Future of Rail Manufacturing

Debate between Gavin Newlands and Grahame Morris

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris]

The hon. Member is making some excellent points. On ROSCOs, I remind hon. Members that in the current year, I believe that they are making in excess of £400 million in profit.

[Gavin Newlands]

I would not disagree with the hon. Member on that.

To continue on ROSCOs, nobody has ever satisfactorily explained why we continue to have a system whereby rolling stock companies, which are all owned by private equity and investment funds, are the primary owners of multiple units, locos, passenger carriages and freight wagons, rather than the taxpayer, who ultimately pays for them. ROSCOs are generating almost risk-free profits for their owners, which are almost exclusively overseas funds, because ultimately, private rail operators have the Department for Transport as an operator of last resort. They were gifted BR stock at a bargain price and have spent the last three decades coining it in every time a new fleet is needed for an operator. That is just one example of the billions leaking out of the system to private finance that could instead be invested in the public rail network or in a sustainable and properly managed rolling stock procurement programme.

To conclude, the current model has failed. It was failing 30 years ago, it has failed since then, and it will continue to fail for the next 30 years unless this issue is specifically addressed in any rail reform package that is brought forward by this Government or any future Government.

Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Gavin Newlands and Grahame Morris

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

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

It is pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thought it would be helpful for the Committee to start with some good news. The SNP and Scottish Government are generally supportive of the Bill and I will not seek to detain the Committee over the course of however many days we debate it with superfluous speeches, reading out explanatory notes and so on, until we get to clause 50, which I will get my teeth into—I am sure the Minister will be aware of that. However, I reserve the right to intervene in support of any of Labour’s amendments, which I am doing now, or indeed when I think the Minister is talking cobblers, which hopefully he will not be doing.

That is the good news. With that, I very much look forward to the Minister’s answer about what actually is acceptably safe.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I rise to ask a short question to the Minister and to support my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central.

I have the pleasure and privilege of serving on the Transport Committee, along with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. To reinforce the point that my hon. Friend made, there is broad, cross-party support for the concept, but the widely held assumption that self-driving vehicles will prove safer than human drivers is not a given.

Having looked at the whole issue in some detail, the Select Committee produced an excellent report, which I recommend to members of this Committee. It was published on 15 September last year, and one of its conclusions is:

“Optimistic predictions are often based on widespread self-driving vehicle usage that is decades away, or assertions about human error that ignore other risks”—

for example, changing weather conditions. It continued:

“Safety must remain the Government’s overriding priority as self-driving vehicles encounter real-world complexity. Given this, we question the Government’s proposed ambition that self-driving vehicles must be as safe as a competent and careful human driver.”

The Committee felt that that was

“too weak and too vague”

and called on the Government to

“set a clearer, more stretching threshold.”

I will come back to this in my contribution on clause stand part, but I just wanted to put that to the Minister and to reinforce the points made by the Opposition Front Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central. As the Minister alluded to in a previous debate, clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to lay a statement of safety principles before Parliament, having consulted the relevant autonomous vehicle manufacturers, road users and safety groups first.

I recognise that the principles will be developed following the passage of the Bill, as the Minister said, but it is apparent that clear direction is needed for those principles in the primary legislation. It is also important that the safety principles are subject to frequent review—I think the Minister said that will happen—and consultation as the technology and roll-out of AVs is expanded over the coming years. The statement of safety principles must be clear, rigorous and informed by the needs of all road users and pedestrians, especially disabled people.

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank my friend from the Transport Committee for giving way. On that point, was he as concerned as I was in the debate on the previous clause when the Minister said that we do not want to make the safety regulations over-onerous at the outset of the industry in case we allow it to take off elsewhere rather than the UK? That is a bit of a warning sign for me.

[Grahame Morris]

I am inclined to agree, and I think it is a bit of a red herring as well. Language is important. I know the Minister said that “acceptable” has a legal meaning according to the Law Commission, but the point I was trying to make in the previous debate is that this is all about public confidence and perception, and what is acceptable to you, Mr Vickers, may not be acceptable to someone else.

We have to ensure that standards are as high as possible. It is certainly not anyone’s intention on the Opposition side to put off investment or scare it away; the potential is enormous. What we are trying to do is ensure that the legislative framework is not so prescriptive that it has a negative effect, but that it sets a standard that can be emulated by the rest of the world. I know we will come back to standards, European comparators and so on, so I will press on.

Clause (2)(2)(a) establishes a safety ambition that self-driving vehicles should be expected to

“achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or higher than, that of careful and competent human drivers”.

We heard that in the debate on clause 1. In my view, that safety ambition lacks clarity, and I ask that we clarify the meaning of a careful and competent driver in the Bill. “Careful and competent” is difficult to adjudicate, and the comparison should be made with a driver who is supported by existing assisted systems, fitted as standard to new vehicles. The assessment of automated vehicle safety must take into consideration all road users and how they will interact when engaging with AVs, especially if they operate in ways that would be considered unconventional when compared with a human driver.

I do not know whether you have been following some of the international events, Mr Vickers, such as the AV trials in Australia. The computer programming and the autonomous control systems are programmed to anticipate various scenarios, including how a pedestrian or another road user, such as a cyclist, will react. What defeated the trial in Australia was the unpredictable nature of kangaroos crossing the highway, because they do not cross in a straight line, but zig-zag and bounce about, which caused all manner of problems with the response of the AVs. We have to anticipate scenarios such as that and set the standards and framework accordingly.

The safety ambition needs to take into consideration both incident frequency and incident severity when assessing safety performance. There needs to be a clearly defined capability and operational constraint for systems, to ensure that users understand their roles and responsibilities when using or owning an automated vehicle. That is especially important in evolving technologies where there are transitions between the automated driving systems and the user in charge—the hon. Member for Copeland mentioned driver assistance systems—but also as new technologies develop and users are increasingly removed from the driving task.

We must also consider disabled people. Autonomous vehicle systems must be developed with an understanding of pedestrians with sight loss and their needs, which may differ from those of sighted people. As I mentioned earlier, people with sight loss will move around the built environment differently and use building lines, kerbs and tactile pavements for navigation. The increasing number of non-standard road layouts could present challenges to automated vehicles in inaccessible environments such as shared spaces and roadway. Floating bus stops, for example, may cause all sorts of problems, being away from the pavement across a cycle lane.

The movement of pedestrians with sight loss may prove especially difficult for autonomous vehicles to predict. That is why I, like various groups representing people with disabilities, including the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the Royal National Institute of Blind People, believe that the consultation process on the safety principles must be strengthened. As this is a recent technology that could develop in different ways, it is sensible to review the principles in the medium term to determine their effectiveness. I think the Minister has indicated that he is going to do that.

Amendment 21 stipulates that the principles must set out the assessment of the safety impact of AVs on different types of road users in different types of locations where the vehicle is travelling, which would be a reasoned improvement to the Bill. I am disappointed that Lords amendment 28, which was tabled by the noble Lord Liddle and would have created an advisory council, was defeated by the Government. It is disappointing that the Government did not accept that amendment as the Government proposals in amendment 5 really do not go far enough, even though they do ensure some level of consultation. I will leave it at that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

It is safe to say, Mr Vickers, that I was not expecting us to get to clause 50—[Laughter.] Luckily, I have a speech that I prepared earlier. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport in the Scottish Government and the operations manager of Transport Scotland are giving evidence on this very issue in the Scottish Parliament this morning. If I can pad this out until 11.25 am, I will be able to bring some quotes to the Committee before we leave our deliberations on the amendments and clause 50.

I rise to speak to amendments 9, 7 and 8 in my name and those of my colleagues in Plaid Cymru. As I mentioned on Second Reading and briefly at the start of the sitting —it is very unusual for me or anyone else from the SNP to stand up during the deliberations on any Bill to say this—the devolved Administrations have for the most part worked happily with the UK Government on getting this Bill right for everyone across these isles, in line with the co-operative working between the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission of England and Wales over the past couple of years. So it is disappointing, to say the least, that the UK Government appear to have ditched that view when drafting clause 50.

The devolved powers that are properly the preserve of the Scottish Parliament are quite clear, yet this clause would unilaterally overturn that settled state and instead place the Scottish Parliament and Government under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Transport and his or her colleagues. Since devolution and the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, it has been agreed among all parties that consent is required from Holyrood when the UK Government seek to legislate in devolved areas.

[Grahame Morris]

This is an interesting point. There are a number of Bills whose provisions apply only to England or to England and Wales, and I have always thought there was an anomaly in terms of territorial extent and application. If someone is driving an autonomous vehicle, it seems slightly bizarre to have a different regulatory regime if they go over the border into Scotland or Wales. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and on page 12 of the explanatory notes I have highlighted in green the part that says:

“There is a convention that Westminster will not normally legislate with regard to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly without the consent of the legislature concerned.”

I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that there has not been that consultation.

[Gavin Newlands]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Of course, if there is any diversion between the regulations, the Scottish regulations will be better than any brought forward by DFT. I joke, but the Scottish Government—and presumably the Welsh Senedd—have been in discussions about this for a long time. In fact, the issues the Scottish Government have with clause 50 were recognised by the UK Government themselves. I say that not just because of the facts the hon. Gentleman pointed out in the explanatory notes, but because the Government themselves have said that clause 50 will require legislative consent. This is not the Scottish Government being uppity; the UK Government themselves have said that legislative consent would be required, but they have now ditched that approach and seek to implement clause 50 without seeking any legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament.

What has happened says so much about the Government’s approach to devolution in recent years and completely overturns that principle of devolution. Either we have devolution or we do not—it is not for the Government to pick and choose which parts of legislation devolution is applied to. Devolution should apply in those areas that are not listed in the Scotland Act 1998. It is simple as that, yet the Government seem to want to change the rules and move the goalposts at will to stymie devolution at almost every turn. They snatch power from a democratically elected Parliament and Government and give it to a Minister of the UK Government, who it is fair to say currently have zero mandate in Scotland. That may change come a future election, but at this point this Government have no real mandate in Scotland, and yet they seek to override the will of the elected Parliament of Scotland.

The amendments in my name and those of Plaid Cymru colleagues would remedy that democratic deficit by placing a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to obtain consent from the Scottish Parliament and/or the Senedd before legislating in areas that are not properly theirs to legislate in. The Scottish Government have made it clear throughout the consultation and drafting process that working across borders on issues such as this—as alluded to by the hon. Member for Easington, who serves with me on the Transport Committee—is undoubtedly good sense, benefiting the automated vehicle sector and ultimately all consumers across these isles.

[Grahame Morris]

The hon. Gentleman’s contribution is completely valid. I am slightly perplexed by this issue, so I will be interested in what the Minister has to say about the Government’s consultations with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly, for that matter. For the system to work, we need to bear in mind the key point about digitalising traffic regulation orders. What will happen? People will drive from England into Scotland and vice versa, but the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to require traffic regulation orders to be provided by traffic regulation authorities—

Automated Vehicles Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Gavin Newlands and Grahame Morris

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; it is important to clarify this. That seems absolutely reasonable, but why can he and his Department not have these discussions with their counterparts in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive in advance? Why does the measure have to be imposed as a Henry VIII power and then subsequently consulted on? That is not consultation, is it? I do not know what to call it. It is an—

[Gavin Newlands]

An imposition.

[Grahame Morris]

An imposition—thank you.

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]

Debate between Gavin Newlands and Grahame Morris

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

I start, rather unusually, by thanking the Minister, in the same vein as the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for accepting some of the changes that both we and the Labour party suggested during Committee stage—notably, on setting a national rather than a harbour-specific tariff, setting a deadline for objections to the level of fines to be levied and ensuring that the levy is used for seafarer welfare.

We will obviously not vote against the Bill. It is a better Bill than when it entered Committee, but it still falls short in a number of areas. I understand that the Government by and large, as is the way with most Bills, want to keep the focus of the Bill as narrow as possible and the Opposition tend to want to widen the focus of the Bill to ensure that as many people as possible are protected by it, and to tighten up provisions already set out in the Bill for the very same reason.

The Government’s nine-point plan was set out a number of months ago but, if it is not adrift and approaching the rocks, it is struggling under very low power indeed. But the Minister need not worry; we are here to strengthen the Bill. In that vein, I will speak to amendments 30 to 33 and 36 to 38, and new clauses 4 and 5. I also fully support the amendments and new clauses tabled by those on the Labour Front Bench.

In fact, I will start with Labour new clause 2, which deals with issues relating to the seafarers charter, including roster patterns. Before I do so, I have to ask: where is the seafarers charter? Everyone was hoping and expecting to see it before Report. It is entirely suboptimal, to say the least, that the passage of the Bill will conclude without us having had sight of the charter. I certainly hope the Minister agrees that that is not the position that he would have wanted to be in at the start of the process.

[Grahame Morris]

That is an important point. The Government are laying so much store by voluntary agreement in the application of the seafarers welfare charter, or the seafarers charter—it has had various names during its transition. The Minister said that there had been consultation and that further consultation was going on, including with the UK Chamber of Shipping. My understanding is that that includes Seatruck and Condor Ferries. They are long-term bad bosses and abusers of seafarer rights, so I hope that they will not have input into the Bill, which could further undermine its provisions.

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank my Transport Committee colleague. I could not agree more. I will very shortly cover the fact that the agreement is voluntary and that we do not even know what is in it, yet here we are, concluding the remaining stages of the Bill.

As was mentioned on Second Reading and in Committee, roster patterns are every bit as important as the wage issues addressed by the Bill, because a tired and overworked crew is a dangerous crew at sea. We know that crew at P&O Ferries are sometimes being asked to work for 17 weeks straight. That is not just an issue of fairness at work; it is an issue of human and environmental safety. We know the reasons behind the Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy. If seafarers around our shores are working 17 weeks straight with no oversight and no action, sooner or later we will sadly be talking about another tragedy—one that is entirely preventable.

Similarly, on wages and pensions, we know what many seafarers are expected to put up with. The key point of the Bill is to prevent wages from falling below the national minimum wage equivalent, but we hope that will have the additional impact of improving wages and conditions across the board in the industry. As I asked the Minister in Committee:

“What good is a voluntary charter when we have operators such as P&O Ferries, which was content not only to break the law”––[Official Report, Seafarers’ Wages Public Bill Committee, 17 January 2023; c. 69.]

but said that it would do so again? Putting those elements of the charter—which sadly does not exist—on the face of the Bill would at least give the Government firm legal ground in assessing how the legislation has benefited the industry and its employees.

Again, new clause 2 calls for and commits the Government to nothing more than a report from the Secretary of State on the main issues dealt with by the charter. If the Government are serious about a real seafarers charter developed in partnership with trade unions and aimed at protecting exploited workers, they have nothing to fear from accepting the new clause.

While I am on the subject, given the lack of any contrition whatever from P&O Ferries, is it not time that its royal charter was revoked? DP World should derive no benefit from that charter, which it inherited when it bought P&O Ferries. One cannot talk about P&O Ferries without talking about Mr Hebblethwaite, a man who has so far escaped entirely scot-free despite admitting that he broke the law and would do so again. The Government and the Insolvency Service have been signally unable to bring him and/or any other P&O Ferries or DP World executives to account for their actions. New clause 4, which was tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) , whose thunder I wish not to steal, would ensure that people such as Hebblethwaite would be liable for their crimes by introducing an offence that is punishable by disqualification as a director.

New clause 5 was tabled following contact from a number of concerned industry representatives that are unclear about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s enforcement of harbour authorities. In Committee, the Minister spoke about how clauses 4 and 5 allow the Secretary of State—via the MCA—to request information to ensure compliance. However, no passage in the Bill clarifies the role of the MCA in enforcing harbour authorities to comply. In essence, I would like to hear more from the Minister about the role of the MCA in the enforcement of national minimum wage declarations.

As I have said, we seek to widen the scope of the Bill to ensure that all those who should be protected are protected. Amendments 30 and 33, and Labour amendment 40, which the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East spoke to, were tabled to ensure that those working in the renewables sector are afforded similar protections to those in the oil and gas sectors and on the regular ferry services that the Minister mentioned. The Minister’s answer in Committee was unsatisfactory in my view and, I am sure, for those who work in the sector. If he will not accept the amendments, will he set out his plans to ensure that those workers do not end up an anomaly?

Seafarers' Wages Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Gavin Newlands and Grahame Morris

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[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.

Seafarers' Wages Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Gavin Newlands and Grahame Morris

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I will address amendments 51, 52, 55, 56 and 58, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East. We will also be supporting amendment 64—we have signed the amendment —in the name of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East.

Ultimately, we want this legislation, in whatever form it takes at Royal Assent, to stick. That is what we are seeking to ensure today. The surcharges and penalties envisaged have to be realistic to have any effect. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East raised the possibility of operators who own ports surcharging other operators who use those ports. If we end up in a position where operators allege sharp practice on the part of other operators and take legal action, it is workers who will be caught in the middle. P&O Ferries can afford the lawyers; poorly paid staff cannot. Setting a national tariff will remove the element of discretion from harbour authorities and ensure that all harbours and all operators across the board pay the same surcharge, regardless of which harbour has jurisdiction.

With all due respect to the harbour authorities, shifting the onus to the Secretary of State would also be a clear sign of how seriously the Government will take infringements. It is one thing for an operator to take on a port, but quite another to decide to take on the Department for Transport, if they know they are in the wrong. The likes of P&O might have deep pockets, but ultimatel, there will be no escape from a law that is properly enforced by the state.

As things stand, the level of surcharge that will be levied on operators in breach of the legislation is set entirely by the harbour authority, with reference to the regulations that will be laid at some point by the Secretary of State. My concern is that if the level of surcharge is set too low—we spoke this morning about the level of fines that could be levied—there would be no or very little disincentive for operators to pay below the national minimum wage equivalent. We saw with P&O that even flagrant lawbreaking was no disincentive whatever.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I completely agree with the line the hon. Member is pursuing here—that the fines should present a disincentive to breach the provisions of the legislation—but would he clarify a point on the minimum surcharge? The amendment says it would be

“no less than 300 per cent of the difference between the amount calculated as the national minimum wage equivalence for the operator and the amount in total paid by that operator”.

We learned in the debates on the previous clause that more than 50% of the savings that P&O were making were not from wages but from the changes in roster patterns. Should that be taken into account as well?

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank my colleague on the Transport Committee for making that point. It is very important, and he is absolutely right. I spoke about the impact of rostering on Second Reading. I am sure we will come on to the seafarers’ charter and the issues around that later on. My amendment seeks to amend the Bill in front of us, but I would love for us to be taking the whole situation into account, rather than just the wage. We will discuss that point in more detail a bit later on.

The Insolvency Service refused to undertake criminal proceedings against P&O Ferries or its corporate leadership, despite Mr Hebblethwaite’s appearance in front of the Select Committees’ joint hearing, when he freely admitted that he and his colleagues conspired over a lengthy period of time to systematically break the law and treat their workforce dreadfully. P&O clearly took the view that the chances of facing any real penalty for their actions were slim and, ultimately, they were proved to be right.

The Bill sets no minimum level of surcharge that would be levied on operators found to be in violation of the law. If the surcharge is set at a rate lower than the difference between compliance and non-compliance, there is nothing to prevent rogue operators from paying below the national minimum wage equivalent, making a declaration to that effect, paying the surcharge and still sailing away with full pockets, exactly as P&O Ferries did. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. In this group, I will speak to amendment 70 in my name and to new clause 6.

The Minister explained the reasoning behind his proposal to refuse access to a harbour. Amendment 70 proposes that the ship should be detained within a port. That is far more in line with international maritime law. The denial of harbour access is a matter of some concern. For harbour authorities or, indeed, the Secretary of State to suspend access is dangerous and likely to be ineffective. I therefore support the detention of non-compliant vessels within a UK harbour. The trade unions, the RMT—National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—and I believe Nautilus International, also support that view, in order to provide a punishment for non-compliance that is more in line with international maritime regulatory standards governing operators’ behaviours.

I respectfully point out that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s port state control powers, which already exist under the maritime labour convention, are the only mechanism for inspecting crew employment and welfare standards. Every month, foreign flag vessels detained following those inspections are posted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on the Government’s website. The power that I propose would be a welcome addition to the port state control responsibilities that the MCA discharges for foreign flag vessels working from UK ports.

Only denying access to ports is not a realistic or sustainable punishment, especially as it relies to some extent on vessels not sailing to the UK if they are found to be non-compliant. Amendment 70 and new clause 6, in relation to vessels that fail to pay the surcharge, would be much more effective. There is also the possibility that capacity in another port would be blocked, if a ship were detained outside the port, perhaps in another harbour or even in a different jurisdiction. It is not clear whether the bilateral agreements the Government are negotiating—the Minister referred to them earlier, in particular that with France, but there are also those with Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Denmark and Norway—would take account of that. I would be interested in the Government’s response to that point.

There is a welfare issue. It is outside the scope of this Bill, but there have been occasions where, certainly during the course of the pandemic, a number of vessels were laid up. I do not know if comes under the category of force majeure. Many tens of thousands—even hundreds of thousands—of seafarers were unable to access proper conditions. I know there were issues about the spreading of infection and so on, but putting that to one side, surely in terms of welfare it would make far more sense to detain the vessels within the port, rather than outside.

[Gavin Newlands]

I rise to speak to amendment 58. I am minded to support amendment 70 and new clause 6 in the name of the hon. Member for Easington. Perhaps counterintuitively, I am looking to add another exception to the list that could allow a rogue operator’s ship access to harbour, because I do not want seafarers or workers caught in the middle. As things stand, where an operator has been refused access for not paying the surcharge even when a crew welfare issue has been identified, such as a long overdue change of crew, the Bill would allow harbour authorities to continue blocking access to the operator. That could put the crew in the middle of a tug of war between the harbour authority and the operator.

We do not want a situation where the harbour authority is legally able to prevent access to a port when a ship has genuine need to seek access to ensure the safety and health of its crew. I know that most harbours take their responsibility for crew welfare seriously, but we do not want a situation where rogue operators are able to say, “We would love to take crew welfare seriously, but we couldn’t access the nearest harbour because we didn’t take it seriously in the first place, by paying below the national minimum wage.” There should be no excuses when it comes to employee safety.

Adding crew welfare to the list of exceptions to the harbour authority’s right to refuse access would provide some extra piece of mind for seafarers, and ensure that they have the protections, not the operator. It is the seafarers we are looking to protect. The amendment would clearly not prevent harbours from refusing access where the five conditions do not apply and, on that level, does not seek to water down the options available to hit those who refuse to pay a surcharge.

The Neptune declaration was established during the covid pandemic as it became clear that public health restrictions on access to ports were severely impacting on the capacity for ships to change over. Part of that declaration is a commitment that operators should make all reasonable efforts to accommodate crew changes, including when the vessel has to make a reasonable deviation. That should apply even as we have moved beyond the worst of the pandemic, and our legislation should reflect that declaration, which is why we have tabled the amendment.