Heathrow Airport Expansion
Grahame Morris Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing the debate and on her tireless campaign against the expansion of Heathrow airport on behalf of her constituents, supported by many of my colleagues. I fully support those efforts, but as a north-east MP I approach the issue from a different perspective. Our north-east economy suffers from serious imbalances compared with London, which experiences constant demands for improved infrastructure and upgrades. Although I welcome economic growth, the expansion of Heathrow makes me question the Government’s key policy of levelling up.
A recent debate in Westminster Hall highlighted the potential to use the tax structure to implement long-term policies that bridge the economic divide, rather than relying on unfair short-term gimmicks such as the levelling-up fund. The Government rejected a proportional property tax and continue to endorse an unfair council tax system that penalises the poorest communities and regional economies. Today I want the Minister to consider another potential progressive tax change, namely replacing air passenger duty with an airport congestion charge.
It was recommended in 2015 that Heathrow airport—the most slot-constrained major international global airport, as we have heard—should have an additional runway to increase its capacity by more than 50%. I fully understand the concerns of residents living under the flight path and in the surrounding areas, because increased flights result in more noise and more pollution in the air and on the ground. I appreciate how a third runway could make life intolerable for those communities.
Before proceeding with plans to exacerbate congestion at Heathrow, it is essential that the Minister consider alternatives and explore measures, including utilising the existing available capacity in regional airports. Although I appreciate the desire of Heathrow airport’s owners to expand and maximise their profits and returns on investment, the Government have a different responsibility to consider the broader public interest and policy objectives. Instead of assessing airport expansion on an individual basis, the Government should evaluate the overall capacity of UK airports and incentivise the use of spare capacity in regional airports, such as those in the north-east, rather than increasing pressure on a congested Heathrow.
Currently, cost incentives work against that goal, pushing more traffic towards already congested airports such as Heathrow. London airports benefit from substantial cost advantages because of their immense size, the competition, carrier availability and global connectivity. I urge the Government to rebalance that advantage and support regional airports through the implementation of an airport congestion charge. Passengers opting for congested airports such as Heathrow would continue to have that option but would pay a small premium, while those utilising regional airports with available capacity would be encouraged and rewarded.
The strength of Newcastle airport is linked to the vitality of our regional economy. Newcastle International airport’s contribution to the regional economy was £1.16 billion, with an ambition to grow that to £1.91 billion by 2030 and potentially by more than £2 billion by 2035. There would be an additional 1,325 jobs on site and more than 9,000 across the region. I urge the Government to consider that as a viable option.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]
Grahame Morris Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Holden
It is a pleasure to report to the House, to move Government new clause 3, to speak to the other amendments and to be able to listen to the important debate we will have on the Bill’s remaining stages. Over the past few months, the Bill has been subject to scrutiny and debate not only in Committee but through the ongoing debate in this House and in the other place. I am pleased that we are moving forwards together towards seeing this important legislation on the statute book and seafarers seeing the benefit of increased wage protection. I will first introduce the new clause and a number of the amendments introduced by the Government.
The first group—amendments 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 23 —relates to the powers to request information from harbour authorities to monitor their compliance with their duties under the Bill. New clause 3 provides the Secretary of State with the power to require harbour authorities to provide information for the purpose of establishing whether, or to what extent, they are complying with their duties under the Bill. In practice, this power will be used by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides an indicative list of the sort of information the MCA might require in order to establish whether a harbour authority is complying with its duties, including information about equivalence declarations and surcharges. It will be an offence for a harbour authority to fail to provide the information required in the manner and within the period specified by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, to provide false or misleading information, or not to inform the Secretary of State within four weeks if the information becomes false or misleading. The penalty for this offence is an unlimited fine in England and Wales and a fine not exceeding level 5 in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
This new clause is necessary following amendments made in Committee that mean that harbour authorities are now under a duty to request declarations, impose surcharges or refuse access to their ports in the circumstances set out in the Bill. It is a criminal offence for a harbour authority to fail to comply with these duties. The new clause will therefore ensure that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has the necessary information to carry out its enforcement role and to bring prosecutions if necessary, in line with its powers of enforcement of operators in clause 6.
Government amendments 5 and 23 and subsection (3) of new clause 3 all relate to savings for data protection regulation, making it clear that the Bill is not intended to override any existing data protection obligations. Subsection (3) of new clause 3 provides that a requirement to provide information
“does not require a harbour authority to provide information to the extent that doing so would cause the authority to breach the data protection legislation”.
The data protection is defined by amendment 23 as having
“the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018”—
that is, all relevant UK data protection legislation.
Amendment 5 makes it clear that the data protection saving in clause 6(3) applies in relation to the UK’s data protection legislation as well as to the data production laws of other countries or territories. In new clause 3(3) and clause 6(3), the amendments clarify that in determining whether the provision of information would cause a breach of the data protection laws, the requirement imposed by subsection (1) of the clause is to be taken into account. This is to make it clear that the disclosure of information may be authorised when pursuant to a legal obligation.
It is an offence under clause 6(5) of the Bill for an operator to fail to provide information required to the Secretary of State or, in practice, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. However, at present clause 6 does not specify the time within which this information is to be provided, as several hon. Members pointed out in Committee. Amendments 6 and 7 will therefore make it explicit that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency can specify the period within which the information must be provided, and that it is an offence for the operator to fail to provide the information within that period and in the manner specified. The same applies for requests for information from harbour authorities under new clause 3. These amendments will provide greater clarity for harbour authorities and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
Amendments 9 and 10 are linked to new clause 3 in that they extend MCA enforcement powers in consequence of Government amendments made in Committee to impose duties and corresponding criminal offences on harbour authorities. These amendments will extend the powers in clause 7 for inspectors to board ships or enter premises for the purpose of establishing whether harbour authorities are complying with their duties or to verify information provided under new clause 3. These amendments will allow the MCA properly to enforce the duties on harbour authorities and to bring prosecutions where necessary if the duties are not being complied with.
The next group of Government amendments relate to new offences for false and misleading declarations. As currently drafted, an operator commits an offence under clause 5 in two broad circumstances: first, where it provides an equivalence declaration and the service is operated inconsistently with that declaration at the time that it is provided, or from the beginning of the relevant year if that is later; and secondly, where an operator provides a declaration and subsequently starts to operate the service inconsistently with the declaration and fails to notify the harbour authority of that fact within four weeks.
Clause 5 does not currently cover circumstances where a declaration is provided during or after the relevant year, and the service was operated inconsistently with the declaration for a period of that year in the past, such that the declaration is false or misleading at the time it is provided. This is why I have tabled amendments 2 and 3, which create a new criminal offence where an operator provides a declaration that is false and misleading in so far as it concerns the operation of the service before the declaration was provided.
Amendments 4 and 8 are consequential on this new offence and extend the Secretary of State’s enforcement powers to include establishing whether a declaration is false or misleading. In practice, enforcement will be carried out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Amendment 4 extends the purposes for which the Maritime and Coastguard Agency may require an operator to provide information under clause 6 to include establishing whether an equivalence declaration is false or misleading in so far as it concerns the operation of the service before the declaration was provided.
Amendment 8 extends the power in clause 7 to provide that inspections of ships or premises may be carried out for the same purpose. Related to that, amendments 11 to 14 provide that harbour authorities must impose surcharges on an operator if they have reasonable grounds to believe that an equivalence declaration provided by the operator is false or misleading about the time before the declaration was provided. That mirrors the approach taken when an operator provides a declaration and the harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the service is or was being operated inconsistently with that declaration, ensuring that surcharges are imposed in both circumstances.
Taken together, these amendments strengthen the enforcement of the Bill and will mean that operators that seek to pay their seafarers a rate lower than the national minimum wage equivalent cannot avoid the consequences through such dishonest means.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for these amendments, as the issues to which they relate were raised by Opposition Members in Committee and on Second Reading. What is the position on the fines? Does he remember our discussion about whether level 4 fines are enough of a deterrent? A level 5 fine is unlimited and may be a greater deterrent, although the Secretary of State will still have discretion on whether to apply it.
Mr Holden
Well, 120 is what has been discussed broadly in the past few weeks. Opposition Members have tabled no amendment for any proposal except 52 or 120. That is why we are discussing 120. A once-a-week service could be in the UK’s waters for a matter of hours every week, when the minimum wage equivalence would apply, and it may be calling at multiple foreign ports before it gets here. Obviously, questions of international maritime law start to arise in those circumstances, as do our relationships with other countries, which are looking at this and at where these ships may operate from.
Grahame Morris
We have to agree to disagree on this point. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has estimated that the 2020 legal extension of the national minimum wage equivalent entitlement to all seafarers on domestic routes and on routes from UK ports to offshore oil and gas installations, which are not included in the scope of the Bill, would benefit a maximum of 13,000 seafarers—I refer to ratings grades—regardless of the number of port calls. So the issue of port calls is fundamental to whether this Bill will be fit for purpose—in other words, whether it will meet the Government’s basic requirement to protect UK seafarers on these short sea routes.
Mr Holden
I will come later to the hon. Gentleman’s point about offshore workers in the energy sector. If the proposal were 52 weeks, we would be including services that were in UK waters for only a matter of a few hours a week. We think that would be a disproportionate measure and it would not address what we are trying to address, which is short-service ferry operations. They are the major point of concern. If we include other services, we move swiftly into international maritime law.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I wish him every success in his bilateral negotiations with the French Government and other seafaring nations. Let me turn to the point made about the litmus test of the success of this Bill. Without placing in the Bill the seafarers charter, which addresses not just minimum wage equivalence but roster patterns and all the other things that allowed rogue employers such as P&O Ferries and Irish Ferries to commit the terrible action that took place almost a year ago, would this Bill prevent such action? I am afraid that the answer is no. It fails the litmus test.
Mr Holden
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; I do not think that the Bill fails the litmus test at all. It is clear that what we are trying to do is protect seafarers with major connections to the UK, and that is exactly what the Bill does.
On the personal liability of directors, the existing criminal offences in the Bill will have serious commercial and reputational impacts, particularly now that we have included unlimited fines, so I do not think that the new clause is necessary. Plus, the Insolvency Service is currently undertaking a civil investigation into the P&O situation, which shows that these things can be addressed, as set out in the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. I request that the new clause be withdrawn.
On the role of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, I would like to assure the House that new clause 5 is unnecessary. The Bill does not refer to the MCA by name. That is because it is an executive agency of the Department for Transport and will be covered by the legislation.
In relation to amendment 30, we seek to make energy installations within the UK exclusive economic zone a
“place in the United Kingdom”
for the purposes of the Bill. The key point here is that we understand the concern in this space. Offshore wind farms and the renewable sector are critical to meeting our targets. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy regularly reviews the national minimum wage legislation to make sure that it is fit for purpose in the current situation. We hope that that will be covered in that.
Similarly, turning to amendments 31 and 32, we hope that pension entitlements and deductions for food and accommodation will be covered in the seafarers charter, which will be brought forward shortly. Although we support the intention of the amendments, it is right that the detail, particularly on food and accommodation, is set out in secondary legislation, which is where we intended it to be, in order that we get it right for this complex matter. We will hold a public consultation on the draft regulations before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
I believe that I covered the refusal of access exceptions in amendments 36 and 37 extensively in Committee, which made it very clear that we are in a very sensible place on both those issues.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. I hope that it is clear from my responses that I have been open to amendments and that the amendments tabled by the Government have also made that clear. I understand that some Members would have liked us to have gone further, but the scope of the Bill has been intentionally tightly drawn to target action on the specific issue of wages for seafarers with close ties to the UK. We introduced this Bill at great pace following the P&O scandal, and it is by keeping the Bill tightly focused that we have been able to take such prompt legislative action. The Government have, however, still been progressing their nine-point plan for seafarers’ protection, and I hope that Members will welcome the progress that we have made, particularly in our co-operation with the French Government on these issues.
The compliance and enforcement mechanisms of the Bill have been carefully designed, and I hope that hon. Members will note the improvements that have been made both on Report and in Committee, which include suggestions from them. The compliance process is a carefully drawn balance between harbour authorities and the MCA on behalf of the Secretary of State. We have been engaging actively with ports and stakeholders and will continue to do so as we develop secondary legislation. We are confident that the combination of surcharges, refusal of access and criminal offences will ensure that operators pay seafarers on services in the scope of the Bill at least the national minimum wage equivalent. I am pleased that the Bill has reached this stage in its passage and look forward to seeing it on the statute book.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 2, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The new clause would ensure that the Bill contains sufficient checks and balances so that it does what it is intended it does. We support the premise of the Bill and have suggested amendments to strengthen it. We do not want a toothless Bill that is wide open to abuse by bad bosses. The Bill attempts to address the problems of seafarer welfare and is intended to cover services with close ties to the UK that make regular port-to-port international voyages and arrive on our shores throughout the year.
The Bill is not merely about pay; it is also about conditions, pensions and roster patterns. It is the first piece of primary legislation on this subject since the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Its scope must be broadened and protections put into the Bill. The easiest way to measure the efficacy of the Bill is to require the Government to report on the additional conditions, specifically those relating to the seafarers welfare charter. Regrettably, that charter, which is the Government’s preferred option for setting minimum conditions for rostering, pensions and other aspects of seafarer employment, has been voluntary and progress has stalled. The Minister said that he is co-operating with the French, which is good to hear, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said, the Bill clearly fails the litmus test. We have to move on this issue: the Bill is toothless without the charter, and the Minister should come back to the Dispatch Box and say that he will move on it, or at least give some sort of guarantee of when the charter will come into force.
Grahame Morris
I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. It is not that we are not giving the Minister credit for having moved some way; it is just that this Bill presents an ideal opportunity. It is like having a penalty awarded and then double-tapping the ball, so the referee disallows the goal. We have a great opportunity to move ahead of the French and provide the requisite protections for our seafarers. Has my hon. Friend seen a published version of the charter? I know there have been various iterations. I understand that the RMT has asked to see the latest version. The Minister lays such great store by this voluntary agreement, which we have not even seen yet—at least, I have not seen it.
Mike Kane
No, I have not seen any sign of the charter. I would have thought Conservative Members would want to get one over on the French. As an avid Manchester City fan, I might have to dust down my A to Z in future to find out where I am going, but I have seen plenty of those types of penalty kicks in the past.
These legislation matters, because it is the only way to end the exploitative race to the bottom that many companies depend on. P&O Ferries cut its pay bill by up to 50%, but the majority of the savings will be from the imposition of new rostering periods of up to 17 weeks for crew who are earning less than half the minimum wage. It is vital that the Government consult the unions and that unions are able to feed into the monitoring of the legislation in line with international labour conventions. We saw P&O casually disregard both employment laws and union consultation when it behaved as it did in March 2022. That must not happen again. Bad bosses should know that the Government value the role of trade unions and seek to work with them—not against them—to protect the rights of workers.
New clause 2 would also seek to establish a way of monitoring minimum wage corridor agreements to ensure that any non-qualifying seafarer is paid in accordance with a rate that is equal to that rate. We have a proud maritime tradition in this country and the horror reflected by this House, which was united in its condemnation of P&O, must not be forgotten. We know low-cost carriers have a model based on exploitation and poverty pay, and we cannot let that business model prevail.
I come now to new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). Labour supports the Bill on the whole but we still find it lacking and insufficiently robust. I am grateful to the Minister for the concessions he has made, as I will point out later in my speech, but without new clause 4 accountability in the Bill is at stake. What provision is there if businesses are found to have failed the test? Is it not right that those responsible should be held to account?
Almost a year to the day since that scandal was inflicted upon almost 800 seafarers, P&O has yet to be sanctioned by this Government. They gave P&O millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money during the pandemic, and in return P&O proceeded effectively to stick two fingers up at the Government, its workers, the unions and our employment laws. There was plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth from Government Members, but no action. Here we are 11 months later: Peter Hebblethwaite has been promoted into another directorship in the company, and the promised criminal prosecution has not materialised. Surely the Insolvency Service will bring a prosecution? No, and despite asking questions, my colleagues and I across the House have yet to hear a clear answer as to why a prosecution is not in the public interest.
We support new clause 4 because, to recap, at 7 am on 17 March 2022, notices appeared in mess rooms on nine P&O ships telling crew to expect an announcement regarding the future viability of their jobs. Three and a half hours later, 786 UK seafarers were told via a pre-recorded Zoom call that they were being made redundant, without a thought to employment law and with immediate effect. They were then escorted off the ships by handcuff-trained, balaclava-wearing private security guards. On the quaysides in Dover, Hull, Liverpool, Larne and Cairnryan, coaches were arriving, carrying agency crew. Peter Hebblethwaite oversaw this—it happened on his watch—and then bragged in this House to a Select Committee that he would do it again. It is for that reason that we seek to make directors of these companies—these bad bosses—personally responsible through the new clause, which should be accepted. I am grateful, however, that the Minister has moved on having unlimited fines.
Amendment 24 would reduce the number of calls a vessel may make in a 12-month period from 120 to 52. The amendment would therefore significantly increase the number of vessels, and thus the number of seafarers, in scope of the protections of this Bill. The Government’s stated aim in the Bill is to improve pay and protections for seafarers working on services that have a close link to the United Kingdom. The wooliness of the wording a “close link” should be expanded on and tightened up, and that is what amendment 24 would do by reducing the number of visits from 120 per year to one a week, which by any and every measure is a regular visit and a close link.
The Minister said that there has been full consultation on this matter, but it is like the old saying, “You can have a car of any colour you want, so long as it’s black.” The Government have not moved on this issue one iota. If I were to visit a restaurant weekly, I would be a regular, with a close link. I play football once a week, which not only makes me the second-best midfielder playing out of my constituency—the honour of being the best goes to Jill Scott MBE, who owns the BOXX2BOXX café in my patch—but gives me a close link to that team. Why are the Government so keen to undermine their own Bill by implying that doing something once a week is not sufficient to be seen as having a close link?
Gavin Newlands
I start, rather unusually, by thanking the Minister, in the same vein as the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for accepting some of the changes that both we and the Labour party suggested during Committee stage—notably, on setting a national rather than a harbour-specific tariff, setting a deadline for objections to the level of fines to be levied and ensuring that the levy is used for seafarer welfare.
We will obviously not vote against the Bill. It is a better Bill than when it entered Committee, but it still falls short in a number of areas. I understand that the Government by and large, as is the way with most Bills, want to keep the focus of the Bill as narrow as possible and the Opposition tend to want to widen the focus of the Bill to ensure that as many people as possible are protected by it, and to tighten up provisions already set out in the Bill for the very same reason.
The Government’s nine-point plan was set out a number of months ago but, if it is not adrift and approaching the rocks, it is struggling under very low power indeed. But the Minister need not worry; we are here to strengthen the Bill. In that vein, I will speak to amendments 30 to 33 and 36 to 38, and new clauses 4 and 5. I also fully support the amendments and new clauses tabled by those on the Labour Front Bench.
In fact, I will start with Labour new clause 2, which deals with issues relating to the seafarers charter, including roster patterns. Before I do so, I have to ask: where is the seafarers charter? Everyone was hoping and expecting to see it before Report. It is entirely suboptimal, to say the least, that the passage of the Bill will conclude without us having had sight of the charter. I certainly hope the Minister agrees that that is not the position that he would have wanted to be in at the start of the process.
Grahame Morris
That is an important point. The Government are laying so much store by voluntary agreement in the application of the seafarers welfare charter, or the seafarers charter—it has had various names during its transition. The Minister said that there had been consultation and that further consultation was going on, including with the UK Chamber of Shipping. My understanding is that that includes Seatruck and Condor Ferries. They are long-term bad bosses and abusers of seafarer rights, so I hope that they will not have input into the Bill, which could further undermine its provisions.
Gavin Newlands
I thank my Transport Committee colleague. I could not agree more. I will very shortly cover the fact that the agreement is voluntary and that we do not even know what is in it, yet here we are, concluding the remaining stages of the Bill.
As was mentioned on Second Reading and in Committee, roster patterns are every bit as important as the wage issues addressed by the Bill, because a tired and overworked crew is a dangerous crew at sea. We know that crew at P&O Ferries are sometimes being asked to work for 17 weeks straight. That is not just an issue of fairness at work; it is an issue of human and environmental safety. We know the reasons behind the Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy. If seafarers around our shores are working 17 weeks straight with no oversight and no action, sooner or later we will sadly be talking about another tragedy—one that is entirely preventable.
Similarly, on wages and pensions, we know what many seafarers are expected to put up with. The key point of the Bill is to prevent wages from falling below the national minimum wage equivalent, but we hope that will have the additional impact of improving wages and conditions across the board in the industry. As I asked the Minister in Committee:
“What good is a voluntary charter when we have operators such as P&O Ferries, which was content not only to break the law”––[Official Report, Seafarers’ Wages Public Bill Committee, 17 January 2023; c. 69.]
but said that it would do so again? Putting those elements of the charter—which sadly does not exist—on the face of the Bill would at least give the Government firm legal ground in assessing how the legislation has benefited the industry and its employees.
Again, new clause 2 calls for and commits the Government to nothing more than a report from the Secretary of State on the main issues dealt with by the charter. If the Government are serious about a real seafarers charter developed in partnership with trade unions and aimed at protecting exploited workers, they have nothing to fear from accepting the new clause.
While I am on the subject, given the lack of any contrition whatever from P&O Ferries, is it not time that its royal charter was revoked? DP World should derive no benefit from that charter, which it inherited when it bought P&O Ferries. One cannot talk about P&O Ferries without talking about Mr Hebblethwaite, a man who has so far escaped entirely scot-free despite admitting that he broke the law and would do so again. The Government and the Insolvency Service have been signally unable to bring him and/or any other P&O Ferries or DP World executives to account for their actions. New clause 4, which was tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) , whose thunder I wish not to steal, would ensure that people such as Hebblethwaite would be liable for their crimes by introducing an offence that is punishable by disqualification as a director.
New clause 5 was tabled following contact from a number of concerned industry representatives that are unclear about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s enforcement of harbour authorities. In Committee, the Minister spoke about how clauses 4 and 5 allow the Secretary of State—via the MCA—to request information to ensure compliance. However, no passage in the Bill clarifies the role of the MCA in enforcing harbour authorities to comply. In essence, I would like to hear more from the Minister about the role of the MCA in the enforcement of national minimum wage declarations.
As I have said, we seek to widen the scope of the Bill to ensure that all those who should be protected are protected. Amendments 30 and 33, and Labour amendment 40, which the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East spoke to, were tabled to ensure that those working in the renewables sector are afforded similar protections to those in the oil and gas sectors and on the regular ferry services that the Minister mentioned. The Minister’s answer in Committee was unsatisfactory in my view and, I am sure, for those who work in the sector. If he will not accept the amendments, will he set out his plans to ensure that those workers do not end up an anomaly?
Grahame Morris
I rise to support the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), in particular new clause 2, which seeks to put the seafarers charter on the face of the Bill; amendment 24 to clause 3, which seeks to reduce the threshold to 52 calls to a UK port; and Opposition amendment 40 to clause 4, which seeks to protect existing seafaring national minimum wage entitlements beyond a 12-mile limit on the UK continental shelf. I am concerned about unintended consequences driving down seafarers’ wages, given that our purpose is to drive them up and protect terms and conditions. I would also like to speak to amendment 41, which proposes making clause 16 subject to the affirmative procedure.
I declare my interest as a member and, indeed, vice-chair of the RMT parliamentary group. I want to give the Minister credit. The Government have moved in several areas of concern that were highlighted on Second Reading, in the other place and in Committee. When the Bill was first published, the trade unions representing both ratings and officers, who were attacked by P&O Ferries and DP World, identified a number of the issues that we have raised, including the level of fines for non-compliance and the use of surcharge revenue to fund seafarer welfare facilities onshore. I am glad that the Minister has acknowledged those concerns and acted on them.
The purpose of the amendments tabled by His Majesty’s Opposition and my friends from the SNP, the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Glasgow East (David Linden), is to strengthen the Bill, not to undermine or devalue it. They aim to make sure that the Bill achieves its purpose.
Government amendment 15 creates a national tariff of surcharges set by the Government rather than tariffs set by individual harbour authorities. In Committee we identified a potential conflict of interest, so I am very pleased to say that the trade unions and the Opposition parties support the amendment.
As I have indicated, sadly the Bill does not go far enough in a number of key areas, including the detention of vessels in port as a punishment for non-compliance, and in the two areas that could cause maximum damage to P&O’s business model. Those two areas relate to the argument that a ship should be designated as within the scope of the Bill for 52 days rather than 120 days, and to the roster patterns, which are covered by the seafarers charter. That is addressed in the Opposition’s new clause 2.
I am thanking the Minister quite a lot, but I have to say that one of his letters to the Committee did not provide the further detail that we had asked for about the Department of Transport’s review of the Equality Act 2010, including the regulations to prevent nationality-based pay discrimination. The Minister is rolling his eyes because that is outside the scope of this Bill, but it was contained in the EU retained law Bill, so I think it is reasonable to seek clarification.
In the time I have, I want to speak in support of Labour’s amendments and, indeed, those tabled by my friends from the SNP, which I believe would greatly improve the Bill and ensure maximum protections for our seafarers. New clause 2 focuses on the seafarers welfare charter, and I hope that the Labour Front Benchers will put it to a vote. I know that the unions, employers and the Government have been discussing a number of versions of the charter since April as part of the much-publicised nine-point plan, which we very much welcome and which is included in the “Maritime 2050” review. It is intended to set minimum standards on wider employment issues that the Bill does not cover. Again, I must mention roster patterns, crewing levels, pension rights, training and taxation, because the additional savings that P&O in particular made were not just down to saving the cost of seafarers’ wages. Most of the financial benefits were from changed roster patterns, pensions and other savings.
Sir John Hayes
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is kind of him to mention the maritime growth study from 2015, which, as he says, called for a comprehensive reappraisal of the matters he describes. It seems to me that the fundamental point is that terms and conditions cannot be separated from wages. If we are going to make maritime careers attractive to people and build them such that they have the status they deserve, we really do have to include terms and conditions in our considerations.
Grahame Morris
That is absolutely spot on. As I have said, the improvements in the amendments and the new clause have the support of the official Opposition and our friends in the SNP, but I believe that our aims for the Bill also command the support of a number of Members of the Government party.
Given the importance of linking wages and terms and conditions, the nine-point plan and the seafarers charter really should be on the face of the Bill. The Minister has been quite consistent in disagreeing with that and instead aims to publish a voluntary seafarer welfare charter. I had rather hoped that it would have been published in advance of these remaining stages, including Third Reading, but perhaps it will be published later this month.
In a letter to the Committee, the Minister wrote:
“The Seafarers’ Charter is being developed with the maritime industry and social partners to enhance the core employment protections available to seafarers.”
For the avoidance of doubt, “social partners” means the trade unions. That is really interesting, and I welcome the fact that the Government have chosen to adopt the language of the European Union in referring to seafarers’ rights. Again, for the avoidance of any doubt, the maritime industry includes P&O Ferries, the Irish Continental Group, which operates Irish Ferries, and DP World. The Government must be honest about the discussions they have had and are having with P&O Ferries about its future viability. The Minister responded to an issue raised in Committee relating to P&O by writing:
“The Department works closely with ports and operators across the Maritime sector to understand the market and any potential sources of disruption. We have not however made any specific assessment of the viability of P&O Ferries’ routes to or from UK ports.”
The unions have not seen a draft of the charter since August, and neither to my knowledge has Stena Line or DFDS, whose collective bargaining agreements with the RMT and the officers’ union Nautilus formed the basis of the original framework agreement. Safe roster patterns and crewing levels based on the agreements with Stena and DFDS were prominent, but sadly have since been diluted or removed. That puts hundreds more UK seafarer jobs under threat from bad bosses who are ruthlessly undercutting responsible employees, and I include P&O and Irish Ferries in that. I urge the House not to forget that Irish Ferries started operating on the Dover-Calais route in June 2021 with one vessel doing a freight-only service. It now operates a freight and passenger service with three Cypriot-flagged vessels on the same route. That is the reality, and progressive operators that provide decent seafarer jobs are being undercut every day. It is so important that this Bill is properly targeted.
Seafarers' Wages Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Grahame Morris ExcerptsTuesday 17th January 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 View all Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 January 2023 - (17 Jan 2023)
Gavin Newlands
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies, and to lead this worthy but anaemic debate. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will be generous when discussing the amendments before us. The amendments are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East.
A couple of these amendments are straightforward. Amendment 42 would change the definition of a ship or vessel, and amendment 43 would ensure consistency in the definition of a seaman. The amendments are intended to ensure that the legislation aligns with existing definitions of both “seaman” and “ships” in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. I thank the Law Society of Scotland for highlighting these issues.
Having differing definitions in law between the Bill and existing legislation for no apparent good reason—although we will hear what the Minister says—does not seem to be a particularly efficient route to go down. After all, the workers that the Bill is intended to cover are already seamen under current definitions and, on the face of it, the Bill does not aim to change that.
Similarly, if there is already a legal definition of a ship in statute, it seems useful to maintain that definition here. Indeed, when the Bill was in the House of Lords, Baroness Vere made a similar point in relation to the definition of a harbour, pointing to the existence of the Harbours Act 1964. Therefore there should be no reason why a similar principle cannot apply in this case. If there are good reasons why a new definition specifically relating to the provisions in the Bill is needed, I will be happy to hear it, but logic would suggest that using the existing definitions would be far simpler.
Amendments 67 and 48 are designed to deal with the fact that workers operating in the renewables industry, which will be increasing exponentially in the coming years, are currently excluded from the Bill. There are two methods of dealing with that under the amendments. They relate to the UK exclusive economic zone and to the renewable energy zone. The exclusive economic zone almost entirely matches the renewable energy zone, save for an area just under 200 miles north-west of Cape Wrath and more than 100 miles north of North Rona. Because our proposal is aimed particularly at protecting those seafarers engaged in work supporting renewables installations in UK waters, it seemed more appropriate to try to use the renewable energy zone rather than the EEZ, but we have given both a try. If the Minister wants to accept either, I will be perfectly happy with whichever one he chooses.
At the moment, the Bill’s extent is limited to the UK and its territorial waters—that is, the 12 nautical mile limit. That excludes the EEZ and REZ, which go to 200 miles. Our proposal would simply ensure that ships and seafarers engaged in work to support renewables installations were not inadvertently omitted from enjoying legislative protection simply because those zones are not listed in the Bill while territorial waters are referred to.
I note that the Minister in the Lords, Baroness Vere, had to correct the record after incorrectly stating that these workers were already covered by national minimum wage legislation. Workers in the oil and gas industries are entitled to national minimum wage protection. It would be ludicrous if their colleagues doing the same difficult and dangerous job, but supporting renewable industries, were denied the right to protections and to national minimum wage equivalence. This is, on the face of it, a fairly minor proposal. However, it would help to protect thousands of workers—a number that we hope will grow hugely over coming years—and would ensure that renewables were not just better for the planet but better for our workers.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Would it be convenient to discuss amendment 67 at this point, Mr Davies?
Grahame Morris
Thank you, Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced some measures to address the appalling injustice experienced by the P&O seafarers, 800 of whom were summarily sacked by Zoom on 17 March in the most appalling fashion. However, I cannot help reflecting on the fact that this is something of a missed opportunity. I understand that the terms of the Bill are, by their very nature, narrow. Nevertheless, it is complicated legislation and it does throw up a number of anomalies, which I hope the Government will recognise and address during Committee or perhaps at Third Reading. Given the overall situation that we face with the reduction in the number of UK-based seafarers, this is a golden opportunity.
Two former Shipping Ministers are members of the Committee. With the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, we have had previously a discussion about the opportunities, given the huge public investment in offshore wind and offshore renewables more generally as part of the zero-carbon strategy, to provide employment opportunities, particularly in coastal towns such as mine. Sadly, that opportunity has been missed.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
As the hon. Gentleman has cited me, I ought to be driven to action, so let me say this. He will remember that, as Minister, I commissioned the “Maritime Growth Study”, and part of that study was a consideration of exactly the matters that he is describing. We need to recruit, to skill and to retain more UK seafarers. That is something that, frankly, most Governments, of all persuasions, have neglected over a long time, so the problem is deeply rooted. We have allowed the erosion of our merchant navy for a considerable time, so I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said. Skills matter, people matter, and jobs matter.
Grahame Morris
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with his comments. My wish, and indeed that of the maritime trade unions—RMT and Nautilus International—is that the seafarers’ charter and the Government’s nine-point plan embodied in the maritime 2050 strategy be placed on the face of the Bill. That would address many of their concerns, which were echoed by the right hon. Gentleman.
I respectfully point out that the noble Lord Hendy raised the issue of the lack of minimum wage protection for crew working in the offshore wind and offshore renewable energy supply chain beyond the limits of the UK’s territorial waters. At present, crews working on servicing offshore oil and gas across the UK continental shelf are entitled to protection under the national minimum wage legislation that this Bill relates to. However, crew who sometimes work on the same ships but service the offshore wind turbines in the UK exclusive economic zone are not entitled to that protection. That would seem unfair to any impartial observer and is leading to serious cases of exploitation. It is a glaring anomaly that the Bill should address.
We also have the exclusion of UK seafarers from the growing labour market, which is directly linked to the UK economy. These jobs would not exist but for a huge investment from the UK Government and the UK taxpayer. It is quite a travesty that we are not providing the protections that would ensure those jobs go to UK-based seafarers. I would like that to be addressed. That is the purpose of amendment 67.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. We hope to work co-operatively with the Government. The common good dictates that workers should be treated with dignity and respect in the workplace, and at the least they should be paid the national minimum wage, but as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North pointed out, international maritime law is incredibly complicated legislation when it comes to looking at economic terms and the definition of ships. Renewables hold a very positive future for the United Kingdom. We need to ensure that this sector comes within scope of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington suggested.
Labour has tabled multiple amendments, along with other colleagues on the Opposition Benches, to extend the definition of to whom the Bill applies. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings in his often-erudite way points it out: this is about making Britain a greater maritime nation. That depends on the jobs on offer and the skills we train our maritime workers with. We must ensure British workers can get those jobs on our coastal waters and that when they do they are fairly paid, with at least the national minimum wage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Davies, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members present for taking part. It was particularly gracious of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, and indeed the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, to note the complexities around international maritime law relating to this piece of legislation. I will address some of those points a little bit further when I address some of the amendments later on.
Broadly, the Bill will play an important role in improving seafarers’ welfare and working conditions, and I am pleased that, today, we are taking another step towards it becoming law. There is broad support for the Bill, and I hope that during the course of our discussion, I will be able to address colleagues’ concerns and questions relating to the amendments. I have tabled several broader amendments in my own name: while they may appear great in number, the majority of them—as Members will see when we go through them—are consequential on a small number of changes to the Bill that will improve the functioning of the legislation.
To address hon. Members’ concerns, following on from our continued stakeholder engagement, particularly as we develop our secondary legislation, we have identified some areas of the Bill that would benefit from the improvements made by our amendments. As hon. Members have said, the Bill was introduced at pace to respond quickly to P&O’s disgraceful treatment of its seafarers. It is right that we continue to listen to stakeholders and examine how the Bill will function, and I make no apology for taking every opportunity to ensure the right outcome for seafarers.
Clause 1 sets out the services to which the Bill will apply, namely services for the carriage of persons or goods by ship, with or without vehicles, between a place outside the United Kingdom and a place in the United Kingdom. In other words, the Bill applies to international services, as the majority of seafarers on domestic services between places within the UK will be entitled to the UK minimum wage under existing legislation.
Grahame Morris
I recognise that this is a complex piece of legislation and that trying to understand its finer points is quite testing, but could I seek a point of clarification in relation to apprentices? As I am sure the Minister will recall, when Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive of P&O Ferries, dismissed those 800 seafarers, he also dismissed the apprentices. Will the Minister indicate whether the wage bands in the UK national minimum wage, to which clause 2 refers, will apply to apprentices as well as the hundreds of directly employed seafarers? The apprentice wage is £4.81 per hour, which does not seem like a princely sum to me.
Mr Holden
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. The banding is an issue that we will address fully through the UK national minimum wage equivalence in the regulations that will come forward at a later stage. We intend for it to mirror the national minimum wage in the UK, and will set that out through secondary legislation. There are exemptions for services provided by fishing vessels and services for the purpose of leisure or recreation, in line with other maritime employment legislation and to account for the different remuneration practices in those areas.
Grahame Morris
I do not mean to be picky, but can I just point out a contradiction? The scope of the Bill covers seafarers who are working on the continental shelf on oil and gas installations and the servicing of those, but not seafarers who are in the offshore wind turbine energy sector or those working on the continental shelf. It seems a contradiction to leave out that whole section of seafarers.
Mr Holden
I thank the hon. Member for his point. Everybody will be covered if on a boat that moves to and from those platforms at least 120 times a year, but the expansion of the UK’s exclusive economic zone to cover that area would bring, as other hon. Members have said, particular complexity regarding international maritime law. I will come to that when we address the amendments to clause 2.
Mr Holden
My understanding is that it is for the whole year. The schedules for these operators are based on a whole year; it is very rare that they are not. These are big operations that do not dip in and out. They are not easy to set up; they often involve long-standing arrangements with port authorities, and are based on the whole year. However, if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me following this sitting, I will obviously respond to any particular issues or examples he wishes to raise.
Grahame Morris
I hope this intervention does not prejudice the fact that I would like to speak to amendment 67, which stands in my name and that of a number of colleagues.
Grahame Morris
Could the Minister give a bit of clarification in relation to Government amendment 1? I welcome the fact that the amendment creates a duty, rather than a power; presumably, that was in response to the concerns raised on Second Reading about the conflict of interest. Let us not forget that some harbour authorities are owned by shipping companies, and may well be reluctant to apply sanctions and fines if there is a conflict of interest.
Regarding the level of fines, proposed new subsection (3A) to clause 3 refers to
“a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”
Could the Minister indicate what level of fine that is? My information is that it is £2,500. Would it not be advantageous to set it at level 5, which is unlimited? A fine of £2,500 does not seem like much of a disincentive.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will start by returning to some of the comments I made on Second Reading. The Bill is far too narrow in scope. Considering the egregious behaviour of P&O, we could be doing much more. I hope the Minister will look at some of the amendments.
I rise to speak to amendments 44 to 47 and 49 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. I should point out that amendment 49 is not dissimilar to Labour’s amendment 62, which we clearly support. In speaking to these amendments, I also want to oppose Government amendment 1, which would doubtless knock out our amendment 45. I will deal first with the issue of port hopping and national minimum wage equivalence.
In clause 3, the requirement to produce a declaration of national minimum wage equivalence is applied to services that call at a harbour 120 times a year. That is the result of a change made following consultation on the draft Bill, which had proposed covering ships that called at a port or UK harbour 52 times a year—once a week. In July, in response to the consultation, the RMT—the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, to which I pay tribute—proposed that the definition in the Bill should be this:
“Seafarers working on ferry services that are frequently operated from UK ports (at least once a week).”
However, following consultation, the Government changed the Bill to apply it to services calling 120 times a year.
The impact assessment says that part of the reason for the change is this:
“The more regularly a seafarer calls at a UK port, the closer their ties to the UK.”
I certainly believe, as I think the Government did, that calling at a UK port once a week is a sufficiently close tie between a seafarer and the UK economy. Indeed, their lordships speaking in support of the shipping and ports industry stated that the Government’s plans contravened the international maritime conventions, specifically the UN convention on the law of the sea.
It is my understanding that the British Ports Association has legal advice that the Bill will not work and will be subject to legal challenge, including on the ground that it infringes the UN convention on the law of the sea. Indeed, the International Chamber of Shipping has also raised the matter, as the shipping industry’s de minimis crewing practices and flagging policies rest on the assertion of innocent passage in international waters between states.
Grahame Morris
The hon. Gentleman is making relevant and sensible points. On the issue of the 120 days, we have concerns, which I am sure he shares, that there are so many exclusions that the Bill will be like a colander—full of holes. The original proposal was 52 times a year, or once a week. What will be the impact of the Bill on the offshore continental shelf with respect to the frequency of the use of supply vessels? Will the figure of 120 days effectively exclude them from the legislation? I suspect it will.
David Linden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which gets to both the nub of the issue and a source of real concern for me. He is right to talk about the colander effect, and not making the legislation sufficiently tight means that in many cases companies will exploit the measure, as has he eloquently outlined. Let us be honest: the legislation was introduced because a company sought—within the law—to exploit people, and it would be a dereliction of duty by the House and by the Committee if we did not seek to tighten the Bill in such a way as to ensure that industry cannot get away with using such practices.
Mrs Elphicke
I will take the opportunity to speak to these clauses and amendments. They cover the short straits, and first I will comment specifically on the issue of 120 calls per year. Looking at the short straits, according to figures from the UK Chamber of Shipping, the number of port calls meets the threshold by 30 to 40 times in relation to the Dover-Calais and Dover-Dunkirk lines: around 4,000 port calls that are made would come within the legislation. Whenever we set a threshold, it is important to set it with reference to the matter that we are addressing. The evidence is very clear that 120 days is a relevant and, indeed, low threshold in relation to the particular services that we are seeking to address within the remit of this important Bill, which, as has been discussed, very much has my short straits of Dover at its heart.
I am conscious that some good points have been made in relation to seafarers more generally. I hope that we can show some global leadership on this issue. I have been pleased to have the opportunity to speak at great length about seafarers’ rights with my hon. Friend the Member for Witney when he was Ports Minister. Although I can understand the remit being extended in the way that is being sought within the remit of the Bill, we need to look at seafarers’ rights more generally, as well as those bilateral agreements.
I now turn to amendments 47, 62 and 49. The Minister made some helpful comments in introducing this section, but I ask him, if I may press him further, for an assurance of the position, particularly relating to the calculation for food and accommodation. If I were to work in McDonalds—indeed, I did so for a very long time and enjoyed it greatly—I could have a certain amount of food on my food break if I were to work for four hours. If I were to work for the entire day, I would get much more McDonalds food—very tasty. That food would be free to me as a worker and that is the principle that we want to see for those at land and within our waters.
However, I think that some of the concerns that have been raised must not be seen only through the lens of our own domestic legislation in relation to the minimum wage and its calculation. I have taken some time to look at how these issues are treated within our national minimum wage legislation on land and issues such as accommodation—staying on ship would not, in my view, fall within the current definition of “accommodation” and its applicability for national living wage purposes. But it is right that these issues have been raised and that they are looked into carefully as we go through because, in relation to the operation of seafarers, particularly on these routes, our domestic provisions are not the market provision for these matters. The market for this is global; the conditions are global and international. When we talk about common market practice, it is within a global and international setting, with different countries applying different regimes to their seafarers.
When it comes to seafarers’ rights, we tend to think that this means countries who are very international, such as the Philippines and others, but I will give the Minister a directly relevant example to this food and accommodation issue. The Danish Maritime Authority allows for seafarers’ food subsistence allowance to be deducted from the calculation of national minimum wage. It is a matter for negotiation, either collective agreement or individual contracting, but, none the less, in the application of their calculation of national minimum wage, they do—
Grahame Morris
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I recognise the examples of Denmark and one other seafaring nation—I have forgotten which one at the moment—but they have sectoral collective bargaining. Their standards and pay rates are generally much higher. I hope she would acknowledge that. We are looking at a far lower level—just at the national minimum wage, without all of the package that I want to refer to in relation to pensions, accommodation and other things, roster patterns in particular.
Mrs Elphicke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I would like later to come back in the relevant section in relation to roster patterns, which are very important.
I am giving the Danish example as a reason why we need clarity to exclude the provision from our calculation of national minimum wage. It is not appropriate or correct to exclude food and accommodation when someone is on their ferry. They work—too often—two weeks on, two weeks off. They are stuck on that ferry. They must have food and a place to put their head down. They will probably have a poor night’s sleep or a poor day’s sleep when they are off rota. It is absolutely essential that we have clarity so that, unlike in Denmark and other countries, for the purposes of our application of the minimum wage legislation in relation to seafarers operating in our own territorial waters, it would be the same if I was working at McDonald’s, or anywhere else, or working at sea. I ask the Minister to reflect on this matter and to consider whether he can give us some more assurance that that is indeed the intent behind the Bill, because it is a very important point, given the fact that there is different maritime practice even among European neighbours from a business perspective.
If I may, I will touch briefly on the desire to have improved rights for seafarers. The Minister has mentioned bilateral discussions. Again, it would be helpful for us to understand whether the bilateral discussions coming up in March with our Prime Minister and President Macron are intended to include some of the issues around seafarers that we have mentioned, because it will only be through a strong bilateral arrangement across short straits that we can ensure that we get the best possible safety and working conditions for our seafarers.
Grahame Morris
I agree with much of what the hon. Member has just said. I may have misunderstood—[Interruption.] Well, it is the first time; every day is a school day.
Can the Minister clarify something that he said earlier, which may well address our concerns? It is in relation to amendment 62. Did he indicate that on the point just made by the hon. Member, namely that, as the amendment says:
“provision prohibiting deductions from remuneration for accommodation costs, food or other entitlements”
will be addressed through regulation by the Secretary of State? I see that he is nodding, so that is good news indeed.
If I may, I will speak to amendment 62, which was tabled by my colleagues on the Front Bench and I, and amendment 47, which is very similar and which was tabled by the SNP. Both amendments address a broader question. I appreciate that the Bill is trying to address one specific issue by putting in place measures to prevent the actions of rogue bosses, such as the management of P&O, from being replicated by other ferry operators; I understand that.
However, what the Government must understand is that the motivation for P&O and others—I know that we will come on to nationality-based pay discrimination later—is that P&O made far more savings from changing the roster pattern and reducing the crewing than it did from reducing the wages by paying staff, who were mostly able seamen from India, less than the minimum wage. The Government must acknowledge that and if we are going to address this issue, we need some remediation.
Karl Turner
I remind the Committee of the disaster of the Herald of Free Enterprise—193 passengers and crew lost their lives. The inquiry found that that disaster was down to one issue: crew fatigue. My concern is that that could happen again. Five or six months on, two weeks off, seven days a week, 12 hours a day—it is obvious what could occur.
Grahame Morris
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention and for reminding us of the consequences of fatigue and of reducing staffing to unsafe levels. It is not just a matter of opinion and a concern expressed by the RMT and Nautilus International; a number of academic studies from Cardiff University and others, which I believe the Department has copies of, demonstrate just how important it is that we address this issue.
The Chair
Order. I have been very generous with interventions, but I must remind Members that interventions are supposed to be just that: interventions, not mini-speeches. If we could back to interventions being interventions, I would very much appreciate it.
Grahame Morris
Thank you, Mr Davies. I will hurry along.
To reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Dover, I say to the Minister—I am sure he is aware of this—that some academic studies into crew fatigue were published in 2012 by Cardiff University. Further research is provided by the EU’s Horizon project and the World Maritime University’s EVREST report, and all the evidence highlights the dangers of crew fatigue caused by long hours. I believe the replacement crews on the Dover-Calais ferry were working 12-hour shifts, seven days a week, for up to 17 weeks without a break, when they slept on the ship. That must be a cause for concern in terms of health and safety.
In conclusion, I say to the Minister that we really need a maximum roster pattern in the seafarers’ charter. For the ferry sector, two weeks on, two weeks off is the pattern favoured internationally and by the maritime unions, for health and safety reasons as much as anything. I urge the Minister to work with the maritime trade unions and the Labour party in respect of this issue, and on refining the seafarers’ charter to get this right and to help restore jobs, fair pay agreements and training programmes, starting with the ferry sector.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I rise to speak in favour of amendment 62, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, on the deduction of accommodation, food costs and other entitlements, and of amendment 45, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, on preventing port hopping.
The intention of amendment 62 is to prevent operators from deducting accommodation, food and other costs from the national minimum wage equivalent. We do, of course, welcome the intention to ensure that operators pay a national minimum wage equivalent to those who have close working relationships with the UK, but as we have heard, significant elements of the provisions and their enforcement must be strengthened to prevent avoidance, which we know is rife in the sector.
First, the minimum wage provision has an offset allowing employers to deduct costs for providing accommodation. That is clearly ripe for abuse and must be ruled out explicitly. We know that P&O could potentially deduct £1,035 and Irish Ferries nearly £490 from a non-qualifying seafarer’s wages, if the accommodation offset is available to them under the secondary legislation provided for in the Bill.
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.
Grahame Morris
On that specific point, I am sure the Minister can clear up the issue I want to raise. The surcharge relates to ports and harbour authorities competing with one another. Will the surcharge be consistent or will it vary from one port and harbour authority to another?
Mr Holden
That will be clarified through the tariff regulations, which we will introduce. It will depend on the nature of the ship and the size of it, but we aim for consistency in terms of different vessels in different areas, and a tariff will be established.
The clause provides a power to make regulations that will make provision to—
Mr Holden
I hope that what I am about to say will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. The clause will make provision for publication of a determination to impose surcharges; set out how the imposition of a surcharge is to be notified to the operator; set out the period within and the manner in which a surcharge must be paid; and make provision for notification of a surcharge to the Secretary of State and publication of the fact that a surcharge has been imposed. Surcharges paid under the clause may be retained by the harbour authority for the delivery of any of their functions, or for shore-based welfare facilities for seafarers.
I turn to Government amendments 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20. As with the Government amendments to clause 3, these amendments, along with the amendments introducing new clauses 2, 3 and 4, will make the previously discretionary powers of harbour authorities to impose a surcharge mandatory duties, and set out the circumstances in which these duties should be exercised.
As discussed in relation to clause 3, from our continued engagement with port stakeholders we have been informed that harbour authorities are unlikely to exercise their power to impose a surcharge unless directed to. The direction-making power was intended as a back-up power and was not intended to be used as the primary means. However, this is all part of addressing that issue and ensuring the effective functioning of the Bill.
New clauses 2, 3 and 4 therefore set out the circumstances in which a harbour authority is under a duty to impose a surcharge. In summary, new clause 2 sets out surcharges to be imposed when an equivalence declaration is not provided in time; new clause 3 sets out when a declaration relates only to part of a year; and new clause 4 sets out when a service is operated inconsistently with a declaration.
Amendment 13 amends clause 7 to remove the discretionary power for harbour authorities to impose surcharges, which is now replaced with the new duties set out in new clauses 2, 3 and 4. As a result, there is no need for regulations that make provision as to the publication of a determination to impose surcharges and that will be removed by amendment 17. Subsections 1 to 4 of clause 7, which are removed by amendment 13, are replaced by new clauses 2, 3 and 4, which provide for duties to impose surcharges and the circumstances in which those duties apply. Amendment 14 is consequential on amendment 13.
Amendment 16 provides that a duty to impose a surcharge is subject to direction-making powers of the Secretary of State under clause 11, as amended by amendments 32 to 34, to not comply with their duties or to comply with their duties in a particular way. I will discuss the powers of direction in greater detail when we come to clause 11. It also provides that a harbour authority that fails to comply with a duty to impose a surcharge is guilty of an offence and liable, as previously mentioned, on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. As with the offence for not requesting a declaration, this will be enforced by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and is essential to ensure that the Bill functions properly.
Amendment 19 provides for regulations to make provision requiring a harbour authority that has imposed a surcharge to notify the Secretary of State if the surcharge is not paid in the required timeframe. It is necessary for the Secretary of State to be aware of circumstances where harbour access is likely to be refused, in order to monitor the operation of the Bill, take steps to mitigate disruption caused by the refusal of access if necessary, which will be pertinent in relation to very busy sea lanes, and consider if a direction should be issued to the harbour authority under clause 11(2), as amended by amendments 32 and 33, in circumstances where the refusal of access might cause damage to key passenger services or national resilience. Amendment 52 is consequential on amendment 44 to clause 3.
This group of amendments also relates to clause 8 of the bill, which provides a process for the making of objections to surcharges imposed by harbour authorities under clause 7. As the Bill currently stands, an interested party may make an objection to a harbour authority’s determination to impose a surcharge, the tariff of surcharges specified by a harbour authority, or the imposition of a surcharge or its amount.
The Secretary of State will then consider the objection and any representations made and may decide to approve the decision to which the objection relates, or to direct the harbour authority to revoke the determination, revise the tariff, revoke the imposition of a surcharge, or increase or decrease the amount of the surcharge. The Secretary of State will communicate the decision to the harbour authority and the objector and publish it online.
The Secretary of State may also direct the harbour authority to repay any surcharges required as a result of a decision under this clause. If a harbour authority does not comply with a direction given by the Secretary of State under the clause, they will be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. It should be noted that where an objection has been made to a harbour authority’s determination to impose a surcharge, an interested person cannot make another objection to that same determination. I shall respond to other amendments as they are moved.
Seafarers' Wages Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Grahame Morris ExcerptsTuesday 17th January 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 View all Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 January 2023 - (17 Jan 2023)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I will address amendments 51, 52, 55, 56 and 58, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East. We will also be supporting amendment 64—we have signed the amendment —in the name of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East.
Ultimately, we want this legislation, in whatever form it takes at Royal Assent, to stick. That is what we are seeking to ensure today. The surcharges and penalties envisaged have to be realistic to have any effect. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East raised the possibility of operators who own ports surcharging other operators who use those ports. If we end up in a position where operators allege sharp practice on the part of other operators and take legal action, it is workers who will be caught in the middle. P&O Ferries can afford the lawyers; poorly paid staff cannot. Setting a national tariff will remove the element of discretion from harbour authorities and ensure that all harbours and all operators across the board pay the same surcharge, regardless of which harbour has jurisdiction.
With all due respect to the harbour authorities, shifting the onus to the Secretary of State would also be a clear sign of how seriously the Government will take infringements. It is one thing for an operator to take on a port, but quite another to decide to take on the Department for Transport, if they know they are in the wrong. The likes of P&O might have deep pockets, but ultimatel, there will be no escape from a law that is properly enforced by the state.
As things stand, the level of surcharge that will be levied on operators in breach of the legislation is set entirely by the harbour authority, with reference to the regulations that will be laid at some point by the Secretary of State. My concern is that if the level of surcharge is set too low—we spoke this morning about the level of fines that could be levied—there would be no or very little disincentive for operators to pay below the national minimum wage equivalent. We saw with P&O that even flagrant lawbreaking was no disincentive whatever.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I completely agree with the line the hon. Member is pursuing here—that the fines should present a disincentive to breach the provisions of the legislation—but would he clarify a point on the minimum surcharge? The amendment says it would be
“no less than 300 per cent of the difference between the amount calculated as the national minimum wage equivalence for the operator and the amount in total paid by that operator”.
We learned in the debates on the previous clause that more than 50% of the savings that P&O were making were not from wages but from the changes in roster patterns. Should that be taken into account as well?
Gavin Newlands
I thank my colleague on the Transport Committee for making that point. It is very important, and he is absolutely right. I spoke about the impact of rostering on Second Reading. I am sure we will come on to the seafarers’ charter and the issues around that later on. My amendment seeks to amend the Bill in front of us, but I would love for us to be taking the whole situation into account, rather than just the wage. We will discuss that point in more detail a bit later on.
The Insolvency Service refused to undertake criminal proceedings against P&O Ferries or its corporate leadership, despite Mr Hebblethwaite’s appearance in front of the Select Committees’ joint hearing, when he freely admitted that he and his colleagues conspired over a lengthy period of time to systematically break the law and treat their workforce dreadfully. P&O clearly took the view that the chances of facing any real penalty for their actions were slim and, ultimately, they were proved to be right.
The Bill sets no minimum level of surcharge that would be levied on operators found to be in violation of the law. If the surcharge is set at a rate lower than the difference between compliance and non-compliance, there is nothing to prevent rogue operators from paying below the national minimum wage equivalent, making a declaration to that effect, paying the surcharge and still sailing away with full pockets, exactly as P&O Ferries did. [Interruption.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I thank everybody for coming back. I am sorry that my speed of speaking was so swift earlier; I shall try to keep these comments at a more temperate pace. I will pick up on a couple of points from hon. Members, then enter into a little more of the briefing.
Tariffs or surcharges will be set by each harbour authority, but they will be in accordance with the regulations made under clause 7. As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, we also hope that the surcharges will never be required, but we need to have them to ensure proper practice. Opposition amendment 50 seeks to set out in the Bill how the surcharge is to be calculated. Currently, the Bill provides that harbour authorities will set the tariff of surcharges in accordance with the regulations. It is important that the surcharges disincentivise operators from not providing equivalence declarations, and we agree that surcharges should be high enough to act as a disincentive. We will consult on the levels of the tariffs to be set in the regulations. We do not want to commit to setting the level in the Bill, but please be assured that we are going to take everything into consideration in the drafting of the regulations.
Amendments 51, 52 and 56 seem to be designed to take responsibility for setting the surcharge away from the harbour authorities. Harbour authorities have been given this duty given their proximity to operators as their customers. The tariff must be set in accordance with regulations, but harbour authorities are well placed to determine within those regulations what the surcharge should be in each case. However, we will consider this position further before Report.
Amendment 53 would remove the option for harbour authorities to keep the surcharge for any of their functions, and would mean that moneys would be transferred to the Secretary of State for disbursement . The Bill already allows moneys to be spent by the harbour authority for the purpose of shore-based welfare facilities. I can see that to make the Secretary of State an intermediary places great faith in the speedy actions of the Government in all cases, but there is a possibility that this transaction would put a significant administrative burden on the Department were it to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and would delay seafarers seeing the benefit of this money.
Amendments 54 and 68 would remove the harbour authority’s ability to spend moneys collected from the surcharge on the discharge of their functions. This is not intended to be a profit-making mechanism, but I am happy to review this function as intended before Report, because we need to ensure the surcharge is high enough to act as a disincentive.
Amendment 65 would remove the power to make regulations providing for the notification of a surcharge to the Secretary of State. The power to make regulations providing for the notification of the surcharge to the Secretary of State is an important mechanism to deter non-compliance. The mechanism of the Bill relies heavily on the monitoring of enforcement, and, as the imposition of the surcharge is a duty under the Bill, it is important that the Secretary of State is notified in this process.
I understand the importance of making it clear that it is the imposition of the surcharge that must be notified to the Secretary of State. I have thus tabled Government amendment 18, which provides for notification to the Secretary of State of the imposition of a surcharge. I hope colleagues are reassured by that.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful for the explanation. The Minister said amendment 65; did he mean amendment 64 in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State to set regulations? Can the Minister have a quick look at that? It is a point that in the earlier clauses he had indicated he was going to look at again before Report, so that we have a consistent level set by the Secretary of State in regulation. Could the Minister clarify that?
Mr Holden
The hon. Member is quite right. I should have been referring to amendment 64. What I was referring to in that section was Government amendment 18, which relates to Opposition amendment 65. I am about to come on to amendment 64; I did try to reference the hon. Member’s comments earlier, but I will come on to them now.
Amendment 64 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out a national tariff of surcharges, as I indicated earlier, removing any role for harbour authorities in setting surcharge tariffs. The surcharge is an important mechanism to deter non-compliance, and the Government consider it reasonable and proportionate for harbour authorities to play some role, alongside the national tariff setting under clause 7. It is envisaged that a schedule of rates for the surcharge will be set by the harbour authority with reference to the estimated difference between the amount that seafarers are paid and the amount they would have been paid if they had qualified for national minimum wage. This is expected not to be an exact calculation, but to be based on estimates of the number of seafarers involved. The detail of how that will be worked out will be set out in regulations, and we will work closely with industry to ensure we get it right. It is important that surcharges are relevant to the circumstances of the service in scope, and harbour authorities are well placed to make that call given their proximity to services. We have, however, heard the concerns raised by the ports industry and others, so we will consider the matter further ahead of Report.
Mr Holden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris.
As currently drafted, clause 9 allows harbour authorities to refuse access to a harbour if an operator has not paid a surcharge as required in accordance with the Bill. The provision is intended to incentivise payment of surcharges and to make payment a condition of access to UK harbours. There are exceptions where a harbour authority may not refuse access: in cases of force majeure; where there are overriding safety concerns; where there is a need to reduce or minimise the risk of pollution; or where there is a need to rectify deficiencies on the ship.
Grahame Morris
The Minister is being very helpful. Will he list the categories that fall under, or explain how he would describe, “force majeure”? He mentioned a couple of categories. Is that an exhaustive list?
Mr Holden
I will happily provide the Committee with a full list ahead of Report stage. We are talking about serious incidents where life is at risk, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with further detail.
The method of communicating refusal of access will be set out in regulations. The clause provides that nothing in section 33 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 prevents refusal of access to a harbour under this section. Access can be refused, irrespective of whether an objection has been made under clause 8. This revision is a key tool in ensuring compliance with the policy intention of the Bill.
The amendment imposes a mandatory duty on harbour authorities to refuse access to a harbour, instead of a discretionary power to do so, as I mentioned earlier with regard to implementing the surcharges. As with those amendments to clauses 3 and 7, the reason for the amendment is to ensure the effective functioning of the Bill so that harbour authorities do not simply wait to be directed by the Secretary of State.
Grahame Morris
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. In this group, I will speak to amendment 70 in my name and to new clause 6.
The Minister explained the reasoning behind his proposal to refuse access to a harbour. Amendment 70 proposes that the ship should be detained within a port. That is far more in line with international maritime law. The denial of harbour access is a matter of some concern. For harbour authorities or, indeed, the Secretary of State to suspend access is dangerous and likely to be ineffective. I therefore support the detention of non-compliant vessels within a UK harbour. The trade unions, the RMT—National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—and I believe Nautilus International, also support that view, in order to provide a punishment for non-compliance that is more in line with international maritime regulatory standards governing operators’ behaviours.
I respectfully point out that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s port state control powers, which already exist under the maritime labour convention, are the only mechanism for inspecting crew employment and welfare standards. Every month, foreign flag vessels detained following those inspections are posted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on the Government’s website. The power that I propose would be a welcome addition to the port state control responsibilities that the MCA discharges for foreign flag vessels working from UK ports.
Only denying access to ports is not a realistic or sustainable punishment, especially as it relies to some extent on vessels not sailing to the UK if they are found to be non-compliant. Amendment 70 and new clause 6, in relation to vessels that fail to pay the surcharge, would be much more effective. There is also the possibility that capacity in another port would be blocked, if a ship were detained outside the port, perhaps in another harbour or even in a different jurisdiction. It is not clear whether the bilateral agreements the Government are negotiating—the Minister referred to them earlier, in particular that with France, but there are also those with Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Denmark and Norway—would take account of that. I would be interested in the Government’s response to that point.
There is a welfare issue. It is outside the scope of this Bill, but there have been occasions where, certainly during the course of the pandemic, a number of vessels were laid up. I do not know if comes under the category of force majeure. Many tens of thousands—even hundreds of thousands—of seafarers were unable to access proper conditions. I know there were issues about the spreading of infection and so on, but putting that to one side, surely in terms of welfare it would make far more sense to detain the vessels within the port, rather than outside.
Gavin Newlands
I rise to speak to amendment 58. I am minded to support amendment 70 and new clause 6 in the name of the hon. Member for Easington. Perhaps counterintuitively, I am looking to add another exception to the list that could allow a rogue operator’s ship access to harbour, because I do not want seafarers or workers caught in the middle. As things stand, where an operator has been refused access for not paying the surcharge even when a crew welfare issue has been identified, such as a long overdue change of crew, the Bill would allow harbour authorities to continue blocking access to the operator. That could put the crew in the middle of a tug of war between the harbour authority and the operator.
We do not want a situation where the harbour authority is legally able to prevent access to a port when a ship has genuine need to seek access to ensure the safety and health of its crew. I know that most harbours take their responsibility for crew welfare seriously, but we do not want a situation where rogue operators are able to say, “We would love to take crew welfare seriously, but we couldn’t access the nearest harbour because we didn’t take it seriously in the first place, by paying below the national minimum wage.” There should be no excuses when it comes to employee safety.
Adding crew welfare to the list of exceptions to the harbour authority’s right to refuse access would provide some extra piece of mind for seafarers, and ensure that they have the protections, not the operator. It is the seafarers we are looking to protect. The amendment would clearly not prevent harbours from refusing access where the five conditions do not apply and, on that level, does not seek to water down the options available to hit those who refuse to pay a surcharge.
The Neptune declaration was established during the covid pandemic as it became clear that public health restrictions on access to ports were severely impacting on the capacity for ships to change over. Part of that declaration is a commitment that operators should make all reasonable efforts to accommodate crew changes, including when the vessel has to make a reasonable deviation. That should apply even as we have moved beyond the worst of the pandemic, and our legislation should reflect that declaration, which is why we have tabled the amendment.
Mr Holden
Clause 10 specifies that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, proceedings relating to offences under the Bill will be prosecuted by the Secretary of State. In practice, the Secretary of State will do so through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. In Scotland, all criminal prosecutions are brought by the Lord Advocate.
This provision ensures that there is a clear and consistent process for the prosecution of offences under the Bill, and that such proceedings are handled by the appropriate Government agency. The clause is a critical component of the Bill’s enforcement mechanism and it will help to ensure compliance with its provisions.
Clause 11 as drafted will give the Secretary of State the power to give guidance to harbour authorities on how to exercise their powers under the Bill. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to issue directions to harbour authorities, requiring them to exercise or not exercise their powers under the Bill or to exercise them in a particular way.
Grahame Morris
The Minister is being patient and I appreciate that. Will he clarify the difference between “guidance” and “direction”? I ask because, on an earlier clause, we agreed that harbour authorities will now have a duty rather than a power. I wonder whether the Secretary of State’s “guidance” is a weaker term than a “direction”. Will he explain the difference?
Mr Holden
As drafted, the Bill is weaker, and that is why we are replacing the provisions with a duty in all these areas, in order to strengthen the requirement. Whether, in some such areas, it was “guidance” or other wording, there will now be a “duty”. That makes the Bill harder, ensuring that the harbour authorities have to do things.
Mike Kane
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 61, in the name of the SNP Members, and amendment 66. The proposal is self-explanatory but important. The regulations under the Bill hand very broad powers to Ministers. It would be important for the House to consider and approve the regulations that will be made.
Grahame Morris
The ground has been very well covered. I am just wondering, particularly in relation to amendment 61, tabled by my colleagues from the SNP, about the impact of the earlier Government amendments. The Secretary of State has quite extensive powers in relation to the declaration, the imposition of surcharges, and directions to harbour authorities. I am sure that that must have been taken into account, but it does seem, given the extensive powers being conferred on the Secretary of State, that it would be reasonable to have reference to the affirmative procedure in the Bill and to specify which sections require delegated power for the Secretary of State. Therefore I support amendments 61 and 66.
Sir John Hayes
I rise briefly to address new clause 5, which has much to recommend it. The hon. Gentleman was right to talk about a seafarers’ charter, which has been long called for. He was right to recognise the need for engagement with the trade unions. When I was the Minister, I had a positive dialogue with the RMT maritime section, as my former shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, will know. It is also right, as I said earlier, that we understand that pay should be seen in a broader context, as the new clause recommends. I called earlier for a strategy that looked at the whole maritime sector, pertinent to the matters we have been discussing today, which would identify common concerns across ports, business services, manufacturing, engineering, science and all the other ancillary industries linked to maritime.
It seems critical to recognise that seafarers are particularly vulnerable to exploitation because of the peripatetic nature of their employment. Where people take advantage of that vulnerability, we need to act. We have moved on from the dark days when economic liberalism prevailed and we thought the free market would solve everything—at least I hope we have. This country has a proud maritime past. One thinks of great seafarers such as Drake, Captain Cook and Lord Nelson, who are heroes, whatever the liberal bourgeoisie, with their doubt-filled, guilt-ridden preoccupations, may think. We can have a maritime future that is just as great, but that must be built on the right terms and conditions, pay and circumstances for our seafarers.
My only reservation about the new clause, which is why despite teasingly suggesting that I might support it, I will not, is that it does not actually go far enough. I would want to do still more. The Government are to be commended for introducing the legislation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dover in particular is to be commended for championing the interests of seafarers on the back of the awful events that have been reflected on today, when P&O behaved so disgracefully. I say to the Minister let this be the beginning of new thinking about how we can revitalise the maritime sector by doing right by the people who work in it.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the new clauses.
New clause 7 is in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. We are using the F-word, aren’t we: fire and rehire. In the context of this new clause and new clause 5, I remind Members of the awful circumstances of the sacking of the seafarers on the P&O Ferries. The Minister has brushed aside all attempts by the Opposition to amend the Bill and address concerns about the number of days in port. That means that the Bill’s scope is incredibly narrow. I am afraid that many seafarers who might have anticipated being afforded a degree of protection will be terribly disappointed. Given the powers we have conferred on the Secretary of State, I think it is completely reasonable to suggest that the Government should produce a report within a year of Royal Assent to assess whether they have been effective. Indeed, the Minister and his predecessors have suggested that if those powers are not effective, further measures would be introduced to ensure that seafarers are protected from unscrupulous rogue employers.
New clause 5 relates to important issues that the Government need to address, not least the fact that the 2018 regulations were breached by P&O Ferries. When Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive of P&O Ferries, addressed a joint session of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee—the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and I are members of the Transport Committee—he was quite open about the three areas of law that he had breached. In fact, he was quite boastful, which was shaming in my opinion. I believe that the 2018 regulations, which P&O Ferries breached, are up for revocation under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. I understand, however, that an agreement was reached to retain a number of labour protections in UK law, so I am looking to the Minister for some reassurance on that. If that is the case, I hope that appropriate action will be taken to keep those protections in place for those who Members on both sides of Committee acknowledge to be an extremely vulnerable employment group because of the nature of their work.
Before we lose sight of it, the whole purpose of the Bill is to protect pay, working hours, pensions and other remunerated conditions of seafarer employment on ferries. We rehearsed many of the arguments on Second Reading, and it is the belief of many on the Opposition Benches that the Bill’s scope needs to be widened to more effectively cover employment issues, as well as minimum pay, for seafarers working on those ferry routes.
I am rather disappointed about the seafarers’ charter. I know that it has had a number of iterations; we have at least two former Shipping Ministers on the Committee: the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and the hon. Member for Witney. I think it started off as the—this is a bit of a tongue-twister—fair ferries framework agreement. It was then the fair ferries charter and then the seafarers’ charter. But it still has not been published, as far as I am aware, and it is only voluntary. If it were in the Bill and we could have some confidence that employers would have to implement it, we would have major reassurance.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]
Grahame Morris Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
The legislation will ensure that seafarers with close ties to the UK who are working on frequent services to UK ports have to be paid at least an equivalent to the UK national minimum wage while they are in our waters. As the hon. Gentleman points out, for those aged 23 and over, the current rate is £9.50 an hour. From April 2023, it will be £10.42 an hour. That is clearly significantly higher than the amount the hon. Gentleman just set out. That is the point of the Bill: to discourage the sort of behaviour we saw from P&O earlier this year.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Just to amplify the point from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the chief exec of P&O gave evidence to the Transport Committee indicating that it was common practice to pay below minimum wage level. On the Dover-Calais route, P&O staff used to work—this is the UK-based ratings—one week off, one week on rotas. It is not just about wages. Currently, agency staff, including Indian able seafarers, are working at least 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for up to 17 weeks with no shore leave. That must be a risk to health and safety. Does the Secretary of State remember the Herald of Free Enterprise and the impact of stress and tiredness? Surely, it is about more than just wages?
Mr Harper
It is about more than just wages. That was one of the things covered in the nine-point plan, but we are working on other things, including various seafarers’ protections and measures with our international partners. This specific Bill is to deal with the specific issue of what seafarers are paid. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the issue is wider than that, but the Bill deals with what they are paid. It is focused on that, and I hope it gets the support of the House.
Mr Harper
We do not think that the responsibility on harbour authorities will be particularly onerous. Their job will be to receive declarations, not to investigate or do compliance work; those responsibilities will fall to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. As with all our agencies, it will be a question of setting priorities. As the hon. Gentleman can see from the fact that we are introducing primary legislation on the matter, improving services for seafarers is indeed one of our priorities.
Grahame Morris
The Secretary of State is being generous in giving way. On the point about harbour authorities being charged with collecting the surcharge, is there a conceivable conflict of interest where a shipping company owns a port or has an interest in a harbour authority?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point that illustrates why I will have legal powers to enforce whether a port levies the surcharge: to deal with any issues where there is a conflict. He makes a perfectly fair point, and we have thought about how to deal with it.
Our analysis shows that the arrangement that we have set out will capture the vast majority of ferries to the UK, but without including services such as deep-sea container services or cruises. Those services will remain out of the Bill’s scope, because they do not call at UK ports frequently enough that the seafarers working on board could be said to have sufficiently close ties to the UK.
We will continue to engage with industry throughout the passage of the Bill. We intend to consult on regulations and supporting guidance, which will include setting the framework within which harbour authorities will set their tariffs for surcharges and the method of calculating the national minimum wage equivalent rate.
It is important to remember that the Bill is just one part of a wider plan to protect seafarers’ welfare. It will not solve all the issues brought to light by P&O Ferries’ actions, but it is an important step. That is why we continue to discuss seafarer protections and welfare with a range of close European partners, including discussions about the creation of minimum wage equivalent corridors to encourage the payment of fair wages on entire routes. To continue to improve the protection of working conditions for seafarers, we are developing the voluntary seafarers’ charter.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
P&O Ferries’ actions earlier this year to make 800 seafarers redundant and replace them with agency staff on just over £4 per hour were shameful, illegal and immoral, and they were rightly condemned across the House at the time, and indeed in this debate. But I must say that that would never have happened in the first place if former Ministers had listened to the warnings from the RMT and Nautilus International, and many others, about the loopholes that put maritime workers at particular risk. That advice should have been heeded in the past. The Government could have strengthened protections for workers, and they still can, to end the immoral practice of fire and rehire. That needs to happen.
In the aftermath of this shameful episode, the then Prime Minister and the Government promised that these issues would be dealt with, and that there would be clear and serious consequences, and of course better protections. Six months on, we are yet to see the legal action that was promised materialise, as has been pointed out by the shadow Secretary of State. Although this Bill steps forward, it falls short of the employment protections promised. Indeed, the Secretary of State referred to its narrow scope and its limited impact, and focused on those issues.
The Bill does not take the opportunity, desperately needed, to effectively restore collective bargaining for ferry staff, and raise employment standards across the board. Other hon. Members have referred to rostering, hours and shore leave. What about pensions, apprenticeships and training, an issue mentioned by Members from across the House? Those are other areas where workers can be exploited, and we all know that P&O ferries and others will do exactly that.
The Bill is also a missed opportunity to get the detail right on protecting seafarers. We know the P&O Ferries will exploit any loophole it can, so let us make the protections for seafaring staff ironclad. We need to ensure that a minimum wage equivalent has the tools for strong enforcement measures. We need to end clear existing loopholes that employers such as P&O Ferries and many more are able to exploit, such as moving between ports to avoid the necessary regulations that have been placed in the Bill and operating ferry services while collecting national minimum wage fines as a port authority—there is a clear conflict of interest there, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and the new Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). While amending this legislation to ensure these loopholes are closed and protections are enforced, we still need justice—social justice, employment justice—for the 800 P&O staff and their families, and those responsible need to be held to account.
Grahame Morris
I share my hon. Friend’s anger and outrage at those job losses and the way those men were treated by P&O. Does he share my outrage that the Government have subsequently given £50 million to P&O’s parent company, DP World, in order to facilitate the freeports at Southampton and London Gateway? Is that not absolute nonsense?
Mike Amesbury
I concur on that, and the smell of hypocrisy is somewhat nauseating across the Chamber.
We are still without answers as to why the CEO of P&O Ferries felt empowered enough to tell Parliament—to tell the Select Committee—that they were breaking the law. Why have they still have not faced the consequences for their actions? Why have heads not rolled? Why are Ministers not stepping in to ensure that that happens? Again, we are talking about not only justice for the seafarers concerned and their families, but creating that landscape of good employment and good employment practices in this country.
In conclusion, the P&O Ferries scandal must be the end of the exploitation of seafaring staff in this country, but in its current state the Bill falls far short of that. It is a starter for 10, which I will certainly be supporting it, along with His Majesty’s official Opposition. However, I will also be supporting amendments that will make it far stronger, to ensure that we have a race to the top, rather than a race to the bottom on employment rights. Finally, let me wish everybody a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I appreciate being given the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I declare an interest as a proud member of the RMT parliamentary group, and I support the maritime sector and our seafarers, as well as those involved in the dispute in the rail sector with Network Rail and the train operating companies.
I was present in the House when the actions of P&O became apparent on St Patrick’s day. Those actions represent the lowest point in industrial relations in this country for many years. There are some parallels with Tiny Rowland, the unacceptable face of capitalism, and some of the excesses that went on with the asset stripping of Michael Slade and others, but this is about as low as it gets.
I was buoyed up by the response from Ministers, including the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), the former shipping Minister, who was incandescent. I was under the impression that the will in the House and the country was such that measures would quickly be brought before the House to take P&O Ferries to task—to fine it and to take appropriate action against its chief executive. The chief executive was arrogant and flippant in his presentation to the joint session of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee; he was almost boastful that he had not consulted with the unions and had broken the law. I am therefore disappointed that it has taken nine months—we are now in December; it is almost January—to have a Bill intended to address the issues. I will support the Bill, but I have reservations and I hope that it is possible to improve it in Committee or even on Report.
Certainly, the Government cannot claim that the issue came as a bolt from the blue, because the unions, particularly the RMT, warned them about it in 2020 when an order was introduced to extend the national minimum wage to seafarers in UK territorial waters. It then warned them again in 2021 when there were issues with Irish Ferries, which was operating services between Dover and Calais and undercutting P&O and DFDS. I will outline some of my concerns with the Bill, in the hope that we can secure the best deal for seafarers, which is an outcome that I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see.
Successive Governments have convened legal working groups on seafarers and the national minimum wage. I think the first was in 2009. We have a major problem with seafarer care that the minimum wage alone cannot address. We were promised a review of the Equality Act 2010 regulations, but that has not happened, which is a major failure in the Government’s seafarer policy. The powers in the Bill to make secondary regulations disguise the complexity and the narrowness of the legislation. I ask the Minister: will the UK national minimum wage age bands apply to the national minimum wage equivalence declaration? P&O, of course, dismissed apprentices, as well as hundreds of directly employed seafarers, but does the Minister consider a £4.81 hourly rate for apprentice seafarers fair? The Maritime Skills Commission’s ratings review, which is extremely welcome, should look at this aspect of the Bill, but it is vital to avoid putting in place any more barriers to training more ratings in the UK.
As well as training, the Government must facilitate employment opportunities. I fully understand the sentiments expressed by hon. Friends who represent ports where there are opportunities, particularly for young people to have a career at sea, but the Government have a role in ensuring that those jobs are not taken by agency workers from overseas.
When the Bill was in the other place, the noble Lord Hendy discussed the lack of national minimum wage protection for crew working in the offshore wind and offshore renewable supply chain beyond the UK territorial waters limit. Crew working on vessels servicing the offshore oil and gas industry across the UK continental shelf are entitled to protection under national minimum wage legislation, but crew working on offshore wind farms in the UK exclusive economic zone—sometimes on the same ships—are not. That is unfair, and it leads to serious exploitation.
There is exclusion of UK seafarers from a growing labour market directly linked to the UK economy. It is incredible: there will be 100,000 new jobs in the North sea, but young men and women from the coastal communities will not have the opportunity to take up those positions. Those jobs, and that market, are funded by the UK taxpayer. Also, operators should be prohibited from deducting accommodation costs. My colleagues have already mentioned how much Irish Ferries and P&O were deducting.
Rosters have been mentioned. The Bill recognises to a certain extent that national minimum wage avoidance is a problem in the UK shipping industry, but it does not fully cover wider employment rights issues, such as the hours and roster patterns that seafarers work; neither do the raft of secondary powers that the Bill creates. On Report in the other place, the Minister openly stated that the Government are not seeking to influence roster patterns—I believe that the Secretary of State said the same thing today—or any other employment conditions through the Bill. To give this legislation a greater chance of successfully countering the actions of P&O, Irish Ferries and others who are trashing UK seafarer jobs and the maritime skills base in order to increase their profits, the seafarers’ charter should be put in the Bill.
On the seafarers’ charter, we really need a maximum roster pattern of two weeks on, two weeks off, in the ferry sector. I urge the Minister to work with the Labour party and the trade unions on the Bill, and on the seafarers’ charter, so that we get this right, restore jobs, get fair pay agreements, and start training programmes in the ferry sector. Members have pointed out that P&O is making bigger savings from its changes to roster patterns than it was from having rates of pay that were below the national minimum wage.
In the other place, the Government rejected the previously agreed roster pattern in the charter. It is commissioning further research on roster patterns and crewing levels. That is despite a collectively agreed standard being in place in Stena Line and DFDS. I refer the Minister to Cardiff University’s crew fatigue study for P&O in 2012, the EU Horizon 2020 project, and the World Maritime University’s EVREST report. All that evidence has been shared with the Government. I am surprised and disappointed that the Government have not taken action to tackle low-cost operators, particularly in view of the issues of crew fatigue and safety.
Others have raised the issues of port-hopping and avoidance techniques. I asked the Secretary of State about that when he appeared before the Transport Committee. The criteria are too loose; we need to have a look at that. Port-hopping remains a genuine avoidance technique, and it becomes easier to use the more frequently a vessel calls at harbour. I support the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and Nautilus International in specifying that the threshold in the Bill should be 52 calls at a harbour per year per vessel, rather than the 120 that the Government suggest.
In conclusion, the Bill is an opportunity to mandate better pay and employment standards, to restore the principle of collective bargaining conditions at P&O and across the ferry sector, and to ensure fair pay and safe, decent employment conditions for decent, hard-working seafarers. The Bill’s scope must be widened to tackle avoidance techniques, and to help to standardise fair pay and collective conditions, starting in the ferry sector. I hope that the Minister will address the concerns that I have raised, and ensure the best possible deal for seafarers.
Oral Answers to Questions
Grahame Morris Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Huw Merriman
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his warm welcome of my entire portfolio; I am very proud to be covering HS2 and rail. Some £3.2 billion has already been paid out in land acquisitions, and more is to be paid out. The Government did recognise that there were problems with acquisitions, and a report was commissioned by a predecessor of mine. We will ensure that we can learn lessons. With regard to the payment of interest, HS2 Ltd pays interest at 0.5% below the Bank of England base rate, and there was a period of two years between 2020 and 2022 when no interest was paid because the base rate was below 0.5%, but I am willing to meet my right hon. and learned Friend to discuss these matters further.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his position. I remind him that Mark Thurston told the Transport Committee that the anticipated spend for the current year was within the envelope of £5.7 billion. My question relates to how that £5.7 billion is being used in terms of procurement. What can the Minister and the Department do to encourage or specify the use of British steel for rails and structures within the terms of the contract?
Huw Merriman
I thank the hon. Member, or should I say my hon. Friend, as he is indeed that. I recognise all the work that he has done and continues to do on the Transport Committee. I thought he might ask that question. Some £122 million of British steel has been purchased by HS2. I am keen that we talk to HS2 more about how it can further invest in British steel. I will supply him with figures on how much steel has been produced from outside the UK, because that is how we will end up holding to account. Some 60% of the HS2 procurement contracts will go to small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as large entities such as British Steel.
Great British Railways
Grahame Morris Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am sure we would all agree that failure should not be rewarded with promotion or long contract extensions. I hope we would also agree that Great British Railways will never be truly great without the considerable investment needed in infrastructure across our rail network. Will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify the Government’s progress on the Network Rail enhancements pipeline, given that a report published today noted that there had been no progress on one third of all the projects since the plan was published for 2019-24?
Kevin Foster
The updated rail network enhancements pipeline will be published in due course—shortly might be another way of putting it. But I look at the investment that we are putting into our railways and see £96 billion in the integrated rail plan. I look at the fact that the first major mainline in this country since the Victorian era is under construction now and is on its way to Birmingham, then Crewe and then Manchester. That level of investment in our railways is unprecedented in most of our lifetimes, and it is very welcome.
Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No. 2) Regulations 2022
Grahame Morris Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) (No.2) Regulations 2022.
The regulations, if the Committee approves them, will be made under the powers conferred by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. They take the opportunity of our departure from the European Union to create a more flexible set of powers that will be available to Ministers when implementing slot alleviation measures. We are now able to take the approach that is best able to support our own circumstances.
To explain the circumstances behind the regulations, we have all seen the disruption that holidaymakers and other passengers have faced at some of the UK’s airports, particularly over the recent Easter and half-term breaks. There have been unacceptable queues, delays, and short-notice cancellations of flights. The persistent impact of the covid-19 pandemic has presented challenges for the aviation sector as it recovers, and that sector has faced difficulties in ramping up operations to meet the high levels of demand.
Airlines, airports, and the myriad businesses that support aviation operations have struggled to recruit and train enough staff. Many other airports around the world have struggled in a similar way with similar challenges, and those challenges—combined with air traffic control restrictions in place over Europe, with airspace closures and strike action in European air traffic control—have resulted in short-notice cancellations of flights and considerable disruption for passengers.
The Government are doing everything in their power to support the aviation industry and ensure that passengers can fly with confidence over the summer. For example, on 30 June the Government set out a 22-point plan to support the aviation industry in avoiding further disruption over the summer peak period. One of the key elements of that package is the slot amnesty, which offers carriers more flexibility to plan and deliver reliable schedules. The slot amnesty introduces a one-off change to slots policy for the remainder of the summer 2022 season.
Critical to that amnesty will be the sector itself ensuring that it can develop robust schedules that it is confident it can deliver. Ordinarily, airlines must operate slots 80% of the time in order to retain the right to the same slots the following year at slot-constrained airports—the 80:20 rule or, as it is often called, the “use it or lose it” rule. When the pandemic initially struck, that 80:20 rule was fully waived to avoid environmentally damaging ghost flights and financially costly flights with few or no passengers. Following the UK’s departure from the EU, the Government introduced new temporary powers through the ATMUA Act to provide a more tailored alleviation of slots rules in response to the ongoing impact of the pandemic on demand.
For summer 2022, the Government’s focus was on encouraging recovery following the success of the vaccine roll-out, the removal of travel restrictions, and the positive demand outlook. After consulting with industry and considering the evidence, the Government determined that 70:30—a reduction from 80:20—was an appropriate usage requirement, with an extended, justified non-use provision that exempts carriers from the rules if they are operating in markets where restrictions are still in place. However, in light of the recent severe disruption at UK airports caused by the persistent impact of covid, we consider that further alleviation measures are justified for the summer 2022 season, which runs until 29 October 2022. As required by the ATMUA Act, we have also determined that there is a continued reduction in demand, which is likely to persist.
Therefore, on 21 June, we published today’s statutory instrument, which sets out our plan to offer carriers a two-week window during which they can hand back up to 30% of their remaining slots for summer 2022. The measure is critical, because it enables airlines to take stock of what they expect to be realistically deliverable over the summer and plan accordingly without having to worry about losing their historical rights to their slots. In other words, they can look at their schedule and understand what they have the capacity and resource to fly, and if they do not have that capacity or resource, we have given them the ability to hand back slots without worrying about what will happen to them in the following year, because those slots are valuable commodities. The proposal was developed following a short consultation with airports and airlines, and consideration of their responses. There was strong support for the proposal, with the great majority of airlines and airports supporting it.
The draft instrument applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Aerodromes are a devolved matter in Northern Ireland and, as there are currently no slot-constrained airports in Northern Ireland, the Executive agreed that it was not necessary for the powers in the Act to extend or apply to Northern Ireland.
On the content of the draft SI, the regulations aim to minimise disruption at airports, to give more certainty for airline operations and to improve outcomes for passengers. By offering carriers the opportunity to return slots that they cannot operate, the aviation sector should be better able to plan ahead and to deliver a realistic summer schedule that minimises disruption at airports.
We have allowed carriers to return up to a maximum of 30% of the slots they hold for the rest of the season, from 9 July to 29 October. That applies only to slots that would be flown at least 14 days after they have been handed back, to protect consumers from short-notice cancellations and to give them time to make alternative plans.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the rationale, but will he clarify why the Government rejected the recommendations of the Transport Committee in our aviation report in respect of the reallocation of slots? Is it because of recent events—the queues and so on—at the airports?
Rail Strikes
Grahame Morris Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Before I begin, I would like to declare a couple of interests: I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group and I serve on the Select Committee on Transport. In fact, I am a member of numerous trade union groups that I am very proud of—the National Union of Journalists, the Public and Commercial Services Union, the bakers’ union, the justice union—and I have the great honour of chairing the Unite parliamentary group. When I first started work—when I had a proper job—I worked on the railways at a time when they were part of British Rail. It was not the RMT in those days; it was the National Union of Railwaymen. That was my first paid employment.
I want to emphasise how important it is that we take the heat out of this situation and think about how we can move forward and get a negotiated settlement. It is absolutely clear that the unions are doing this as a last resort. After two years of talks and discussions, they want to find a resolution to the problems their members face. This issue is not simply about the pay scales for train drivers, although I would say that that is a group of workers we rely on every day—they keep us safe, they are highly skilled and they should be properly rewarded. It is about people who clean the trains, the signalmen and the people who maintain the track. Those are all vital jobs that keep our railways running.
The talks have revealed that the employers—the privately owned train operators and train companies—have an agenda that is being driven by the Government. That will be disastrous for rail workers and passengers alike.
It has become clear that the Government, and the Treasury in particular, are calling the shots and directing employers. They are, in fact, underwriting the costs of the strike. The Transport Secretary referred to modernisation and safety-critical infrastructure, but what we are looking at here are: fewer staff on trains, including the removal of guards and catering staff; cuts to cleaning; and the closure of nearly all ticket offices. That is absolutely no good at all for anybody with disabilities or for individuals who are vulnerable.
Chris Stephens
Surely the fact that the industrial action ballot has overcome the threshold that the Conservative party put in legislation tells us the depth of feeling among RMT members on these issues.
Grahame Morris
The feeling is very strong. I believe the margin was 71%, which is well above the Government’s threshold. Indeed, the treatment of the RMT Union and its members seems to be part of a wider agenda to weaken employment rights. I was one of many Members, including my friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and my hon. and right hon. Friends around me today, who were pressing the case for the Government to act on fire and rehire.
I was in the joint hearing of the Transport and the Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy Committees when we were taking testimony from the bad bosses of P&O Ferries who were boasting about their lack of consultation and their intention to drive down terms and conditions. We expect rather more from our own Government when it comes to the way in which the railway is being run. It is a huge and important national asset.
I want to put on record, so that there is no doubt, my solidarity with the RMT Union and with all the trade unions. Basic rights that govern pay and conditions at work were hard fought for and they were won through collective action; they were not handed out freely.
Let us not forget some of those appalling accidents at Ladbroke Grove, at Paddington and so on. One of the proposals that has been put forward is for 3,000 redundancies among people who maintain the tracks—
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) is no longer in her place, but I would like to associate myself with every single word of what she said in her brilliant speech. It was a lesson in reality given the financial situation that faces us at this time.
We were asked by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) whether we had ever been out on strike. My answer is no, because I had the temerity to be self-employed. If I went out on strike, I would not have been able to eat. So when I am asked why I stand here and make this speech and whose side I am on, I have to say that I am on the side of the self-employed worker. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) talked about a person with disabilities who cannot get treatment, or the older person who cannot get to their cancer treatment, because public transport is cut off to them.
James Daly
No, I will not give way.
I am on the side of the pupil who is taking their exams and who has gone through an appalling period during the pandemic. For all of these people who will suffer in what will almost certainly be six days of action, the Labour party—certainly those we have heard from today—could not care less. My constituents can suffer at the altar of the Labour party, which is not able to stand up to its friends in the trade union movement. I have not heard one Opposition Member say the very simple words, “Do not go on strike.” If people go on strike, they will destroy people’s livelihoods, destroy people’s jobs and put even more financial pressure on the rail companies that are struggling with a drop in income at this moment in time.
I had a meeting with representatives from the North-West Partnership regarding the west coast main line. The gentleman I spoke to said that the level of business travellers using trains is at 20% of pre-pandemic levels. Why would anybody look at this course of action and say, “No, I am going to rely on travelling by train when I need to go to work, when I need to go to an important meeting, when I need to go somewhere.” I know the Labour party does not like to hear this, but I had the temerity to try to create wealth, to employ people, to pay my taxes and to create a better situation. What we have here is a train system that has gone through a very difficult period. It has seen a drop in income, a drop in revenue.
We must approach this situation with reality. We must also approach it with compassion for everyone, and the compassionate way to deal with this matter is for the RMT to make an immediate statement saying, “We are calling off this strike”—not suddenly to produce on a mobile phone on the day of this debate a letter that none of us has seen regarding a meeting: utterly, utterly counterproductive. It is not in the interests of our constituents, and on the Government side of the Chamber we will stand up for those who are hard-working, who need to get their health treatment or their education, who have done nothing wrong, but who will be punished by the Labour party and the RMT.
Draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) and Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Law of the Sea Convention) Amendment Order 2022
Grahame Morris Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under chairmanship, Ms Rees, as always.
At the beginning of my remarks, I must say that my intention is not to oppose the measure, but simply to seek clarification and to put some questions to the Minister to which I hope he will be able to respond. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: in particular, I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group. I am sure Members will be aware that the RMT provides the seafarers who man the hovercraft—particularly the commercial hovercraft that the measure relates to.
The Minister referred to the 1989 order and the international pollution measures. As he explained and as is set out in the explanatory note, the draft order will extend the provision in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 on manning levels to hovercraft for the first time. Certainly that makes some sense, as the core international regulations will be amended in the coming years to reflect changing fuel types and other aspects of seafaring jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East indicated. I respectfully point out to the Minister, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South and my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, that no consultation or impact assessment has been carried out for the order, so some reassurances from the Government to the staff who man the hovercraft—and, indeed, the employers—would be welcome, particularly for those who work at Hovertravel.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meon Valley for pointing out the limitations of the order. That pre-empted one question I wanted to ask, but it is worth pointing out that the hovercraft that operates near her constituency made a loss of almost £1 million in the year to 31 March 2021 and that its finances were badly hit during the pandemic. The employer and the trade unions worked assiduously to avoid job losses, partly through support from the Government’s furlough scheme.
There is absolutely no doubt that hovercraft are a key part of the Isle of Wight economy and the wider Solent economy, which now includes a freeport. I am a member of the Select Committee on Transport, of which the Minister was formerly a member, and we are visiting the area on Thursday, so hopefully we will see some of these things for ourselves. Growth in this particular mode of transport would be welcome and, ideally, that would be predicated on the recognition of existing collective bargaining agreements.
I have a few points of clarification to put to the Minister. Will he restate what assessment has been made of the impact of these measures on jobs in the hovercraft industry? I suspect that his answer is that there will be none, going by his answer to the earlier question. On classes of vessels, will he confirm that commercially operated high-speed craft such as catamarans are not affected by the order? Again, I suspect his answer will be that they are not, but perhaps he can clarify that for the record.
I have a question about the overall umbrella for these measures, arising from the Minister’s comments on our international obligations. I was privileged, as part of the Select Committee’s inquiry into “Maritime 2050” to participate in a visit to the International Maritime Organisation, just over the Thames. Does the drive for pollution control come under the aegis of the IMO or, because it appertains to seafarers’ skills, that of the International Labour Organisation, which certifies qualified seafarers? I am interested in that for my own information.
Robert Courts
This has been a very interesting debate and lots of good points have been raised. I have enjoyed hearing something of the history of the hovercraft. Of course, it is a great British invention. The first was designed towards the end of the 1940s and built in the early ’50s, and it operated very successfully. Others may remember, as I certainly do, the Dover to Calais hovercraft. It was very impressive, albeit quite small and, as the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said, extremely noisy and expensive in terms of fuel use.
Members have referred to the hovercraft that operate from Southsea. It is worth noting that they not only operate from Southsea but are made locally by Griffon Hoverwork in Portchester. We have discussed the importance of these measures—the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East asked about the future of skills and the green side of things, which I will come to in a second. It is important to note that this is a high-tech British company providing great maritime jobs and great skills in a local area—all the things we will need if we are to green the industry and to continue being a great maritime nation. Although the order has a limited impact, we all ought to recognise how important this is not just to this country’s maritime heritage, but to its maritime future, as well as to its international place.
The hon. Member for Easington asked about consultation. It is important to recognise that what the order does is to create powers. Of itself, the order does not create anything that will have an impact. I perhaps conflated matters slightly in talking about powers that will be made under it. For the reasons I have given—there are no hovercraft operating internationally at present—there will be very little impact. In and of itself, this order will have no impact. Therefore, there is no consultation or impact assessment. I hope that makes the position clear.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me, linked to that point, about the impact on jobs. In and of itself, there will be none, but the order does ensure that our regulatory environment is up to date, in line with our international obligations. That will ensure that Griffon Hoverwork can start looking to the future and considering what it will do next, which will help my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley in her constituency and nearby areas, and indeed the whole of the south and the maritime sector more generally.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the IMO generally leads on pollution, and I am glad that he has been over to visit it. We are proud to have the IMO—the UK’s UN agency—here; I can literally see it out of the window as I speak. We are always a leading country in the IMO. We are driving for more ambition on tackling pollution and decarbonisation, which is one of the other big issues we have to face. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman’s points.
Robert Courts
I think the hon. Gentleman’s point was whether there was any commercial impact on catamarans. I apologise. No, there is not. I thank him for letting me clarify that.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East asked me to address the maritime backlog. The order itself is not part of the maritime backlog, but it contains powers, as I have explained, that will enable us to make the latest amendments to the STCW convention. Those regulations are part of the backlog. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I appeared before the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and explained the Department’s progress. For a number of reasons, a backlog has built up, which we are working very hard to tackle. I am pleased to say that I updated that Committee in April this year, and confirmed that nine SIs were left to make out of the original 30. The order will pave the way to ticking off another instrument in the backlog. So we are making good progress, in line with the commitments that I have given.
The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East also asked me about some of the things that we are doing about the green future of maritime, which is close to the Department’s heart. We recently announced £206 million for UK SHORE, which is the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions. That is essentially putting money into the high-tech companies and the regulatory innovative structure that will create the decarbonising shipping industries of the future. It included a second round of the clean maritime demonstration competition. I have seen the outcomes of the first part of the CMDC, which are extremely exciting. Those great high-tech, high-skilled jobs and green opportunities are creating the ecosystem, and passing the order will enable us to go further. The Clydebank declaration, which came out of COP26, deals with green shipping corridors, which we are looking to establish with like-minded countries around the world.
I hope that I have covered all the points that right hon. and hon. Members made, and that I have explained the purpose of the order. I hope that the Committee will agree that protecting the environment from all kinds of pollution is vital and that it is important to ensure that our seafarers are adequately trained on the vessels that they operate. It is part of the UK’s commitments, and part of the importance that we attach to protecting seafarers, and I hope that the Committee will approve the order.
Question put and agreed to.