Seafarers' Wages Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members by email.

We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and groupings list for today’s sittings is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and groupings list shows the order of debates.

Decisions on each amendment, and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill, are taken when we come to the relevant clause. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first; other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in that group. I ask Members to stand in the normal way if they want to speak on a particular amendment, including the SNP spokesman as well—that would be really helpful. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance.

Clause 1

Services to which this Act applies

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out “any kind” and insert “every description”.

This amendment would bring the definition of ship into line with that under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 67, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—

‘“place in the United Kingdom” includes energy installations within the UK Exclusive Economic Zone.’

Clause 1 stand part.

Amendment 43, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

‘(a) who is employed or engaged in any capacity on board any ship providing a service to which this Act applies,

(b) whose employment or engagement on board the ship is carried out in relation to the provision of the service, and’.

This amendment would bring the definition of seafarer into line with the definition of “seaman” under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

Clause 2 stand part.

Amendment 48, in clause 4, page 3, line 18, leave out “or its territorial waters” and insert

‘, its territorial waters, or within the Renewable Energy Zone as specified by The Renewable Energy Zone (Designation of Area) Order 2004.’

This amendment would ensure that seafarers engaged in work supporting offshore wind installations are covered by Act.

[Gavin Newlands]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies, and to lead this worthy but anaemic debate. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will be generous when discussing the amendments before us. The amendments are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East.

A couple of these amendments are straightforward. Amendment 42 would change the definition of a ship or vessel, and amendment 43 would ensure consistency in the definition of a seaman. The amendments are intended to ensure that the legislation aligns with existing definitions of both “seaman” and “ships” in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. I thank the Law Society of Scotland for highlighting these issues.

Having differing definitions in law between the Bill and existing legislation for no apparent good reason—although we will hear what the Minister says—does not seem to be a particularly efficient route to go down. After all, the workers that the Bill is intended to cover are already seamen under current definitions and, on the face of it, the Bill does not aim to change that.

Similarly, if there is already a legal definition of a ship in statute, it seems useful to maintain that definition here. Indeed, when the Bill was in the House of Lords, Baroness Vere made a similar point in relation to the definition of a harbour, pointing to the existence of the Harbours Act 1964. Therefore there should be no reason why a similar principle cannot apply in this case. If there are good reasons why a new definition specifically relating to the provisions in the Bill is needed, I will be happy to hear it, but logic would suggest that using the existing definitions would be far simpler.

Amendments 67 and 48 are designed to deal with the fact that workers operating in the renewables industry, which will be increasing exponentially in the coming years, are currently excluded from the Bill. There are two methods of dealing with that under the amendments. They relate to the UK exclusive economic zone and to the renewable energy zone. The exclusive economic zone almost entirely matches the renewable energy zone, save for an area just under 200 miles north-west of Cape Wrath and more than 100 miles north of North Rona. Because our proposal is aimed particularly at protecting those seafarers engaged in work supporting renewables installations in UK waters, it seemed more appropriate to try to use the renewable energy zone rather than the EEZ, but we have given both a try. If the Minister wants to accept either, I will be perfectly happy with whichever one he chooses.

At the moment, the Bill’s extent is limited to the UK and its territorial waters—that is, the 12 nautical mile limit. That excludes the EEZ and REZ, which go to 200 miles. Our proposal would simply ensure that ships and seafarers engaged in work to support renewables installations were not inadvertently omitted from enjoying legislative protection simply because those zones are not listed in the Bill while territorial waters are referred to.

I note that the Minister in the Lords, Baroness Vere, had to correct the record after incorrectly stating that these workers were already covered by national minimum wage legislation. Workers in the oil and gas industries are entitled to national minimum wage protection. It would be ludicrous if their colleagues doing the same difficult and dangerous job, but supporting renewable industries, were denied the right to protections and to national minimum wage equivalence. This is, on the face of it, a fairly minor proposal. However, it would help to protect thousands of workers—a number that we hope will grow hugely over coming years—and would ensure that renewables were not just better for the planet but better for our workers.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Would it be convenient to discuss amendment 67 at this point, Mr Davies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Member for his point. Everybody will be covered if on a boat that moves to and from those platforms at least 120 times a year, but the expansion of the UK’s exclusive economic zone to cover that area would bring, as other hon. Members have said, particular complexity regarding international maritime law. I will come to that when we address the amendments to clause 2.

[Gavin Newlands]

I hear what the Minister is saying—that workers will be covered under the Bill if they visit a harbour 120 times or more per year—but that might not be the case for some. Clearly, the hon. Member for Easington and I are not going to get what we desire in this Committee this morning. Would the Minister commit to the Department for Transport looking at this issue six months after the passage of the Bill to see who is actually being covered by the legislation?

[Mr Holden]

I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman before Report with any further details.

For the reasons I have set out, we cannot accept amendment 67, but I do understand the concern about the national minimum wage entitlement for workers on energy platforms in the EEZ. Offshore wind farms and the renewables sector are critical to meeting our net zero target. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy regularly reviews the national minimum wage legislation to ensure that it is fit for the current workforce and businesses. We hope that this national minimum wage equivalence legislation will also reflect those changes over time as well.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—[Interruption.] I did not quite catch what the hon. Member for Glasgow East was saying from a sedentary position. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn raises some important points. I know she has been a massive campaigner, whether on that nuclear power station in her patch or, as she has raised more specifically today, on the issues around the freeport and the port of Holyhead, which is crucial for our work across the Irish sea. I can confirm to her that the sector is incredibly important, and we recognise how important such jobs are for her community and for coastal communities around the country. That is one of the reasons we are bringing forward this legislation today.

Clause 2 sets out what is meant by a non-qualifying seafarer. This is a person who

“(a) works on a ship providing a service to which this Act applies”—

as defined in clause 1—

“(b) whose work on the ship is carried out in relation to the provision of the service, and

(c) who fails to qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of that work merely because, for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the person does not work, or does not ordinarily work, in the United Kingdom.”

Paragraph (c) clarifies why they are referred to as “non-qualifying”—they do not meet the criteria—and that is why they need the protection that this Bill provides.

I appreciate that the intention of amendment 43 is to bring the definition of seafarer into line with the definition of “seaman” under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as is the intention of the amendments to clause 1 in the name of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. However, it is vital that we maintain consistency with the terms used in other employment legislation, such as the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015. That is where the terminology in the Bill comes from.

There is a risk of incorrect interpretation if we were to accept the amendment, as it may lead to the Bill being interpreted differently from other employment legislation, which is not our intention. Therefore, we need to retain the word “work” in this Bill, rather than moving to “employed or engaged”, as the amendment seeks. There are lots of different connotations of the word “employed” in particular. I hope the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North can see from what the Government are proposing that we do intend to cover all the issues he raises.

Amendment 48 seeks to extend the application of the Bill to the exclusive economic zone. Although we hope that appropriate wage rates will extend beyond our waters—indeed, we are having international conversations with partners, particularly those around the North sea, to try to ensure that—this Bill has been carefully calibrated after thorough consultation to focus on work undertaken close to the UK as part of ensuring that the Bill does not interfere with rights and obligations under international law, in particular the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. However, as discussed on amendment 67, seafarers on services from UK ports to offshore wind installations in the EEZ would be covered by the Bill for the portion of their journey that takes place in UK territorial waters, provided that the service calls at a UK port 120 times a year.

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I hear what he is saying on the definitions. The amendments on the definition of vessel and seafarer were intended as probing amendments to ascertain why there was a difference. We will keep an eye on any potential unintended consequences, but I will withdraw the amendment. I am disappointed by what the Minister said about those in the offshore renewable industry. I hear what he said: he thinks that they will be covered. He has promised to write to me before Report; if the issue is not dealt with satisfactorily, we may well revisit it on Report. However, on the basis of his answers and his promise, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Power to request declaration

[Mr Holden]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 3, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—

“(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which this Act applies will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least 120 occasions during a relevant year.

(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a national minimum wage equivalence declaration (in the rest of this Act, an ‘equivalence declaration’) in respect of the service for the relevant year.

(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 11(2)(a).

(3A) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”

This is the first of a number of amendments concerning national minimum wage equivalence declarations. Taken together, they impose a duty on harbour authorities to request declarations (as it stands, the Bill confers a power to do so). Declarations are to be requested in respect of years determined by regulations and must be provided within a period set out in regulations. Also, as a drafting change, “national minimum wage equivalence declaration” is abbreviated to “equivalence declaration”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for those points. They are particularly important. I do not think that we would be here today if it was not for her huge campaigning efforts on behalf of her constituents in relation to the awful actions of P&O. I absolutely agree with her that how this is implemented must be taken into account. I am sure that her port will be consulted as part of the broader consultation as regulations are brought forward, and I urge her and other interested hon. Members to take part in the consultations as we move forward.

Amendment 1, tabled in my name, turns the discretionary power to request an equivalence declaration into a mandatory duty—this is quite an important change, which hon. Members mentioned at earlier stages—where the harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least 120 occasions during a relevant year. Reasonable grounds may include a service’s schedule in previous years, or may arise from the normal communications that a harbour authority would have with operators using its ports.

The period within which a harbour authority must request an equivalence declaration will be determined by regulations, which will come forward. A harbour authority that fails to comply with its duty to request an equivalence declaration will be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. The duty will be subject to directions made by the Secretary of State, which I will discuss in further detail when we come to clause 11, which has an important bearing on this aspect of the legislation.

This amendment is part of a larger set of amendments that will also make the formerly discretionary powers for harbour authorities to impose surcharges, and to refuse access to their harbour, into duties, which is something that Opposition Members raised extensively at earlier stages. As things currently stand, where a harbour authority does not exercise its powers in the circumstances provided for in the Bill, the Secretary of State has powers to direct harbour authorities to do that. We want to see it turned into a duty because, through continued engagement with port stakeholders, we have been informed that harbour authorities are unlikely to exercise their powers without being directed to, and the direction-making power actually was intended as a back-up power and was not intended to be used as the primary means of ensuring that the regulations are met and a minimum wage equivalent is paid. It would be a significant administrative burden on the Department if every instance had to have an imposition from the Secretary of State, and that would undermine the effective functioning of the legislation.

The change from discretionary powers to duties will strengthen the Bill by ensuring that harbour authorities must request declarations, impose surcharges and refuse access to their harbour where appropriate, without requiring the intervention of the Secretary of State at every juncture. The intention is that we will ensure that operators of services in the scope of the Bill are made subject to the requirements, and the process will be made simpler for harbour authorities.

Amendments 2 and 5, tabled in my name, are consequential on amendment 1. Amendment 2 expands the existing power in clause 3(4) by adding a new paragraph that allows regulations to make provision

“as to the period within which equivalence declarations are to be provided”

by operators. Where an operator does not provide an equivalence declaration within that period, the harbour authority must impose surcharges under the new clause 2. This ensures that the point at which their duty begins to apply is clear to harbour authorities.

Amendment 5 makes provision for declarations to relate to a fixed relevant year, starting on a date to be set out in regulations. Providing a fixed relevant year will ensure that harbour authorities and operators are all working to the same period, providing consistency and certainty for harbour authorities to comply with their duties, reducing administrative burdens and making enforcement much more straightforward.

[Gavin Newlands]

On amendment 5, was any thought given to the possible unintended consequence of setting a specified date in regulation, namely that it might allow operators to consider means of circumventing the legislation through port hopping? As was passed on to me, it is Nautilus’s belief that, for that reason, it should be a 12-month rolling period. Has the Department considered that?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I will come to the broader concerns around port hopping that hon. Members have raised at previous stages. We do not think it will be an issue. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman at a later stage; if he continues to have an issue, perhaps he can raise it then.

Amendment 5 makes provision for declarations in a fixed year. These amendments are therefore necessary to ensure the effective functioning of the Bill, and will do just that.

Amendments 3 and 4, tabled in my name, abbreviate

“national minimum wage equivalence declaration”

to “equivalence declaration”—that is all. This is a minor drafting change intended to improve the Bill by simplifying a frequently used term.

Amendments 39 and 40 to clause 14 are consequential on amendments 1 and 5, and give the phrases “equivalence declaration” and “relevant year” the same meaning as in clause 3.

Amendment 7, tabled in my name, allows for equivalence declarations to be provided before, during or after the year to which they relate, and for declarations to relate to part of a year. The amendment will prevent any gaps in coverage in declarations and requires harbour authorities to request a declaration whenever it becomes clear to them that a service is in scope of the Bill. A harbour authority must request a declaration from an existing service before the relevant year starts if it has reasonable grounds to believe that a ship will call at its harbour 120 times during the year. In the event that, part way through a year, a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing the service will have entered the harbour at least 120 times, it must request a declaration part way through that year, or at the end of the year if it was not clear until that point.

Amendment 6 removes subsections (5) and (6) of clause 3, which provide for the offence of operating inconsistently with an equivalence declaration. New clause 1 provides for an offence adapted to the proposed new system for equivalence declarations. Amendment 6 and new clause 1 therefore also cater for the fact that an equivalence declaration may, as a result of amendment 7, be provided before during or after the relevant year to which it relates.

Subsections (2)(a) and (3)(a) of new clause 1 mean it will be a criminal offence to operate a service inconsistently with a declaration from the start of the relevant year or at the time a declaration is provided during a relevant year. This will ensure that the new offence covers all circumstances in which an equivalence declaration may be requested, and provides legal certainty to operators as to when they may be guilty of an offence.

Clause 13 provides definitions of “harbour” and “harbour authority” that align with the definitions in the Harbours Act 1964 in England, Wales and Scotland, and the Harbours Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 in Northern Ireland. This will ensure consistency with existing legislation and help to clearly identify the relevant authorities for the purposes of the Bill. The clause also currently provides that where there is more than one harbour authority in respect of a harbour,

“the Secretary of State may by direction specify which of them is to be treated as the harbour authority in respect of the harbour”

for the purposes of the Bill. This provision is intended to avoid any uncertainty as to which is the relevant harbour authority for a particular harbour, and avoid multiple harbour authorities exercising powers in respect of a single service, which will help to ensure that the Bill’s provisions are applied consistently and effectively.

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank the Minister for giving way once again. Perhaps I should have intervened slightly earlier, as I have a query about amendment 7. The amendment allows for declarations to be made for part of the year. As it stands, declarations relate to 120 visits a year. If it is a partial year—say six months, for ease—will it still be 120 visits over those six months, or will it be a pro rata number of visits for that partial period?

[Mr Holden]

My understanding is that it is for the whole year. The schedules for these operators are based on a whole year; it is very rare that they are not. These are big operations that do not dip in and out. They are not easy to set up; they often involve long-standing arrangements with port authorities, and are based on the whole year. However, if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me following this sitting, I will obviously respond to any particular issues or examples he wishes to raise.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which gets to both the nub of the issue and a source of real concern for me. He is right to talk about the colander effect, and not making the legislation sufficiently tight means that in many cases companies will exploit the measure, as has he eloquently outlined. Let us be honest: the legislation was introduced because a company sought—within the law—to exploit people, and it would be a dereliction of duty by the House and by the Committee if we did not seek to tighten the Bill in such a way as to ensure that industry cannot get away with using such practices.

[Gavin Newlands]

My hon. Friend has referred to the House of Lords, but on Second Reading in this place, the Secretary of State said in terms of the number of visits to harbour:

“We think the definition in the Bill at the moment will capture the vast majority of the services we wish to capture.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2022; Vol. 725, c. 66.]

The Secretary of State referred to “the vast majority”, but this relates to the national minimum wage. Why should we be happy with a majority, rather than ensuring that all employees get the minimum wage?

[David Linden]

Even if people were not around last night, it will not come as a huge surprise that the Government are not particularly wild about standing up for workers’ rights. We on this side of the Committee happen to be of the view that we should be doing everything we can to try to support workers—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich chunters. I am more than happy to give way if he wants to stand up and speak. If he wants just to make a wee bit of noise behind the Minister, he is welcome to do so.

We support returning to the stricter criterion of 52 calls per year, which is what amendment 45 seeks to do. This is a key test of the Government’s commitment to seafarer welfare, and they failed in the Lords when they narrowly defeated Lord Tunnicliffe’s amendment that aimed to restore the criterion of 52 annual harbour calls.

National minimum wage and domestic employment law are difficult to enforce and apply in the maritime sector. That is why employers such as Stena Line, which employs UK crew on international routes from UK ports in Cypriot-registered vessels, enter collective bargaining agreements with domestic maritime trade unions. The UK Chamber of Shipping estimated that up to 45 major ferry routes served the UK economy in 2020, but that is subject to change. For example, P&O closed Hull-Zeebrugge in October 2021, but DFDS opened an unaccompanied freight service between Sheerness and Calais earlier that year.

In my view, the Bill should cover crew working for operators of containers, bulk carriers, cargo ships and vessels working in the offshore energy supply chain, as well as ferries. In 2018, the RMT estimated that extending the national minimum wage to cover domestic and offshore energy routes would bring 13,000 seafarer ratings into scope. The impact assessment for the Bill estimates only the cost to employers, not the number of seafarers who would be covered by the Bill.

I am concerned that the Government have dismissed out of hand the unions’ concerns over avoidance techniques. Port hopping, as we often refer to it, remains a genuine avoidance technique that becomes far easier to use the more frequently a vessel calls at a UK harbour. At 120 calls per year, it would be far easier for operators to make minor changes to scheduled port calls in order to avoid the legislation. A threshold of 52 calls, which was in the Government’s original proposals, would be far tighter. It was changed only after consultation with industry, although the trade unions supported 52 calls. I go back to the point that if the Bill is about protecting workers—the very workers who were so cruelly shafted by P&O—then it is incumbent on the Government to listen to the voices of those workers and trade unions, not the voices of industry. That is the whole reason we are here.

Disappointingly, the Minister in the Lords, Baroness Vere, was unconvinced that that avoidance technique could be used. She said:

“I do not think operators would play switcheroo with UK ports because, frankly, their customers would not put up with it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 2022; Vol. 824, c. 1506.]

The translation of that is, once again, “Leave it to the markets. The markets will dictate.” If we have learned anything over the course of the last few months in this House and during the P&O debacle, it is that simply leaving it to the markets is not a great idea. I am not reassured that the logistics market will self-regulate. The recent merger between Cobelfret and Seatruck Ferries, two operators who have been paying seafarers below national minimum wage on regular international services from UK ports for years, frankly, also increases the prospect of avoidance techniques.

I hope that has outlined just some of our concerns on the issue. For those reasons, I will formally seek to divide the Committee and vote against Government amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I rise to speak in favour of amendment 63 and new clause 8. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield gave specific examples of deductions made by Irish Ferries and P&O; as he said, this is all about compliance. In his nine-point plan, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), now the Business Secretary, pledged to involve His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in ensuring compliance with minimum wage legislation, but the Bill does not include a direct role for HMRC, which is the only expert in minimum wage compliance. That is like delegating something to a port and harbours board, to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency or to anybody, but it is not the Government taking responsibility for the matter. That clearly must be addressed, and I ask the Minister to address it. Port operators are not experts in minimum wage compliance or in establishing whether the minimum wage is being properly enforced.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency officials will need to be trained in labour market enforcement issues, and HMRC national minimum wage enforcement officials will need to be trained in seafarer and maritime employment practices and law. What provision is there in the Bill for that? I do not see much at all. However, the Department for Transport told the trade unions that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has stated that there is no disproportionate risk of seafarers not being paid the national minimum wage. If this is not enforced properly, it is wide open, and I think most Members with any common sense will think it is wide open. On 24 March, Peter Hebblethwaite, the former chief executive officer of P&O Ferries, openly admitted to a joint sitting of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that P&O Ferries was paying an average well below the national minimum wage. How does clause 5 tackle what Peter Hebblethwaite said to this House?

Amendment 63 would ensure that an inspector may request from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or the Maritime and Coastguard Agency such information as is necessary to ensure that the operator is compliant with the national minimum wage. Further, complaints of non-payment of the national minimum wage have been consistently submitted to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. [Interruption.] I am slightly interrupted by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—that will be His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on the phone right now, agreeing with my comments to the Committee. Complaints have been submitted by the RMT on behalf of foreign seafarers, but the third-party process does not require His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to report back on the outcome or progress in investigating those complaints. How will we, as elected Members, and the industry see how the measures in the Bill progress once they have been implemented by Parliament? There is no provision for that. Amendment 63 would ensure a timescale for response of 14 days, so that the outcome of the measures in the Bill will be crystal clear and transparent.

[Gavin Newlands]

I rise to support amendment 63. Given the stroppy point at the end of the Minister’s last contribution, I reassure him—[Interruption.] Oh, it was a humorous point; well, that is for each individual to judge. I point out to the Minister that the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) has been retained as the Scottish Government’s ferries tsar from now on, so we will not have to worry about that. For the purposes of Hansard, that was sarcasm, lest I have to correct the record at a later date.

The point that has just been made is essentially this: as the Bill currently stands, the Government are hiding behind harbour authorities by expecting them—and with the amendments before us, now compelling them, under fear of prosecution—to carry out the enforcement work. Given the complex nature of the issues we are dealing with, I understand what the Government are doing, but maritime employment rules and minimum wage rules are complicated.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency will need to be trained in labour market employment issues. HMRC employment enforcement officials responsible for enforcing the minimum wage will need training in seafarer and maritime practices and maritime law. Additional resourcing and time will potentially be needed to make this work. The MCA is responsible for the enforcement of the Bill’s powers, but is not named or listed in clause 6 or anywhere else. A dual role for the MCA and HMRC national minimum wage inspections must be clearly established, otherwise the Bill could have unintended consequences for qualifying seafarers’ existing national minimum wage rights.

The nine-point plan included a specific action to ask HMRC to dedicate UK national minimum wage resource to the maritime sector. The Department for Transport has told trade unions that HMRC has since stated that there is no disproportionate risk of seafarers not being paid the national minimum wage. I have no clue how it has come to that conclusion, given everything that has gone on, and that statement is despite Peter Hebblethwaite’s open admission to the joint Select Committee on 24 March that P&O ferries are now paying an average well below the national minimum wage, not to mention the evidence amassed by the RMT and detailed in annex 2 to its briefing.

The Government should consider using redundant Brexit customs processing facilities built at great expense in ports that host operators and vessels in scope of this Bill to provide bases for the inspectors from the MCA, HMRC and the International Transport Workers’ Federation, which will assist in the enforcement of the legislation. The MCA and the ITF perform essential port state control functions to protect and uphold minimum international seafarer welfare standards in the maritime labour convention. It is for that reason that we support new clause 8 in the name of the hon. Member for Easington.

I suspect the Government may not accept the new clause, but it would be pretty obscene if we were to see evidence of nationality-based pay discrimination. We very much support the new clause. I hope the Minister is generous, for a change.

[Grahame Morris]

I support the arguments put forward by my colleagues on the Front Bench. Will the Minister give some clarification? I noted what I thought was an assurance in his comments. Our amendment 63 is an attempt to make the enforcement process clearer, in terms of ensuring that the inspectors have the requisite not just powers but information, from HMRC in particular, in order to carry out the task that the Bill assigns to them. I wonder whether the Minister could clarify—maybe I am missing something; I heard him say that it would be the Maritime and Coastguard Agency that would be the inspectors. Could that function be delegated to the harbour authority or to staff of the harbour authority acting on behalf of the MCA? I would appreciate if he could clarify that point in his summing up.

Nationality-based pay discrimination is the elephant in the room. We must get to grips with it. I realise that the issue is incredibly complicated because of international treaties, but we need to get to the kernel of the issue because this is what is happening. Unscrupulous ferry operators in the sector are displacing UK-based seafarers on a “fire and rehire” basis, which Labour finds anathema.

There were Conservative MPs who were incandescent at the tactics employed by P&O Ferries on 17 March—St Patrick’s day—in that terrible action it took. We must see if we can address that, and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North made a good suggestion about using the expertise from the International Transport Workers’ Federation as part of the collective effort, particularly where the issues relate to seafarers from overseas. I wonder if the Minister might consider not only that, but the suggestion to use the facilities that were built—at some cost to the public purse—for the Brexit customs processing facilities and consider whether those not being used adequately could also be used for that purpose.

[Mr Holden]

I would like to provide some clarification on the points made initially by the hon. Member for Easington. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is the relevant enforcement agency, not the harbour authority. Furthermore, it would be unlawful to delegate powers in this space to harbour authorities, so I wanted to make that clear. In response to a point made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency does not need to be named in the Bill because it enforces on behalf of the Secretary of State. This is normal drafting for Government agencies that are subsidiaries of Departments.

The Department has obviously engaged extensively with HMRC on this issue. The truth is, as this is not enforcing national minimum wage legislation but trying to get the national minimum wage equivalent, the amount of information that HMRC holds in respect to many of these people is either nil or incredibly limited, as many of them will not be UK taxpayers. HMRC has been clear that it is happy to share anything it can to make enforcement easier, but it is not in the exact same space. HMRC already enforces national minimum wage for seafarers who qualify for it, but within this legislation we reflect that much of that falls out of the normal scope of UK legislation.

[Gavin Newlands]

On that point, if I can refer back to the point I made in my speech, does the Minister agree with HMRC—despite all the evidence to the contrary: not just P&O, but many other operators—that there is no disproportionate risk of seafarers not being paid the national minimum wage? Does he think that that is credible?

[Mr Holden]

Sorry, could I ask the hon. Member what the disproportionate risk was in reference to?

[Gavin Newlands]

Of seafarers particularly not being paid the national minimum wage compared to other sectors.

[Mr Holden]

Part of the issue here is that we are trying to address the national minimum wage equivalence. This is beyond normal UK territorial extent, which is the issue at stake here, which is why we are doing legislation that goes beyond our normal boundaries and does butt up against some of those international maritime obligations that we have, whether that is the case for inland ferries or anything else within the UK. I am not an expert on what HMRC has said, but I assume that what it has said is correct. I imagine there are other elements in the broader economy, where perhaps there are greater language barriers and piecework, where HMRC targets the normal national minimum wage legislation and where it sees the greatest abuses. That is why I am sure HMRC is quite clear in its thinking.

I urge Members, based on what I have said in response to the amendments, to withdraw them, and, if not, to support the Government and vote down the Opposition’s amendments.

Lifeboat Services: Search and Rescue

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for bringing forward this important debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee, of which I am a former Member, along with you, Mr Davies, and the hon. Member for Torbay.

The hon. Member for Torbay started the debate extremely powerfully with a lot of good points. There will be a huge amount of consensus, which is unusual, particularly from the SNP in this place. I will detail that particularly when I get to the speech made by the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). The hon. Member for Torbay rightly said that search and rescue is carried out by a number of governmental and independent organisations and agencies. He also mentioned the Penlee lifeboat, which lost all eight of its crew in 1981. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has just powerfully described that incident, and I will come to that when I sum up his contribution. The hon. Member for Torbay mentioned that there were nearly 10,000 taskings last year, and made an important point about preventive work through education and training. He rightly highlighted the excellent work of his own local lifeboat in Torbay.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) was absolutely right to mention how treacherous the waters can be off the north-west coast of Scotland. He also made what may appear to be a lighter point about the sheep rescue and how important it would have been to the crofter—and no doubt to the sheep themselves. That put me in mind of another rescue; I think it was the Skye lifeboat that helped to refloat some stranded dolphins last summer. It is not just humans that the RNLI supports.

The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) made many better points than he made in the independence debate just weeks ago. I did not catch their names, but he made a good point about four volunteers who have served for 40 years with the lifeboat service. I add my thanks and gratitude. That makes the wider point that many who serve in the RNLI have done so for a long time, and that must be recognised. He also mentioned the Nicola Faith tragedy, in which three lives were sadly lost.

It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He mentioned coastal activities, including sailing and surfing. The one I was interested in was pier jumping. He confessed that he partook in that activity himself. It is not clear whether that was last week or some time ago, so we are unsure whether his pier-jumping speedos have been retired. Now that I have loaded up that image, I will come to the hon. Member for Moray. It is very rare—in fact, probably unique—that I agree with every word that he said.

[Jim Shannon]

I think the hon. Gentleman can finish now.

[Gavin Newlands]

I should probably sit down at that, yes. I will not put that on my leaflets, obviously.

The hon. Member for Moray brought up the National Independent Lifeboat Association, which I very much support. That leads me on nicely to the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). I thank him for his work in setting up that organisation. He was right to say that this debate is essentially a moment of consensus when we can thank all those who volunteer and put their lives at risk on our behalf to save those in distress at sea. He also made the point that they do it all by raising their own money. I add my thanks and gratitude to all those who fundraise for, and donate to, the RNLI, making possible all its excellent work, which we have all spoken about.

That brings me on to the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), who said he was a proud yachtsman and talked about how he shared water safety training with a local school. He, too, reiterated the vital importance of such training for youngsters in school at all ages. As he said, one only has to reflect on the tragedy in Solihull in recent weeks to realise that we must do more in that regard.

The hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) spoke about the impact on the volunteers—the risk they take and the unsocial hours—but also about the impact on the families, which is something we do not always mention, so that was a very welcome point. She also mentioned her new year’s day dip. Rather her than me.

The last speaker, whose constituency I have forgotten—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

New Forest East.

[Gavin Newlands]

Of course; I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reminder. He spoke about the Mumbles lifeboat. I visited Mumbles on a rugby tour over 20 years ago, when a number of us had to be rescued that night—albeit thankfully from the Mumbles mile and not, it must be said, at sea.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned—quite rightly and powerfully, as I said earlier—the Penlee disaster. We should all go online and watch “Cruel Sea”, the documentary he highlighted, which I was unaware of. I will certainly go away and look at it, and I thank him for telling us about it. Hopefully it is on iPlayer.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

It is on YouTube.

[Gavin Newlands]

So it is there for all of us. In the spirit of consensus, I would like to pay particular tribute to lifeboat services in the south of England at this moment, amidst the record small boat crossings. I will not repeat all the statistics that the hon. Member for Torbay helpfully set out at the start, but the numbers are simply huge. Obviously, there are 238 lifeboat stations and 240 lifeguard units. As has been said, the RNLI was founded nearly 200 years ago, and in that time it has saved nearly 143,000 lives. In 2021, it saved 296 people. An average of 35 people are helped every day by RNLI crews.

I want to highlight a couple of people, if I may, who were decorated in the King’s new year’s honours list. An MBE was awarded to Dupre Strutt, a mechanic at the RNLI Kirkwall lifeboat station and a retired area lifesaving manager for Scotland. Dupre was part of the fabric of Kirkwall lifeboat station and had followed in his father’s footsteps, having grown up in the station. Since joining in 1983, Dupre has given 39 years of service to the RNLI, during which time he has been directly involved in over 300 rescues, saving over 60 lives.

Similarly, a volunteer mechanic and lifeboat operations manager at Kirkcudbright lifeboat station, William “John” Collins, has been awarded at a BEM for his dedication to the RNLI and the community in the town. He joined the station in 1991 as a mechanic, a role in which he continues to this day, alongside his duties as LOM. Outside of the RNLI, John is employed as the local school bus driver. During the pandemic, he extended that role to deliver essential food supplies around the area.

Of course, Scotland, with its long coastline and 790 islands, has a long tradition of life on the seas and, of course, facing the dangers that can be inherent in that, whether that is winter storms off the Atlantic, fishing boats in distress or leisure craft running into trouble, often with inexperienced people at the helm. Scotland is absolutely indebted to the RNLI, so if I may, and so that I do not miss any out, I will list the stations. They are, from the south-west: Portpatrick, Stranraer, Girvan, Troon, Largs—I will give the list to Hansard, so do not worry if I rush through it—Arran, Campbeltown, Tighnabruaich, Helensburgh, Islay, Oban, Tobermory, Mallaig, Barra, Kyle of Lochalsh, Portree, Leverburgh, Stornoway, Lochinver, Thurso, Wick, Longhope, Stromness, Kirkwall, Aith, Lerwick, Invergordon, Kessock, Buckie, Macduff, Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Aberdeen, Stonehaven, Montrose, Arbroath, Broughty Ferry, Anstruther, Kinghorn, Queensferry, North Berwick, Dunbar and Eyemouth—and I nearly mentioned Berwick-upon-Tweed, but that is only half-Scottish, so I shall leave it out.

We are also indebted to the independent and inshore rescue services, including at Dornoch, as well as the Glasgow Humane Society, Loch Lomond, Nith and the Moray Inshore Rescue Organisation, which I am delighted the hon. Member for Moray mentioned. Obviously, a lot of assistance, or co-ordination, goes to the RNLI through the Coastguard Agency. The coastguard is also 200 years old.

I want to make one point as I conclude, although I do not want to stray too far from consensus. I want to talk about the channel, but briefly, as I appreciate that my speaking time is nearly up. Last year, a record 45,000 people succeeded in crossing the channel, and we know there have been tragedies and a huge number of rescues there. We have always called for and maintained that there should be a safe and legal route so that the coastguard and the RNLI are not put in the position of having each day to save lives in the busiest shipping lane in the world.

Some of the rhetoric deployed has been deplorable, and Nigel Farage compared the work of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and of the RNLI to

“a taxi service for illegal trafficking gangs”.

On the back of that, the RNLI received the most donations in its history in response to a single event—more than £200,000.

We can all castigate such rhetoric, which is deployed by some, but I want to finish on a note of consensus. I say thank you to all who are involved in the RNLI and those who co-ordinate our search and rescue services. In particular, I pay tribute to all those who sadly lost their lives in attempting to rescue others on our behalf.

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the brand-new Chair of the Transport Committee, and, as someone who serves on the Committee, may I say that it is relief to hear that he is not a lawyer? I also pass on my best wishes to Members—most Members, even in my own party—and Clerks and staff for a very Merry Christmas, and a happy new year when it comes.

When the previous, previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), brought forward the nine-point plan to protect seafarers, I genuinely welcomed the action outlined that day. However, the strength of his words must be followed by the strength and urgency of actions. We welcome the intent behind the Bill to tackle companies that fail to observe even the most basic employment rights while operating from ports in the UK but, clearly, there are areas where this Bill could, should and must be strengthened.

Before I come to the substance of the Bill, could the Minister give us a little more detail on the Government’s progress with their overarching nine-point plan? Clearly, today we are attempting to deal with point No. 1. Point No 7 is on taking action against company leaders who break the law. Earlier this year, P&O and its parent company DP World, achieved the rare—perhaps unique—feat of uniting the Institute of Directors, the TUC, the CBI and the RMT, alongside Nautilus and Members across the House, in their condemnation of P&O’s actions against its staff. The chief executive, Peter Hebblethwaite, appeared before a Joint Committee of Parliament and admitted that his company deliberately broke the law when it dismissed 786 employees with no consultation and no notice.

Mr Hebblethwaite still hangs around P&O Ferries like a bad smell—an albatross around the neck of a company that is now a byword for corporate greed and bullying. He recently had the honour of being named the worst boss in the world by the International Trade Union Confederation, beating out the likes of the chief executive officers of Amazon, Starbucks and Emirates airlines. That is quite an achievement for a relative newcomer. I am sure that his trophy will have pride of place on his mantlepiece.

It is doubtful that P&O’s reputation will ever recover—quite rightly—but as it stands, it is clear that provisions in the Bill will need to be beefed up in Committee. I hope that the Secretary of State and his ministerial team are feeling festive, because I have a list for them. I am sure the House would agree that I have been very good this year.

First on the list is roster patterns. For reasons passing understanding, the Government suddenly rejected the previously agreed roster pattern in the seafarers’ charter to commission further research into roster patterns and crewing levels. That was despite the collectively agreed standard in place at Stena and DFDS, and evidence of the danger that crew fatigue poses to maritime safety.

The RMT gave an example of P&O staff having worked one week on, one week off, as has been mentioned, on the Dover-Calais route where 75% of the jobs were lost. The agency crew who replaced them work much longer—in the case of Indian Able Seafarers, up to 17 weeks for at least 12 hours a day, seven days a week without shore leave. P&O is making bigger savings from that dangerous change to roster patterns than it is from the sub-national minimum wage rates of pay.

Crewing levels must be addressed. For those who do not know, crewing levels are the ratio of full-time-equivalent positions required to maintain the vessel in service for each rank or role required. P&O used operate with a crewing factor of four. They now operate with a crewing factor of just over two. That does not sound safe or advisable. The charter must be incorporated into the Bill if it is to be properly effective. The fact that those operators that seek to exploit workers are complaining should tell the Minister all he needs to know.

The Government defeated amendments in the Lords to reinstate the Government’s previous position of setting the qualification threshold at 52 visits per year. The 120-visit threshold may well allow operators to port hop or design routes to avoid having to make declarations about the national minimum wage equivalent. We must also ensure that accommodation costs cannot be deducted from the national minimum wage equivalent. P&O could potentially deduct over £1,000, and Irish Ferries nearly £500, from a non-qualifying seafarer’s wage if the accommodation offset is available to it under secondary regulations in the Bill.

While extending national minimum wage coverage is welcome, we would like to see ways of introducing other employment protections that are available to those working on land in the UK, such as better rights to redundancy pay, sick pay and consultation, and a clear statement in legislation of exactly how much those rogue operators who try to avoid compliance with the new regime will forfeit to the Exchequer. We will also be looking for assurances on the kind of action that the Government and port operators will be empowered to take against rogue employers. We all saw Mr Hebblethwaite brazenly sitting in front of the Committee happily agreeing that he and his colleagues had broken the law, knowing that the likelihood of any sanctions against them as controlling minds was minimal. Making something against the law is not the same as making people comply with that law. We want to see a sanctions regime that has teeth. The Insolvency Service is still dragging its feet, citing a lack of legal clarity as to whether the dismissed seafarers worked outside Great Britain. The Government must accept amendments to the Bill to close these legal loopholes if they are truly committed to preventing a repeat of the unlawful actions of P&O.

It might be outside the current scope of the Bill, but I would like to see the Government take the lead internationally to amend and improve the current maritime law to boost employment rights for all seafarers around the world, as those changes would also improve the lot of maritime workers here. As a result of this Government merely announcing action, the French Government were prompted into taking similar action. That shows that there is an appetite elsewhere to improve the lot of seafarers across borders and across the water. In the UK Government’s own words from just a few years back, the UK is one of the world’s leading maritime nations, so perhaps it is time to leverage that leadership into a fairer deal for workers across the world, rather than only for those—while fully appreciating our international obligations—who will be covered by the Bill. We also need to ensure that all those who serve the ever-growing offshore wind sector are protected. This Bill does not protect most of those workers.

I very much agree with the Law Society of Scotland’s view that it is unclear how harbour authorities will resource, upskill staff and cover costs to be able to undertake these additional tasks and obligations. Enforcement will be needed for these measures to be of the greatest benefit, and this will require sufficient resourcing. We also anticipate that processes will require to be set up between the Secretary of State, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the harbour authorities to manage the requirements, powers and duties in the Bill in practical terms. It also points out, notwithstanding the point that the Secretary of State made in opening the debate, the deviation of the description of a vessel in this Bill from the description in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which includes every description of vessel used in navigation. This should be addressed not just for consistency’s sake but to close any loopholes that this may unintentionally open.

There is quite a lot to fix, and we have only one Committee day to do it. I think it is fair to say that the Government’s record on workers’ rights has been deplorable. With this one Bill, the Tories claim to be supporting workers while they plan others that will roll back workers’ rights and attack the right to collective bargaining. This Bill will make welcome but small changes for a small number of workers while at the same time the Government are promising new anti-union laws for millions of others. What was originally planned as a limited transport striking law designed to prevent railway strikes seems to have morphed into a wider anti-union move that the Tories claim will save lives and prevent disruption. Despite their claims, it is the Tories themselves who are responsible for this winter’s disruption.

All of this is on the back of the Government’s appalling response to fire and rehire, which has seen hundreds of thousands of workers faced with the threat of redundancy or a lower wage. I am sure that workers who were forced out or who are on inferior contracts at British Airways, British Gas, Go North West, Tesco and Menzies Aviation, to name but a few, will be pleased that the Government are trying to do something, but they will look at these plans and think, “Where was our help in our time of need?” The Government had plenty of opportunity. I brought forward three Bills to deal with fire and rehire, and the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) had a private Member’s Bill, but the Government thought that a simple change to guidance would deal with it. I totally agree with the question from the Labour shadow Secretary of State: where is the code? We were promised it long before now and we have not heard a thing about it.

It might be churlish of me—but I hope the House will allow me a bit of festive churlishness—to point out that the RMT that the UK Government were working closely alongside in March this year, when P&O Ferries put in motion its despicable actions, is the same RMT that the UK Government have been baiting in public and in private over its industrial dispute with employers. Perhaps if other areas of the Department for Transport could revisit that spring spirit and fuse it with some festive spirit, they might remember that trade unions and workers are there to help improve working conditions and will work with Governments of all political stripes—even this one—rather than be reviled and demonised for their work.

I will stop now before I am accused of turning even more into Ebenezer Scrooge. In the Christmas spirit, I will close by saying that this is a welcome Bill that we very much support in principle, but we need to work with the Government to improve it, alongside the trade unions and staff whose working conditions will be improved by it. I look forward to that work and hope that it is as constructive as the Minister has been thus far.

West Coast Main Line: Services

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating this afternoon’s timely debate. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) started the debate powerfully, and I do not disagree with a word she said. In fact, I do not disagree with pretty much anything anyone said, other than the comments of the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) about the Union and how it binds us all together. He failed at the last minute to get consensus across the Chamber. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn started well by talking about the importance of Holyhead not only to her local economy but to the wider Welsh economy, and how much Avanti’s terrible service has impacted that economy and her constituents.

On Monday, every single Avanti train leaving Glasgow for London was late, in most cases by at least half an hour. Five trains were more than an hour late. The passengers on those trains were actually the lucky ones. Anyone looking to travel in the afternoon from Scotland’s biggest city to England had a choice of two trains, both leaving late and arriving even later. Every other service was cancelled or terminated at Preston, which is a fine Lancashire city but about 237 miles from Euston. Lest any apologists for Avanti try to rely on the seasonal weather as an excuse, the first train on the previous Thursday was nearly two hours late arriving. The passengers on the last train arrived at Euston close to 1 am, more than six hours after they departed.

Avanti has set the west coast main line back decades, which is not hyperbole. I checked the British Rail timetables from 1982, 40 years ago, and the journey times that Avanti is now delivering almost daily are slower than the locomotives that were the backbone of the nationalised rail network in 1982.

Any criticism of Avanti or TransPennine Express in my speech is of upper management and executives, not the frontline staff, who, like everyone who has spoken in this debate, I have always found to be exemplary in their professionalism and courtesy. I am not just saying that because I am one of the many Members who will be seeking to get home on Avanti west coast main line services this evening. These services should be the Crown jewels of the British rail network, but instead they are straight out of the pound shop bargain bin, although not at a price to match.

TransPennine Express is just as bad as Avanti, and in some ways worse. On Monday it managed to run three of its seven timetabled services from Glasgow Central. Only one of four services made it to Manchester airport. Anyone looking to travel to Manchester after lunchtime was out of luck, as there were no trains at all. I put it to TransPennine Express’s chief executive at yesterday’s Transport Committee that, in the three weekdays prior to the strike action, only one of 12 scheduled trains made it from Glasgow to Manchester airport. That includes last Friday, when TransPennine Express managed a single train to Manchester before 5 am, after which there were zero services to England’s second biggest urban area from the biggest urban area in Scotland. It is almost as if all we have heard over the past 30 years about the benefits of rail privatisation and the wonders of the free market have been hot air and blether.

At least trade unions give advance notice that their actions will mean train cancellations and disruption, so travellers can make alternative arrangements and amend their plans. Avanti and other train operators can, and often do, wait until the very last minute before pulling the plug, leaving the trains that remain in service overcrowded, late and dirty, with the staff running them bearing the brunt of passenger frustration and anger.

It is clear from Avanti, TransPennine Express and the remaining privatised parts of the rail network that the system has completely and utterly broken down. The fragmentation of operators and network infrastructure has led to a system of little accountability and no cohesion, with long-term thinking left to outsiders and the occasional individual. Private operators have no incentive to provide a public service and every incentive to wring every penny out of its operations until the next rider on the gravy train takes over the contract. For months, the Government tried to maintain the line of laissez-faire non-intervention, before scuppering negotiations by adding conditions that they knew were guaranteed to send workers back to their trade union reps. We have a rail system in England that is edging closer and closer to collapse.

[Navendu Mishra]

The hon. Member referenced the term “fragmentation” earlier, and Avanti often talks about the fact that it does not have enough drivers available for its services. If we had a unified public transport system that was designed to serve our communities and our planet rather than private rail operators, perhaps we could have a system where, if there was a shortage of drivers in one part of the country, they were licensed to drive trains in other parts of the country.

[Gavin Newlands]

That seems to be an eminently sensible suggestion, which I hope Ministers can take up. GBR, which I will touch on later in my speech, seems to be no more, but I hope that the Government look at all the factors in our entire rail network in the round. That is a perfectly good suggestion.

Collectively, the privatised rail network is letting Scotland and the north of England down—I should also say north Wales; my apologies for not doing so. What is the economic impact on communities relying on the west coast line? How much badly needed growth in our regional and national economies is being sacrificed at the altar of free market gospel? What opportunities for developing freight and pushing a modal shift from road to rail are being lost and decarbonisation gains unrealised? How much more imbalanced is the UK economy becoming every day that the west coast line remains a shambles?

The Transport Committee heard from Avanti and TransPennine Express yesterday morning. I almost felt sorry for them trying to defend the indefensible—almost. I asked them if they thought that the travelling public believed that they should continue to operate train services. They at least had the good grace to dodge the question rather than admitting that passengers trying to use their services would probably just as soon see the Chuckle Brothers running them as TPE and Avanti. They at least have the excuse that they are only in it to make money. The UK Government have a wider responsibility.

Just six months ago, the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), told the House that his flagship project, Great British Railways, was how

“we are transforming the industry”.—[Official Report, 15 June 2022; Vol. 716, c. 318.]

The Chairman of Network Rail now says:

“I have stopped using those three words...it was clearly the invention of Boris Johnson, Andrew Gilligan and Grant Shapps”.

After all the fanfare, all the hype, a contest to decide its headquarters and the Transport Secretary of the time intervening to slap his name on the report that proposed it, GBR is dead in the water before it even began.

Given that the so-called Williams-Shapps review, as I suppose we should technically call it, stated clearly that GBR

“will be the single guiding mind and leader that the railways currently lack”,

one has to ask the question: without GBR, who will be the single guiding mind? Where is the leadership? Perhaps the new Rail Minister, who I get on well with, will be that leading mind. We shall see. The rail network is too important to leave to a Transport Secretary who, in recent weeks, has been a “here today, gone tomorrow” figure. Yet without some kind of arm’s length entity running and controlling our railways, we are doomed to short-termism and a strategy designed to get us through to the end of the latest crisis. Bringing the west coast operations under direct public control, as the Scottish Government have with ScotRail, would be a first step towards a rational and forward-thinking model of ownership and operation.

Scotland’s railway operates at arm’s length from the Government through Transport Scotland, but allows for greater integration with the Government’s political objectives. Even without the devolution of Network Rail, which we have called for in this place many times, the Scottish Government—and, to be fair, previous Scottish Executives under Labour and the Liberal Democrats—have expanded and transformed rail in Scotland and are still going full steam ahead with a programme of electrification that will, within just over a decade, help to fully decarbonise Scotland’s railway.

As with any public service at a time of economic crisis, there will be issues, but the settlement of disputes with ASLEF and the RMT at ScotRail earlier this year shows that, once again, the apparently radical tactic of Ministers treating trade unions and workers as partners rather than mortal enemies benefits everyone. I commend that approach to Government Members, mainly because it appears to be working. However, we are lucky in Scotland to have decades-long political consensus on how our railway should develop and the powers to make those choices happen.

[Robin Millar]

I am listening with a great deal of interest to the hon. Member. As he said, there is a lot of consensus in the Chamber. I cannot resist the chance to ask him this: does he think that a strong, integrated, high-performing, decarbonised railway network would inevitably bring all parts of the United Kingdom closer together?

[Gavin Newlands]

On the face of it, that sounds like a sensible suggestion, but where is that going to come from? There is no evidence from the Department for Transport and the UK Government of that actually happening. Scotland has decarbonised, or electrified, its railways twice as fast as the UK Government for more than 20 years now. There is no urgency about decarbonisation in the UK Government. About 16% of freight trains are still diesel because not enough of the network has been electrified, and that is down to this Government. So I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not see that happening any time soon. We are just getting on with it in Scotland.

I realise that my time is short, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall wrap up as quickly as I can. Transport for the North has seen its core budget slashed and projects such as Northern Powerhouse Rail trimmed, cut, cancelled or abandoned. TfN has protested every time another proposal for rail in the north has been binned, but ultimately Westminster and Whitehall decide what is best for communities there, and how much cash should be spent there. How can the west coast line have infrastructure and service fit for the future when every penny of expenditure is decided by someone sitting at a desk half a mile from here, rather than by elected Members and civil servants on the ground? How can a line with 20 of its 400 miles south of Watford be fully realised when those along the other 380 miles are seen as irrelevant when it comes to decision making?

Meanwhile, the latest performance statistics show that the gold-plated Elizabeth line—complete with stations costing £695 million, £661 million and £634 million, and an overall price tag of £19 billion—sits at the top as by far the most punctual train operator in the country, and no wonder, given the amount of money that has been ploughed into it. That level of investment in rail in the rest of England would generate huge benefits for the economy outside London and the south-east, but, as we know, anywhere outside the M25 can go to the back of the queue when transport investment is being lined up.

The current crisis on the west coast line may be because of current events, but its origins lie in decades of metropolitan establishment disdain for what are still condescendingly called “the regions”. I am afraid that, unless and until England begins to radically change the way in which it makes decisions about transport policy—decisions that have implications way beyond its borders—the west coast line, like the rest of the rail network outside the M25, will atrophy and continue to be a hindrance rather than a boost to local and national economies. I urge the Secretary of State and his new team to roll up their sleeves like their counterparts in Scotland, get involved in the nitty-gritty rather than leaving it up to private corporations, and then begin the process of putting control over national assets such as the west coast line back into the hands of those who benefit most: the people and communities who rely on them.

Rail Cancellations and Service Levels

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Over the past two days, TransPennine Express has managed to run a total of 42% of its timetabled cross-border services from Glasgow Central. That is from a timetable that was already slashed, as TPE struggled to provide even a basic service to passengers. Add to that the Avanti shambles and cross-border services are a disaster. It simply is not good enough, and there are real implications for the cross-border economy.

Two separate industrial disputes involving ScotRail and the Scottish Government have been resolved this year, in contrast to the ongoing disputes across talks that have dragged on for months and are only now involving Government Ministers. The RMT’s general secretary Mick Lynch said yesterday:

“In Scotland and Wales, RMT has settled similar disputes with the support of the governments there but where companies are controlled by the DfT, time is running out.”

Previous Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that disputes were for the talks and Network Rail to resolve, but clearly that stance is no longer fit for purpose. This Government are letting down Scotland and the north of England, and it is now well past time for rail to be fully devolved to Scotland. Will this welcome new and shiny team at the DFT meet me to discuss how we advance that?

[Huw Merriman]

This shiny rail Minister will always happily meet the hon. Member. I have always enjoyed working closely with him in our previous roles, so I am happy to discuss matters with him. He talks about the ministerial approach, and I think it should be put on the record. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Transport travelled up to the north to meet the northern mayors to discuss these issues. We want to work collaboratively with all those who can influence change. The Secretary of State’s trip yesterday demonstrates that we do not just talk about it—we actually want to deliver on it, as well. Both the Secretary of State and I have talked of the need to reach some form of agreement. We have not used the language that might have been expected or heard in the past. We want to work closely. We have both met Mick Lynch and his counter at the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. I am due to meet again with Mick Lynch, the trade unions, the train operators and Network Rail, so that will be the employers and the trade unions, with a Minister in the room, not to negotiate, but to try to facilitate some form of end and to allow this change to come through. I will happily meet the hon. Gentleman and all across the piece so that we can make a difference and get this settled.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and, indeed, his whole team to their places, particularly the new Rail Minister—the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) —who has gone from a colleague and a friend to an adversary in just a few weeks.

Last week’s Budget slashed funding for the Department for Transport by 30% in cash terms over the next three years. At a time when investment in net zero transport and boosting regional connectivity is more important than ever, to abandon a key part of national investment is reckless and irresponsible, and it will cause further damage to the economy. What representations will he make to his Cabinet colleagues in the Treasury about reversing these cuts and putting transport funding on a proper footing?

[Mr Harper]

I simply do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I thank him for welcoming me to my position, but I was actually very pleased with the settlement in the autumn statement. The Chancellor confirmed that our capital spending remains as it was in the spending review. Yes, I do have to manage inflation pressures, but the Chancellor did not do what Chancellors sometimes in the past have been tempted to do, which is to cut capital funding in the short term. We have sustained that capital funding, and we are going to be spending £600 billion over the next five years on infrastructure spending to make sure we have long-term economic growth. I am very pleased that the Chancellor demonstrated that transport is part of our growth agenda in driving the economy forward.

[Gavin Newlands]

There was certainly a massive slash in resource funding for the Department for Transport.

Many fear that HS2 is in the firing line for departmental savings. We have already seen the Golborne link ditched, with no replacement in sight, hitting journey times from Scotland and the north-west of England. Rowing back on HS2 again would be another hammer blow for regional connectivity, so what assurances can the Secretary of State give that HS2 will go ahead in its current form and that those of us outside the M25 may see some benefit?

[Mr Harper]

Again, I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Our resource funding was confirmed in cash terms as well, so I do not know what autumn statement he was listening to, but it was not the one that the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out at the Dispatch Box. On his general point, as the Chancellor said, we are committed to the HS2 plans set out in the £96 billion integrated rail plan. We will set out our response to the autumn statement to manage inflation pressure in due course.

Avanti West Coast Contract Renewal

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesman, Gavin Newlands.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

There are 14 trains scheduled this Saturday from Glasgow to Euston, but last Saturday only three actually ran, and yesterday saw more than 15% of Avanti’s Glasgow services cancelled. People in Scotland and the north of England are being treated as third-class citizens. I doubt that the laissez-faire attitude of the Department for Transport when it comes to industrial relations at Avanti would last five minutes if home counties commuter services were being slashed in the same way. When are Ministers going to roll up their sleeves and get involved? Was Mick Lynch not right when he said in evidence to the Transport Committee that Scottish Government politicians:

“have an attitude where they want to resolve the issue, whereas sometimes when we meet politicians down here they want to exacerbate the issue and make us their enemy.”

And that was before the Government tabled their utterly regressive Transport Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill; Tory party ideology is impacting taxpayers and passengers yet again.

The six-month extension is seen by everyone as kicking the can down the road. What work is ongoing right now to ensure that the DFT and Directly Operated Railways Ltd are ready to “take back control” of a key piece of cross-border infrastructure, and we follow the lead of Scotland in ending the disastrous experiment of privatisation?

[Kevin Foster]

Work is ongoing to ensure that the operator of last resort would be ready in April to pick up the service. I will touch on some of the issues raised, but not all are within Avanti’s control; merely changing the franchise and who operates it would not resolve issues and problems that have been caused by infrastructure or engineering works, for obvious reasons—those sit in Network Rail’s purview. However, we are certainly not adopting a laissez-faire attitude. Every day, the DFT is engaging with Avanti and TPE about the services. Every week, there are senior-level contacts as well, and Ministers are actively involved with this process. I am a traveller on Avanti trains myself of a Sunday, and the idea that we are not interested in this or that we have some sort of laissez-faire attitude is completely for the birds. As for relationships with the trade unions, the Transport Secretary has met the general secretaries, but we make the point that we are not the employer in this circumstance, and it is for the unions and the operating companies to come to an agreement.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Safety Standards for Passenger Ships on Domestic Voyages) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 General Committees

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I start by saying that I do not oppose the instrument and will not seek to hold up the Committee. I agree with almost every word the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said, though I have to disagree with his reference to Manchester United.

This is an important piece of legislation. Both the Minister and the hon. Gentleman stated that it comes largely, although not entirely, on the back of the Marchioness disaster in 1989—33 years ago—in which 51 people died. The 2001 report has already been referenced, so I will not take more of the Committee’s time by talking further about it. I know it is said we legislate in haste and repent at leisure, but 33 years, by any standards, is ridiculous.

The maritime passenger safety is of course hugely important to Scotland, whether they are travelling on a service for tourism, or a lifeline to the mainland. We have more than 900 islands, of which at the last count just under 100 are permanently inhabited. I very much echo what the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said and a lot of the questions that he asked. I have one additional question for the Minister: what consultation was had with the devolved Administrations and with operators in Scotland and elsewhere?

Great British Railways

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Gavin Newlands.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

The rail industry and GBR are in stasis, and there is little evidence of progress coming from the Department for Transport. Six months ago, the previous Secretary of State promised we “would not be disappointed” with the legislation to create GBR, but I am feeling distinctly underwhelmed. The Williams review promised that GBR will

“take a whole-system view, allowing it to make choices and decisions more effectively. It will enable the railways to be run as a public service”.

That vision lies in tatters for now. We know that long-term thinking and planning are key, but instead we have a piecemeal, stop-start process that will take years, if not decades, to achieve real change in a key part of our national infrastructure.

When can we expect anybody, GBR or otherwise, to take a whole-system view of rail in this country? With ScotRail back in public ownership, there is one part of the UK where the railways are run as a public service. Will the Minister use the transport mini-Bill to devolve Network Rail to Scotland, to ensure that a fully integrated and fully publicly owned railway can be run somewhere in the UK?

[Kevin Foster]

I can understand why not having an integrated rail network across Great Britain is a particular priority for the Scottish National party. It clearly is a priority for this UK Government. We will not be looking to devolve responsibility for rail infrastructure, not least because the SNP’s main idea at the moment seems to be stopping the trains for passport control at the border.

On the wider pitch, we are determined to make a difference with our railways. We are seeing real innovation, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have looked at, for example, the experience of Lumo trains from Edinburgh to London. Lumo is an open-access operator that is pulling traffic away from air and on to rail, which is exactly what we want to see. We will get on with the many reforms we can make without primary legislation, but one of them will not be creating a disjointed rail network.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I, too, welcome the new Minister to his place. I often talk favourably about Scotland’s record on rail modernisation, as we actually get on and modernise infrastructure while down here the Tories focus on pushing the sector to “modernise”—to cut the workforce’s terms and conditions. Following similar comments from the Scottish Trades Union Congress general secretary at the weekend, Mick Lynch of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers said yesterday that in Scotland we have an attitude of wanting to resolve workforce disputes, whereas down here the Government want to exacerbate them for political reasons. Has this new team at the helm asked Network Rail and the train operating companies to get round the table and properly negotiate with freedom? If not, why not?

[Kevin Foster]

Again, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has met leading members of the unions, but we are not the employer in this dispute. It is important that the unions sit down, stop striking and get on with coming to a deal that is fair not just for workers but for taxpayers, who have put £16 billion into supporting our railways over the last couple of years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

We all shared a deep anger at the actions of P&O Ferries. Although we welcomed much of what the Government said in response at the time, we are yet to see the action match the rhetoric. In welcoming the Secretary of State to her place, I ask her whether she will confirm in this Maritime UK Week that her Department will continue working with all relevant stakeholders, including the maritime trade unions, in delivering the nine-point plan to address P&O’s actions and ensure that workers’ rights are protected from a race to the bottom.