Seafarers’ Wages Bill [HL]
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“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.
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.
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.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [HL]
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
“(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.
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.
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.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [HL]
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have just two brief points to make. I thank and congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward the regulations this afternoon. First, I understand that there was a delay and that the statutory instruments had to be withdrawn and re-laid. I would very much like to understand why that was the case and have an assurance that that will not happen with future SIs.
My second concern relates to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 29th report, dated 10 February 2022. At paragraph 40 it says:
“To free up police officers’ time, these Regulations extend the range of offences that can be dealt with by civil enforcement officers acting on behalf of local authorities, or in some cases traffic cameras.”
I would like to understand from which budget the civil enforcement officers will be taking on this work. I am mindful of the extent to which local authorities’ budgets are under severe pressure at this time.
Who will be responsible for the traffic cameras? In north Yorkshire and County Durham we have very few fixed cameras; the traffic cameras are mostly mobile. When I was an MP in north Yorkshire, I was informed, on the quiet, that in many instances there is no film in static cameras in north Yorkshire—they are just there to alarm people, in the hope that their behaviour will be reformed because they see a traffic camera in front of them. Are we relying on mobile traffic cameras, which are still the province of the police, or are there some other traffic cameras of which I am not aware?
With those few remarks, I wish the SI good speed.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, on this side we very much support these measures; it would be odd if we did not, as my noble friend Lord Bradshaw has been arguing for this move for pretty much as long as I have been in the House, which is over 20 years now. Civil enforcement of moving traffic offences is, as he has argued, really important in improving the flow of traffic generally and particularly for buses. Bringing the rest of England in line with London is a welcome step. I also agree with the Government that we need better enforcement for safety reasons for cycle lanes, pedestrian crossings, and so on.
UK Logistics Industry
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I think the noble Lord is referring to some individual anecdotes. We are not aware that this is part of a systematic picture of a substantial shift. The vast majority of traders within Great Britain and Northern Ireland are ready to meet the new requirements at the border and are trading successfully.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, the British Ports Association is reporting that its members are telling it that the current rules are constantly changing and highly complex. They are also saying that guidance is not forthcoming for exporters and that they are unable to get answers from government officials. When might they expect this situation to improve?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
All information related to trading with the EU is published on the GOV.UK website. In the first three weeks of January there were 3.35 million visits to transition content and 470,000 visits to business pages specifically. The Government have published a haulier handbook in 14 languages specifically for hauliers. I am sure that noble Lords will have seen that a haulier handbook focusing specifically on Northern Ireland was published today.
Covid-19: Transport Industry
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government have already put in an unprecedented package of financial support, which has recently been extended through the winter economic plan to make sure that support is provided not only to coach companies but to all sorts of companies across the country. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, we are working with DCMS to try to open up tourism wherever possible, but coach companies are being innovative and getting business where they can. I recently visited York Pullman, in York, and was heartened to see that it is looking to find more innovative ways back into work. I know it is difficult, and we continue to engage with the coach sector as the pandemic progresses.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, in March the Government announced a fund to improve electric vehicle infrastructure, particularly charging. Does the Minister agree that if post-Covid recovery is to be largely car-based, it is essential to bring forward that fund early so that more people will buy electric vehicles? Can she update the House as to when this money will become available?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government do not want the recovery to be mostly car-based. We are keen to encourage passengers back on to buses and trains, and we are clear that people can use public transport and should do so safely. The noble Baroness mentioned electric vehicles. Of course, the Government have a huge commitment to expanding the number of charge points and supporting consumers when they buy their electric vehicles.
Brexit: Road, Rail and Maritime Transport (EUC Report)
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, I hope that we are successful in retrieving the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, since he is certainly always worth listening to.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for introducing the committee’s report. With much of the evidence almost two years old, I am really quite alarmed that it has taken so long for the report to come forward for debate. Having chaired an EU sub-committee myself, I know just how much work goes into these on the part of Members and staff but also witnesses and those who give evidence.
More than 20 years ago now, I was a county councillor in Suffolk and deputy chair of the Local Government Association and I was appointed to the transport committee of the EU Committee of the Regions. It was clear then that membership of the European Union and the way it was developing were making significant changes both to the demand for transport across the continent, as the single market expanded, and to the way in which transport was organised and the various regulatory frameworks that underpin it. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is exactly right to say that there were many good things and it is a pity that we will lose those, and perhaps seeing what we can salvage from that would be an excellent way forward.
We have moved far beyond the stage of bemoaning Brexit, and what we must do now is focus on the practical implications, which are now just a matter of weeks away. What is surprising, in a report that is as old as this, is just how few of the committee’s concerns have been addressed, as the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Lansley, have pointed out. It has become clear that transport, and particularly road transport, is still a significant point of difference between the UK and the EU. As recently as 2 September, Mr Barnier reflected that UK demands were too close to wanting existing single market-style rights, without meeting any of its obligations. That does not bode well, and nor does the current mood music emanating from Downing Street.
We need answers to pressing issues right now. It will not be good enough to wait until problems ensue, because then we are likely to be trying to put in place hasty solutions, perhaps sought from a position of weakness—I am not as optimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. In that case, we will need real co-operation with our former partners, and I am afraid that the sort of rhetoric that we have seen so often is not creating the harmonious environment that we need. Nowhere will that impact more than in Northern Ireland, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie.
A large-scale study carried out in July by Descartes, a leading logistics business, found that two-thirds of large firms are very or extremely concerned about longer delays in their supply chain that would impact their business post Brexit. Fewer than one in five of UK businesses are prepared for a no-deal Brexit, and two-thirds of businesses have had their preparations disrupted by Covid-19. That is not a happy picture.
I shall concentrate most of my remaining remarks on road haulage, because that reflects the balance of this afternoon’s debate, but I shall make one quick point on maritime. Maritime transport is indeed an international trade and is regulated internationally very effectively by the International Maritime Organization, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, pointed out. As a former board member of Lloyds Register, I know the IMO very well, and I know that, effective as it is, it is not in any way democratically accountable. Indeed, when I was chairing a sub-committee and asked the IMO to come and give evidence to our inquiry, it simply refused and said, “We don’t do that,” so I think that the noble Lord needs to be a little cautious about the extent to which the IMO might be a model.
Returning to roads, Logistics UK has just warned that the new freight management system will not be ready in time for the end of transition in January. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case and outline what will be done in the interim? The special permits and bilateral agreements with individual member states will facilitate some EU-UK haulage, but they will almost certainly not be sufficient to meet demand and will require negotiation. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne said, it is going to be clunky. With no-deal Brexit looking increasingly likely, what is the Government’s assessment of the impact of no deal on the road haulage industry and subsequently on the supply chain?
The report highlights the importance of consultation with the haulage industry. Last week it was reported that Mr Gove had met representatives in talks that the Cabinet Office described as constructive. That is a relief, I thought, until an unnamed source from the haulage side described the talks as a “washout”. More constructively, the chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, said that they
“fell far short of our expectations.”
So while we are still embroiled with Brexit, the EU is continuing to develop new proposals. At the end of July, it produced its new mobility package, which will impact on freight transport access and access to the profession. Can the Minister say how the UK will respond to these rule changes and how they will impact on UK drivers in the EU and vice versa?
I want to ask the Minister about the lorry parks, which the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Bourne, and my noble friend Lord Bradshaw all mentioned. Here in Suffolk we are pretty sure we will end up having one. I understand why the Government have to do this in the way that they are suggesting, but I am sure that they will understand that it leaves a lot of local communities concerned. Can the Minister give any kind of assurance that, in the absence of the usual planning processes, there will be any mechanism for local communities to have their say on important details, such as the hours of working, mitigation for noise and light pollution, and increased and perhaps unsuitable use of local roads?
If we have some sort of normality next summer, many thousands of people will want to head to mainland Europe for holidays and many will want to come here. As things stand, we have mutual recognition of driving licences and drivers’ insurance cover when in the EU. Without similar successor arrangements, it is not at all clear what will happen next year. UK drivers will need an international driving permit. I understand that the committee’s recommendation that there should be an online option still has not been carried out and that you still have to go to the post office in person. Will the Minister say what will be done to improve the accessibility of the permit? What will be the position for EU drivers coming here?
With regard to bus and coach travel, can the Minister confirm that passenger rights conferred by the EU regulation have been transferred to the UK body of law?
Finally, the report points out that bus and coach travel is liberalised at the EU level, and the committee has called for an agreement to retain reciprocal market access. Without that, Interbus will be of very limited use. Can the Minister update the Committee on progress on bus issues? I look forward to hearing from her.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I understand that connection with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is still impossible, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
Passenger Train Services
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
On the latter part of the noble Lord’s question, I would not want to pre-empt the Williams Rail Review by giving any indication as to what is in it—mostly because I do not actually know, not being the Rail Minister. On the publication date, I will take that back to the department to see if I can get an updated date for him, and I will write to him.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
To what extent will demand for rail services be taken into account when deciding which sectors will be unlocked? How will this be managed given the significant regional variations in the use of rail for commuting?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That is an incredibly important question. I am sure the noble Baroness will understand that we are considering all these issues at the moment. There will be regional variations according to which services are more likely to be used. There will also be variations with long-distance services and short-distance commuter routes. All these considerations are being put in. Also, when restarting public transport, one of the key things that we will have to do is look at local impacts—working with metro mayors, for example, and local transport authorities to make sure that they feed into the system and help us plan for their local economies, to get people back to work.
Transport: Buses
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for his question, but I also point out that this Government support the bus sector to the tune of £2.2 billion from the taxpayer. That is 12% higher in real terms than under the last Labour Government. I also point out that the £1.3 billion that the Labour Party proposes putting into buses seems to be coming away from road maintenance and upgrades. That is a false economy, because one of the key issues in getting people back on buses is journey reliability, and that relies on good roads.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, important new powers were introduced in the Bus Services Act 2017, but because they are available only to areas with elected mayors, most rural areas are excluded from them. If experience shows that these powers are effective, will the Government rethink their availability to rural areas?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I hate to disagree with the noble Baroness, but there are two different types of powers that came in under the Bus Services Act. The first is the franchising power, and in that regard, she is right; it is available only to local elected mayors, because it needs a significant grouping of bus operators and also the population. What is available to all local authorities, and is really important, is enhanced partnerships, where the local authority works with the operator. The local authority can put in place bus priority measures and parking enforcement and, in return, the bus operator can provide better ticketing information and faster services.
Thomas Cook
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the Commons.
The collapse of Thomas Cook is a tragedy for the 178 year-old iconic business, its customers and its staff here and around the world—many of whom are still working to assist those who are seeking to return home to the UK. I note the inquiries that the Government have initiated. I have a number of issues to raise with the Minister about the background and lead-up to the demise of Thomas Cook.
Last year, the company was urged by its auditor EY to stop using an accounting method that could have been used to flatter its financial performance and, in the process, improve the pay of the top executives, since their bonuses were linked to performance. Given that the Government would have known that the collapse of Thomas Cook would involve taxpayers’ money to bring stranded passengers home, and since the Secretary of State said in his letter to MPs and Peers two days ago that,
“We have been contingency planning for some time to prepare for this scenario”,
what action did the Government take in the light of the auditor’s clear warning about the accounting method being used by Thomas Cook and its impact on flattering financial performance and improving the pay of the few at the very top?
The Times also reported the criticism, including from the Prime Minister, of the top executives of the company for paying themselves large sums of money—a combined total of more than £20 million over the past five years. The only people in Thomas Cook who seem to be coming out of this with plenty of money in their pockets would appear to be those who have been at the top of the company. In the light of the auditor’s concerns on the issue of accounting methods, what pressure, if any, did Ministers put on the directors of Thomas Cook to change their ways?
We certainly know of one area where the Government have done nothing. The previous Secretary of State had said that he would introduce a new levy-funded regime to keep bankrupt airlines flying temporarily, but no legislation has appeared. A review called for changes in the law to enable airlines to continue flying for sufficient time to enable them to repatriate their passengers. However, as I understand it, the Government have not even formally responded to this review. The Minister will know that a similar system exists in some other countries, including in Germany, where Condor, Thomas Cook’s sister airline, operates. I understand that the Government have provided funds to help that company survive. I note that the Minister is looking at whether it is possible for airlines to wind up in an orderly manner without a need for the Government to step in. However, the truth is that the Government have done nothing since the failure of Monarch Airlines two years ago, which the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred to earlier.
Regarding the Government’s approach over the demise of Thomas Cook, did the Government receive a request for financial support to help tide the company over for the next few months? If so, what exactly was the request, when was it received, what was the Government’s response and what were the reasons for that response? Is it the case that Thomas Cook had reached an agreement or understanding to secure around £200 million with the assistance of the Turkish Government and Spanish hoteliers backed by the Spanish Government but that, when the UK Government indicated they would not act to support a British brand, that effectively killed any such agreement or understanding?
What is the Government’s estimate of the final potential or likely cost to the taxpayer, both direct and indirect, of Thomas Cook’s demise? Can the Minister provide a breakdown of how that estimated or potential cost is made up?
We know that some will benefit from the misery of the 9,000 people losing their jobs in this country, as well as from the disruption and worry experienced by up to 150,000 Thomas Cook customers. For a start, people who have already lost their anticipated holiday due to the decision to let Thomas Cook go to the wall are likely to have to pay considerably more to book another one. The cost of flights is now reported as doubling or trebling—or, to put it euphemistically, as one airline did:
“Our pricing, as is common practice in the travel industry, is based on the principle of supply and demand. As supply reduces, an inevitable consequence is that prices increase”.
There is no doubt that the increased income for the other airlines who are now putting their prices up dramatically will be reflected in substantial increases in the bonuses of those in their boardrooms—paid for by people who had their anticipated holiday with Thomas Cook snatched from them. Do the Government find this acceptable, or do they intend to take any action to ensure that people who have lost their Thomas Cook holiday will be able to secure an alternative, equivalent holiday at no further expense to themselves?
With high streets up and down the country having now lost yet another major name, will the Government be taking any new action to assist our already pressured high streets?
We have also read in the press that international hedge funds which bet against Thomas Cook have made substantial profits from its collapse and the misery of staff and holidaymakers. Apparently, nearly 11% of the travel company’s shares were shorted ahead of its collapse. Hedge funds will also apparently benefit from credit default swaps as a result of the collapse, with payouts expected to reach £201 million. This seems a very similar figure to that which Thomas Cook was seeking and with which the Government declined to assist.
Coming back to the Secretary of State’s letter and his statement that
“We have been contingency planning for some time to prepare for this scenario”,
why is it, then, that some Thomas Cook holidaymakers and staff have apparently been locked out of, or even in, their hotel rooms until they have settled any outstanding bills? The Minister helpfully confirmed that the CAA has taken initial steps to resolve a number of incidents, but are the Government satisfied that this action will be sufficient to avoid any repeats in the days and weeks ahead?
The Government have indicated that they are seeking to help those made redundant to find other jobs. Bearing in mind that Thomas Cook shops are found throughout the country, including in areas where appropriate jobs are in short supply, what timetable have the Government set for finding suitable alternative employment for redundant Thomas Cook staff? Are they guaranteeing that that employment will be at least at or near their current salary levels? Will they ensure that all staff affected receive the compensation and other payments to which they are entitled in full and without employment tribunals?
Like the Minister, let me finish by paying tribute to the team at the Civil Aviation Authority and those in government departments for the work that they are doing to repatriate Thomas Cook passengers. They are displaying a sense of public service and duty. Just as in the case of Monarch Airlines two years ago, their hard work and dedication is highlighting that, when the private sector fails, the public sector has to step in to pick up the pieces.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that long but very useful Statement, and for the letter that was sent out to Members. I echo the thanks to the staff of airlines, customer services, ground crew and so on, who have done so much to restore some order to what could have been a catastrophic situation. Those thanks must especially go to the employees of Thomas Cook, many of whom are showing a degree of compassion and humanity towards their customers that is sadly lacking in the attitude of the directors.
Given what we know already about the state of Thomas Cook, can the Minister say more about how the Government are going to, and I quote from the Statement,
“seek to understand the failings of stewardship”?
I will not repeat the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, but these questions of governance and of the failings of governance are key, both to prevent this happening again and in protecting consumers in this sector and others.
I can understand why the Government were reluctant to go in with a classic bailout, but I wonder whether they ought to have thought more about whether it was possible to fund Thomas Cook for a few weeks, specifically to bring back those customers who were already abroad. Might that not have been more efficient than having to scrape around for aircraft wherever we could get them? I would like to know more about that.
I understand that CAA guarantees to hoteliers apply only to those passengers who have ATOL protection. There are 40% who do not have that protection, and we are hearing all sorts of stories about people being locked out of accommodation. Not everyone has the financial resilience to simply pay a bill on demand to a hotel, especially as they have already paid once for a holiday, so I would like to hear more about the 40% who are not covered.
The Minister may be aware that the vultures are already gathering, and there are stories emerging of scams where people purporting to be from Thomas Cook are offering refunds to get people’s bank details. Will she urgently consider a social media campaign to highlight the dangers of this and setting out exactly what people should do if they have been affected?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their thoughtful questions and comments about this difficult situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the various reviews that the Government will make sure are undertaken as a matter of great urgency. He also mentioned the accounting methods and the comments from EY. Thomas Cook of course uses IFRS, the standard accounting rules. Those are used in 125 countries and have been adopted by the EU. Some people will push those to the absolute limit, and maybe Thomas Cook did, but we cannot say for sure. Once we have got to the stage where the repatriation has finished successfully and everyone is home, we certainly will look into all sorts of things, including its application of the various accounting rules. The official receiver will review all payments made to the board and creditors in the lead-up to the date when the board declared the company insolvent. The official receiver is able to recall payments if it feels that they were not made in the right course of business.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned governance, which is really important as well. I hope that when these reviews have been finished, we will take away a number of lessons from them. The travel industry has always operated in the way it does. The issue now is that some of these organisations are very large, and when the worst happens it has a very significant consequence. Therefore, we as a Government need to think about the long-term future for aviation and travel organisations when they become insolvent.
This brings me on to the second major area commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser: the airline insolvency review, which we asked Peter Bucks to undertake after Monarch. He submitted his report to the department in May this year. It is a long report; I am sure the noble Lord has read it. It has many different proposals—it was one of my responsibilities as the former Aviation Minister to go through it and see how we were going to take these various things forward. None of the things in it is easy, simple or without risk. There was a possible levy on passenger tickets but, as noble Lords will know from the repatriation today, simply having the money is only one thing—one has to have the aircraft.
That was the second thing that might be suggested: some sort of special administrative regime for an organisation. Again, that is quite complicated. I think we have one for energy companies and one for universities, but they are very difficult to put in place and require primary legislation. We are looking at that as a matter of urgency. The noble Lord also suggested looking at financial instruments. Again, we have been looking into that, at how they might either help or hinder—they might speed up a company’s demise.
I believe the German Government have been able to provide a bridging loan. I understand that Condor is in a different financial situation from the Thomas Cook Group as a whole, and maybe it is viable in the longer term. I very much hope that it is. However, we received a request from Thomas Cook for government support. I do not recall the date of the letter—it was possibly Friday. I will have to write to the noble Lord with all the details on what we received at what point and the reasons we decided to decline. I suppose one of the most obvious reasons was that Thomas Cook has until very recently been losing about £250 million a month, so it was not entirely clear to us that £250 million would be a good and viable long-term solution for a company which was clearly being weighed down by an incredible amount of debt.
The final cost of the repatriation is not known at this moment. I mentioned that it was £50 million for Monarch; this is at least twice the size and much more complicated. It is a fast-moving situation, but of course we are striving to keep costs to a minimum and are in open discussions with a number of third parties with which we will look to reach an agreement over future financial support.
With regard to the industry taking advantage, I agree with the noble Lord that this is very disappointing indeed. We do not expect anybody to take advantage in a difficult situation. On the flip side, I am very pleased by the support that we are being given by certain airlines—for example, BA and Virgin, which have both been offering rescue fares to people in places where we do not have repatriation flights.
Obviously, we have done a significant amount of contingency planning. We knew what our plan was for the hotels, but until the event actually happened we could not put that plan into place. The letters went out to 3,000 hotels; imagine you are a hotel far away and you get a strange letter from the British Government saying, “It’s okay, we’ll pay the hotel bill”. It just took a while for the message to get through. We used our diplomats and consular staff to get out there and talk to the hotels. We also went straight in at ministerial level, saying to Tourism Ministers, “Please can you speak to the hotels to make sure that people are not thrown out of them?”
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, also talked about what we called when doing contingency planning “keep the fleet flying”, which would of course seem obvious to anyone—they are planes, why can we not get them up in the sky? We really tried to look into that, but we need the legislation for that to continue, because operating an airline is not as simple as having a pilot and putting a plane in the sky. Unfortunately, one needs many indemnities and certificates, but we hope to be able to put something in place which would allow the fleet to continue to fly so that, should this ever happen again, that would be the most obvious way of sorting it out.
Those passengers not guaranteed by ATOL may well have other routes that they can use if they pay by credit or debit card or through travel insurance. If there is one other thing that has come out of this, it is that many people go on holiday nowadays and do not think about travel insurance or what might happen if the travel company goes into liquidation. People might want to think differently how they protect themselves when they go abroad.
I was appalled to see the scams too, people saying on social media that they are getting telephone calls from people saying that they can get their money back. We are working on it and the CAA will be putting out some stuff—it might already have gone out—making sure people are aware that there are scams out there. The good thing is that social media is doing its own thing. People who are not connected are already saying, “Beware, there are some very dodgy people out there”.