Heathrow Airport Expansion

Mike Kane Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (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 passionate plea on behalf of her constituents, who have to suffer under the Heathrow flightpath day in, day out. My parliamentary assistant reminded me that Westminster bridge was opened on this day in 1862, so it seems a good day to discuss connectivity in the south-east—although for my hon. Friend, bridges in London might be quite a controversial subject.

I come from the perspective of growing up in a council flat under the flightpath to Manchester airport, so as well as speaking as the shadow Minister for aviation, I shall also have a few personal things to say. Heathrow is an enormous employer in the south-east of England and contributes billions of pounds to our economy, as has been pointed out. We welcome that contribution and have been consistent in our support for the wider aviation sector, calling repeatedly during the pandemic for a meaningful, sector-specific deal, which would have protected workers’ rights and environmental standards, and allowed us to build back better from a position of power, not weakness. On expansion, Labour has consistently said for a number of years that a third runway at Heathrow must meet our long-established tests. It must meet the criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, and it must be affordable and delivered in the best interests of consumers.

On a personal level, I represent Wythenshawe and Sale East, which contains Manchester airport and the M56 motorway to Manchester city centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who co-chairs the all-party parliamentary group for airport communities, and the Minister will be interested to hear that I was told in a meeting last week that the council will not invest in active travel along that corridor because the nitrogen oxide levels are too high. The council will write to me in the next week or two to explain why it will not invest. These are open sewers of the modern-day era that we have going through our community.

Any future bids for Heathrow must meet the criteria that we have set out, but let us be clear that there are also significant wider challenges that must be met. The Government have set themselves a target of 2050 for net zero aviation emissions, and we know that there is no silver bullet when it comes to decarbonising aviation. We know there has been significant progress in developing potential solutions to the environmental impacts of aviation, but we are just not there yet. Aircraft have become quieter. I grew up under the BA111s, Tridents and Concordes. We know that aircraft are quieter; what people find disruptive is the increasing number of flights.

We have much further to go to decarbonise the sector. Potential solutions to aviation’s air pollution impacts are beginning to be developed. They include sustainable aviation fuel, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) pointed out, and the prospect of some flights being powered by batteries or green hydrogen. However, while the US and EU steam ahead, the Government’s inaction is putting the development of emerging green technologies at risk. We know that green technologies produce well-paid, good jobs, which are often trade unionised as well. We need Government action to secure the necessary investment for those emerging technologies.

It is vital that the sector takes measures to continually support the development of innovations to decarbonise, such as electric planes and sustainable aviation fuel, which was mentioned previously. I meet business after business, week after week, which beat a path to my door, and are trying to innovate in this sector. That technological development is a critical part of net zero and must be done in partnership between industry and Government, so that the industry can help to meets its climate obligations and seize the opportunities for the British economy, investing in technologies that will tackle the climate crisis, encouraging world-leading innovation here in Britain, and supporting good, well-paid jobs. That is the future we want to see. Through our green prosperity fund, Labour will deliver that. It will be the centrepiece of a future Labour Government—one that links prosperity, social justice and climate justice.

Given the imperative of decarbonising aviation, I ask again about airspace modernisation. It has been referred to today; I hope the Minister can explain the lack of progress. It is a critical piece of national infrastructure that needs bringing up to date, but the process seems to be enormously complex. We know that airspace modernisation would reduce emissions, allowing cleaner and greener point-to-point flights, but it has been held up by a lack of ambition and urgency from this Government.

EasyJet told me last week that its flight from Jersey to Gatwick burns 24% of its fuel unnecessarily because of the congestion in the skies of the south-east, because we have an airspace modernisation system that is stuck in an analogue age when we exist in a digital age. It was developed closer to the time of Yuri Gagarin going into space. We have to change that.

It is crucial that the benefits of any future expansion are enjoyed by the whole country. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) made a point about overall capacity. We have too much capacity in this country, but we do not have an airport capacity plan. Airports still compete with each other. That is why airspace modernisation is not being rolled out as fast it should be. Airports are competing in the south-west and in the south-east.

The sticking point for me is that the airport in my constituency is a brilliant economic driver that offers plenty of jobs. While no announcement has been made by the airport, I close by reiterating our commitment to the tests and our determination, in government, to help to build a sustainable future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Kane Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

If we want to champion seafarers’ welfare, where is the seafarers’ charter? We have been waiting for it forever.

Earlier this month, disgraced P&O made another 60 people redundant, despite recording a £1.6 billion profit. Can the Minister explain how on earth Peter Hebblethwaite has still faced no sanction in over a year? Does that not show that under the Conservatives it quite clearly pays to trample over the rights of workers?

[Mr Holden]

As the hon. Member knows, we have worked together on the Seafarers’ Wages Act to tackle exactly the issues that he has raised. With regard to Mr Hebblethwaite, civil action is still being considered and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this time.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 2023

Mike Kane Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 General Committees

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Harris.

Twenty resolutions relating to fire protection at sea have been implemented by the International Maritime Organisation since the UK integrated the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 2003 into UK law. Those resolutions have, for example, updated the requirements for firefighting systems on ships by adding water mist nozzles to onboard sprinkler systems back in 2010. Another resolution, in January 2020, updated the requirements for ease of access to escape routes for ship passengers. A further resolution, in July 2004, updated the requirements for how dangerous and/or flammable goods should be stowed on board. All that will be implemented in UK law by this SI.

The draft regulations will apply to passenger ships engaged on international voyages. They will apply to a small class of passenger ships engaged on domestic voyages and to cargo ships of 500 gross tons and above, as the Minister said, engaged on both international and non-international voyages. They will also apply to sailing ships of 500 gross tons and above and to United Kingdom pleasure vessels of 500 gross tons and above.

We know how dangerous a workplace ships can be. Many carry dangerous or hazardous cargo and large amounts of fuel. They are cramped working environments, despite their size, and the ocean is very unstable. It is vital that we take steps to make those workplaces as safe as we can for all our seafarers, because when things go wrong at sea, escape routes and rescue missions can be as perilous as the fires our seafarers seek to escape.

Just a month ago, a Dutch-flagged vessel caught fire in the gulf of Riga when travelling between Lithuania and Latvia. The fire is thought to have broken out in the engine room, and staff tried valiantly to extinguish the fire. Because of the sheer size of the vessel—named the Escape, as it happens—and the very nature of its load, containers, it was thought that some of the cargo was hazardous. Thankfully, all 15 crew were picked up by a nearby vessel and did indeed escape.

Another recent example, in the last month, was the Felicity Ace, which was a specialist cargo ship carrying more than 4,000 cars that caught alight near the Azores. Again, thankfully, the vessel’s 22 crew members were evacuated, but the fire continued to burn for several days, fuelled by lithium batteries in electric vehicles on board. The rescue of this abandoned ship sadly ended in it sinking to the bottom of the Atlantic. The rescue was going well, but during towing it began to ingress water, lost its stability and sank. Thankfully, its fuel tanks remain intact, although there is no guarantee that that will remain the case, and it could lead to yet another environmental disaster. Thankfully, no souls perished on this occasion. However, there will be environmental damage caused by the incident, and damage to international supply chains will be colossal.

I have met multiple Ministers multiple times to debate such statutory instruments and to discuss elements of these regulations covering a number of safety areas, such as life-saving appliances, bilge pumping and warnings, damage stability, as well as these regulations covering fire protection. I asked some time ago what stage we were at with the delayed maritime legislation. I know the Minister several incarnations ago said he would write to me to update me, but I do not recall receiving that letter. I ask this Minister if he can help with this matter. Our priority must be ensuring that those working at sea or travelling on vessels as covered by the instrument are kept safe from harm. We will therefore not oppose this statutory instrument today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Kane Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State made no commitment on the production of sustainable aviation fuel in the UK at a recent airports conference. This week, the Minister for aviation in the other place said at a pilots reception that airspace modernisation was stuck in the muck. The Government’s Jet Zero Council has achieved exactly what it said on the tin: zero. Labour has a plan for a cleaner, greener future. Get your finger out, Secretary of State!

[Jesse Norman]

It seems to have passed the hon. Gentleman by that we had a detailed consultation on SAF investment. We have put £165 million into the advanced fuels fund to support five UK sustainable aviation fuel plants, which builds on the “Green Fuels, Green Skies” competition, and we plan to introduce a sustainable aviation fuels mandate in 2025. Modernisation is an extremely complex issue, but it is also vital, in part in order to ensure a more protective approach where possible to the issue of noise impact, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).

Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2023

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 General Committees

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. We are here because maybe we have not fully left the EU, as the Minister said, after the treaty of Windsor—I am not talking about the one yesterday, but about the one in 1386, which made Portugal our oldest existing ally. As the aviation industry kept us fed and watered during the pandemic, let us hope that we can still continue to get our tomatoes after yesterday’s deal.

As an island nation, the UK’s aviation sector is a global leader, and it plays the most vital of roles in connecting us to the rest of the world, whether it be visiting our family, friends or broadening one’s horizons. We meet here to discuss the slots allocations for 2023. The time when the industry was in turmoil and the country was locked down was, without question, the most difficult time ever for commercial aviation. It is really heartening to see the sector bounce back. However, it has still not fully recovered, deeming it necessary to revisit slot allocations in advance of the start of the summer 2023 season, which is on 26 March—just four weeks away.

The season into which we are heading runs out on 28 October 2023. Am I to mark a Tuesday at the beginning of October to reconvene and discuss the same situation? I wonder who I will be facing across the Dispatch Box at that time. The “use it or lose it” rule that applies to slots means that airlines must use 80% of their slots or risk losing them altogether, as the Minister has said. Slots are hugely valuable to airlines, and sometimes it would be financially wise—yet environmentally terrible—to operate ghost flights with no or very few passengers to meet the arbitrary 80% fulfilment rule and keep the slots for future demands.

Let me give a brief history of the issue. The 80:20 rule was scrapped altogether when the pandemic struck. We have since revisited it to offer some alleviation while some travel restrictions were still in place. We also had the 70:30 requirement—again, to respond to the disruption the industry still felt. In a previous debate of this nature with one of the Minister’s predecessors back in 2021, it was believed that it would be 2023 before air traffic volumes had increased to 2019 levels.

The retained EU powers of regulation 95/93 give us the power to amend ratios as we see fit in the light of the industry’s failure to bounce back immediately, up to and including August 2024. It is also prudent for airlines to be able to hand back slots that they cannot use, because we do not want flights to take off when they do not need to so that airlines can retain rights they have had historically.

The proportion of 5% seems about right but, as I stated when I met the Minister’s predecessor back in October, the full impact assessment of the measures is not being carried out because of the short-term nature of the timescales. I hope the Minister will take on board the fact that I am still keen to see a retrospective assessment of the impact of the measures, to ensure that if and when we revisit them, we know that we are taking steps that are appropriate to the time and neither too harsh nor too weak.

As shadow aviation Minister, it pains me to think that we may be back here again in six months, in the run-up to the winter timetable, and then again for summer 2024. We should not be discussing endlessly how to support a sector in which the Government should have intervened more during the pandemic. As passenger demand is still in the recovery phase, it is more important than ever to consider ways to future-proof our airspace as we build back our world-beating capacity. Aviation will recover and grow; it must grow sustainably over the years and decades ahead. The 80:20 rule is very much part of that.

I note that although passengers are expected to benefit from the proposed relief in this legislation by retaining historic levels of connectivity, the explanatory memorandum says that there is a potential negative impact in the form of the prevention of new entrants to the marketplace. As our country tightens its collective belt because of the impact on the family purse of the cost of living crisis, it cannot be that flying and travel become solely the pursuit of the very wealthy, and we must be mindful of monopolisation. We will not oppose the regulations, but I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the points I have made.

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

I entirely agree with everything the hon. Gentleman is trying to do to increase seafarers’ rights and raise standards. Does he accept that the maritime sector is by its nature complicated, interlinked and international? We ought to be addressing the specific instances that occurred here, because it is technically an international voyage through the short straits, while doing the wider international work in slower time, crucially through the International Maritime Organisation, rather than seeing the unintended consequences that there might be if the Bill were roughly drafted.

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, the former Minister, for all his work in this area. I know that he was extraordinarily committed and was as upset as everyone else in this House—he put in a hard stint as Minister for aviation and maritime. He is right that the sector is complicated, interlinked and international, but that should not stop us doing the right thing. If seafarers are here, they are here. That is why we are pushing for 52 port calls, and we genuinely believe that that is the way to strengthen this legislation, but I thank him for his intervention.

Turning to amendments 39 and 49 that appear in my name and those of my colleagues, it is vital that the terms and conditions collectively bargained for are upheld. There are currently seafarers who are paid more than the equivalent of the national minimum wage, and we would not expect those in receipt of this pay to enter a race to the bottom. Good employers, of which there are some in the sector, are already paying above the UK national minimum wage, and we seek to ensure that pay and conditions for their workers are protected, not dissembled or undermined by provisions contained within the Bill. In addition to maintaining the Bill and the conditions of individual seafarers, these amendments would reassure other countries, such as France, Belgium, and Ireland, with which we are seeking to make bilateral agreements, that we are not undermining them, which would make negotiations easier.

Amendment 40 is designed to shore up previous provisions under regulations, which extended the entitlement to be paid above the national minimum wage to those working in the offshore gas and oil sector bound by the UK continental shelf, which extends 200 miles from the coastline of the UK. This amendment equalises the basic rights of seafarers in the UK offshore energy sector, which we know will be a growth industry of the future. The Government and the offshore wind industry cannot rely on the good will of individual developers to commit to voluntary schemes such as the real living wage.

Failing to support this amendment would highlight not one, but two anomalies within the Bill. First, any seafarer who works out of a UK port to an offshore oil or gas installation and then returns to the UK port will not be entitled to the protections offered by the Bill. As we move towards a just transition and increased reliance on offshore wind, we must ensure that those who work in the energy sector are protected. We must future-proof future industries—it makes no sense to do that retrospectively.

Secondly, any seafarer working from a UK port to an installation on the UK continental shelf and returning to a UK port is already entitled to protection of the national minimum wage, regardless of the flag of the vessel or their nationality. That is entirely as it should be. The Government must act as soon as possible to correct the lack of this protection for all seafarers, regardless of nationality or flag of vessel, working in the UK exclusive economic zone. Let us get it right first time for current offshore oil and gas workers and for future workers in offshore sectors that we know will become increasingly important as we head towards cleaner, greener energy. The exclusion of offshore energy workers from the legislation seems short-sighted.

Importantly, amendment 41 would enable the House to consider and approve regulations that may be made under the powers of the Bill; whether that is opening regulations up to further scrutiny in relation to the definition of work in the UK, regulations related to accommodation charges levied upon them, which could lead to earnings falling below the national minimum wage, or regulations related to surcharges, all should be brought before the House so it can affirm them. It is National Apprenticeship Week. We need to build on the work the Maritime Skills Commission is doing on ratings and cadet training to ensure growth in decent seafarer jobs in this country. Wider employment protections and fair pay agreements are part of that future.

I am grateful, as I said, to the Minister for moving on the harbour surcharges and for clarifying that the surcharges will be used for seafarer welfare. That is really welcome. Ports and seafarers all around the country will be affected by the Bill, so it is vital that the Bill is right. We have worked hard to ensure that the concerns of seafarers are heard, as voiced by their unions, the RMT and Nautilus, who I thank for their energy and expertise on this Bill. We need this Bill to be as robust as possible, and have sought to amend it where possible to ensure that. I thank the staff of the House and Members from across the Chamber for all their hard work on the Bill.

[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.

Seafarers' Wages Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Mike Kane Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I do not want to detain the Committee for long, but I want to speak briefly to this issue. The rapidly falling number of British ratings in the maritime industry is a crying shame, and the former Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, is right: all Governments of all political persuasions have failed to address that issue. They have addressed officers, to an extent, but they have not anywhere near sufficiently addressed ratings.

The Bill could be dramatically improved were the Government to agree to include energy installations. That area is growing exponentially. The Bill is a golden opportunity to recruit, train and encourage kids in schools in my constituency who live in the shadow of the docks, looking over at those vessels going out to sea and wondering whether they could possibly dream of having a job in that industry.

I commend the Government on bringing forward this legislation in good time. The former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), and the former Minister, the hon. Member for Witney, must have worked incredibly hard to put together this complex legislation—this area is particularly complex. However, we could go further and do better, and I call on the Government to think carefully about including energy installations in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

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

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

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

[Gavin Newlands]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mike Kane]

I rise to speak in favour of amendment 64, in my name and the names of all Opposition and SNP members of the Committee. I am fascinated that Government Members often like to talk about the Laffer curve and the nanny state.

Seafarers' Wages Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Mike Kane Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 64, in clause 7, page 5, line 32, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for a national tariff of surcharges by which the amount of the surcharge is to be determined.”

Government amendment 14.

Amendment 50, in clause 7, page 5, line 33, after “regulations” insert

“, where the minimum surcharge to be imposed on an operator where Subsection (2) applies shall 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”.

Government amendment 15.

Amendment 51, in clause 7, page 5, line 36, leave out

“specified by a harbour authority”.

Amendment 52, in clause 7, page 5, line 37, leave out “the authority” and insert “each authority”.

Government amendments 16 and 17.

Amendment 65, in clause 7, page 5, line 43, leave out paragraph (e).

Government amendments 18 and19.

Amendment 53, in clause 7, page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (8) and insert—

“(8) Monies collected by a harbour authority under this section must be transferred to the Secretary of State at a frequency of not less than twice per calendar year for disbursement towards the costs of shore-based welfare facilities for seafarers.”

This amendment would ensure that revenue from surcharges is passed to the Secretary of State for Transport rather than being held by harbour authorities and would direct UK Government spending to welfare facilities.

Amendment 54, in clause 7, page 6, line 3, leave out paragraph (a).

Government amendment 20.

Clause 7 stand part.

Government amendment 21.

Amendment 55, in clause 8, page 6, line 10, leave out

“specified by a harbour authority”.

This amendment is consequential on earlier amendments relating to the surcharge.

Amendment 57, in clause 8, page 6, line 14, at end insert—

“(2A) Any objection must be made to the Secretary of State within a length of time which may be specified by regulations. Any objection made after this time period will be considered void.”

This amendment allows the Secretary of State to set a time limit for any objections to be lodged.

Government amendments 22 and 23.

Amendment 56, in clause 8, page 7, line 1, leave out

“to direct the harbour authority”.

Clause 8 stand part.

Government new clause 2—Imposition of surcharges: failure to provide declaration in time.

Government new clause 3—Imposition of surcharges: in-year declaration that is prospective only.

Government new clause 4—Imposition of surcharges: operating inconsistently with declaration.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris.

At the close of the morning sitting, Mr Davies happily interrupted me in full flow about the Laffer curve. I often hear hon. Members talk about the Laffer curve, and earlier the Minister referred to all the tax giveaways implemented by this Government, but I remind Government Members that we are the most taxed society in modern history. Government Members enjoy talking about the nanny state and postcode lotteries, but I worry about how the clause will be implemented by different harbours. The Secretary of State will have enormous powers—a Labour Secretary of State could be implementing the regulations—and will have to play judge and jury between the various ports, harbour companies, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and others. That is my big worry about the clause.

I rise to speak in favour of amendment 64 in my name and the names of Opposition members of the Committee. The Bill as drafted poses a risk that the surcharge regime will be different between harbours, and too small to have any effect on operator employment practices. Operators could choose to pay the surcharge to continue to use the ports, avoiding any penalty charge set out in clause 9. Will the Minister tell us what happens to penalties if they are charged? Where do they go? Will he seek to fund onshore mariner and seafarer welfare services from the charges? I am keen to hear more about that.

Many operators do not just run ferry services but operate ports as well—P&O itself operates a port. So the Government are potentially asking operators to fine themselves, which is perverse. Ministers must think again.

I note that the Secretary of State said he would use retained powers to decide which port could enforce fines, but he must set a national tariff for surcharges and designate a Government agency to collect them. Agreements and publication of the tariff of surcharges are subject to secondary regulations set out in clause 7. That could undermine the unlimited fines that can be imposed on operators for offences created elsewhere in the Bill, because the tariff will be based only on the differential between the amount paid the seafarers and the national minimum wage equivalence for UK work. Our amendment would give the Secretary of State the powers to set a national tariff of surcharges, which the harbour authorities would then enforce under direction. That would prevent ports from being prosecuted by competitors, and prevent harbour authorities from competing on the level of surcharge company operators would have to pay. That surcharge should not be given to the harbour authorities to use as they see fit, but should clearly be given to support seafarer welfare facilities. It would be wrong for operators to spend on their own businesses the fines levied for exploitation of seafarers. That is why we support amendments 53 and 54 in the names of SNP colleagues.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mike Kane]

I rise to signal our support for amendment 70 and new clause 6 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington, who spoke well about seafarer welfare.

To give a personal example, over the past 30 years, my wife and I have enjoyed the hospitality, archaeology and beauty of the Orkney Islands. Over those 30 years, we have seen the number of cruise ships docking at Kirkwall go through the roof. There are days when the visitor numbers can double the population of the islands. When I visit the beautiful St Magnus Cathedral in the heart of Kirkwall, I now see—around the back or further up the high street—the welfare lines of mariners waiting for handouts or warm clothes, or going to the post office to send telegrams or money back home to their loved ones. Those lines get longer and longer every year.

I echo the concerns that the power for harbour authorities to suspend access to operators that are not paying crew at least the national minimum wage in UK territorial waters is probably dangerous and ineffective. I would welcome the Minister’s consideration of that. By denying ships access to those harbours, we are denying those crews, who are some of the poorest people in society—they are flown in from all over the world to give us the leisure experience we want on cruises—access to give welfare to those back home. That is less a political and more a humanitarian issue that our ports and harbours increasingly have to deal with.

[Mr Holden]

I thank hon. Members and welcome the spirit of amendment 58, which aims to provide urgent welfare facilities when they are needed. The Government believe, however, that those would be covered by clause 9(3), under which crew would be provided with access to urgent medical or welfare facilities or to undertake other emergency measures. We support the intention behind the amendment; in urgent cases concerning safety, a ship should be able to access the harbour under the framework that we have set out. Where an incident was not safety-related or related to the welfare of the crew and was therefore not covered by the force majeure exception, the ship would not be permitted access to the harbour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

I was on tenterhooks there: I was not sure whether I would have to leave expeditiously for the Standing Order No. 24 debate application in the Chamber, but thankfully that has been resolved.

As trailed when I spoke previously, amendment 61 seeks to amend the legislation in a similar fashion to Labour’s amendment 66. I am not precious about which amendment the Minister accepts. Clause 12 concerns the power to make regulations by statutory instrument and currently sets out that regulations made under the legislation are subject to the negative resolution procedure, as is always the case these days—other than for those in respect of clause 15, I should add in fairness. Given the potential nature and impact of the provisions that may be made by regulations under clauses 3, 4, 7 and 9, it would be appropriate for such regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to enhance the scrutiny of the regulations of this Parliament. At one point, the Government were keen for this Parliament to “take back control”. I hope the Minister can exert that with these amendments.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss

New clause 7—Report: remuneration of seafarers—

“Within one year of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out an assessment of—

(a) the impact of this Act on the remuneration of seafarers, and

(b) whether there is any evidence that, as a result of this Act, seafarers have been dismissed and re-engaged on lower wages at or closer to the National Minimum Wage.”

[Mike Kane]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 5 and 7. Earlier this year, the House stood completely united against the action taken by P&O Ferries. We had oral questions that day in the House, and the former Minister, the hon. Member for Witney, was at the Dispatch Box when the news filtered through that this company had sacked some 800 British workers with no notice. Eight hundred livelihoods were lost because a rogue company made a calculation that it was cheaper to break the law than to abide by it.

A married couple who had been employees of P&O for 14 years spoke to a colleague of mine about the reward for their years of loyal service—summary dismissal by a pre-recorded video message, and then being marched off the ships that they lived and worked on by private security guards, treated like criminals. That was the human face of P&O’s criminal act. It is the reality of a business model that has been allowed to prevail for far too long on our seas—a business model predicated and dependent on exploitation.

The P&O scandal was supposed to represent a line in the sand for seafarers’ rights. The Secretary of State’s predecessor was clear about that: the Government would work with

“unions and operators to agree common levels of seafarer protection on those routes.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 841.]

He was right, because seafarers’ exploitation is every bit as much about conditions as it is about pay. Baroness Vere of Norbiton, the Minister in the other place, said that the Government would act on that wider exploitation only

“where it is proven that it is appropriate to do so.”

Let me briefly give the House an illustrative example of why that is so important. An agency worker can be contracted on the Dover-Calais service at the shamefully low rate of £4.75 an hour. As is common in the industry, such workers could be expected to work up to 91 hours a week, on board, full time, for 17 weeks at a time. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East reminded us of the Herald of Free Enterprise and what happened there. Outside UK waters, those workers would not be entitled to any pension, the minimum wage or any sick pay. I ask Members to imagine a season of winter storms in the Irish sea or the North sea, where sleep is almost impossible, and to imagine spending up to 17 weeks on board, responsible for the safety of passengers and that vessel.

The industry has already learnt from painful experience about the dangers, but the Bill does nothing to address exploitative crewing and rostering practices. That is why we must see a legally binding seafarers’ charter on the face of the Bill—one that ends the race to the bottom from which P&O Ferries has benefited; one that smashes the business model dependent on the manipulation of vulnerable workers from around the world. That is precisely what our new clause 5 is about.

Turning to new clause 9, the then Prime Minister himself said that P&O Ferries would face “criminal sanctions”. The then Transport Secretary said that it would be placed under “criminal investigation”. He demanded that the boss, Peter Hebblethwaite, stand down. He even demanded that P&O rename its ships, stating that it was completely wrong for them to sail under such names as the Spirit of Britain or the Pride of Kent. Six months on, however, that chief executive—

[The Chair]

Order. I remind the hon. Member that we are debating new clauses 5 and 7.

[Mike Kane]

Thank you, Ms Harris. That chief executive stays in place. The point is that if P&O Ferries or any of its low-cost rivals wanted to do that again, nothing in the Bill will stop it from doing so. That is why new clause 9 is important, because it clearly establishes fines and personal liability for a failure to abide by the legislation.

[The Chair]

Order. I again remind you, Mr Kane, that we are debating new clauses 7 and 5.

[Mike Kane]

We are indeed.

[The Chair]

New clause 9 will be later in our proceedings.

[Mike Kane]

Indeed. Given the track record of shameful companies such as P&O, we have to change.

My final concluding remarks, Ms Harris, are to thank you for your excellent chairing for the first time in such a Committee. I also thank Mr Davies for his excellent deliberations as Chair this morning, and the Minister, because the Bill was brought to the House in the right spirit, for trying to do something. Members across the Committee recognise that, and I thank all those who participated and contributed. With that, I also thank staff at the Department for Transport and the Clerks of the House.

[Mrs Elphicke]

It is to be noted that new clauses 5 and 7 concern reports about whether more needs to be done. I think we agree across the Committee and more widely that what happened in the P&O case was a spark to firm action going forward.

We touched on the issue of roster patterns earlier on, but I want to address it specifically. We know it is something the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has looked at on the short straits. For me, the new clauses do not address the fundamental question of who will be responsible for ensuring appropriate and safe working conditions on that route. That responsibility sits with the MCA, but concerns have rightly been raised about individual operations, and new clause 5 will not go any way to addressing those particular concerns. I think the bilateral agreements being discussed may form a route to looking at some of the issues, particularly those that apply to the route between Dover and France.

Turning to pensions and wages more broadly, this is the first piece of legislation of its type. There are a number of mechanisms in this place, including the Transport Committee, which has shown to be diligent in its support of not just the P&O workforce but transport matters more generally. There are additional forums in this place that provide the correct routes and opportunities to assess whether this legislation is reaching its objectives and intent.

On new clause 7, it is important that the remuneration of affected seafarers is assessed and considered. I have been encouraged during discussions I have had on remuneration with DFDS, which operates on the Dover-Calais route, to hear that it embraces the opportunity to have these conversations about improving conditions for seafarers. But as regards the Bill, part of the nine-point plan is a comprehensive approach to tackling this issue following the appalling actions of P&O. Overburdening the Bill with additional requirements for statutory reports and assessments may actually delay the important work we all have to do—be it bilateral or voluntary agreements or other options.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend makes a very sensible point. The Bill is a big step in the right direction in delivering for seafarers and countering some of the issues we have seen.

It will already be a criminal offence for operators to operate a service inconsistent with a declaration, and we do not think it is necessary for directors to be held personally liable for that offence. It would not be appropriate for directors to be guilty of an offence of failing to provide a declaration, as there is no obligation for them to do so. While the intention is that surcharges will be a sufficient disincentive against operators failing to pay at least the national minimum wage equivalent, it is open to operators not to provide an equivalence declaration, in which case surcharges will be imposed.

The existing compliance mechanism of surcharges for failure to provide a declaration and the criminal offences for operating inconsistently with a declaration will have considerable financial and reputational implications for operators. I do not think anybody here today can say that P&O Ferries has not experienced a reputational impact—not only that, but a legislative impact—from its behaviour over the last few years. Personal liability for directors is therefore not necessary.

I want to leave one thought in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The Insolvency Service is currently undertaking a civil investigation, which, among other things, will assess various individuals’ fitness to be directors.

[Mike Kane]

When will the Insolvency Service report? We keep asking, but we do not get an answer.

[Mr Holden]

As the hon. Member knows all too well, he and I are very much on the same page and would like the Insolvency Service to report as soon as possible, but it is an independent organisation and we cannot comment on ongoing investigations. The entire basis of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow East, which Opposition Back Benchers have spoken about too—that they want something that could disqualify someone—is there in what is being looked at. It is maintained via the Insolvency Service. While I cannot comment on the individual case, I think it is clear that what everybody wants to achieve is already there. I understand why Members are trying to invent another offence, but it is not necessary, as what the hon. Member for Glasgow East seeks to achieve can already be done through current legislation.

Lifeboat Services: Search and Rescue

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who represents a beautiful part of the world, for his excellent speech. My researcher indicated that 52 awards for gallantry have gone to the hon. Gentleman’s RNLI station alone.

I shall be following the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who advocated for the National Independent Lifeboat Association, and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), in that we are not really having a debate, because there is consensus. The only note of division I think I heard was in the intervention from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). Perhaps we need a separate debate on what we call that firth; the name Inverness strait might help to sort this out. [Interruption.] I see I have caused complete division across the Chamber.

Next year, it will be 200 years since William Hillary’s vision of saving souls at sea became a reality, and on 19 December 2022 the Minister and I were at the Dispatch Box for the Second Reading of the Seafarers’ Wages Bill. Today, we have heard the story of the Penlee lifeboat disaster, which was eloquently told by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and on 19 December, the 41st anniversary of the disaster, we were able to have recorded in Hansard our thanks to the crews who went out that night in 1981.

The RNLI was formed to save souls at sea and the institution’s priorities were

“the preservation of human life…assistance to vessels in distress…the preservation of vessels and property…the prevention of plunder and depredations in case of shipwreck…succour and support of those persons who may be rescued…the bestowing of suitable rewards on those who rescue the lives of others”.

I want the debate to recognise those people as well and to be an acknowledgement of those who risk their lives to save those in peril on the sea.

As shadow maritime Minister, I know only too well the sacrifices made by our seafarers, which we saw during the pandemic. However, professional seafarers are not the only people our lifeboats serve to protect. We have seen the small boats in the English channel, which, as has been mentioned, is the busiest shipping lane in the world. We have seen children, women, families and individuals being plucked from the seas by the RNLI and others, and we have heard testimony from those who are tasked by the coastguard to perform their rescue missions without prejudice and without judgment.

There is nobody who is illegal. If people are in peril on the sea, we rescue them—no ifs, no buts. I thank those people for their service and for their determination to save everyone and anyone who gets into difficulty around UK and Irish shores. This is such a vital lifesaving service—so selfless—that, as has been mentioned, it is almost unbelievable that the RNLI receives no money from Government and is funded primarily by donations.

My best man was rescued from a cliff by the RNLI, when he was a child and on holiday. We have been friends for 30 years, and he has fundraised for the RNLI all his life, even being in a landlocked constituency. Imagine how the course of my life might have changed, had that rescue gone wrong, so I, too, pay personal tribute to the RNLI.

As I was preparing this speech last night, I noticed that at 6 pm lifeboats were launched from Hartlepool and Ramsgate. At 9.40 pm there was an incident that led to Tynemouth launching a rescue mission, with another one launching from Falmouth at 11 pm. Remarkable bravery takes place every day and every night. Since 1824 the RNLI has saved almost 143,000 lives. I go back to the original mission statement of Sir William Hillary, when he conceived the idea of the RNLI. I should add that the use of the word “men” is of its time, and not reflective of the nature of the RNLI, who for generations have had women launching lifeboats and working alongside crew to ensure that boats could set sail efficiently and speedily. More recently, they have crewed the boats and acted as shore crew. Now, the RNLI has more than 300 women crew and a third of their lifeguards are female, preventing accidents before they happen with good safety advice and keen stewardship of the shore.

Sir William said that at the heart of this institution would be

“a large body of men…in constant readiness to risk their own lives for the preservation of those whom they have never known or seen, perhaps of another nation, merely because they are fellow creatures in extreme peril.”

Every lifeboat volunteer—whether they be a fundraiser, a coxswain or at the helm— exemplifies that mission statement, and I would like to thank them for their service and their contribution to search and rescue.

Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing the debate.

I am going to scrap my speech for a second. One of the great honours of living in London for part of the week is understanding how absolutely fantastic the public transport system is. If you try to get back to Manchester today on an Avanti train, Godspeed to you all. If you have tried to get across the Pennines over the last few months, Godspeed to you all. I have had the great honour in my nearly nine years as an MP to spend one day a month walking in London. I have done the London loop, so unfortunately I have walked through most of the places represented by the hon. Members present, including Orpington, Petts Wood, Ruislip, Wallington and Watford. What a beautiful place London is. I am still astonished by the quality of the public transport system, which is second to none on this planet and the envy of everybody outside this great conurbation.

Every year, 4,000 Londoners die prematurely due to poisonous air, and the greatest number of deaths are in outer London boroughs, with 11 Londoners dying prematurely every day. Air pollution is quite simply a matter of life and death; it makes our communities sick. Despite the Government’s promise that there would be no weakening of environmental targets post Brexit, it seems that they are refusing to match the EU standards, setting a weaker target while sentencing our children and communities to an unnecessary 10 years of toxic air.

The challenge is threefold: we must tackle toxic air pollution, we must deal with the climate emergency, and we must deal with traffic congestion. I was at the Sutton Ecology Centre at the weekend, and I saw just how congested the A232 is and the problems there.

[Elliot Colburn]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the A232 is only congested because the Mayor of London has scrapped the A232 review that he promised to do?

[Mike Kane]

The A232 is actually congested because there are too many vehicles on it—that is what congestion is. London is a beautiful town, so I do not know why we allow it to happen. It is incredible to me.

The Government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, says that the Government have failed to announce new targets, as they should have done under the Environment Act 2021, and that the new Government air quality targets are too weak and will condemn another generation to poor air.

We know that around 85% of vehicles driving in outer London already meet the pollution standards. Mayor Khan has introduced the biggest scrappage scheme yet: £110 million in support for Londoners on low incomes, disabled Londoners, micro-businesses and charities to scrap or retrofit their non-compliant vehicles. He has extended the exemption period for them and for community transport. As the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) said, the scheme was devised under the last Mayor of London, but it has taken Mayor Khan to implement it.

As was already pointed out, the Mayor also announced plans to add an extra 1 million kilometres to the bus network—much of that in outer London. Again, that requires leadership and support from central Government. The Government’s clean air fund excludes applications from London boroughs and the Greater London Authority. London’s share would amount to around £42 million, which would have gone a long way to expanding or supporting the Mayor’s £110 million scrappage fund.

I am a Greater Manchester MP. We have had problems. There are nitrogen dioxide sewers—controlled by Highways England—going through my constituency. If those roads were factories, they would have been shut down. They are simply not acceptable in this day and age. Local authorities were given a legal direction to clean up the air by 2024, and like Birmingham, Bradford and Portsmouth, they had to act, but Ministers have comprehensively failed to provide the necessary funding. Ministers need to help families and small businesses switch to electric vehicles, and they must take action to expand charging infrastructure. Plumbers who use their vans for work are being priced out of this revolution. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for having two brothers who are plumbers—wouldn’t we all want that?

This week, we learned that instead of charging ahead, the Government are slipping back on the charging infrastructure strategy. Rapid charging fund trials have been delayed, changes to planning rules have been kicked into the long grass, and take-up of the on-street charging scheme is anaemic. Labour’s plan for green growth will drive jobs, tackle the cost of living and help to clean up toxic air. There will be help for families with the cost of switching to electric vehicles, and we will provide the action we need to tackle toxic air. Britain is the only country in the developed world where private bus operators set routes and fares with no say from the public. That is not the case in London, but it is for bus services outside London. I was delighted to see the work that Andy Burnham has done as Mayor of Greater Manchester in setting the £2 fares, which the Government are now copying.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, who spoke eloquently about the problems of Putney High Street, which is one of the most polluted places in the country. As somebody who rides a bike to Richmond Park occasionally, I have to go and experience it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies); he is in charge of his facts, and gave powerful personal testimony about asthma and his children.

Let me say this to Conservative Members, genuinely and from the bottom of my heart: where there are low-traffic neighbourhoods, and where cars are tackled, electoral popularity rises. Tackling air pollution is electorally popular. I look at the percentage chances of Conservative Members winning their seats in the next election. In Dartford, they have a 64% chance of losing. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) has a 57% chance of losing. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) has a 64% chance of losing. No wonder the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) is going on about the Lib Dems—they have a 52% chance of winning that seat.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. That is jolly interesting, but the topic is the ultra low emission zone.

[Mike Kane]

I can hear the Risographs of activists in London churning out leaflets about their Members of Parliament who do not want to support clean air. That is a clear divide, and I urge Members to get on the right side of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

It is interesting that the Labour party would like the Government to fund that out of general taxation. I suggest that the Mayor of London should look at that. If it is his policy, he should seek to fund it.

[Mike Kane]

No leadership!

[Mr Holden]

There is certainly no leadership from the Mayor of London, as we can see from all the hon. Members here, and there is certainly no leadership from the Lib Dems, who were too scared to turn up to this debate. I think the hon. Gentleman and I can agree on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington made a really important point about grace periods, because the exemptions are very limited. Points were also made by the hon. Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who spoke passionately about charities. Grace periods will be extended for disabled and disabled passenger vehicles as well as wheelchair-accessible private hire vehicles. Those categories will be exempt only until October 2027. Minibuses used for community transport, the charities my hon. Friend spoke about, will be exempt only until October 2025. Some of those charities are in outer London and many work across the south-east—they will not even be able to apply for the scrappage scheme.

In addition, NHS patients may be eligible to claim back under the Mayor’s plans, but only if they are clinically assessed as too ill to travel to an appointment on public transport. It is not about whether the transport is available, but about whether they are too ill to travel on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner made the really good point that it is not available at all in many parts of outer London. As he said, the choice just is not there for many of his constituents, and it is not there for many other Members’ constituents, either.

Currently, emergency vehicles are exempt from ULEZ and LEZ charges. However, the sunset period lasts only until October 2023, which is months away. Has an assessment been made of the impact on London services, including the ambulance service, the Metropolitan Police Service and the fire service? It will be interesting to see that, if there is one. There will also be an impact on the council tax bills of Londoners.

Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, asked questions about the Mayor’s authority. Specifically, they are concerned that the Mayor may apply ULEZ charges to motor vehicles that are current under the scheme today, such as compliant petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles.