Draft Legal Services Act 2007 (General Council of the Bar) (Modification of Functions) Order 2018
Draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions) (General Council of the Bar) Order 2018
(6 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (General Council of the Bar) (Modification of Functions) Order 2018.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions) (General Council of the Bar) Order 2018.
Lucy Frazer
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. The purpose of both orders is to ensure the more effective and efficient regulation of the Bar and alternative business structures by the Bar Standards Board. I shall begin by explaining a small technicality. The orders are in the name of the General Council of the Bar, but they relate to the functioning of the Bar Standards Board. The reason for that is that, in accordance with the Legal Services Act 2007, the Bar Council has delegated its regulatory responsibilities to the BSB.
I should mention that I was a practising barrister before entering the House of Commons, and while I was a barrister, for a short time I also served as a member of the Bar Council.
The second order, made under section 80 of the 2007 Act, is very straightforward. It simply allows an appeal route in relation to decisions by the BSB. I will briefly expand on that. The BSB was made a licensing authority in February 2017. That means that it has the power to license those that provide legal services. Initially that was barristers, but it now includes a wider range of bodies because of the expansion in those able to offer legal services as alternative business structures under the 2007 Act. Where decisions are made by the BSB, it is appropriate that there is a route by which to challenge its decisions; and when the BSB was first established as a licensing authority, a temporary appeal route was established to the High Court.
This provision enables the First-tier Tribunal, rather than the High Court, to hear and determine appeals in relation to decisions by the BSB. That is an appropriate route, as the First-tier Tribunal has a jurisdiction in the General Regulatory Chamber and has judges with experience of considering regulatory appeals. The First-tier Tribunal already deals with appeals against licensing decisions by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Provision in that regard was made when they were each designated as a licensing authority. This draft order is supported by the Bar Council.
The first order, made under section 69 of the 2007 Act, modifies the functions of the BSB in six main ways. It gives the BSB the power to make regulations or rules allowing for appeals to the First-tier Tribunal, so it is in effect the counterpart to the section 80 order. It gives the BSB, in its role as an approved regulator, the same intervention powers as it has as a licensing authority, and it gives the BSB powers to make rules in relation to information gathering, disciplinary arrangements, practice rules on engaging disqualified individuals, and compensation arrangements.
I shall briefly explain why these powers are sought. Currently there is no statutory basis for much of the regulation of individual barristers or entities by the BSB. Barristers are regulated under a non-statutory regulatory regime, with barristers in effect consenting to be bound by the BSB’s rules and thus establishing a contract between them. That arrangement is underpinned by a series of agreements between the Bar Council, the Inns of Court, the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service and the BSB.
In an ever changing legal services market, a contractual mechanism of regulation is simply not sustainable in the long term. The legal services market is continuing to evolve, with innovative businesses, which have different and novel business models, entering the market at a rapid rate. Since February 2017, the BSB has been able to license ABSs in addition to regulating barrister entities and individual barristers. The BSB is currently regulating 80 barrister entities and seven ABSs.
The Legal Services Board and the BSB believe that the interests of consumers and the public would be better protected if many of the BSB’s arrangements for regulation were placed on a statutory basis, as that would enable the BSB to react more effectively and efficiently to the rapidly changing nature of the market. These provisions will place the BSB’s regulation of barristers on a statutory footing.
These changes are sought by the BSB, to which the regulatory functions have been delegated. They were recommended by the LSB, which has general oversight of regulation in this area, and the Lord Chancellor has accepted them. That is how the draft orders came to be before the Committee.
I should mention that when the LSB consulted on the draft section 69 order in 2016, concerns were expressed by the Bar Council, the Inns of Court and the Institute of Barristers’ Clerks. The BSB took time to carefully consider those concerns and has committed to working with interested parties to ensure that regulations are proportionate and in keeping with the eight statutory objectives in the Legal Services Act.
In conclusion, we believe that these statutory instruments are necessary to enable the BSB to carry out its role as a regulator more effectively and efficiently, and to better regulate in the interests of consumers and the public. I commend the draft orders to the Committee.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. The draft order concerning appeals to the First-tier Tribunal makes perfect sense, so we do not seek to divide the Committee on it. We do not seek a Division on the other draft order either, but the Minister mentioned that some concerns were expressed by the Bar Council—including its chair, I think—the Inns of Court and the Institute of Barristers’ Clerks about some of the provisions that are being applied for.
I understand from my discussions with the Bar Council that the Bar Standards Board says that it does not intend at the moment to bring into force the provision for compensation arrangements for individual barristers and entities, or to provide for the administration of those arrangements. That raises a question: if the BSB does not intend to use that provision, why did it ask for it? The Bar Council has similar concerns about a couple of other things that have been alluded to. If the Bar Standards Boards says it will not implement some of these things, why has it asked for the powers?
That said, however, we do not seek to divide the Committee. I should declare that I, too, was a practising barrister.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT LEGAL SERVICES ACT 2007 (APPEALS FROM LICENSING AUTHORITY DECISIONS) (GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR) ORDER 2018
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions) (General Council of the Bar) Order 2018.—(Lucy Frazer.)
Draft Policing and Crime Act 2017 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Policing and Crime Act 2017 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl, on this important anniversary of female suffrage.
The draft regulations will complete some unfinished business in relation to the Policing and Crime Act 2017, which received Royal Assent just over a year ago, on 31 January 2017. Hon. Members will recall that the Act provided the legislative underpinning for a number of important reforms, including enhancing the local accountability of fire and rescue services by enabling directly elected police and crime commissioners to take on the functions of fire and rescue authorities where a local case is made; abolishing the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and giving the Mayor of London direct responsibility for the fire and rescue service in the capital, with operational responsibility for the service being vested in the London fire commissioner; strengthening public confidence and trust in the police by radically reforming and simplifying police complaints and disciplinary systems; enabling chief officers to make better use of police staff and volunteers, freeing up police officers to focus on their key tasks; strengthening the protections for those under investigation by the police by ensuring that arrangements for police bail properly balance the rights of individuals with the need to protect the wider public; and closing gaps in police cross-border arrest powers to enable the police to arrest a person wanted in another UK jurisdiction without first having to obtain a warrant.
To give effect to those reforms, the 2017 Act made the necessary changes to the substantive legislation, including the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, but it was also necessary to make extensive consequential amendments to other enactments. Since it was anticipated that further such consequential amendments might be identified after Royal Assent, section 180 of the 2017 Act includes a standard power to make such amendments. The draft regulations derive from that power.
The consequential amendments made by the draft regulations are wide-ranging, and several are wholly technical in nature. Accordingly, as the Committee will be pleased to hear, I do not propose to go through each and every provision. Instead, I shall focus on the key provisions.
The 2017 Act facilitated a change to the governance arrangements for fire and rescue in London. From April, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority will be abolished and day-to-day responsibility for the fire and rescue service will be vested in the new London fire commissioner, who will be accountable to the Mayor of London, supported by a new deputy Mayor for fire. This reform has the full support of the current Mayor. It is entirely possible that appointments to the office of London fire commissioner will be made from among senior firefighters who are members of the existing firefighters’ pension scheme. It is right that in that event the appointee should be able to retain membership of the firefighters’ pension scheme, so regulations 2 and 10(3) provide for that. Now and in the future, the Mayor should be able to appoint the best available candidate to the office of London fire commissioner; failure to make the necessary changes to the Fire Services Act 1947 and the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 would be likely to significantly reduce the pool of suitably qualified candidates for the post.
Outside London, the 2017 Act provided for locally driven reform of the governance of fire and rescue services. Hon. Members will be aware that in October, the police and crime commissioner for Essex, Roger Hirst, became the police, fire and crime commissioner for Essex. My right hon. friend the Home Secretary is considering similar proposals for the PCCs of Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, North Yorkshire, Staffordshire and West Mercia to take on the functions of the fire and rescue authorities in their areas.
The operation of fire and rescue authorities is governed by a wide array of local government and other legislation. Part 2 of schedule 1 to the 2017 Act made numerous consequential amendments to modify such legislation to ensure that it could continue to operate for the new class of PCC fire and rescue authority. We have identified a small number of further enactments, including the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which makes provision for the financial administration of fire and rescue authorities, that also need to be amended. Some transitional provisions were included in the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex (Fire and Rescue Authority) Order 2017, but the draft regulations put those provisions on a permanent footing.
The final particularly noteworthy provision in the draft regulations relates to the reforms to pre-charge bail that came into force last April. Those reforms addressed the legitimate concern that the then arrangements resulted in a significant number of individuals spending months—in some cases years—on pre-charge bail, only for them not to be charged, or, if charged, to be found not guilty. Such a prolonged state of limbo was undoubtedly extremely stressful for the individuals concerned, particularly if they were subject to onerous bail conditions.
Our reforms address such concerns by, among other things, creating a presumption in favour of release without bail, and setting clear time limits so that pre-charge bail will only last for longer than 28 days where necessary and proportionate. The evidence suggests that one of the main objectives of the reforms—namely, to reduce the number of individuals subject to pre-charge bail—is being delivered.
Regulation 4 of the draft regulations makes a consequential amendment to the Contempt of Court Act 1981, arising from the changes to pre-charge bail. The relevant provisions of the 1981 Act, known as the strict liability rule, are designed to ensure a defendant’s right to a fair trial is not prejudiced by adverse publicity during the period of the police investigation and pre-trial. The restrictions on the publication of potentially prejudicial material apply while an investigation is, in the jargon of the 1981 Act, “active”. The draft regulations extend the definition of “active” so that the protection afforded by the 1981 Act applies in a case in which a person is released without bail while the police investigation continues.
I reassure the Committee that we are not aware of any case in which the lack of protection from the strict liability rule under the reformed pre-charge bail system has been prejudicial to the case. Even where the strict liability rule does not apply, publications can still be convicted of contempt where an intent to prejudice a case can be shown. The draft regulations merely return the position on contempt to where it was before those reforms were made.
The Policing and Crime Act 2017 was and is a landmark piece of legislation to support the transformation of policing and the fire service. Many of its provisions are already in force, and I expect the other substantive provisions to be commenced later this year. The draft regulations support the implementation of the measures already approved by Parliament in the last Session. On that basis, I commend them to the Committee.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
The Committee will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to speak for the full remaining hour and a half. Like the Minister, I do not even intend to address all of the draft regulations, even on this day of the centenary of women’s suffrage. I was pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East arrive; I was worried I would be the token woman serving on the Committee.
I want particularly to address the issues around the regulatory amendment to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the reform of the pre-charge bail system. The Opposition are very happy to support the draft regulations, but there are some concerns about the implementation of these reforms. As the Minister said, as a consequence of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, rather than being bailed, a large proportion of defendants are now released under investigation, which has already begun to raise a number of issues in practice.
First, unlike what the regulations intend, there is no clarity or timescale whatsoever for the suspects as regards their investigation, leaving them in limbo and with that investigation stretching ahead of them. Suspects are now unaware of when it is safe to assume that they are no longer under investigation, or indeed whether they are likely to face further police involvement if they contact someone connected with the allegation, despite there being no bail conditions preventing them from doing so.
Furthermore, many elements of police investigations can take substantially longer than 28 days, such as the examination of electronic devices, as we have seen recently with the issues around police disclosure. That means that the police will still investigate the matter as normal, but a suspect is no longer required to return to a police station to formally answer their bail. However, without that impending bail appointment, it is possible that investigations will take even longer to conclude, as the police no longer have fixed deadlines by which to provide updates. I know personally of several cases where suspects have waited for months for investigations into the most minor offences with no clarity about their investigation. The legislation is therefore having the opposite effect of its intended laudable consequences.
Concerns have also been raised about the consequent costs for policing and the court system as a whole. The evidence appears to suggest that releases under investigation have simply replaced bail with a fall of 26% of suspects bailed last March down to 4% in the three months that followed, while releases under investigation rose to 25% in the same period. Will the Minister review the figures and consider whether the new system has achieved its intended outcome, as it has been in place for almost a year? As I say, the Opposition are happy to support the regulations.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The explanatory notes say that the 2017 Act allows for the extension of the police disciplinary regime to former police officers in certain circumstances. We know that that has been a device used by police officers who are suspected of breaking the law or the regulations in some way to conveniently retire and escape retribution.
I have a constituency case that has been going on since 1987. Mr Daniel Morgan was attacked and killed with an axe during an investigation he was carrying out into alleged police corruption involving a Maltese drug gang. The investigation has been going on since 1987, and the publication of a report is promised this year, as it was last year and many other years before.
I think I am one of the few Members of the House who has read the Operation Tiberius report, which I believe should be read by all Members. It is a remarkable account of corruption in the Metropolitan police and lists names of errant police with their ranks, addresses and numbers, and the villains with whom they co-operated in plotting and covering up crime. They operated in masonic lodges because they would have been exposed had they operated in more public circumstances. The document has never been published, although it was leaked in substantial form to The Independent newspaper. However, two of us who were members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs were allowed to see it under very strict circumstances.
There is a great deal of concern about police activity and we have every reason to be worried when we read of a case of a retired police constable who is holding information on an hon. Member that he discovered in a legitimate police search some 10 years ago. The activity was not illegal, but the information was then published 10 years later after the officer retired.
The Chair
Order. Mr Flynn, for the assistance of the Committee and the Chair, will you relate your remarks to the regulations before the Committee? I think that would be most helpful.
Paul Flynn
I am particularly referring to the part of the regulations that relates to the extension of the police disciplinary regime to former police officers in certain circumstances. That retired officer used allegations and alleged evidence against a Member of this House regarding an act that was not illegal in order to damn the reputation of that Member. Will this change mean that that person can be pursued for an action which was very detrimental to the reputation of one of our hon. Members?
Mr Hurd
I shall address my first remarks to the hon. Member for Newport West, who, through the experience of his constituency case, his experience on the Home Affairs Committee, and the privileged access he appears to have had to that document, clearly feels strongly about the police disciplinary regime and how it relates to former officers. There will be a lot of sympathy in the Committee and the broader House for the central point, which is that the police police by consent and that is built on a foundation of public trust in their practices and their ethics.
That is why the substantive changes made by the 2017 Act, extending the police discipline system to officers who have left policing and are no longer serving—in the most serious cases, where a serving officer would be facing dismissal—are important. The changes removed restrictions preventing police officers from leaving while under investigation but allowed proceedings to continue to a full conclusion post-service. That is an important change. I will not get drawn into specific comments on the case that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I would certainly refer him to statements made by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, Sir Tom Winsor, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, both of whom were extremely forthright in condemning that behaviour as inconsistent with the police code of conduct and their duty of confidentiality.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, who serves on the Front Bench, is entirely right to probe the consequences of reform, particularly in relation to pre-charge bail. We have to be mindful of the consequences of change and how they affect the whole criminal justice system. I can reassure her that, as she asked and would expect, this is under review by the Criminal Justice Board—on which I often represent the Home Office—which is looking at exactly the data on what is happening as a consequence of the reform.
The short answer—it sounds a bit evasive but is not meant to be—is that the data are inconclusive at this stage, but colleagues across the criminal justice system are keen to press for further information about what is happening across the system as a result of these changes. We can see that there has been a significant fall in the use of pre-charge bail. While the reforms limit the length of time an individual can be on bail, they do not—and were never intended to—impose limits on the length of time an individual can spend under investigation, which is the hon. Lady’s point. We are encouraging chief police officers to examine the way their forces handle cases released under investigation—that is without bail—in order to ensure that the reforms to pre-charge bail do not inadvertently lead to longer investigation. As I said, it is too early to have data to give the hon. Lady a conclusive answer, but I assure her that the system is keeping it under review. I know she will continue to hold me and the system to account on that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Seafarers (Insolvency, Collective Redundancies and Information and Consultation Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Seafarers (Insolvency, Collective Redundancies and Information and Consultation Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. The draft regulations will amend the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004. Together with the Seafarers (Transnational Information and Consultation, Collective Redundancies and Insolvency Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2018, the draft regulations will transpose the requirements of the seafarers directive into the law of Great Britain. Northern Ireland is making provision to transpose those elements for which it has devolved responsibility.
In simple terms, the purpose of both sets of regulations is to ensure that seafarers and share fishermen, where employed, are provided with the same level of employment protection as those working on UK soil with regard to insolvency, collective redundancies, transfers of undertakings, information and consultation and works councils. They further demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that employment rights are protected in the UK.
In its 2009 communication, “Strategic goals and recommendations for the EU’s maritime transport policy until 2018”, the European Commission stressed the need to promote maritime employment and address shortages of European seafarers. It established a taskforce to look into measures to strike a balance between the employment conditions of EU seafarers and the competitiveness of vessels registered within the European Union. The taskforce submitted its findings in early July 2011 and identified five employment directives that contained derogations for seafarers that, if member states chose to apply them, allowed land-based workers greater employment rights than those at sea. It also identified the posting of workers directive, but it was quickly recognised that that directive required major amendments that went beyond providing for the potential inclusion of seafarers.
The purpose of the seafarers directive was to remove the derogations and address the anomaly that land-based workers may enjoy greater employment rights than those at sea. Because member states have been able to apply derogations on an ad hoc basis, the result has been that businesses in one member state have been able to comply with less favourable social protection for seafarers than those in another.
The Government and the UK social partners—Nautilus International, the RMT and the UK Chamber of Shipping—have been fully supportive of the seafarers directive. The UK social partners were at the forefront of discussion with the European social partners and were instrumental in steering them. The Government have fully engaged with the social partners.
I will not detail all the amendments that the draft regulations will make, because most of them simply delete existing provisions. Instead, I will draw to the Committee’s attention the reason for some of them. The UK has previously made use of derogations in relation to share fishermen, as it considers them to be self-employed. Share fishermen are fiercely protective of their status and I should be clear that the draft regulations will not amend their employment status, but it is recognised that in certain limited circumstances share fishermen may be considered to be employed. In such circumstances, they should have the same rights required by the seafarers directive and enjoyed by those employed in other forms of work.
The draft regulations will amend the Employment Rights Act and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act to include share fishermen, where employed, in matters relating to insolvency and collective redundancies. Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides protection for employees in the event of a redundancy that arises in the context of the insolvency of an employer. Regulation 2(2) will remove the exclusion relating to part XI in relation to employed share fishermen. This amendment is not made for the purpose of implementing the amendment made to the 2008 directive by article 1 of the seafarers directive, but is made pursuant to the power in section 209(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act.
Part XII of the Employment Rights Act provides protection for employees in the event of insolvency and implements in Great Britain directive 2008/94/EC, relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer—otherwise known as the insolvency directive. Article 1 of the seafarers directive amends the 2008 directive by ensuring that seafarers employed as share fishermen are brought within the scope of the directive. To implement the amendment, regulation 2(2) will amend section 199 of the Act by removing the exclusion relating to part XII in relation to employed share fishermen. Regulation 2(3) will correct a previous omission and amend section 199 of the Act to bring merchant seamen within the scope of part XII, as previously provided for by the insolvency directive.
The derogation for the crews of seagoing vessels that was included in directive 1998/59/EC in relation to procedures for handling collective redundancies was removed by the seafarers directive. The UK had not relied on this derogation in relation to merchant seamen, but an amendment is made to section 284 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act to bring employed share fishermen within the scope of part IV, chapter II of the Act.
The Government have also made very limited use of the derogations for seafarers with regard to information and consultation. An employer was permitted to exclude merchant navy crew engaged on voyages of 48 hours or more from being a negotiating representative or an information and consultation representative. Furthermore, unless an employer permitted it, no long-haul crew member could stand as a candidate for election as a negotiating representative or an information and consultation representative. Nor could they be appointed or elected to be a negotiating representative or an information and consultation representative. A long-haul crew member was defined as a person in the merchant navy who was not a ferry worker or a person who normally works on voyages of less than 48 hours. These derogations will be removed by the regulations.
The regulations do not implement the other provisions of the seafarers directive on participation in European works councils, notification of collective redundancies and the transfer of undertakings. The first two of these requirements will be provided for by the Seafarers (Transnational Information and Consultation, Collective Redundancies and Insolvency Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2018 which were made under the negative resolution procedure and enter into force today. In the case of the amendments to the transfer of undertakings directive, no further implementation into domestic law has been required and guidance on the provisions in the directive has been published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
It may be noted that collective redundancies and insolvency appear in both instruments. Under the other instrument it provides new powers that place an obligation on an employer to notify the competent authority of the vessel’s flag state in the event of a collective redundancy involving the crew of a seagoing ship. In this regard the competent authority would be the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
As a consequence of the amendments to the insolvency directive, the negative instrument also makes minor amendments to section 165 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 on the insolvency of an employer of merchant seamen.
The regulations before the Committee are intended to ensure that seafarers and share fishermen have the same employment rights and protections as those who work in land-based roles. It is fully supported by UK social partners and the Government and I commend it to the Committee.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. We are supportive of the instrument, but we are concerned that the Government are late in implementing it. We also have some wider concerns.
In 2013, the European Commission issued a draft seafarers directive, extending employment and social directives to cover seafarers’ place of work. The seafarers directive called on member states to transpose the directive into domestic law by 10 October 2017. We are now in February 2018. Will the Minister explain why it has taken three years to finally put this into UK law and why the Government have missed the deadline for doing that within the three-month period?
The delay in transposing the directive into UK law has affected seafarers’ rights, especially those on offshore supply vessels who have been made redundant in recent years. Oil and Gas UK estimate that 13,000 jobs were lost in the industry in the first half of 2017—a staggering number of potential job losses. The RMT estimates that between 700 and 1,000 seafarers’ jobs have been lost on offshore supply, diving support and drilling vessels, as well as hundreds of jobs at North sea companies, since the seafarers directive was passed in the European Parliament in 2015. In some cases, the modest protections in the draft regulations would have provided better protections for seafarers who have been made redundant. I hope that the Government will reflect on the impact that their delay has had on workers who have been made redundant.
The growing decommissioning sector is likely to mean competition for contracts to carry out this work. It is unclear whether the protections set out in the draft regulations will apply to seafarers working on foreign-registered vessels who carry out that decommissioning work. Will the Minister confirm whether those workers will be covered?
The Opposition support the draft regulations, as I said, but we think the Government could go further. I am concerned that if the Government’s post-Brexit aim for seafarers’ employment rights is to go no further than the EU and to abide by the minimum standards in international regulations such as the maritime labour convention, it will lead to a loss both in jobs and in skills. The seafaring industry is rapidly losing skilled people, because not enough people are being trained. Will the Minister say what further steps the Government intend to take on employment rights for seafarers, especially with respect to the national minimum wage and equality? I urge her to bring forward the planned five-year review of the impact of the provisions to coincide with the post-Brexit period, including any transition period, to ensure that the UK statutory framework equalises protection for seafarers and land-based workers.
I would be grateful if the Minister addressed those points. We support the draft regulations and hope that they will be the start of a much needed process of improving employment rights for seafarers in the UK.
Ms Ghani
I must point out that this is my first go at a Delegated Legislation Committee as a Minister, Mr Bailey. Thank you for your patient chairmanship.
Before I tackle some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, it is important to note that the draft regulations have support from across the House, from the unions and from everybody involved in the sector. I do not recognise his thesis on job losses. The maritime industry is booming. Only last night, it had its annual dinner, at which we celebrated the increase in funding to ensure that even more seafarers can train in this country. The reputation of British seafarers is long and wide.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the national minimum wage. Seafarers are entitled to the national minimum wage when they are working in UK internal waters and ports, regardless of their nationality or their ship’s flag; outside UK internal waters on a ship with a UK flag, unless their employment is wholly outside the UK or they are not ordinarily resident in the UK; and outside UK internal waters on a ship without a UK flag if they ordinarily work in the UK. The issue of the national minimum wage has been raised several times in the Chamber by many colleagues across the House, and in my few weeks as a Minister I have raised it with the Department. I believe that a report is being undertaken by a working group from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Recommendations will be published shortly, and no doubt I will share them with the House. If we have not already had that conversation, we will be keen to have it going forward.
I am not sure what more to add, because we are all keen to put the draft regulations on the statute book. Fundamentally, they will allow seafarers the rights we enjoy on land. Seafarers are 20 times more likely to be at risk of harm from their work than those in other industries, and five or 10 times more likely than those in the construction industry. The time they spend working out at sea is being reduced—previously it was 30 to 40 years, but now it is 15 to 20 years—so it is absolutely right that they enjoy all the security we have. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee and hope that they will receive support across the House.
Question put and agreed to.