly services would dilute the concentration of the Bill in protecting seafarers with the closest ties. It would then bring into scope some deep-sea container services which we do not feel can legitimately be said to have close ties to the UK. Services that might visit many ports in a foreign country, perhaps coming to the UK once a week, would also be included, which gives rise to the question of whether we would be legislating for another country.
Furthermore, the national minimum wage equivalence will apply only in UK waters and therefore would extend to a cargo service dropping off once a week for a matter of hours, with marginal if any impact. The proposal therefore has multiple downsides, and I hope the hon. Lady can understand why we are looking at it in that sphere.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I hear what the Minister says and understand his point about which services may be collected under the proposal, but surely there is a soft spot between 52 and 120 that we can all agree on?
Mr Holden
Well, 120 is what has been discussed broadly in the past few weeks. Opposition Members have tabled no amendment for any proposal except 52 or 120. That is why we are discussing 120. A once-a-week service could be in the UK’s waters for a matter of hours every week, when the minimum wage equivalence would apply, and it may be calling at multiple foreign ports before it gets here. Obviously, questions of international maritime law start to arise in those circumstances, as do our relationships with other countries, which are looking at this and at where these ships may operate from.
Grahame Morris
We have to agree to disagree on this point. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has estimated that the 2020 legal extension of the national minimum wage equivalent entitlement to all seafarers on domestic routes and on routes from UK ports to offshore oil and gas installations, which are not included in the scope of the Bill, would benefit a maximum of 13,000 seafarers—I refer to ratings grades—regardless of the number of port calls. So the issue of port calls is fundamental to whether this Bill will be fit for purpose—in other words, whether it will meet the Government’s basic requirement to protect UK seafarers on these short sea routes.
Mr Holden
I will come later to the hon. Gentleman’s point about offshore workers in the energy sector. If the proposal were 52 weeks, we would be including services that were in UK waters for only a matter of a few hours a week. We think that would be a disproportionate measure and it would not address what we are trying to address, which is short-service ferry operations. They are the major point of concern. If we include other services, we move swiftly into international maritime law.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
My understanding was that 52 weeks was the original threshold in the Government’s proposals and that that was changed after consultation with industry. The trade unions supported 52 weeks. As that was the Government’s initial proposition and only after the intervention of the British Ports Association did they chose to ignore the trade unions, can the Minister clarify why that was? If there was compelling evidence to make that change, will he place it in the Library of the House?
Mr Holden
My understanding is that the initial consultation was on that broader thing, but the legislation that was introduced was always based on a figure of 120, because after that broad consultation we looked at various issues, including where an operator, perhaps from Holland, visits several European ports and then pops into the UK once a week. The minimum wage equivalence being introduced for those operators would be very minimal and would affect a small number of people. Obviously, where someone was based in Holland, visited several European ports and then popped into the UK occasionally, we would be bringing in real questions of international jurisdiction, particularly under maritime law, as to where those services were being operated from.
John McDonnell
I do not think that just popping in every two or three weeks is just popping in. I have been at this for a while and international law is always thrown against it. Will the Minister publish any legal opinion that he has on that matter, so that we could examine it, across the House, to ensure that it is true?
Mr Holden
I will write to the right hon. Gentleman about that to see whether we can publish anything further. I just say that a full consultation took place, and the details of it have been fully in the public domain. We have arrived at this position having considered all the implications of the proposal. On a major number of issues the Government have moved significantly in this area. I have listened to Members from across the House and in the other place to address their concerns. However, on this specific issue the scope would be widened to operators that really are not UK operators; they are from other countries and would just be popping into UK ports. That would have major international implications, as I am sure he can understand.
Christine Jardine
I appreciate that the Minister is giving up a lot of time on this. However, would most people listening to this debate not feel that vising a port once a week is a regular, substantial amount of presence, and that we would be missing out a substantial number of people?
Mr Holden
I think the hon. Lady is incorrect on this point. We are talking about someone based overseas who visits a UK port once a week for a matter of hours and who may be operating in the territorial waters of another country for the overwhelming majority of their working time. This would be similar to someone employed under a British lorry driver’s licence going over to do deliveries in another country as well. There is this idea that we would suddenly change things for those few hours that people were perhaps at a UK port, but that would be inconsistent with our obligations and it raises real issues associated with our interactions with other port operators, particularly across the North sea, and with our friends and allies in Europe, who are looking at similar legislation. We have been working on that with our European partners. We are already in conversations with the French on this issue and on others. The UK is leading the way on legislation in this area of regular services, but we have to do it in such a way that it also fits with international maritime law. We also need to ensure that we are on the same page as our friends and partners across the continent.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
To clarify something that my hon. Friend said earlier, is the point of the measure not to avoid a situation where, as we saw with P&O Ferries, a company is effectively making a choice whether to employ British people working in British waters on the acceptable living minimum wage, or to make wholesale redundancies so that it can bring in low-paid workers, and quite often low-paid foreign workers?
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is the crux of this legislation. We are trying to address the operators who regularly access UK ports on those short straits routes. What we are not trying to do is pass legislation for people who are perhaps in UK waters for a matter of hours a week, the benefit of which is relatively minimal anyway, because they are in international waters, or in the waters of a foreign country, for the majority of the time. The impact of that would be seen as relatively negligible.
Let me move on from that point. I think I have explained very clearly the UK Government’s position. The implications of the extension to once a week for port calls would place a huge burden, the effects and benefits of which are difficult to ascertain, and appear to be incredibly minimal.
Clearly, the Bill focuses on the short sea services, justifying the seafarers’ connection to the UK and therefore a UK equivalent level of pay protection. To reduce the frequency that services must call at UK ports before coming into scope of the Bill’s requirements to include weekly services would dilute the concentration of the Bill in protecting those seafarers. In any event, the time in our waters spent by seafarers who call only weekly would be so short that it would have very little effect, while hugely widening the scope of the Bill to container services, which may have very little connection to the UK.
New clause 2 would ensure that the Government produce a report on implementation and monitoring within six months of the Bill being passed. The same new clause was introduced in Committee and I am afraid that the Government’s position has not changed. Many of the areas that such a report would cover are out of scope of the narrow focus of the Bill. We have acted quickly and decisively with the Bill to prevent operators of regular services to the UK being able to replace seafarers with those being paid less than an equivalent of the national minimum wage. Furthermore, it would be impossible to measure due to any indirect impact. Six months from a Bill becoming law is far too soon for a report to be of any use. We would still be in the process of developing secondary legislation in order to bring the Bill into full force.
In Committee, we discussed each provision of the new clause in detail, and Baroness Vere also discussed the provisions of a similar amendment at length in the other place. The points that I made in Committee are unchanged, so I will not repeat them, but I will provide an update to the House on various aspects that the report would cover.
Subsections 2 (a) and (b) request the reporting of the impact of the Act on roster patterns, pay, pensions and future plans to legislate in these areas. We do not have plans to legislate more than is necessary, but that does not mean that we are not taking action on areas beyond the matter of minimum pay, which we all know is not the only aspect of seafarers’ welfare that requires attention. As part of the seafarers’ protection nine-point plan, we will launch a new seafarers charter to improve the long-term employment and welfare conditions of seafarers. It includes a wide range of employment protections that is currently covered in the Bill. The Government are committed to delivering a voluntary seafarers charter in the near future. They will act legislatively only where it is proven that it is appropriate to do so. The impact of the charter and the need to provide a legislative basis will be continuously reviewed, and it is not necessary or desirable to constrain ourselves to committing to any action on a strategy on these timescales. The charter will be published very soon. We are working closely with the French Government, who are also developing their own version of the seafarers charter. We are commissioning independent research into roster patterns to ensure that we have a strong evidence base to support policy on this subject. The French Government are also doing their own research, and we are liaising closely with them to share our learning and further build a robust evidence base in this important area.
On subsection 2(d), with regards to a strategy for monitoring the establishment of minimum wage corridors, the Government appreciate the interest in this area and we are working hard to seek agreement on how the UK and our near European neighbours can collaborate on the international stage to improve seafarer welfare. As part of that, we are exploring the creation of minimum wage-equivalent corridors.
I am pleased to say that the French Government deposited a Bill in their National Assembly on Wednesday 1 February. Their Bill aims to ensure that seafarers working on certain cross-channel ferry services between the UK and France will also benefit from pay protections while in specific parts of French territorial waters. We will continue to work together on our respective pieces of legislation to ensure that we maximise the benefit to seafarers. In addition to our work with France, we have begun our engagement with the Crown dependencies.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I wish him every success in his bilateral negotiations with the French Government and other seafaring nations. Let me turn to the point made about the litmus test of the success of this Bill. Without placing in the Bill the seafarers charter, which addresses not just minimum wage equivalence but roster patterns and all the other things that allowed rogue employers such as P&O Ferries and Irish Ferries to commit the terrible action that took place almost a year ago, would this Bill prevent such action? I am afraid that the answer is no. It fails the litmus test.
Mr Holden
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; I do not think that the Bill fails the litmus test at all. It is clear that what we are trying to do is protect seafarers with major connections to the UK, and that is exactly what the Bill does.
On the personal liability of directors, the existing criminal offences in the Bill will have serious commercial and reputational impacts, particularly now that we have included unlimited fines, so I do not think that the new clause is necessary. Plus, the Insolvency Service is currently undertaking a civil investigation into the P&O situation, which shows that these things can be addressed, as set out in the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. I request that the new clause be withdrawn.
On the role of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, I would like to assure the House that new clause 5 is unnecessary. The Bill does not refer to the MCA by name. That is because it is an executive agency of the Department for Transport and will be covered by the legislation.
In relation to amendment 30, we seek to make energy installations within the UK exclusive economic zone a
“place in the United Kingdom”
for the purposes of the Bill. The key point here is that we understand the concern in this space. Offshore wind farms and the renewable sector are critical to meeting our targets. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy regularly reviews the national minimum wage legislation to make sure that it is fit for purpose in the current situation. We hope that that will be covered in that.
Similarly, turning to amendments 31 and 32, we hope that pension entitlements and deductions for food and accommodation will be covered in the seafarers charter, which will be brought forward shortly. Although we support the intention of the amendments, it is right that the detail, particularly on food and accommodation, is set out in secondary legislation, which is where we intended it to be, in order that we get it right for this complex matter. We will hold a public consultation on the draft regulations before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
I believe that I covered the refusal of access exceptions in amendments 36 and 37 extensively in Committee, which made it very clear that we are in a very sensible place on both those issues.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. I hope that it is clear from my responses that I have been open to amendments and that the amendments tabled by the Government have also made that clear. I understand that some Members would have liked us to have gone further, but the scope of the Bill has been intentionally tightly drawn to target action on the specific issue of wages for seafarers with close ties to the UK. We introduced this Bill at great pace following the P&O scandal, and it is by keeping the Bill tightly focused that we have been able to take such prompt legislative action. The Government have, however, still been progressing their nine-point plan for seafarers’ protection, and I hope that Members will welcome the progress that we have made, particularly in our co-operation with the French Government on these issues.
The compliance and enforcement mechanisms of the Bill have been carefully designed, and I hope that hon. Members will note the improvements that have been made both on Report and in Committee, which include suggestions from them. The compliance process is a carefully drawn balance between harbour authorities and the MCA on behalf of the Secretary of State. We have been engaging actively with ports and stakeholders and will continue to do so as we develop secondary legislation. We are confident that the combination of surcharges, refusal of access and criminal offences will ensure that operators pay seafarers on services in the scope of the Bill at least the national minimum wage equivalent. I am pleased that the Bill has reached this stage in its passage and look forward to seeing it on the statute book.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 2, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The new clause would ensure that the Bill contains sufficient checks and balances so that it does what it is intended it does. We support the premise of the Bill and have suggested amendments to strengthen it. We do not want a toothless Bill that is wide open to abuse by bad bosses. The Bill attempts to address the problems of seafarer welfare and is intended to cover services with close ties to the UK that make regular port-to-port international voyages and arrive on our shores throughout the year.
The Bill is not merely about pay; it is also about conditions, pensions and roster patterns. It is the first piece of primary legislation on this subject since the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Its scope must be broadened and protections put into the Bill. The easiest way to measure the efficacy of the Bill is to require the Government to report on the additional conditions, specifically those relating to the seafarers welfare charter. Regrettably, that charter, which is the Government’s preferred option for setting minimum conditions for rostering, pensions and other aspects of seafarer employment, has been voluntary and progress has stalled. The Minister said that he is co-operating with the French, which is good to hear, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said, the Bill clearly fails the litmus test. We have to move on this issue: the Bill is toothless without the charter, and the Minister should come back to the Dispatch Box and say that he will move on it, or at least give some sort of guarantee of when the charter will come into force.
Grahame Morris
I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. It is not that we are not giving the Minister credit for having moved some way; it is just that this Bill presents an ideal opportunity. It is like having a penalty awarded and then double-tapping the ball, so the referee disallows the goal. We have a great opportunity to move ahead of the French and provide the requisite protections for our seafarers. Has my hon. Friend seen a published version of the charter? I know there have been various iterations. I understand that the RMT has asked to see the latest version. The Minister lays such great store by this voluntary agreement, which we have not even seen yet—at least, I have not seen it.
Mike Kane
No, I have not seen any sign of the charter. I would have thought Conservative Members would want to get one over on the French. As an avid Manchester City fan, I might have to dust down my A to Z in future to find out where I am going, but I have seen plenty of those types of penalty kicks in the past.
These legislation matters, because it is the only way to end the exploitative race to the bottom that many companies depend on. P&O Ferries cut its pay bill by up to 50%, but the majority of the savings will be from the imposition of new rostering periods of up to 17 weeks for crew who are earning less than half the minimum wage. It is vital that the Government consult the unions and that unions are able to feed into the monitoring of the legislation in line with international labour conventions. We saw P&O casually disregard both employment laws and union consultation when it behaved as it did in March 2022. That must not happen again. Bad bosses should know that the Government value the role of trade unions and seek to work with them—not against them—to protect the rights of workers.
New clause 2 would also seek to establish a way of monitoring minimum wage corridor agreements to ensure that any non-qualifying seafarer is paid in accordance with a rate that is equal to that rate. We have a proud maritime tradition in this country and the horror reflected by this House, which was united in its condemnation of P&O, must not be forgotten. We know low-cost carriers have a model based on exploitation and poverty pay, and we cannot let that business model prevail.
I come now to new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). Labour supports the Bill on the whole but we still find it lacking and insufficiently robust. I am grateful to the Minister for the concessions he has made, as I will point out later in my speech, but without new clause 4 accountability in the Bill is at stake. What provision is there if businesses are found to have failed the test? Is it not right that those responsible should be held to account?
Almost a year to the day since that scandal was inflicted upon almost 800 seafarers, P&O has yet to be sanctioned by this Government. They gave P&O millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money during the pandemic, and in return P&O proceeded effectively to stick two fingers up at the Government, its workers, the unions and our employment laws. There was plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth from Government Members, but no action. Here we are 11 months later: Peter Hebblethwaite has been promoted into another directorship in the company, and the promised criminal prosecution has not materialised. Surely the Insolvency Service will bring a prosecution? No, and despite asking questions, my colleagues and I across the House have yet to hear a clear answer as to why a prosecution is not in the public interest.
We support new clause 4 because, to recap, at 7 am on 17 March 2022, notices appeared in mess rooms on nine P&O ships telling crew to expect an announcement regarding the future viability of their jobs. Three and a half hours later, 786 UK seafarers were told via a pre-recorded Zoom call that they were being made redundant, without a thought to employment law and with immediate effect. They were then escorted off the ships by handcuff-trained, balaclava-wearing private security guards. On the quaysides in Dover, Hull, Liverpool, Larne and Cairnryan, coaches were arriving, carrying agency crew. Peter Hebblethwaite oversaw this—it happened on his watch—and then bragged in this House to a Select Committee that he would do it again. It is for that reason that we seek to make directors of these companies—these bad bosses—personally responsible through the new clause, which should be accepted. I am grateful, however, that the Minister has moved on having unlimited fines.
Amendment 24 would reduce the number of calls a vessel may make in a 12-month period from 120 to 52. The amendment would therefore significantly increase the number of vessels, and thus the number of seafarers, in scope of the protections of this Bill. The Government’s stated aim in the Bill is to improve pay and protections for seafarers working on services that have a close link to the United Kingdom. The wooliness of the wording a “close link” should be expanded on and tightened up, and that is what amendment 24 would do by reducing the number of visits from 120 per year to one a week, which by any and every measure is a regular visit and a close link.
The Minister said that there has been full consultation on this matter, but it is like the old saying, “You can have a car of any colour you want, so long as it’s black.” The Government have not moved on this issue one iota. If I were to visit a restaurant weekly, I would be a regular, with a close link. I play football once a week, which not only makes me the second-best midfielder playing out of my constituency—the honour of being the best goes to Jill Scott MBE, who owns the BOXX2BOXX café in my patch—but gives me a close link to that team. Why are the Government so keen to undermine their own Bill by implying that doing something once a week is not sufficient to be seen as having a close link?
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I entirely agree with everything the hon. Gentleman is trying to do to increase seafarers’ rights and raise standards. Does he accept that the maritime sector is by its nature complicated, interlinked and international? We ought to be addressing the specific instances that occurred here, because it is technically an international voyage through the short straits, while doing the wider international work in slower time, crucially through the International Maritime Organisation, rather than seeing the unintended consequences that there might be if the Bill were roughly drafted.
Mike Kane
I thank the hon. Gentleman, the former Minister, for all his work in this area. I know that he was extraordinarily committed and was as upset as everyone else in this House—he put in a hard stint as Minister for aviation and maritime. He is right that the sector is complicated, interlinked and international, but that should not stop us doing the right thing. If seafarers are here, they are here. That is why we are pushing for 52 port calls, and we genuinely believe that that is the way to strengthen this legislation, but I thank him for his intervention.
Turning to amendments 39 and 49 that appear in my name and those of my colleagues, it is vital that the terms and conditions collectively bargained for are upheld. There are currently seafarers who are paid more than the equivalent of the national minimum wage, and we would not expect those in receipt of this pay to enter a race to the bottom. Good employers, of which there are some in the sector, are already paying above the UK national minimum wage, and we seek to ensure that pay and conditions for their workers are protected, not dissembled or undermined by provisions contained within the Bill. In addition to maintaining the Bill and the conditions of individual seafarers, these amendments would reassure other countries, such as France, Belgium, and Ireland, with which we are seeking to make bilateral agreements, that we are not undermining them, which would make negotiations easier.
Amendment 40 is designed to shore up previous provisions under regulations, which extended the entitlement to be paid above the national minimum wage to those working in the offshore gas and oil sector bound by the UK continental shelf, which extends 200 miles from the coastline of the UK. This amendment equalises the basic rights of seafarers in the UK offshore energy sector, which we know will be a growth industry of the future. The Government and the offshore wind industry cannot rely on the good will of individual developers to commit to voluntary schemes such as the real living wage.
Failing to support this amendment would highlight not one, but two anomalies within the Bill. First, any seafarer who works out of a UK port to an offshore oil or gas installation and then returns to the UK port will not be entitled to the protections offered by the Bill. As we move towards a just transition and increased reliance on offshore wind, we must ensure that those who work in the energy sector are protected. We must future-proof future industries—it makes no sense to do that retrospectively.
Secondly, any seafarer working from a UK port to an installation on the UK continental shelf and returning to a UK port is already entitled to protection of the national minimum wage, regardless of the flag of the vessel or their nationality. That is entirely as it should be. The Government must act as soon as possible to correct the lack of this protection for all seafarers, regardless of nationality or flag of vessel, working in the UK exclusive economic zone. Let us get it right first time for current offshore oil and gas workers and for future workers in offshore sectors that we know will become increasingly important as we head towards cleaner, greener energy. The exclusion of offshore energy workers from the legislation seems short-sighted.
Importantly, amendment 41 would enable the House to consider and approve regulations that may be made under the powers of the Bill; whether that is opening regulations up to further scrutiny in relation to the definition of work in the UK, regulations related to accommodation charges levied upon them, which could lead to earnings falling below the national minimum wage, or regulations related to surcharges, all should be brought before the House so it can affirm them. It is National Apprenticeship Week. We need to build on the work the Maritime Skills Commission is doing on ratings and cadet training to ensure growth in decent seafarer jobs in this country. Wider employment protections and fair pay agreements are part of that future.
I am grateful, as I said, to the Minister for moving on the harbour surcharges and for clarifying that the surcharges will be used for seafarer welfare. That is really welcome. Ports and seafarers all around the country will be affected by the Bill, so it is vital that the Bill is right. We have worked hard to ensure that the concerns of seafarers are heard, as voiced by their unions, the RMT and Nautilus, who I thank for their energy and expertise on this Bill. We need this Bill to be as robust as possible, and have sought to amend it where possible to ensure that. I thank the staff of the House and Members from across the Chamber for all their hard work on the Bill.
Gavin Newlands
I start, rather unusually, by thanking the Minister, in the same vein as the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for accepting some of the changes that both we and the Labour party suggested during Committee stage—notably, on setting a national rather than a harbour-specific tariff, setting a deadline for objections to the level of fines to be levied and ensuring that the levy is used for seafarer welfare.
We will obviously not vote against the Bill. It is a better Bill than when it entered Committee, but it still falls short in a number of areas. I understand that the Government by and large, as is the way with most Bills, want to keep the focus of the Bill as narrow as possible and the Opposition tend to want to widen the focus of the Bill to ensure that as many people as possible are protected by it, and to tighten up provisions already set out in the Bill for the very same reason.
The Government’s nine-point plan was set out a number of months ago but, if it is not adrift and approaching the rocks, it is struggling under very low power indeed. But the Minister need not worry; we are here to strengthen the Bill. In that vein, I will speak to amendments 30 to 33 and 36 to 38, and new clauses 4 and 5. I also fully support the amendments and new clauses tabled by those on the Labour Front Bench.
In fact, I will start with Labour new clause 2, which deals with issues relating to the seafarers charter, including roster patterns. Before I do so, I have to ask: where is the seafarers charter? Everyone was hoping and expecting to see it before Report. It is entirely suboptimal, to say the least, that the passage of the Bill will conclude without us having had sight of the charter. I certainly hope the Minister agrees that that is not the position that he would have wanted to be in at the start of the process.
Grahame Morris
That is an important point. The Government are laying so much store by voluntary agreement in the application of the seafarers welfare charter, or the seafarers charter—it has had various names during its transition. The Minister said that there had been consultation and that further consultation was going on, including with the UK Chamber of Shipping. My understanding is that that includes Seatruck and Condor Ferries. They are long-term bad bosses and abusers of seafarer rights, so I hope that they will not have input into the Bill, which could further undermine its provisions.
Gavin Newlands
I thank my Transport Committee colleague. I could not agree more. I will very shortly cover the fact that the agreement is voluntary and that we do not even know what is in it, yet here we are, concluding the remaining stages of the Bill.
As was mentioned on Second Reading and in Committee, roster patterns are every bit as important as the wage issues addressed by the Bill, because a tired and overworked crew is a dangerous crew at sea. We know that crew at P&O Ferries are sometimes being asked to work for 17 weeks straight. That is not just an issue of fairness at work; it is an issue of human and environmental safety. We know the reasons behind the Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy. If seafarers around our shores are working 17 weeks straight with no oversight and no action, sooner or later we will sadly be talking about another tragedy—one that is entirely preventable.
Similarly, on wages and pensions, we know what many seafarers are expected to put up with. The key point of the Bill is to prevent wages from falling below the national minimum wage equivalent, but we hope that will have the additional impact of improving wages and conditions across the board in the industry. As I asked the Minister in Committee:
“What good is a voluntary charter when we have operators such as P&O Ferries, which was content not only to break the law”––[Official Report, Seafarers’ Wages Public Bill Committee, 17 January 2023; c. 69.]
but said that it would do so again? Putting those elements of the charter—which sadly does not exist—on the face of the Bill would at least give the Government firm legal ground in assessing how the legislation has benefited the industry and its employees.
Again, new clause 2 calls for and commits the Government to nothing more than a report from the Secretary of State on the main issues dealt with by the charter. If the Government are serious about a real seafarers charter developed in partnership with trade unions and aimed at protecting exploited workers, they have nothing to fear from accepting the new clause.
While I am on the subject, given the lack of any contrition whatever from P&O Ferries, is it not time that its royal charter was revoked? DP World should derive no benefit from that charter, which it inherited when it bought P&O Ferries. One cannot talk about P&O Ferries without talking about Mr Hebblethwaite, a man who has so far escaped entirely scot-free despite admitting that he broke the law and would do so again. The Government and the Insolvency Service have been signally unable to bring him and/or any other P&O Ferries or DP World executives to account for their actions. New clause 4, which was tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) , whose thunder I wish not to steal, would ensure that people such as Hebblethwaite would be liable for their crimes by introducing an offence that is punishable by disqualification as a director.
New clause 5 was tabled following contact from a number of concerned industry representatives that are unclear about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s enforcement of harbour authorities. In Committee, the Minister spoke about how clauses 4 and 5 allow the Secretary of State—via the MCA—to request information to ensure compliance. However, no passage in the Bill clarifies the role of the MCA in enforcing harbour authorities to comply. In essence, I would like to hear more from the Minister about the role of the MCA in the enforcement of national minimum wage declarations.
As I have said, we seek to widen the scope of the Bill to ensure that all those who should be protected are protected. Amendments 30 and 33, and Labour amendment 40, which the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East spoke to, were tabled to ensure that those working in the renewables sector are afforded similar protections to those in the oil and gas sectors and on the regular ferry services that the Minister mentioned. The Minister’s answer in Committee was unsatisfactory in my view and, I am sure, for those who work in the sector. If he will not accept the amendments, will he set out his plans to ensure that those workers do not end up an anomaly?
Grahame Morris
I rise to support the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), in particular new clause 2, which seeks to put the seafarers charter on the face of the Bill; amendment 24 to clause 3, which seeks to reduce the threshold to 52 calls to a UK port; and Opposition amendment 40 to clause 4, which seeks to protect existing seafaring national minimum wage entitlements beyond a 12-mile limit on the UK continental shelf. I am concerned about unintended consequences driving down seafarers’ wages, given that our purpose is to drive them up and protect terms and conditions. I would also like to speak to amendment 41, which proposes making clause 16 subject to the affirmative procedure.
I declare my interest as a member and, indeed, vice-chair of the RMT parliamentary group. I want to give the Minister credit. The Government have moved in several areas of concern that were highlighted on Second Reading, in the other place and in Committee. When the Bill was first published, the trade unions representing both ratings and officers, who were attacked by P&O Ferries and DP World, identified a number of the issues that we have raised, including the level of fines for non-compliance and the use of surcharge revenue to fund seafarer welfare facilities onshore. I am glad that the Minister has acknowledged those concerns and acted on them.
The purpose of the amendments tabled by His Majesty’s Opposition and my friends from the SNP, the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Glasgow East (David Linden), is to strengthen the Bill, not to undermine or devalue it. They aim to make sure that the Bill achieves its purpose.
Government amendment 15 creates a national tariff of surcharges set by the Government rather than tariffs set by individual harbour authorities. In Committee we identified a potential conflict of interest, so I am very pleased to say that the trade unions and the Opposition parties support the amendment.
As I have indicated, sadly the Bill does not go far enough in a number of key areas, including the detention of vessels in port as a punishment for non-compliance, and in the two areas that could cause maximum damage to P&O’s business model. Those two areas relate to the argument that a ship should be designated as within the scope of the Bill for 52 days rather than 120 days, and to the roster patterns, which are covered by the seafarers charter. That is addressed in the Opposition’s new clause 2.
I am thanking the Minister quite a lot, but I have to say that one of his letters to the Committee did not provide the further detail that we had asked for about the Department of Transport’s review of the Equality Act 2010, including the regulations to prevent nationality-based pay discrimination. The Minister is rolling his eyes because that is outside the scope of this Bill, but it was contained in the EU retained law Bill, so I think it is reasonable to seek clarification.
In the time I have, I want to speak in support of Labour’s amendments and, indeed, those tabled by my friends from the SNP, which I believe would greatly improve the Bill and ensure maximum protections for our seafarers. New clause 2 focuses on the seafarers welfare charter, and I hope that the Labour Front Benchers will put it to a vote. I know that the unions, employers and the Government have been discussing a number of versions of the charter since April as part of the much-publicised nine-point plan, which we very much welcome and which is included in the “Maritime 2050” review. It is intended to set minimum standards on wider employment issues that the Bill does not cover. Again, I must mention roster patterns, crewing levels, pension rights, training and taxation, because the additional savings that P&O in particular made were not just down to saving the cost of seafarers’ wages. Most of the financial benefits were from changed roster patterns, pensions and other savings.
Sir John Hayes
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is kind of him to mention the maritime growth study from 2015, which, as he says, called for a comprehensive reappraisal of the matters he describes. It seems to me that the fundamental point is that terms and conditions cannot be separated from wages. If we are going to make maritime careers attractive to people and build them such that they have the status they deserve, we really do have to include terms and conditions in our considerations.
Grahame Morris
That is absolutely spot on. As I have said, the improvements in the amendments and the new clause have the support of the official Opposition and our friends in the SNP, but I believe that our aims for the Bill also command the support of a number of Members of the Government party.
Given the importance of linking wages and terms and conditions, the nine-point plan and the seafarers charter really should be on the face of the Bill. The Minister has been quite consistent in disagreeing with that and instead aims to publish a voluntary seafarer welfare charter. I had rather hoped that it would have been published in advance of these remaining stages, including Third Reading, but perhaps it will be published later this month.
In a letter to the Committee, the Minister wrote:
“The Seafarers’ Charter is being developed with the maritime industry and social partners to enhance the core employment protections available to seafarers.”
For the avoidance of doubt, “social partners” means the trade unions. That is really interesting, and I welcome the fact that the Government have chosen to adopt the language of the European Union in referring to seafarers’ rights. Again, for the avoidance of any doubt, the maritime industry includes P&O Ferries, the Irish Continental Group, which operates Irish Ferries, and DP World. The Government must be honest about the discussions they have had and are having with P&O Ferries about its future viability. The Minister responded to an issue raised in Committee relating to P&O by writing:
“The Department works closely with ports and operators across the Maritime sector to understand the market and any potential sources of disruption. We have not however made any specific assessment of the viability of P&O Ferries’ routes to or from UK ports.”
The unions have not seen a draft of the charter since August, and neither to my knowledge has Stena Line or DFDS, whose collective bargaining agreements with the RMT and the officers’ union Nautilus formed the basis of the original framework agreement. Safe roster patterns and crewing levels based on the agreements with Stena and DFDS were prominent, but sadly have since been diluted or removed. That puts hundreds more UK seafarer jobs under threat from bad bosses who are ruthlessly undercutting responsible employees, and I include P&O and Irish Ferries in that. I urge the House not to forget that Irish Ferries started operating on the Dover-Calais route in June 2021 with one vessel doing a freight-only service. It now operates a freight and passenger service with three Cypriot-flagged vessels on the same route. That is the reality, and progressive operators that provide decent seafarer jobs are being undercut every day. It is so important that this Bill is properly targeted.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Is the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) waiting to speak?
Mr Deputy Speaker
In that case, there are three Members waiting to speak. The debate has to end at 4.12 pm. The last speaker spoke for 25 minutes. At that rate, those on the Front Benches will not get a hearing. I call Sir John Hayes.
Sir John Hayes
I will speak briefly, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did notify Mr Speaker in advance that I was likely to contribute to this debate, not least because, having served on the Public Bill Committee, I was anxious to affirm some of the points made there and to endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) about the concessions the Government have made and the exemplary way in which the Minister has handled this consideration. The Government deserve credit for bringing this Bill to the House, following the P&O scandal, and for the continuing dialogue they have enjoyed with those of us who take a particular interest in these affairs.
New clause 2, which the hon. Member for Easington was referring to when I intervened on him, encourages the Government to look more widely at the terms and conditions enjoyed—perhaps I ought to have said “endured”—by many seafarers. The Minister knows that when I was the Minister responsible for these matters, I commissioned a growth study, which recommended that the Government take a more holistic approach to both the recruitment and skilling of those who go to sea on our behalf. We should remember that, although it is not often described as such, this is a kind of public service. Our merchant navy—our seafarers—do an important job that benefits us all, and that job should be recognised in the way that was recommended by that review.
The review also suggested that
“a vision and set of strategic objectives”
be established for our seafarers. A seafarers charter has been mentioned. I simply say to the Minister that this requires a bigger piece of work than the Bill. The Bill is to be welcomed—it does an important job—but there is a good case for a bigger review of these matters, and if I do not support the amendments today, it is because I think they do not go far enough.
One recommendation in the growth study was an interdepartmental ministerial working group on these matters. That is a sensible way forward given that we are not simply speaking of seamen, but of all those ancillary trades, crafts and industries related to the merchant fleet, all of which deserve proper consideration if we are going to revitalise this important part of our economy. What P&O did was not simply the unacceptable face of capitalism; it was a heartless, soulless kind of enterprise that has no place in a civilised nation. It was roundly condemned by Members from across this House, and rightly so, and it has acted as a wake-up call for Government and others as to what we need to do next.
When the Minister sums up, I hope he will commit to a rethink of how we build and maintain an appropriate merchant fleet, and set out a strategy accordingly. Because time permits no more, I will end on this: when people consider becoming seafarers, the conditions that prevail are an important barrier or incentive, and we owe it to all those whom we want to recruit to the industry to build on the Bill and do still more.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I have only just been made aware of the fact—I was unaware of this fact—that the right hon. Gentleman was not here at the start of the debate. He has been here long enough to know that, if he is in that position, then he does not tell the Chair that he is waiting to speak.
David Linden
I rise to speak to new clause 4 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). I will come on to the substance of the new clause later, but for now I want to offer my support to the Opposition amendments before the House.
My fundamental position on the Bill has not changed. Yes, I think it is a welcome step in the right direction, but it is incredibly unambitious in tackling the scale of the problems unmasked by the exploitative behaviour of P&O Ferries. It remains a source of extreme frustration to me that, when the P&O debacle unfolded, politicians in this place talked a really tough game, yet the legislation put before the House has not met the scale of the challenge. Even worse, the British Government have reneged on their previous commitments and, I would argue, have watered down the Bill. For example, in clause 3, as it stands, the House effectively gives a green light to port-hopping, which is symptomatic of how this whole problem came about, ergo letting the free market exploit existing weaknesses in legislation and regulation. To be blunt, when it passes, this Bill will be a bit of a missed opportunity, and all that remains for us during its remaining stages is to try to ameliorate it.
For the purposes of brevity, I will refer to new clause 4 as the Hebblethwaite amendment. Throughout Second Reading and in Committee, we spoke about the importance of giving this Bill teeth and of tightening things up. If Members speak to seafarers, as I have done to those in my constituency, they will know that one big source of anger is the fact that senior management at P&O Ferries got away scot-free with their utterly disgraceful behaviour. If we are to go as far as passing this Bill, please let us at least make sure that it has the legislative teeth to deal with the some of these complete reprobates, who have patently exploited workers and should not be deemed fit and proper persons to hold directorship roles.
Let us start with Peter Hebblethwaite, the CEO of P&O Ferries, who was paid £325,000 a year before bonuses. This is a man, as others have said, who proudly admitted to a joint Select Committee of this House that he knew the actions he was undertaking as company director were illegal, but he proceeded anyway, and he even had the gall to say that he would do it all over again if he got the chance. I absolutely agree with the RMT general secretary, Mick Lynch, who said:
“Gangster capitalists should not be rewarded for their appalling employment practices; they should be punished with the full force of law.”
However, herein lies the problem, because passing this Bill without my new clause 4 would mean that Mr Hebblethwaite has carte blanche to again behave as he did in March last year. In summary, there must be individual consequences for directors who seek to exploit workers, and the Bill currently lacks a personal liability clause. That is exactly what my new clause would do by enshrining in statute the ability to deal with these gangster capitalists who seek to ride roughshod over seafarers and other workers.
At its most basic level, Hebblethwaite was responsible for the unlawful sacking of almost 800 seafarers, using a pathetic, cowardly, pre-recorded video message. Despite all that, he is already out there promoting himself again; indeed he was rewarded with a promotion at DP World. What kind of a broken, sick system sees almost 800 seafarers summarily sacked—and sacked unlawfully—yet the boss is given a plum promotion for showing ruthlessness and the sheer brass neck to shove two fingers up to Government?
So, the kind of person this legislation would penalise if they fell foul of the Act is one who admitted breaking the law, and one who used handcuff-trained, balaclava-wearing security guards to remove dedicated, unionised seafarers and replace them with non-unionised workers, many of whom are paid a fraction of the UK minimum wage. Even worse, after experienced crew were fired by Hebblethwaite, the UK coastguard repeatedly detained P&O ships for a lack of crew training, including fire safety and lifeboat drills. But still—yes, still—Hebblethwaite is allowed to retain his position as a company director, which makes a mockery of our legislative framework.
Only by adding new clause 4 to the Bill can we finally deal with these gangster capitalists who Government Ministers had tough words for last year. But what will they do this afternoon when the Division bell rings? Will they vote to bring the likes of Hebblethwaite to heal, or, now that the media circus has moved on, will their protestations be exposed as little more than hollow words?
This Bill is underwhelming and many of us are seeking to give it greater teeth to ensure that never again can a company director like Hebblethwaite take such a calculated risk with people’s jobs and livelihoods, knowing fine well that the consequences of doing so result in nothing more than a few uncomfortable column inches. We need to enshrine in statute a strict deterrent which makes personal liability a reality for the Peter Hebblethwaites of this world, because if this whole sorry episode has taught us anything, it is that bad bosses will continue to be bad bosses unless we hit them where it hurts. It is on that basis that I have tabled new clause 4.
John McDonnell
I have been working for 20 years for this legislation and I cannot tell the House how crushingly disappointed I am. I just did a Hansard search of my statements over the years. Way back in May 2003 I had a Westminster Hall debate on the application of the Race Relations Act 1976 to seafarers, and I said then that
“the disparity is that non-UK seafarers will be paid less than half the wage of the others. On some ships, they are paid less than the minimum wage. We have also seen the behaviour of some companies, such as P&O Ferries, where UK seafarers have been dismissed and replaced by Filipinos to reduce wage rates.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 132WH.]
I said, too, that the “moral case” for legislation was “overwhelming” and that we needed to act now because we had the opportunity to act, but we failed. I raised it again in 2004, when I cited the practice with regard to Irish crews who were replaced by seafarers from eastern Europe on exploitative pay and conditions. I raised it in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008; I raised it later in 2010 and 2012, urging the Government to implement regulations to outlaw pay discrimination against all seafarers working in UK territorial waters. It just went on: I can quote this on an annual basis.
As has been said, the proposed legislation has been prompted by what happened, so predictably, at P&O last year. It has been said that the litmus test of this legislation is whether it prevents another P&O. It will not. We may be able to do something on the margins of wages with regard to this, but, just as P&O has done, companies will exploit people on rosters, or the number of hours they work, or how much time they have to spend on ship; they will undermine their pensions, introduce accommodation charges, as other employers have done as well, and reduce crew numbers, which, as has been said, puts lives at risk. That is the behaviour of the worst employers in the shipping sector, and we need to legislate to tackle the worst. The only thing that will prevent another P&O is firm legislation against fire and rehire. A consultation is currently taking place, but we should bring forward measures as rapidly as possible.
Mr Holden
I thank all hon. Members for their speeches. I found it a pleasure to work with everybody, particularly in Committee, to try to improve the Bill and get it into its best possible shape. I hope I have been clear in my responses during the debate that, with the Government amendments we have tabled, we have taken on board a lot of the feedback from Members. I understand that some will be disappointed that we did not go further, but I will come on to address a couple of points that were raised.
On amendment 24, the scope is intentionally tightly drawn because seafarers need to have close ties to the UK. The national minimum wage equivalent will be enforced in our territorial waters only. If we were to expand it to include less frequent services, there is a risk of bringing into scope seafarers working on services that we do not feel have legitimate ties to the UK.
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and others raised the issue of wages. We understand that wages are just one of the issues at stake more broadly, but they are important, which is why we are legislating on them today. On his broader concern, we are working on progressing the nine-point plan. I hope Members welcome the progress we have made, in particular on co-operation at international level. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) did say back in March last year that we needed a binding framework to prevent a race to the bottom on international standards. I hope she can see that we are putting in a new international standard, at least at some level, and that we are working with international partners to improve conditions.
I thank the hon. Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) for their comments on unlimited fines and seafarer welfare. I appreciate their views on wanting things to go further. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) raised Mr Hebblethwaite, as did other hon. Members. I have to agree with their comments about the man as an individual. However, we hope that the unlimited fines element for the company will make a real difference to the operation of people in this space.
Mr Holden
I do not have enough time to give way, I am afraid. I was very generous earlier on.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has raised the issue of the seafarers charter regularly. He and the hon. Member for Easington have raised it on a number of occasions. We will bring it forward in the near future. I hope they will see that it will, in quite a lot of ways, go further than I think they fear it might. Going beyond wages, food and accommodation will be covered under secondary legislation that will follow on from the Bill. They both also mentioned the scope of amendment 32.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) raised broader issues around legislation. In particular, he wanted an update on the maritime growth strategy. I am encouraged by the positive action taken by the industry so far, but I will raise the matters he has raised with the maritime Minister and ask her to write to him.
The hon. Member for Easington raised a number of issues, but went further than other hon. Members on P&O’s royal charter. I will ask the Privy Council Office to write to him. My understanding is that one has not been revoked since the reign of Charles II. We are now in the reign of Charles III, which is quite a long time after that. There was, apparently, a third-party action in an administrative court in 1853, which is slightly more recent. That could possibly be another route, but I will ask the Privy Council Office to write to him with the full details. That is the best place for that to come from—it is stretching my legal knowledge in that particular regard.
We are confident that the combination of surcharges, refusal of access and criminal offences will incentivise operators to pay seafarers on services within the scope of the Bill at least the national minimum wage.
I hope that I have addressed some of the major issues on which hon. Members have pressed me today. On new clause 4, I ask them to consider the impact that making the fines unlimited would have on individual companies and directors, and to think again about what they are asking for. On new clause 2, I put it to them that it really would not be appropriate to have a review within six months, before even the relevant secondary legislation has been made. On amendment 24, I refer them to the extensive comments that I made in my first speech.
I hope that hon. Members will see fit to pass the Bill without further pressing any amendments or new clauses. If they do press their amendments, I hope we can defeat them and see the Bill through to a Third Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 3 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Implementation and monitoring
‘(1) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the implementation of, and monitoring of the effects of, this Act.
(2) The report must include—
(a) an assessment of the impact of this Act on—
(i) roster patterns,
(ii) pensions, and
(iii) wages of seafarers;
(b) a statement as to whether further legislation will be introduced by the Government as a result of the findings of the assessment under paragraph (a);
(c) a strategy for engaging with trade unions for the purposes of monitoring the implementation of this Act, including in reference to conventions of the International Labour Conference;
(d) a strategy for monitoring the establishment of minimum wage corridor agreements with international partners of the United Kingdom, insofar as any such agreement ensures that any non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated for UK work at a rate that is equal to or exceeds the rate that would otherwise be required under this Act;
(e) an assessment of the interaction between this Act and existing international agreements or international maritime law, including reference to any litigation that has arisen as a result of this Act.
(3) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament.’ —(Louise Haigh.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Holden
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I was as shocked as everyone else in this House by the actions of P&O Ferries when, without warning, it sacked almost 800 of its workforce to replace them with cheaper labour. Those actions brought to light the urgent need to improve welfare and working conditions, and this legislation is part of the Government’s nine-point plan to address those issues.
The Bill delivers on the Government’s commitment to ensure that employers such as P&O Ferries, and all ferry operators that frequently use UK ports, are incentivised to pay at least the national minimum wage equivalent while their seafarers work in the UK or in our territorial waters. Although there is no silver bullet to address all the outstanding seafarer welfare issues, the Bill is a vital step in the right direction. At the same time, the Government will make progress on the other pillars of the nine-point plan.
We have been working closely with our near European neighbours on how we can collaborate to improve seafarer welfare and explore the creation of minimum wage corridors. We have been working closely with the French Government on improving seafarer pay, welfare and working conditions, and I am pleased to report that the French Government deposited in their National Assembly a Bill that aims to provide a level of pay protection to seafarers working on certain cross-channel services between the UK and France. It will ensure that seafarers working on certain cross-channel services will have pay protections while in specific parts of French territorial waters, mirroring our own UK territorial waters. We will continue to work together on our respective pieces of legislation to maximise their benefit.
In addition, we have begun our engagement with the Crown dependencies, and we will continue to engage with other European neighbours on strengthening co-operation to bolster seafarer welfare. The voluntary seafarers charter is being developed with the maritime industry and social partners to enhance core employment protections. It will be launched soon and will cover a wider range of seafarer employment standards. We are also supporting the French Government as they develop their own seafarers charter.
All this sends a message to every operator: “If you want to serve UK ports on a regular basis, you must meet our standards.” I reiterate the Government’s intention to continue working closely with ports, the shipping sector and unions as the Bill continues its passage through the House of Commons and, crucially, as we develop secondary legislation.
We are grateful to stakeholders for their constructive engagement and continued close working. I thank officials at the Department for Transport for all their work in bringing the Bill to its current stage and for progressing the nine-point plan, and Baroness Vere, who, as Maritime Minister, steered the Bill through the other place. I thank the parliamentary counsel for their work to draft the Bill and its amendments, and I also thank House staff.
I thank all Members from across the House, especially those who took part in the Bill Committee, for their support for and engagement with this important legislation. I am pleased that the Bill has reached this stage, and I look forward to seeing it in statute.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
This House agreed last March that the action taken by P&O Ferries was a national scandal. As the Minister said, 800 British workers were sacked with no notice. It was the reality of a business model that has been allowed to prevail on our seas for far too long—a business model predicated and dependent on exploitation.
As the Minister knows, Labour supports the Bill’s limited provisions, and we welcome the steps that the Government have taken to improve it in Committee. I know that the Minister has been listening and I thank him for the work he has done on strengthening the amendments that we called for in Committee. Amendments 3 to 10 beef up the enforcement and compliance of the provisions, amendment 26 allows for an unlimited fine to be imposed for breaching minimum wage provisions, and amendment 17 deletes the provision allowing operators to retain their revenue after a fine and ensures that it goes towards seafarer welfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), the shadow Minister, called for all those amendments in Committee, so we are very grateful to the Minister for this progress.
Fundamentally, however, as we have heard throughout this debate, the test for this Bill is whether it will end the exploitative practices that have become commonplace in the ferry sector for too long. Will it bring those responsible for this scandal to justice? In short, will it stop another P&O? Because six months on, it remains nothing short of a scandal that this Dubai-owned company, which received millions in taxpayers’ money during the pandemic, tore up the rights of British workers while its profits soared. And six months on, the chief executive, his board and those who deliberately and consciously broke the law in plain sight have faced no consequences whatsoever. They trampled over the rights of British workers, they came to this Parliament and boasted about it, they said they would do it all over again, and they have faced no consequences.
Whichever way we look at it, the message this sends to rogue employers around the world is simple: they can attack the rights of British workers on our shores with impunity. Every day Peter Hebblethwaite remains in charge of P&O Ferries, other employers who wish to undermine the rights of British workers will find comfort. The truth is that if P&O Ferries or any of its low-cost rivals wanted to act in precisely the same way again, nothing in this legislation would stop them doing so. That is why we regret that amendments were not made to close the loopholes that P&O exploited in the first place. There was a refusal to consult, and a refusal to notify. The Bill does nothing to address those glaring loopholes.
We know that bad bosses will exploit every loophole, so there can be no doubt, no room for manoeuvre, no scope for avoidance—that is why we pushed to close the port-hopping provisions for good. Regrettably, as the Bill stands, operators fall within the scope of the Bill if they call at a UK port only 120 days within a year—this has been debated at length this afternoon—while regular operators who call at UK ports once a week are excluded from the provision. Given that the Minister has rejected the call expressed so clearly across the House, we hope that there will be very close monitoring of the application of the legislation to ensure that the loophole is not exploited as we fear it will be.
Above all, the P&O scandal was supposed to represent a line in the sand for seafarers’ rights. The current situation means that many ferry operators are reliant on the low-cost crewing model that P&O exploited on 17 March. That exploitation is every bit as much about the conditions and rights of those seafarers as it is about pay. It will shock millions across this country to learn of the shameful model that too many ferry companies employ. People are working up to 91 hours a week and are on board for 17 weeks without any entitlement to shore leave. They are not entitled to any pension, and they are not entitled to any sick pay when outside of UK waters. That is precisely why we need a strong, legally binding seafarers charter on the face of the Bill—one that ends the race to the bottom that P&O Ferries has so cynically exploited.
Regrettably, Ministers rejected that amendment. Will the Minister commit to publishing the seafarers welfare charter—he has been asked to do so many times today—which is the Government’s preferred option for setting minimum conditions for rostering, pensions and other aspects of seafarer employment, and explain why progress in agreeing it has stalled since August? Will he further consider making it mandatory for employers to sign it, so that it is truly binding and drives up conditions across the sector?
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady and I are wholly agreed on the seafarers charter, but this Bill may not be the best place for it because, as has been suggested in various contributions, it is broader and wider than the scope of the Bill. But I entirely agree that we need it, and we need it quickly.
Louise Haigh
I am grateful for that intervention. I accept that the scope of the Bill is limited, but it was introduced as an opportunity to address the issues that were highlighted so egregiously in the case of P&O Ferries, so it is a major missed opportunity for the Government not to at least have published it alongside the Bill.
In closing, Britain is a proud seafaring nation. That tradition has been the envy of the world. The ongoing exploitation of these workers on these routes—all too often by entities allowed to be flagged elsewhere—is a stain on that tradition. With this Bill, we have moved a small step forward, which we welcome, but regrettably the chance to end that exploitation once and for all has today been missed.
Gavin Newlands
As I said on Report, it remains profoundly disappointing that the seafarers charter is not with us before this Bill concludes. I therefore remain disappointed by the final version of the Bill. I rather fear, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said on Report, that we will be back here again following another maritime scandal. That said, I genuinely hope that the Government are right in their assertions on various aspects of the Bill, but in my opinion it remains a missed opportunity.
I would like to thank a few folks. I thank the Clerks for their assistance, particularly Anne-Marie Griffiths, who has been a great help to us and, I am sure, other Members on the Back Benches. I also thank Nautilus, the RMT, Eurotunnel, the Law Society of Scotland, the TUC and the STUC for their assistance with briefings. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who I have suffered greatly—sorry, who has helped me greatly during the Bill’s passage. I thank Labour colleagues on the Bill Committee and, indeed, the Minister, who has listened perhaps more than most Ministers in Bill Committees I have been on. He gave us a number of concessions, despite my misgivings about where we are with the Bill overall.
One person I will not be thanking is Peter Hebblethwaite. He should be in a jail cell, as far as I am concerned. It is disappointing that the Minister could not accept new clause 4. The one small silver lining is that P&O Ferries’ actions, after a summer that saw British Airways, British Gas et al. treat their workers with utter contempt through fire and rehire threats, finally moved the needle enough to force this Government to act to protect workers against rogue employers. Perhaps we will actually see a meaningful attempt to address fire and rehire next.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 12 July 2021 in the last Session of Parliament (Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill: Programme):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 10, 1 to 9, 11 and 12.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [HL]
Tuesday 21st March 2023
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 February 2023 - large print - (7 Feb 2023)
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I begin by expressing my gratitude to all noble Lords for their thoughtful consideration of this important legislation. As the Bill progressed through your Lordships’ House and the other place, the Government listened carefully to concerns raised by parliamentarians, and we engaged further with stakeholders. The amendments before your Lordships’ House today address many of the concerns raised and ensure that the Bill is effective and enforceable, simple to apply and delivers its intended benefits to seafarers.
The amendments to be considered today may appear numerous, but many are minor and technical. The amendments can be considered according to four themes: switching powers to duties; clarifying matters around equivalence declarations; switching the duty for setting a surcharge from the harbour authority to the Secretary of State; and, finally, changes to regulations, guidance and directions, most of which come from the previous three themes.
I turn to the first set of amendments, which change the previously discretionary powers of harbour authorities to request declarations, impose surcharges and refuse access to harbours to mandatory duties. Through continued engagement with port stakeholders, we were informed that harbour authorities would be unlikely to exercise their discretionary powers without being directed to do so. Therefore, this change from discretionary powers to duties will strengthen the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these amendments. I confess that when the Bill finished its passage through this House, I felt rather depressed that I had not been able to convince the Government that there were some fundamental flaws, but the changes today show that the Government were convinced. The problem, I think, was not quite understanding the nature of the relationship between harbour authorities and the vessel operators that use the harbour. Putting them in the position of trying very hard to get the business of operators and then leaving it up to them as to whether they take action against them just did not feel right, particularly in cases where the vessel operators and the harbour authority are under the same ownership—there is a direct conflict of interests. All these amendments that change powers into duties are a really welcome clarification, particularly the duty on the Secretary of State and not the harbour authority to set surcharges.
I have two questions for the Minister. On Amendment 36, spending funds on seafarers’ welfare facilities is a really smart idea, but has anything been considered to ensure that any money spent this way will be additional and will not simply replace money that the vessel operators or harbour authorities would have spent anyway? Finally, and in many ways most importantly, on Amendment 44 and the refusal of access to a port under certain circumstances, I know that the industry was concerned that this would not be lawful under international maritime regulations and would amount to impeding the right of passage. , Has the noble Baroness had any further discussions with the industry and has she been able to convince its members that they are on safe legal ground?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the Motion before the House today in the name of the Minister. The action taken by P&O Ferries was a national scandal which should have marked a line in the sand, and any attempt to prevent a repeat of such events will always be welcome. On that basis, we have supported the limited measures in the Bill, but given the limited scope of this legislation, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and others also called for broader measures beyond wages.
The wider issues, including roster patterns, wages and pensions, have yet to be addressed, and I hope the House will soon see further legislation to deliver these. It would also be helpful to know how those responsible for such exploitative practices can be brought to justice, and there are still serious health and safety concerns regarding the working conditions of seafarers. We also have to consider the much wider problem of fire and rehire—another favourite of exploitative employers—but I am sure that is for another Bill on another day.
However, as much as I am disappointed that many of these problems remain, I am pleased that the Government have now introduced amendments, as set out in detail by the Minister, on issues which required clarification. These new amendments, including in relation to tariffs, fines, surcharges, the information that a harbour authority can request from an operator and the introduction of relevant offences, each have our support. It is important as well that it is not the harbour authority that sets the charge, as this raised a number of issues. We agree that spending money on seafarers is appropriate and right, and I am interested in the Minister’s answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
I will finish by expressing how grateful I am that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton, has engaged with the House throughout the passage of the Bill. I thank her for her time in a meeting to explain progress on the Bill on my second day as transport spokesperson, and for her patience in answering all my questions. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her involvement and contribution to the Bill. I thank the trade unions for continuing to champion the cause of seafarers and my noble friends on the Front Bench, particularly my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe for his personal support and for bringing his encyclopaedic knowledge to bear during the passage of the Bill. I hope the House will share our support for the Bill.
Royal Assent
Thursday 23rd March 2023
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 83-I Marshalled list for Report - (23 Jan 2023)