Railway Ticket Offices

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Chris Loder]

Some of the hon. Lady’s questions are for the Minister to address later, but I agree that a number of aspects have not been taken into account in the current consultation and proposals, which is why I called for this debate and am making this speech.

The disingenuous veil of moving staff from behind the ticket office window to be out on the station, with no change in staff hours, is patently untrue in West Dorset. This is not reform but inequality against not just those with mobility issues, but the elderly and those who are often without access to technology, driving issues of rural isolation still further.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and I congratulate him on securing the debate. There is a still more fundamental issue here: we are stripping life of human interactions and connections between people, in both the private and public sectors—in everything from shops to banks and now railway stations—and in doing so we are unpicking the threads that bind us together and make up the tapestry of civilised life. This is a time to think again and take a stand.

[Chris Loder]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who I think is entirely in agreement with a lot of what I have to say. I shall elaborate further in a moment.

The proposed changes will compound years of really poor service to the people of Dorset. South Western Railway has previously slashed the train service, totally cutting us off from direct trains to London for prolonged periods, removed all on-board catering for train journeys of almost three and a half hours, and dumped passengers, at all times of day or night, with no way to travel forward just to save a few minutes in delay. Those are just some examples of what my constituents face day to day.

I recognise that proponents of the scheme say that it is vital to progress de-staffing and ticket office closures because only 12% of all tickets are sold at ticket offices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) on securing this debate. He made an excellent speech, although he will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with him about his characterisation of the trade union movement. Labour Members are very proud to be associated with that part of the labour movement—and of course, to the extent that we are funded by unions, it is the cleanest money in British politics. [Laughter.] Some colleagues laugh, but I will sure we will have a look at their entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The proposals we are debating today are appalling. Let us get this matter into some perspective. These 13 companies are planning to close nearly 1,000 ticket offices. That will leave 2,300 working people in our constituencies right across the land out of work. I am concerned about the ticket office staff in my constituency of Middlesbrough and my constituents who use the service, but the same situation applies right across the country. About 25% of the staff will be lost.

As a former shadow Rail Minister and shadow Transport Secretary, I wholeheartedly agree with the remarks of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). This is about a human relationship with the railways. People find it very difficult to travel in any event. To strip that out would be a disaster.

[Sir John Hayes]

I wondered whether my former shadow might raise that issue. The people in Spalding in Lincolnshire want that human interaction. The hon. Gentleman and I worked closely to pursue transport policies in the national interest and for the common good. That is what this is about. This is about the common good of the communities we serve: Spalding, the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and elsewhere.

[Andy McDonald]

That was so well articulated, but the reality is that companies are issuing section 188 notices and advertising premises to let now, while the consultation is under way. I ask the Minister, who is a good man and who thinks about these things very deeply and has good intentions in this regard, to really think about this matter.

I find myself in total agreement with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). There is universal condemnation of these proposals, and there is an opportunity to retreat and consider a better way forward. Of course we want to see technological advances, but it is not an either/or; that human contact can still be there, with more people on the platforms but also in ticket offices. Let us think outside this box.

Transport for London have the most remarkable system of fares and ticketing. That is the sort of initiative that we should be rolling out across our country. I have recommended Labour’s plans for ticketing and fares before, and I encourage the Minister to look at those carefully. We have got the ability and the algorithms to do it, but it cannot be at the cost of losing that human contact that so many people—disabled, vulnerable or otherwise—depend upon.

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[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 (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

[Grahame Morris]

I give way to the former Shipping Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Is the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) waiting to speak?

[Sir John Hayes]

indicated assent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

In that case, there are three Members waiting to speak. The debate has to end at 4.12 pm. The last speaker spoke for 25 minutes. At that rate, those on the Front Benches will not get a hearing. I call Sir John Hayes.

[Sir John Hayes]

I will speak briefly, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did notify Mr Speaker in advance that I was likely to contribute to this debate, not least because, having served on the Public Bill Committee, I was anxious to affirm some of the points made there and to endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) about the concessions the Government have made and the exemplary way in which the Minister has handled this consideration. The Government deserve credit for bringing this Bill to the House, following the P&O scandal, and for the continuing dialogue they have enjoyed with those of us who take a particular interest in these affairs.

New clause 2, which the hon. Member for Easington was referring to when I intervened on him, encourages the Government to look more widely at the terms and conditions enjoyed—perhaps I ought to have said “endured”—by many seafarers. The Minister knows that when I was the Minister responsible for these matters, I commissioned a growth study, which recommended that the Government take a more holistic approach to both the recruitment and skilling of those who go to sea on our behalf. We should remember that, although it is not often described as such, this is a kind of public service. Our merchant navy—our seafarers—do an important job that benefits us all, and that job should be recognised in the way that was recommended by that review.

The review also suggested that

“a vision and set of strategic objectives”

be established for our seafarers. A seafarers charter has been mentioned. I simply say to the Minister that this requires a bigger piece of work than the Bill. The Bill is to be welcomed—it does an important job—but there is a good case for a bigger review of these matters, and if I do not support the amendments today, it is because I think they do not go far enough.

One recommendation in the growth study was an interdepartmental ministerial working group on these matters. That is a sensible way forward given that we are not simply speaking of seamen, but of all those ancillary trades, crafts and industries related to the merchant fleet, all of which deserve proper consideration if we are going to revitalise this important part of our economy. What P&O did was not simply the unacceptable face of capitalism; it was a heartless, soulless kind of enterprise that has no place in a civilised nation. It was roundly condemned by Members from across this House, and rightly so, and it has acted as a wake-up call for Government and others as to what we need to do next.

When the Minister sums up, I hope he will commit to a rethink of how we build and maintain an appropriate merchant fleet, and set out a strategy accordingly. Because time permits no more, I will end on this: when people consider becoming seafarers, the conditions that prevail are an important barrier or incentive, and we owe it to all those whom we want to recruit to the industry to build on the Bill and do still more.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I have only just been made aware of the fact—I was unaware of this fact—that the right hon. Gentleman was not here at the start of the debate. He has been here long enough to know that, if he is in that position, then he does not tell the Chair that he is waiting to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

This House agreed last March that the action taken by P&O Ferries was a national scandal. As the Minister said, 800 British workers were sacked with no notice. It was the reality of a business model that has been allowed to prevail on our seas for far too long—a business model predicated and dependent on exploitation.

As the Minister knows, Labour supports the Bill’s limited provisions, and we welcome the steps that the Government have taken to improve it in Committee. I know that the Minister has been listening and I thank him for the work he has done on strengthening the amendments that we called for in Committee. Amendments 3 to 10 beef up the enforcement and compliance of the provisions, amendment 26 allows for an unlimited fine to be imposed for breaching minimum wage provisions, and amendment 17 deletes the provision allowing operators to retain their revenue after a fine and ensures that it goes towards seafarer welfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), the shadow Minister, called for all those amendments in Committee, so we are very grateful to the Minister for this progress.

Fundamentally, however, as we have heard throughout this debate, the test for this Bill is whether it will end the exploitative practices that have become commonplace in the ferry sector for too long. Will it bring those responsible for this scandal to justice? In short, will it stop another P&O? Because six months on, it remains nothing short of a scandal that this Dubai-owned company, which received millions in taxpayers’ money during the pandemic, tore up the rights of British workers while its profits soared. And six months on, the chief executive, his board and those who deliberately and consciously broke the law in plain sight have faced no consequences whatsoever. They trampled over the rights of British workers, they came to this Parliament and boasted about it, they said they would do it all over again, and they have faced no consequences.

Whichever way we look at it, the message this sends to rogue employers around the world is simple: they can attack the rights of British workers on our shores with impunity. Every day Peter Hebblethwaite remains in charge of P&O Ferries, other employers who wish to undermine the rights of British workers will find comfort. The truth is that if P&O Ferries or any of its low-cost rivals wanted to act in precisely the same way again, nothing in this legislation would stop them doing so. That is why we regret that amendments were not made to close the loopholes that P&O exploited in the first place. There was a refusal to consult, and a refusal to notify. The Bill does nothing to address those glaring loopholes.

We know that bad bosses will exploit every loophole, so there can be no doubt, no room for manoeuvre, no scope for avoidance—that is why we pushed to close the port-hopping provisions for good. Regrettably, as the Bill stands, operators fall within the scope of the Bill if they call at a UK port only 120 days within a year—this has been debated at length this afternoon—while regular operators who call at UK ports once a week are excluded from the provision. Given that the Minister has rejected the call expressed so clearly across the House, we hope that there will be very close monitoring of the application of the legislation to ensure that the loophole is not exploited as we fear it will be.

Above all, the P&O scandal was supposed to represent a line in the sand for seafarers’ rights. The current situation means that many ferry operators are reliant on the low-cost crewing model that P&O exploited on 17 March. That exploitation is every bit as much about the conditions and rights of those seafarers as it is about pay. It will shock millions across this country to learn of the shameful model that too many ferry companies employ. People are working up to 91 hours a week and are on board for 17 weeks without any entitlement to shore leave. They are not entitled to any pension, and they are not entitled to any sick pay when outside of UK waters. That is precisely why we need a strong, legally binding seafarers charter on the face of the Bill—one that ends the race to the bottom that P&O Ferries has so cynically exploited.

Regrettably, Ministers rejected that amendment. Will the Minister commit to publishing the seafarers welfare charter—he has been asked to do so many times today—which is the Government’s preferred option for setting minimum conditions for rostering, pensions and other aspects of seafarer employment, and explain why progress in agreeing it has stalled since August? Will he further consider making it mandatory for employers to sign it, so that it is truly binding and drives up conditions across the sector?

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Lady and I are wholly agreed on the seafarers charter, but this Bill may not be the best place for it because, as has been suggested in various contributions, it is broader and wider than the scope of the Bill. But I entirely agree that we need it, and we need it quickly.

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful for that intervention. I accept that the scope of the Bill is limited, but it was introduced as an opportunity to address the issues that were highlighted so egregiously in the case of P&O Ferries, so it is a major missed opportunity for the Government not to at least have published it alongside the Bill.

In closing, Britain is a proud seafaring nation. That tradition has been the envy of the world. The ongoing exploitation of these workers on these routes—all too often by entities allowed to be flagged elsewhere—is a stain on that tradition. With this Bill, we have moved a small step forward, which we welcome, but regrettably the chance to end that exploitation once and for all has today been missed.

Seafarers' Wages Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

John Hayes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I will not go over all the points that I made earlier, but I will address some of the specific issues raised by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover mentioned bilateral meetings between the Prime Minister and the President of the French Republic. There have been positive discussions between officials to date; I do not know if this will be raised specifically, but the discussions have been very positive. The Transport Secretary is also hoping to visit France at some point in the not-too-distant future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover and the hon. Members for Easington and for Wakefield mentioned deductions. We will have a proper public consultation on the draft regulations in this space. I have already noted—as I hope hon. Members have—the Low Pay Commission’s recent recommendations that this issue should be looked at. I hope hon. Members will take part in the consultation and contribute to the regulations as they are being drafted, without feeling the need to press specific amendments to a vote today.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North raised the issue of the British Ports Association. We have not seen its legal advice—if he would like to share it with us, that would be lovely—but we do not believe it has a strong legal position.

[Sir John Hayes]

My experience as a Minister was that Government lawyers never assured us that we were in a strong legal position on anything—at most, they offer a 50:50 chance. The Minister might want to think again about the comments made in Committee; the terms and conditions seem to be critical. The Government—the Minister, in particular—deserve great praise for this legislation, but it would be a grave error to get pay right but not get terms and conditions right at the same time.

[Mr Holden]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We are looking into the terms and conditions, which will be there in the regulations, and we will have a wide public consultation. He is absolutely right: we want to get this right.

The legal issue raised by the hon. Member for Wakefield was about legal risk in the 52 versus 120 days element. When a ship stops at multiple points in Norway, for example, then has one trip a week to the UK, to argue that it should be covered by UK legislation rather than Norwegian legislation would put it into a very difficult international legal position. Under international maritime law, that would expose us to greater legal risk for the entirety of the legislation, rather than on specific points. I hope hon. Members understand.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East made a number of comments. On the broad issues, at least, I say to him that the Government have raised the threshold at which people pay income tax, taking millions of people out of tax. They have introduced the national living wage and reduced the age at which people qualify for it. Moreover, and in a massive and long-term benefit for huge numbers of people, they have expanded auto-enrolment in pensions to hugely benefit working people. His comments were broadly ill judged and, in a certain way, bringing forward this conversation today shows our commitment to delivering for working people. While I appreciate that everyone in the Scottish National party is an expert on ferries these days, I am not sure they are when it comes to this legislation.

Seafarers' Wages Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

John Hayes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Further to the intervention from the hon. Member for Easington and given that what we are debating is on the face of the Bill, are we talking about statutory guidance that will be issued? Guidance, as the Minister knows, is complex, in law and in statute.

[Mr Holden]

I think we are talking slightly at cross purposes on this point. We are removing some of the things that were guidance for harbour authorities and an element of duty is now being opposed on them. That is what the Government amendments do.

The powers in clause 11 include the power to direct our harbour authorities to impose or not to impose a surcharge, whether generally or in any case or circumstances, and to impose a surcharge of an amount specified in the direction instead of the amount determined by the harbour authority’s tariff. That provision was intended as a safeguard in the event that a harbour authority did not impose surcharges in circumstances where an operator had not provided an equivalence direction, and to provide an incentive for the harbour authority to perform its role objectively.

Harbour authorities would have been required to have regard to any guidance under the clause and to comply with any direction given to them under the clause. Failure to comply with a direction under the clause is an offence punishable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. That provision was designed to help to ensure compliance with the Bill’s provisions and to achieve its policy objectives.

Government amendments 31 and 35 remove the Secretary of State’s power under the Bill to give statutory guidance to harbour authorities. That is a consequence of changing harbour authorities’ powers under the Bill to mandatory duties. We will still provide guidance to harbour authorities, which we intend to consult on, but that will not have a statutory basis. Amendment 36 is consequential on those changes. The reason why there will not be a statutory basis is that harbour authorities will already have a statutory duty.

[Sir John Hayes]

That answers my question. Essentially, the statutory duties need the guidance about those duties to be issued, rather than it being of itself statutory guidance. The Minister has made that abundantly clear in an eloquent and persuasive way.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his generous assessment of my ability to describe the Bill’s provisions.

Government amendments 32 to 34 redefine the circumstances in which directions may be given to harbour authorities by the Secretary of State. As the powers are now duties, there is no longer a need for the Secretary of State to direct harbour authorities to exercise their functions. If they do not exercise those functions, they will be liable for prosecution, so the Secretary of State does not need to intervene. Amendment 15 to clause 7 is consequential on that change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I intervened on the Minister earlier, on the issue of guidance, because, now that he is clear that the guidance issued is of a more general nature—rather than the specific statutory guidance that would have been necessary to effect the provisions of the Bill, which will now be provided by powers in the Bill implicitly—that provides the opportunity for the Minister to ensure that that guidance is contextualised around the broader narrative.

I mentioned earlier the 2015 “Maritime growth study”, which I commissioned regarding skills and recruitment of people to the sector. That study also recommended that the Government develop

“a vision and set of strategic objectives”

with “quantifiable targets and goals”. I wonder if, in issuing guidance around this Bill to those in the sector, the Minister can ensure that the context is precisely the delivery of those recommendations.

If I might add to that briefly, that report also recommended a ministerial working group for maritime growth to implement a national strategy accordingly. I wonder whether any progress has been made on that. The Minister may not have an immediate answer to that, but I would welcome his further reflection on it during the passage of this legislation.

[Mr Holden]

I thank both the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and my right hon. Friend for their views on this. Just to be clear, Opposition amendment 59 would require the Government to consult with relevant stakeholders before issuing guidance. As per amendments 31 to 35, tabled in my name, there is no longer a provision for statutory guidance, given the responsibilities under the new duty. However, as we intend to provide some guidance to harbour authorities, I would assure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that we intend to consult widely on any guidance that is issued, and it is unnecessary to say as much on the face of the Bill.

On the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings raised about the broader maritime growth strategy, I would be very happy to write to him with any specific updates that we have. I know that this is an important area that he feels passionate about.

Opposition amendment 60—this will be similar to my response to amendment 59—would require the Government to consult with relevant stakeholders before issuing directions. As per amendments 32, 33 and 34, tabled in my name, directions can only be made to instruct the harbour authority not to comply with its duties in a particular way. The need to use those powers of direction might arise when there are issues of welfare, national resilience, or the need to import medical supplies, and a ship should not be refused access. Such scenarios may be very time-sensitive, and the need to consult could significantly slow down that process. We assure hon. Members that we will consult where possible, but on that specific point—it is the reverse, as it were—it would not be appropriate to make that a legal requirement on the face of the Bill because of those issues.

Amendments 37 and 38, tabled in my name, change the power to make a direction to specify a harbour authority in respect of a particular harbour regarding the power to make those regulations. That is consequential on the amendments to convert harbour authority powers into duties, as, now that harbour authorities are required to request declarations, impose surcharges and refuse access to harbours, it is important that they have clarity on the relevant harbour authority for a particular harbour. The amendments will further ensure consistency and reduce the administrative burden of giving directions on a case-by-case basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Guidance and directions

Amendments made: 31, in clause 11, page 8, line 2, leave out subsection (1).

This removes the Secretary of State’s power under the Bill to give guidance to harbour authorities, in consequence of changing harbour authorities’ powers into duties.

Amendment 32, in clause 11, page 8, line 6, leave out

“exercise, or not to exercise, any of their powers under”

and insert

“not do anything they would otherwise be under a duty to do by reason of”.

This and the following amendment redefine the circumstances in which directions may be given to harbour authorities.

Amendment 36, in clause 11, page 8, line 16, leave out subsection (6).—(Mr Holden.)

This is consequential on Amendment 31.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Regulations

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

I could not agree more—rather them than me. It is bizarre that sometimes we argue around the fringes of these issues. We are talking about such dangerous and onerous work for weeks on end, and we are quibbling over whether we pay them the national minimum wage or not. It beggars belief. We cannot trade safety for the profits of DP World.

This is not just an issue of fairness at work. It is an issue of human and environmental safety. It is just over 30 years since the Braer wrecked on Shetland and caused an ecological disaster that I suspect we all remember well, even three decades on. If we have seafarers around our shores working 17 weeks straight with no oversight and no action, sooner or later we will have another Braer or, even worse, a Herald of Free Enterprise.

Similarly, on wages and pensions, we know what many seafarers are expected to put up with. The key point of this Bill is to prevent wages falling below the national minimum wage equivalent, but we also hope it will have the additional impact of improving wages across the board in the industry. If minimum wages go up, there could be benefits for those who are already earning more than that floor.

We know that the Government currently support a voluntary charter for seafarers, and the Minister repeated that again today. I say in all sincerity to the Minister and the Government Members sitting behind him: what good is a voluntary charter when we have operators such as P&O Ferries, which was content not only to break the law but to sit in front of a Select Committee and freely admit to breaking it? A voluntary charter has about as much legal effect as the back of a fag packet, and if P&O Ferries is happy to break the law, it will not look back as it smashes a charter to shreds.

Putting these elements of the charter in the Bill will at least give the Government firm legal ground in assessing how this legislation has benefited the industry and its employees. Again, the new clause calls for nothing more than a report, as the hon. Member for Dover said, on the main issues from the charter. It commits the Government to nothing, except a report. 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 this new clause.

I turn to new clause 7 in the name of the hon. Member for Easington, and supported by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East. Last July, we saw the publication of the nine-point plan for seafarers. No. 6 on that plan was to develop a statutory code for “fire and rehire” practices, and failures to engage in employee consultations. Sadly, that has progressed no further.

Members may remember that I have certainly highlighted and challenged companies that have used fire and rehire over recent years since its first big deployment in this country by British Airways. Many Opposition Members have repeatedly asked the Government to bring in legislation to end it, as is the case in most of Europe, with some of us introducing multiple Bills to that effect. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Government felt that a simple change to guidance would solve the worst of the problem.

Fire and rehire seems to be used disproportionately in the transport sector, by British Airways, Menzies Aviation and Go North West to name just three. Elements of it were deployed by P&O Ferries last year—another charge to add to its self-declared rap sheet, which the RMT said amounted to one of the

“most shameful acts in the history of British industrial relations”.

While some Government Members may have views that differ from mine on the RMT, I hope they would at least agree with them on the depths to which P&O Ferries plumbed last year.

Seafarers are particularly vulnerable to fire and rehire. The particular circumstances of the maritime industry, surrounded by international treaties and conventions, mean that workers are subject to greater exploitation overall than those on land. We saw with P&O how that exploitation can be deployed by a company that is happy to willingly and publicly break the law and make no secret of it. It is a practice that has absolutely no place in a modern society. Our workplaces are not those of a Dickensian novel, yet the legislation that regulates the power dynamic between employer and employee is stuck in the Victorian age.

The UK is almost unique in Europe on fire and rehire. Most other countries in Europe have embraced modernity and made their employment laws fit for the future. P&O Ferries could not have pulled off its scam in most European countries, just as BA’s parent company did not attempt fire and rehire in Ireland or Spain. New clause 5 would not prevent fire and rehire in itself—amendments 71 and 72 tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East would have offered greater protection but they were deemed out of scope, so I will not refer to them any further in case I am called to order by the Chair.

However, new clause 5 would ensure that any instances, attempted or otherwise, in connection with seafarers within scope of this legislation are reported by the Secretary of State to Parliament. That will give this place the opportunity to again look at legislation not only in this specific sector, but also across the whole economy. Hopefully by that time, Government Members will finally have made the jump from warm words to tough action, and we will see legislation put on the books to put an end to fire and rehire and an end to these rogue companies. It quite frankly a disgrace that the UK lags so far behind the rest of our neighbours. We can start the process of remedying that disgrace and dragging our employment laws into the 21st century by adopting this new clause.

[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.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships) Order 2022

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2022 General Committees

[Mike Kane]

Pope Francis reminded us in “Laudato Si’” that we are leaving an enormous pile of filth on this planet, so anything that we can do to reduce that filth and to ensure that it does not leach into the food chain of marine life is extraordinarily important. My hon. Friend is right to intervene to make that point.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

With your indulgence, Mrs Murray, I want to identify the problem of industrial fishing, which you will know a great deal about. It has precisely the same effect on the ecosystem that the hon. Gentleman talked about, and particularly on smaller sea creatures of the kind he mentioned. That is an aside, but it is relevant, given what we are discussing. I know that you will want to bring us back to the subject in hand.

[The Chair]

Absolutely. I think the shadow Minister would like to stick to the confines of the draft statutory instrument.

P&O Ferries

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts]

I thank the hon. Member for speaking out and making her constituents’ understandable anguish so clear in this place. That has been entirely heard by me and I share it. She speaks with anger, and I have expressed that anger in person to P&O today, because of the effect that this news will be having on people living in her constituency and elsewhere, particularly at a time that is already causing much uncertainty for many people. I would be delighted to meet her and any other Members who would like to meet me to discuss what we might be able to do. I referred earlier to some signposting within the DWP. That support is available, and if there are other things that would be helpful, I would be happy to hear from her. She also referred to disruption. There may be some disruption, but the only happy side of that is that we have good, well-rehearsed procedures in place to deal with that. I totally accept this situation will cause inconvenience to her constituents, but I hope that the well-practised routines we have in place will keep that to a minimum.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

When I was the shipping Minister, I oversaw the maritime growth study that built on the sector’s success. At its heart was the development of skills to build an even stronger merchant navy. This capricious, careless, callous decision by P&O flies in the face of all that.

Will my hon. Friend work with my old friends in the maritime sector, the RMT and others to recover any moneys granted to P&O during the pandemic and to ensure it reverses its decision? I will not let anyone tell me this is the free market. The free market put little girls in factories and boys down mines, and it put both at risk on the high seas. We thought those dark days had gone. P&O is either too dim to see it or too dastardly to know it.

[Robert Courts]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the skills that have been demonstrated by extraordinary British seafarers over many years. This is key to the Government’s vision of what we want to achieve, and it is particularly important to me personally. We remain committed to doing what we can to support seafarers, and all the strategies the House has heard me talk about, from Maritime 2050 onwards, remain the case. Our focus on maritime skills remains. The Government are still determined to do all we can to develop British seafarers and to continue as a maritime nation, as we have always been. He can be assured that determination remains undimmed.

My right hon. Friend rightly speaks about employment rights, which are extensive in this country. They exist for good reason, they continue and the Government support them.

Sir Richard Shepherd

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Richard Shepherd was a gentle spirit and a poetic soul, as illustrated by the contributions of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I simply want to add to the accounts of his generosity, civility and courtesy. I invited Richard to speak in my constituency, and with typical humility he said, “Really? I don’t very often get invited to travel across the country to speak.” But surely enough, he did. He travelled from Aldridge-Brownhills to the Lincolnshire fens and addressed a luncheon function. He charmed everyone not by what he said but by the way he was. What he said, accorded closely with my own views, of course, but that is not really the point I want to make. He was such a humble, gentle, poetic soul.

I well remember that on that occasion I gave him a small gift of a watercolour that I had painted. Years later he said to me, “I treasure that painting you gave me, John. I treasure that painting.” It touched my heart, as he touched the hearts of so many people here, so many from his constituency and so many people more widely. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for the chance to pay this tribute to a very great parliamentarian and a still greater man.

Smart Motorways

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Huw Merriman]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and take his point on board, although it is a bit difficult to go back to the start and do as he has suggested. However, it is a familiar topic about smart motorways that will come up later. He is absolutely right. If the design guide had followed the prototype—I intend to refer to the M42 and where things then moved—we might have found ourselves in a very different place.

The right hon. Gentleman touched on the reason for this scheme, which, again, is to create the extra capacity that is needed to get people off the more dangerous A and B roads and on to the motorway network. Unfortunately, because of what has happened, there is a danger that the opposite is true, and if he will allow it I will expand on that.

There are seven key points in the recommendations that were accepted. First, there will be a pause of the roll-out of all lane running motorways yet to commence construction until five years of data is available for the smart motorway network built before 2020.

Secondly, the Government will pause the conversion of dynamic hard shoulder motorways to all lane running motorways and revisit the case for controlled motorways. Is it all about all lane running smart motorways or are other smart motorways better?

Thirdly, emergency refuge areas will be retrofitted to existing all lane running motorways to make them no further than 1 mile apart, for which the Government have announced £390 million of funding.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will know that I was the roads Minister from the summer of 2016 through 2017, and had been at the Department for Transport prior to that under a different Government. As Minister, I raised the issue of the frequency of those refuges with my office and with Highways England. It seems to me that, for the reassurance of motorists and motoring organisations, it is vital that they come more frequently. The Committee’s report recommends that. I am pleased with the Government’s response, which seems to be positive. However, it is critical that on all lane running motorways—that is the difference he highlighted earlier—those refuges are regularly available so that people can get off the road if and when they need to, without delay.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the expertise he brings to this debate. He makes some fascinating points. I am interested in whether the advice was followed by Highways England, as it then was. This was a new concept. Our recommendations included giving Ministers and the Department a little more independent advice from the Office of Rail and Road—the roads regulator. Had that been the case, there might have been checks and balances in the system, so the advice that he received might have been better for him. He rightly makes the point that if the build-out had been followed as he approved, we might not be where we are.

The fourth point was the granting of powers to the Office of Rail and Road to evaluate the Government’s smart motorways project plan. Starting this year, the regulator will report on progress annually, and carry out an evaluation of stopped vehicle detection technology and other safety measures.

The fifth point, which comes with a consultation requirement, is to introduce an emergency corridor manoeuvre into the highway code to help emergency services and traffic patrol officers to access incidents.

Sixthly, the Government will investigate the granting of new road safety powers to the roads regulator before changes to design or operational standards are implemented on our motorways and key roads. Again, Ministers would then have that independent four-eyes approach when their advice comes through.

Finally—this is important—we need to revisit the entire business case and rationale for smart motorway conversion. It is interesting that the expectation was that for every £1 spent on smart motorways, £3 would be delivered back, because we would be creating more capacity. There have not actually been that many studies of whether that has been achieved, because a longer assessment period is needed, which is now consistent with the safety assessment. However, one project on the M25 was delivering almost £3 back, although it is fair to say that the experts’ view is that it dissipates after a year, as more people use the motorway network.

The headline is a pause on new smart motorways, but the aspect that I am really determined to ensure that the Committee follows is all the retrofitting work that is needed to make the existing smart motorway network safer. That means vital work has to start on reducing the width between emergency refuge sites. We have seen that if a car is travelling at 60 mph and the distance interval is 2.5 km, it takes 75 seconds for that car to get to the emergency refuge areas. Some 40% of all breakdowns occur in a live lane, and that has to be impacted by the fact that the emergency refuge area is too far for the cars to get to, so it is essential that this is delivered.

I will touch on the stopped vehicle detection technology, which the Government are committed to ensuring is rolled out on the existing network by 2022. The Government are right to say that it was originally planned for 2023, so it will happen a year earlier. The Committee’s frustration is that we were given assurances by Highways England, the predecessor to National Highways, in 2016 that “going forward” the stopped vehicle detection technology would be put in place in the delivery of all new smart motorways. That has not occurred. When we heard from National Highways, as it now is, in our current inquiry, we were told that “going forward” actually meant “after two years”, whereas, to me, going forward means “immediately”.

Of course, the challenge now—it will be a funding challenge as well as an operational challenge—is that once those motorways are open and running, it is a lot harder and more expensive to retrofit the technology in place, which we have been told will be one of the blockers. In my view, that is precisely the reason they should have been put in to start with. I know the Government are now committed to ensuring that whenever they finish the existing smart motorways—which, rightly, cannot be stopped because they are almost there—they cannot open until the technology is in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to contribute to this important debate on smart motorways. The American poet Robert Frost spoke of two roads. We heard from the Select Committee Chairman that, in the case of smart motorways, there are at least three types of road. In a sense, that is the first point I want to make because that has led to confusion. As the Select Committee rightly concluded, there is a lack of understanding among many drivers of what smart motorways are, and particularly what all lane running is and what to do if, as the Committee put it, they break down in a live lane. As the Select Committee Chairman pointed out, 40% of breakdowns happen in such a lane.

People break down for two reasons. It is either a vehicular failure or some incident in the car, perhaps illness or accident. They need to get off the motorway quickly. The Select Committee also pointed out, however, that, contrary to what one might expect, hard shoulders are not actually the solution. They can cause more difficulties than they solve and can be dangerous places. Refuges are the answer, and I will return to that in a moment.

The key point I want to make at the outset is that the management and accountability of these matters needs to be urgently reviewed. When I was a Minister in the Department for Transport—I do not know if I am unique in the House, but I am certainly very unusual in having been appointed to that Department as a Minister three times—I was involved in setting up what was then Highways England. We looked at it very closely because we understood that the governance of that organisation needed to be such that Ministers could take power to direct it. Indeed, when I was speaking to my officials at the time, I said, “I want it to look as little like Network Rail as possible”, precisely because Ministers seem to have little authority over Network Rail.

There is the power of direction in respect of Highways England—what has now become National Highways—and it is necessary sometimes for Ministers to use that power, whatever their officials tell them. I do think, informed by the report and the excellent Government response to it, that from now on in Ministers need to take a very proactive approach when dealing with smart motorways.

The second point I want to make is about regulation. It has been made already, but it needs to be made again because it warrants amplification. The Office of Rail and Road is long established and, as a result, has a distinguished pedigree in regulating the railway system, but it has taken on roads only relatively recently, and it seems to me that the regulatory function needs to be enhanced, as the Select Committee has argued—that is a further way in which the decisions in respect of roads generally and smart motorways in particular can be made accountable. Both accountability to the regulator and being answerable to Ministers are vital as we move forward, and will provide the public with greater assurance about the safety of these new types of road. After all, they are a “radical change”, as the Select Committee says, to our road network, and confusing to drivers because of the various types of road that they may now encounter, particularly if they are not used to travelling a particular route. For instance, they may be going to a part of the country that they do not know and are therefore not familiar with the sort of road on which they are driving.

Finally, refuges are important not only because they provide an opportunity to get off the road in that 75-second period that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned, but because of what they broadcast about safety to drivers. They provide important reassurance to drivers that the road is indeed safe and that, in the case of emergency, there is a means of escaping the circumstances in which they might find themselves. That is why I made that point emphatically as Minister. I am delighted that the Select Committee has made it too, and that the Government have acknowledged and recognised it, although I notice the caveat in the small print that it is sometimes not possible to provide refuges at quite the regular intervals that the Select Committee recommends. None the less, I think the Government heard the message that I have emphasised once again.

It is important to see this in context. The most dangerous roads are not motorways, and they are not smart motorways. There is a good argument for thinking creatively and imaginatively about how we can make our roads more effective, as the Select Committee Chairman has said, and so build additional capacity to deal with congestion and so on. However, in order to do so, we must take the public with us. This pause is a huge opportunity for a programme of education, so that people know what kind of road they will encounter, what to expect and to feel safe accordingly.

The Select Committee has, as it should, done the House and the Government a great service. The Committee exists not only to scrutinise Government but to think about things that the Government would not otherwise consider. This is a good example of that. The Minister is an extremely diligent member of the Government. I hope she will indeed take seriously these recommendations, which are clearly made on the basis of both good faith and good information, and that we can move ahead to roads that are effective and make travel easier and, fundamentally, much safer.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I must begin by thanking the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), and all the other members, for their hard work. I was once a member of a Select Committee, so I know the number of hours in preparation and effort that are put in by both the members and the team of staff that support the Committee to ensure that the information and witnesses that inform an inquiry are using evidence-based information and are fair and balanced. On behalf of the Secretary of State and all of us in the Department for Transport, I put on record our gratitude to the Transport Committee for its report and the way it has collaborated and worked with the Government. That is why we are in the position to take forward not one, two, three, four, five or six, but all nine recommendations in the report.

I know that the Committee took evidence from many experts with differing views. I believe, as do the Secretary of State and the Roads Minister, Baroness Vere of Norbiton, that the resulting report is a thorough examination of issues. It is a rounded report, with sensible and pragmatic recommendations, which the Government will take forward. Members will have seen the Government’s response, published yesterday, 12 January. I hope they will agree that it demonstrates our commitment to help ensure that these motorways continue to be as safe as they possibly can be.

Our motorways are among the safest in the world. Compared with the rest of Europe and the United States, we stack up particularly well. Are they as safe as they can be? There will always be room for improvement.

I pay tribute to everybody who has been involved in the campaign that has informed the recommendations. The actions we are taking are certainly, in part, a result of their effective campaigning.

I will make a number of general points, then will address some of the questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members today. First, we must remember why smart motorways were developed. A smart motorway can carry 1,600 additional vehicles an hour in each direction. They decrease journey times and provide more reliability on our busiest stretches of motorway. They have a lower impact on the environment, with five times lower carbon emissions from construction, a decrease in loss of biodiversity and a lower land take through construction. They are also provided at a lower cost—estimated at 50 to 60% less costly than widening—and are delivered more quickly.

Secondly, we should also acknowledge that the evidence to date supports the safety case for smart motorways. In terms of fatality rates, all-lane-running motorways are the safest in the country based on the available data. Smart motorways without a permanent hard shoulder account for 1% of fatalities, motorways with a hard shoulder account for 5%, and all other fatalities—94%—occur on other roads.

[Sir John Hayes]

While we are on the subject of other roads, it would be remiss of me not to make a case for Lincolnshire. We do not find motorways in Lincolnshire, smart or otherwise, but we do find a number of key arterial routes that carry an immense amount of traffic and need improvement. While I am here and the Minister is here, too, I ask her to look again at support and funding for those roads that feed our arterial routes—those connecting roads. When I was responsible for the road investment strategy, I made it clear that those connecting routes are critical, both in terms of capacity and in terms of safety. Let us have more money for Lincolnshire roads.

[Trudy Harrison]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent case for road improvements in his South Holland and the Deepings constituency. I have some sympathy with that challenge. I, too, have no motorway in my Copeland constituency. It is about an hour and 20 minutes for me to get to junction 36 on the M6, so I know how important good connectivity is. I am sure the Roads Minister, Baroness Vere, and our officials, will have heard his calls.

Thirdly, we should recognise that the focus and attention of many stakeholders and the media has resulted in a significant investment in the existing smart motorway network, and we are now going even further to invest £390 million in additional emergency areas, which we have heard an awful lot about today. That will bring us an extra 150 emergency places to stop—safe refuges, as they have been referred to today—which I know are important in creating safe perceptions for drivers.

The Government accept that there is more work to be done to move to a position where all drivers feel confident on smart motorways. That is where we need to get to.

Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill (First sitting)

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sam Tarry]

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure consistency across the country. The GMB, the LTDA and other representatives of the various minicab and private hire drivers across the country are keen to see the Bill go through. I know from our discussions that they want to have that ability in order to be certain that they would not be penalised in one area that was in any way different from the DVLA. I am also conscious that the Bill has been brought before the House many times, in different guises, and I am keen that we get as much Government support for it as possible. The Bill can move forward on a cross-party basis, so that it gets through and makes the changes that need to happen—many are contained in the Bill. It would make a real difference. On that basis, I will not press the amendment.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

[The Chair]

I call Robert Buckland. Sorry, I call John Hayes—I do apologise.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am flattered.

I simply want to say how much I welcome the Bill, having commissioned the work on taxi licensing as a Minister, as members of the Committee will know. I particularly welcome it in the light of the work done by the hon. Member for Cambridge, who, in a model of cross-party co-operation, worked closely with my then Department to look at these matters, which relate directly to the Bill before us.

The Committee will know of the work done by Professor Mohammed Abdel-Haq, who was commissioned to consider these matters in detail and who recommended a review of licensing in the interests of public wellbeing and safety. That came on the back of the awful events in Rotherham, Rochdale and elsewhere. I do not need to lecture members of the Committee on that, particularly the hon. Member for Rotherham, who has taken such a brave and noble stand in these matters, but I think this is a first step.

I will just say to the Minister, who is a good and honourable friend—one can be good and honourable at the same time, can one not?—that the recommendations in the important document that I have before me, which is the review conducted by Professor Abdel-Haq, are wide-ranging. This private Member’s Bill deals with some of them, but I urge the Minister to look at many of the other recommendations. I do not want to go beyond the scope of the Bill, Ms Bardell, but I hope you will forgive me for adding this, because many other things in the recommendations—there is a whole list of recommendations, but I will not tire the Committee by going through them—need to be addressed. Some will be legislative, and some may not be. Some can be achieved by giving improved guidance. I know the Secretary of State is mindful of that and has done a great deal of work on it, and no doubt the Minister will comment on it, but I just want to welcome the Bill in that context, with that history and with a very strong recommendation.

This is a first step in guaranteeing what is the essential element in licensing: public safety and wellbeing. With those few thoughts—probably at the wrong part of the Bill and at the wrong time of the Committee, but clearly with your generous indulgence, Ms Bardell—I will say no more, because I know that the Committee will want to move on.

[Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

May I crave your indulgence for a moment, Ms Bardell, given that you very kindly invoked me? I just want to put on the record my personal commitment to this issue. The hon. Member for Rotherham and I have a long history on this issue. When Lord Pickles was the Secretary of State, I was part of intimate ministerial groups talking about the need to deal with taxi drivers whom other taxi drivers did not want in the industry. This measure is as much about protecting reputable, decent public servants, which is what taxi drivers are, from those who seek to use this vocation or trade as a smokescreen for other activities. Tragically, we saw that in Rotherham. I was very keen to see the Bill introduced when I was in office, and I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington for bringing it forward with Government support.

I also want to put on the record my local interest in this issue. Sian O’Callaghan was tragically murdered by a taxi driver in Swindon in 2011. With the help of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, her mother, Elaine Pickford, has campaigned relentlessly ever since to improve the quality of regulation in this area. I want to put on the record my personal thanks to her and her family for everything they have done with such dignity since the dreadful events of 10 years ago, when I was still a fresh-faced Member of Parliament. Therefore, for local and personal reasons, I am particularly pleased that this measure has been brought forward with the support of the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I wholeheartedly agree. I will highlight two—I will not call them omissions; that is not in the nature of this Bill Committee—additions that the Minister could consider in the future. Given the experience in this room, I hope they will be supported. The first, which the hon. Member for Darlington raised, is cross-border travel. I said that Rotherham now has some of the highest standards in the country. Unfortunately, because those standards are not replicated nationally—having CCTV in all taxis, for example—a taxi driver with lower standards could come from out of area to work in Rotherham. They may well be on the database and they may well have not committed any crime of note, but they would still be able to operate in Rotherham with lower standards of safety and protection for passengers. Will the Minister consider bringing in, at a later date, national minimum standards that apply to all taxi drivers, so that someone getting into a taxi, wherever they are, can have that same certainty?

The second addition—this is a rather a geeky point; my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings knows I am slightly obsessed with this—is around Disclosure and Barring Service checks. I met a woman whose abuser went to jail and then changed his name by deed poll, so his DBS check was clean, because the checks basically look at someone’s name and any associated records attached to that name. The Government are currently undertaking—I hope—an inquiry into the risks associated with change of name. It is known that registered sex offenders do that. There have been a number of high-profile cases that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon has been involved in. It happens. I am really concerned that close that particular loophole. I would appreciate anything the Minister could say to the Home Office and Justice, which are both looking into this, to make sure that the loophole is closed.

[Sir John Hayes]

Those issues were looked at in some detail, as the hon. Lady will know, by Professor Abdel-Haq in the report that I commissioned. I am grateful for her kind words, by the way. Cross-border travel is a thorny issue, but Professor Abdel-Haq’s recommendation 11 states:

“Government should legislate that all taxi and PHV—

private hire vehicles—

“journeys should start and/or end within the area for which the driver, vehicle and operator (PHV and taxi…are licensed.”

He goes on to say that appropriate measures need to be put in place to exempt specialist services, such as chauffeurs, disability transport services and others. However, the huge issue of cross-border journeys was looked at in some detail by that committee. Professor Abdel-Haq also looked at her second recommendation. I take the view of the hon. Member for Cambridge about local particularities, but I would go so far as to say that we cannot be too rigorous. There has to be a thorough and rigorous process that gives people the assurance that, wherever they get a taxi, those standards and checks will be in place. I strongly endorse the hon. Lady’s recommendations. This is precisely the kind of additional work that I recommended in my earlier intervention, and which I know the Minister will want to take forward.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

This is indeed a devolved matter, but we very much hope that the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland learn from what we do here and are inspired by the work of Members from across the House. The priority is safety and accountability. The devolved Administration in Wales is already considering ways forward to protect the most vulnerable people. This Bill is an excellent step.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings has extensive experience in transport, and I absolutely agree with him on the importance of safety. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon referred to legislation, and there will be further legislation in due course. The Bill covers a defined aspect of the issue.

I welcome what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ilford South, said about not delaying this important change, and I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham for the cross-party, collaborative way she has worked to tackle the challenges in her constituency. The work she has done will save many more women from further incidents.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is coming to her exciting peroration and I do not want to spoil that, but the issue of DBS checks is really important. There are more than 30 recommendations from Professor Abdel-Haq, all of which warrant close attention. Those that require legislation need to be taken forward. The recommendation on DBS checks says:

“All licensing authorities must require drivers to subscribe to the DBS update service and DBS checks should must be carried out at a minimum of every six months. Licensing authorities must use their existing power to mandate this ahead of inclusion as part of national standards.”

That point was emphasised and amplified by the hon. Member for Rotherham. It is critical. That could be done in addition to the excellent work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington in bringing forward this Bill. Perhaps the Minister will—if it is not impolite to suggest a response to my query—go away and consider that.

[Trudy Harrison]

I will of course go away and consider that, and more importantly, we will work with colleagues in the Home Office. There has been some really important and concerning discussion about name changes in relation to DBS checks, and we are working on that issue with colleagues.

The Bill is an excellent step, and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington has received support for it from across the House. I reiterate my thanks for the collaborative way in which we have got to this point. I look forward to following the Bill through its parliamentary stages.

Income tax (charge)

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous]

My hon. Friend is spot on. To make the most of this opportunity, we need to invest in infra- structure—in port infrastructure, markets and processing factories. That would be so much help to coastal communities that have been left behind.

In Lowestoft, we are close to the main cluster of offshore wind farms in UK coastal waters. We are also an area of the southern North sea UK continental shelf, which has an important role to play in the transition to the low-carbon economy, and where there will be an enormous amount of work in the decommissioning of gas and oil facilities over the next decade.

The Budget places much emphasis on free ports. It is good news that the Government recognise the important role that ports play, but it is vital that free ports add to the UK’s trade, making our ports more attractive than their international competitors, rather than diverting business from one UK port to another.

Coastal communities along the East Anglian coast face a significant challenge from coastal erosion and storm surges. The sea does not just damage homes and businesses; ultimately, it destroys them. The Lowestoft flood defence scheme will remove that threat. At present, it is only part funded, so it is good news that the Budget recognises the threat of coastal erosion, provides an additional £5.2 billion for flood defences and includes an undertaking to carry out a review of the Green Book.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend might add to his thinking on this subject support for the internal drainage boards, which do such great work in the fens in particular, including in his constituency. Will he implore the Government to ensure that the Environment Agency works with the drainage boards rather than against them, as I am afraid it sometimes does?

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I have internal drainage boards in my constituency, although I sense they may not be such big players as those in the fens in his constituency. From what I see of them, however, they are the ones who know the local area best and are best placed to come up with tailored, bespoke solutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Everitt]

The intervention may have been long, but it was well put and I appreciate it. In broad terms, my hon. Friend’s point was that we must not forget the other traditionally more productive parts of our economy. Interestingly, Milton Keynes is part of the south-east and people overlook the fact that we sit as almost the gateway to the north. A journalist from The Economist telephoned me last week and told me that Milton Keynes was the most productive part of the UK. I said, “Do you mean not including London?” and he said, “No. When you look at the OECD measures, they take in the whole of London, which includes the suburbs in Greater London, and actually, Milton Keynes comes out as more productive.” I therefore welcome any intervention that draws attention to the fact that we should be investing in the productive parts of our economy as well as levelling up the slightly less productive parts.

I warmly welcome the £500 million to roll out a fast charging network for electric vehicles over the next five years, ensuring that drivers will never be more than 30 miles from a rapid charging station. During the general election I was privileged to have a visit from the Secretary of State for Transport. We visited a charging point so that he could charge his electric car—he is very on brand, is our Transport Secretary. After a photo-op, he said, “Show me some transport infrastructure that needs a bit of investment.” I took him to junction 14 of the M1, which really does need an upgrade. We stood there, watching the traffic go past, and then we went to an island in the middle to make a little video, saying how much it needed an upgrade. Then, like life imitating art, we having stood there saying that the transport infrastructure needed an upgrade, suddenly all the world’s traffic came off the M1 and zoomed up junction 14. We were marooned on that island in the middle of an M1 slip road.

Now, our Transport Secretary, being an energetic fellow, cannot be held down for long. After a few moments he set off down the slip road, running—in fact, our Transport Secretary does not run; he scampers. Fortunately, my social media adviser was there to film the entire thing. He pulled out his camera just as our right hon. Friend was sprinting down the road, merging with the traffic in order to cross it. The video is available for parties, for a small fee.

[Sir John Hayes]

As a Member who lacks a social media adviser, and as the pioneer of the Government’s electric car policy, I am delighted that my hon. Friend has welcomed the additional charging points, for which I take the lion’s share of the credit.

The point that my hon. Friend is making about productivity is critical. The Government’s commitment to skills and to research and development, through the Budget, will allow us to tackle the prevailing macro-economic challenge facing this country and most of the west: the productivity gap.

[Ben Everitt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, the productivity gap is core to levelling up.

Speaking of gaps, I have to declare an interest before moving on to the next important section of my speech: I am a councillor. The next section includes the perennial election-winning issue of potholes. The Chancellor has announced additional funding—£2.5 billion over the next five years—to fill millions of potholes across the country, which will make a huge difference for the many people who spend hours each week travelling on poorly maintained roads. That will speed up journey times, reduce vehicle damage and make our roads safer.

The Government are investing record amounts in improving and expanding our transport infrastructure—triple the average of the past 60 years. The Chancellor has announced £640 billion of capital investment in roads, railways, communications, schools, hospitals and power networks over this Parliament. I know that many of my colleagues will join me in welcoming this investment not just for the large national infrastructure projects, but for local roads, regional railways and urban transport. We will be increasing bus journeys. We will be reducing the cost of transport for young people, workers and those in retirement. We will have a modern and well-maintained road network.

I am a big fan of this Budget, as Members have probably noticed, but there is one piece that I was surprised to see in there. It is my single criticism of the Budget, so please bear with me. The small print of the supporting documents for the Budget contained an allocation of £94.6 million for a housing infrastructure bid to build 5,000 homes east of the M1 in Milton Keynes. That housing infrastructure bid is an indicative commitment to fund, subject to continuing local commitment, which is how the bidding process works for housing infrastructure fund bids. “A continuing local commitment” is news to me. Anyone who looked at my postbag and my inbox would not find a continuing local commitment; they would find quite the opposite.

That is not to say that people in my constituency are anti-growth. Far from it: Milton Keynes is a growing place. It is growing because it is a great place in which to live and work, in which to grow a family and grow a business. However, we must have the right houses in the right place at the right time. There is a balance to be struck. We need to get this right. We have a choice between growing local jobs and becoming a dormitory. If we get the right houses in the right place at the right time, we will incentivise pure economic growth—local, productive growth—but if we get it wrong and build too many houses, Milton Keynes will be cursed by the very benefit of being only 32 minutes away from London on the train. If we build too many houses too quickly we will become a dormitory for jobs elsewhere, and that is not what we need.