Seafarers' Wages Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Richard Holden Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

I thank everybody for coming back. I am sorry that my speed of speaking was so swift earlier; I shall try to keep these comments at a more temperate pace. I will pick up on a couple of points from hon. Members, then enter into a little more of the briefing.

Tariffs or surcharges will be set by each harbour authority, but they will be in accordance with the regulations made under clause 7. As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, we also hope that the surcharges will never be required, but we need to have them to ensure proper practice. Opposition amendment 50 seeks to set out in the Bill how the surcharge is to be calculated. Currently, the Bill provides that harbour authorities will set the tariff of surcharges in accordance with the regulations. It is important that the surcharges disincentivise operators from not providing equivalence declarations, and we agree that surcharges should be high enough to act as a disincentive. We will consult on the levels of the tariffs to be set in the regulations. We do not want to commit to setting the level in the Bill, but please be assured that we are going to take everything into consideration in the drafting of the regulations.

Amendments 51, 52 and 56 seem to be designed to take responsibility for setting the surcharge away from the harbour authorities. Harbour authorities have been given this duty given their proximity to operators as their customers. The tariff must be set in accordance with regulations, but harbour authorities are well placed to determine within those regulations what the surcharge should be in each case. However, we will consider this position further before Report.

Amendment 53 would remove the option for harbour authorities to keep the surcharge for any of their functions, and would mean that moneys would be transferred to the Secretary of State for disbursement . The Bill already allows moneys to be spent by the harbour authority for the purpose of shore-based welfare facilities. I can see that to make the Secretary of State an intermediary places great faith in the speedy actions of the Government in all cases, but there is a possibility that this transaction would put a significant administrative burden on the Department were it to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and would delay seafarers seeing the benefit of this money.

Amendments 54 and 68 would remove the harbour authority’s ability to spend moneys collected from the surcharge on the discharge of their functions. This is not intended to be a profit-making mechanism, but I am happy to review this function as intended before Report, because we need to ensure the surcharge is high enough to act as a disincentive.

Amendment 65 would remove the power to make regulations providing for the notification of a surcharge to the Secretary of State. The power to make regulations providing for the notification of the surcharge to the Secretary of State is an important mechanism to deter non-compliance. The mechanism of the Bill relies heavily on the monitoring of enforcement, and, as the imposition of the surcharge is a duty under the Bill, it is important that the Secretary of State is notified in this process.

I understand the importance of making it clear that it is the imposition of the surcharge that must be notified to the Secretary of State. I have thus tabled Government amendment 18, which provides for notification to the Secretary of State of the imposition of a surcharge. I hope colleagues are reassured by that.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for the explanation. The Minister said amendment 65; did he mean amendment 64 in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State to set regulations? Can the Minister have a quick look at that? It is a point that in the earlier clauses he had indicated he was going to look at again before Report, so that we have a consistent level set by the Secretary of State in regulation. Could the Minister clarify that?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Member is quite right. I should have been referring to amendment 64. What I was referring to in that section was Government amendment 18, which relates to Opposition amendment 65. I am about to come on to amendment 64; I did try to reference the hon. Member’s comments earlier, but I will come on to them now.

Amendment 64 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out a national tariff of surcharges, as I indicated earlier, removing any role for harbour authorities in setting surcharge tariffs. The surcharge is an important mechanism to deter non-compliance, and the Government consider it reasonable and proportionate for harbour authorities to play some role, alongside the national tariff setting under clause 7. It is envisaged that a schedule of rates for the surcharge will be set by the harbour authority with reference to the estimated difference between the amount that seafarers are paid and the amount they would have been paid if they had qualified for national minimum wage. This is expected not to be an exact calculation, but to be based on estimates of the number of seafarers involved. The detail of how that will be worked out will be set out in regulations, and we will work closely with industry to ensure we get it right. It is important that surcharges are relevant to the circumstances of the service in scope, and harbour authorities are well placed to make that call given their proximity to services. We have, however, heard the concerns raised by the ports industry and others, so we will consider the matter further ahead of Report.

[Gavin Newlands]

On Government amendment 15 and the tariff of surcharge being at the discretion of harbour authorities, how much consideration has the Department given to the possibility of surcharge shopping and other conflicts of interests, both of which have been raised here and in the other place?

[Mr Holden]

That is a fair point. We have considered the matter, but we will be setting a national tariff in regulations following wide consultation, which will then be looked at by the individual harbour authorities. The cost implications of operators changing routes in order to shop around between what we expect to be minor cost differences mean that we do not expect it to be a particular issue.

Amendment 57 would allow for regulations setting a time limit under which an objection to a surcharge can be made. We think it is unlikely that there will be delays in objections to surcharges, but we are none the less happy to continue to consider that point ahead of Report, because it is important to get these things right and to have the right disincentives. We do not want to create strange situations that could act against seafarers’ interests.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

Amendments made: 14, in clause 7, page 5, line 32, leave out second “the” and insert “a”.

See Amendment 13.

Amendment 15, in clause 7, page 5, line 33, leave out from “regulations” to end of line 35.

This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 11(3) (see Amendment 34).

Amendment 16, in clause 7, page 5, line 37, at end insert—

“(6A) A duty to impose a surcharge is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 11(2)(a).

(6B) A harbour authority which fails to comply with a duty to impose a surcharge is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”

See Amendment 13.

Amendment 17, in clause 7, page 5, line 39, leave out paragraph (a).

See Amendment 13.

Amendment 18, in clause 7, page 5, line 43, after “notification of” insert “the imposition of”.

This is a drafting clarification.

Amendment 19, in clause 7, page 5, line 44, at end insert—

“(7A) Regulations may make provision requiring a harbour authority that has imposed a surcharge to notify the Secretary of State if so much of the period within which the surcharge must be paid as is specified in the regulations has expired without the surcharge having been paid in accordance with regulations under subsection (7)(d).”

See Amendment 13.

Amendment 20, in clause 7, page 6, line 6, at end insert—

“(10) In this Act, ‘surcharge’ means a charge under section (Imposition of surcharges: failure to provide declaration in time), (Imposition of surcharges: in-year declaration that is prospective only) or (Imposition of surcharges: operating inconsistently with declaration).”—(Mr Holden.)

See Amendment 13.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Questions to surcharges

Amendments made: 21, in clause 8, page 6, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).

This is consequential on Amendment 13 and the amendments relating to it.

Amendment 22, in clause 8, page 6, line 36, leave out subsection (7).

This is consequential on Amendment 13 and the amendments relating to it.

Amendment 23, in clause 8, page 6, line 41, leave out paragraph (a).—(Mr Holden.)

This is consequential on Amendment 13 and the amendments relating to it.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Refusal of harbour access for failure to pay surcharge

[Mr Holden]

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 9, page 7, line 19, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment imposes a duty on harbour authorities to refuse access in the circumstances set out in the bill (as opposed to giving them a power to do so).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 25 to 28.

Amendment 58, in clause 9, page 7, line 32, at end insert—

“(e) where there is need to provide crew with access to urgent medical or welfare facilities or undertake crew repatriation.”

Government amendments 29 and 30.

Amendment 70, in clause 9, page 7, line 32, at end insert—

“(3A) Where a harbour authority may not refuse access to a harbour under subsection (3), it may instead detain a ship providing a service to which this Act applies, provided that the conditions in subsection (1) are met.

(3B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the detention of a ship under subsection (3A).”

Clause stand part.

New clause 6—Detention of vessels for failure to pay surcharge—

“(1) A ship providing a service to which this Act applies may be detained by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section if—

(a) a harbour authority has imposed a surcharge on the operator of the service in respect of the entry into its harbour by any ship providing that service, and

(b) the operator has not paid the surcharge in accordance with provision made by or under this Act.

(2) It does not matter for the purposes of subsection (1) whether an objection has been made to the surcharge under section 8.”

[Mr Holden]

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

As currently drafted, clause 9 allows harbour authorities to refuse access to a harbour if an operator has not paid a surcharge as required in accordance with the Bill. The provision is intended to incentivise payment of surcharges and to make payment a condition of access to UK harbours. There are exceptions where a harbour authority may not refuse access: in cases of force majeure; where there are overriding safety concerns; where there is a need to reduce or minimise the risk of pollution; or where there is a need to rectify deficiencies on the ship.

[Grahame Morris]

The Minister is being very helpful. Will he list the categories that fall under, or explain how he would describe, “force majeure”? He mentioned a couple of categories. Is that an exhaustive list?

[Mr Holden]

I will happily provide the Committee with a full list ahead of Report stage. We are talking about serious incidents where life is at risk, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with further detail.

The method of communicating refusal of access will be set out in regulations. The clause provides that nothing in section 33 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 prevents refusal of access to a harbour under this section. Access can be refused, irrespective of whether an objection has been made under clause 8. This revision is a key tool in ensuring compliance with the policy intention of the Bill.

The amendment imposes a mandatory duty on harbour authorities to refuse access to a harbour, instead of a discretionary power to do so, as I mentioned earlier with regard to implementing the surcharges. As with those amendments to clauses 3 and 7, the reason for the amendment is to ensure the effective functioning of the Bill so that harbour authorities do not simply wait to be directed by the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The concern, and I am pleased to hear the Minister has some sympathy for it, is that we do not want seafarers caught in the middle of the bad behaviour of bosses. I appreciate that the provision to which he draws our attention relates to that, but will he further consider whether that needs to be broader to protect seafarers?

[Mr Holden]

Members on both sides of the Committee are raising a similar issue about welfare. As an additional safeguard, the Secretary of State has the power to direct a harbour authority not to comply with its duty to refuse access. That will ensure that access is not denied—this has to be in rare circumstances for the Bill to work—where it would cause damage by disrupting key passenger services and supply chains. There are rare instances in which the Secretary of State has an overriding power, but on the broad swathe of trying to provide welfare, our view is that that is covered already under clause 9(3).

[Gavin Newlands]

Will the Minister tell us what part of clause 9(3) would cover the welfare of seafarers? Clause 9(3)(a) is on force majeure and paragraph (b) is on overriding safety concerns—might it be that one?

[Mr Holden]

The Bill states that

“a harbour authority may not refuse access to a harbour—

(a) in cases of force majeure;

(b) where there are overriding safety concerns;

(c) where there is a need to reduce or minimise the risk of pollution;

(d) where there is a need to rectify deficiencies on the ship.”

Both force majeure and overriding safety concerns for the crew, as well as for the ship, would be covered.

Members can be reassured that the list of exceptions directly reflect the circumstances in which access to a port may be provided. Existing legislation— namely regulation 13 of the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2011, SI 2011 No. 2601— also covers this issue. I therefore think that the area of safety and crew welfare in exceptional circumstances is covered by legislation and the extra powers that are available to the Secretary of State.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Does the Minister think that clause 11(2), which contains the power for the Secretary of State to direct harbour authorities

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

might be relevant here?

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend is right; that is exactly what I referred to following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. We have the provisions under clause 9(3) and those under clause 11 on the directional powers of the Secretary of State. We have a belt-and-braces approach, which is why I do not think Opposition amendment 58 is required.

New clause 6 is also aligned with amendment 70 and is basically about whether ships can be brought in. The Bill provides for a voluntary compliance mechanism whereby the provision of equivalence declarations, and payment of surcharges if a declaration is not provided, are conditions of access to ports. If an operator chooses to neither provide a declaration nor pay a surcharge, it will be refused access.

If that were replaced by a power of detention by the MCA, as new clause 6 seeks to do, that would be a disproportionate and inappropriate mechanism. Detention of ships can carry significant costs to the ports and wider local authorities in relation not only to looking after them, but by blocking berths. For some small harbours, this can also be particularly challenging as it blocks other access to the port. That is not the case if ships are refused access.

I have heard concerns that refusal of access is unworkable as it might result in ships mid-passage being unable to dock. However, we do not expect the Bill to work that way in practice. By virtue of the requirement that harbour authorities request an equivalence declaration only when ships providing a service call at a UK harbour on at least 120 occasions in a year, all services captured are almost certain to be on short routes, and notification of refusal of access would take place before the ship has set sail from the port of origin.

As set out in clause 9, we will set out in regulations how the harbour authority is to communicate refusal of access. Once a harbour authority has imposed surcharges, the operator will be on notice that ships providing the service will be refused access to the harbour once the period for payment of the surcharge expires, if it remains unpaid. There is an additional safeguard regarding the Secretary of State’s powers of guidance in this circumstance.

We are satisfied that the compliance process of surcharges and refusal of access, supported by the enforcement powers of the MCA, is an appropriate and effective mechanism to incentivise payments. I hope that the new clause is withdrawn.

I also say to the hon. Member for Easington that, fundamentally, the business model of these operators is that they can get things in and off the ships. By stopping them getting access to the ports, we would disrupt a business model that, by design, is on a tight turnaround. They will not survive long if they are unable to get those things into ports quickly. This is also about driving compliance with the national minimum wage equivalent for seafarers, which is what we are trying to achieve. I urge the hon. Member not to press the new clause.

Amendment 24 agreed to.

Amendments made: 25, in clause 9, page 7, line 23, leave out “and”.

This is consequential on Amendment 26.

Amendment 26, in clause 9, page 7, line 24, leave out from “with” to end of line 25 and insert—

“regulations under section 7(7)(d), and

(c) the period within which the surcharge must be paid has expired.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 24 and is meant to clarify the circumstances in which refusal of harbour access is required.

Amendment 27, in clause 9, page 7, line 27, at end insert—

“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to any surcharge imposed under subsection (3)(a) or (4) of section (Imposition of surcharge: failure to provide declaration in time) which would, if paid, be required to be refunded under subsection (5) of that section.”

This amendment is consequential on the new clause to which it refers.

Amendment 28, in clause 9, page 7, line 28, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment 29, in clause 9, page 7, line 32, at end insert—

“(3A) The duty under subsection (1) is also subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 11(2)(a).”

This is consequential on Amendment 32.

Amendment 30, in clause 9, page 7, line 32, at end insert—

“(3B) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”—(Mr Holden.)

This is consequential on Amendment 24.

Amendment proposed: 70, in clause 9, page 7, line 32, at end insert—

“(3A) Where a harbour authority may not refuse access to a harbour under subsection (3), it may instead detain a ship providing a service to which this Act applies, provided that the conditions in subsection (1) are met.

(3B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the detention of a ship under subsection (3A).”—(Grahame Morris.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 31.

Amendment 59, in clause 11, page 8, line 2, after “may” insert—

“following consultation with relevant stakeholders”.

This amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders before giving guidance to harbour authorities as provided in clause 11(1).

Amendment 60, in clause 11, page 8, line 4, after “may” insert—

“following consultation with relevant stakeholders”.

This amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders before giving directions to one or more harbour authorities as provided in clause 11(2).

Government amendments 32 to 36.

Clause 11 stand part.

Government amendments 37 and 38.

[Mr Holden]

Clause 10 specifies that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, proceedings relating to offences under the Bill will be prosecuted by the Secretary of State. In practice, the Secretary of State will do so through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. In Scotland, all criminal prosecutions are brought by the Lord Advocate.

This provision ensures that there is a clear and consistent process for the prosecution of offences under the Bill, and that such proceedings are handled by the appropriate Government agency. The clause is a critical component of the Bill’s enforcement mechanism and it will help to ensure compliance with its provisions.

Clause 11 as drafted will give the Secretary of State the power to give guidance to harbour authorities on how to exercise their powers under the Bill. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to issue directions to harbour authorities, requiring them to exercise or not exercise their powers under the Bill or to exercise them in a particular way.

[Grahame Morris]

The Minister is being patient and I appreciate that. Will he clarify the difference between “guidance” and “direction”? I ask because, on an earlier clause, we agreed that harbour authorities will now have a duty rather than a power. I wonder whether the Secretary of State’s “guidance” is a weaker term than a “direction”. Will he explain the difference?

[Mr Holden]

As drafted, the Bill is weaker, and that is why we are replacing the provisions with a duty in all these areas, in order to strengthen the requirement. Whether, in some such areas, it was “guidance” or other wording, there will now be a “duty”. That makes the Bill harder, ensuring that the harbour authorities have to do things.

[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.

[Gavin Newlands]

I rise to speak to amendments 59 and 60, which, as the Committee will be pleased to hear, I can dispose of in fairly short order. On clause 12, I will speak to amendments on removing some of the Secretary of State’s untrammelled powers. That argument happens in just about every Bill Committee—certainly every Bill Committee that I am on—because scrutiny and accountability are a good thing. I know that it is out of fashion for Governments to willingly draft scrutiny into legislation these days, but amendments 59 and 60 seek a stakeholder consultation before the Secretary of State can direct harbour authorities, which would provide for an additional layer of scrutiny.

A requirement on the Secretary of State to consult will help to ensure the openness and transparency of the Secretary of State’s actions. Imposing a duty to consult will ensure that any guidance is exposed to critical comment from stakeholders, which may improve said guidance. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that the power in clause 11 was “a completely open-ended power”, and that the whole Bill could therefore be modified by directions that are not subject to any form of parliamentary scrutiny.

The Government accepted that argument in the other place in relation to clause 3 and amended it appropriately, so I would be very keen to hear the Minister’s explanation of why the same principle is not applicable to clause 11, taking into account that, in responding to the points about the powers to direct in clause 11, Baroness Vere said:

“We have looked very carefully at the powers of direction for the Secretary of State in Clause 11. We have concluded that to remove them would significantly reduce the effectiveness of the Bill. These powers of direction form an important part of the compliance mechanism under the Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 2022; Vol. 824, c. 1513.]

Our amendments do not seek to remove the powers, merely to add a layer of scrutiny. [Interruption.] I slow down as I am about to conclude, to allow the Minister to get back to his seat. What could possibly be wrong with an additional layer of scrutiny?

[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

[Gavin Newlands]

I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 12, page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations made by a Minister of the Crown under any of the following provisions may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament—

(a) section 3 (power to request declaration);

(b) section 4 (nature of declaration);

(c) section 7 (imposition of surcharges);

(d) section 9 (refusal of harbour access for failure to pay surcharge).

(3A) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations made by a Minister of the Crown under any provision of this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

This amendment ensures that regulations under clauses 3, 4, 7 and 9 of the Bill are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

Clause 12 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide further details on the implementation of the Bill’s provisions. The regulations made under the legislation will be subject, as it stands, to the negative resolution procedure. The regulations may make different provisions for different cases, for example to take account of different types of ship services, such as freight ferries and container ships, and different non-qualifying seafarers—for example, there may be different surcharge rates according to age. The regulations may also confer discretion on specified persons and contain consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provisions. This provision gives the Government the flexibility to adapt the regulations as needed to ensure that the Bill’s provisions are effectively implemented and to achieve the Bill’s policy objectives as quickly as possible.

Amendments 61 and 66 seek to ensure that regulations under clauses 3, 4, 7 and 9 are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, rather than the negative resolution procedure as currently. We expressly considered why it is appropriate that each regulation-making power was negative in our delegated powers memo, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise any concerns about the procedure for the remaining regulation-making powers in the Bill. Indeed, the only regulation-making power that the Committee recommended be subject to the affirmative procedure has now been removed from the Bill.

Although we have tweaked certain regulation-making powers, we do not consider that this changes the appropriateness of the negative procedure, and we will be providing a supplementary delegated powers memorandum for the Committee to consider in due course. Switching to the affirmative procedure is not a good use of parliamentary time and would slow down the implementation of the Bill. I request that the amendments be withdrawn so that we can get on with protecting seafarers as quickly as possible.

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank the Minister for that response. Surely it is for Parliament to decide the best use of parliamentary time. I think we have let the Minister off with enough this afternoon, so I will push the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 41.

Clause 15 stand part.

[Mr Holden]

I will be very swift, because this is very much just definitions and terms. Clause 14 provides definitions of terms used throughout the Bill to ensure clarity and consistency in the interpretation of its provisions. The definitions will help to ensure that the Bill is applied consistently and coherently, and will facilitate its effective implementation. Clause 15 provides for the extent, commencement, and short title of the Bill. Amendment 41, in my name, removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords and is a purely procedural matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Extent, commencement and short title

Amendment made: 41, in clause 15, page 10, line 1, leave out subsection (6).—(Mr Holden.)

This removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration

“(1) The operator of a service to which this Act applies is guilty of an offence if—

(a) the operator provides a harbour authority with an equivalence declaration in respect of the service for a relevant year, and

(b) subsection (2) or (3) applies.

(2) This subsection applies if the equivalence declaration is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and—

(a) the service is operated inconsistently with the declaration at the beginning of the relevant year, or

(b) at any later time during the relevant year the service starts to be operated inconsistently with the declaration and the operator fails to notify the harbour authority within four weeks of—

(i) the fact that the service has started to be so operated, and

(ii) the time when it started to be so operated.

(3) This subsection applies if the equivalence declaration is provided during the relevant year and—

(a) at the time the declaration is provided the service is being operated inconsistently with the declaration, or

(b) at any later time during the relevant year the service starts to be operated inconsistently with the declaration and the operator fails to notify the harbour authority within four weeks of—

(i) the fact that the service has started to be so operated, and

(ii) the time when it started to be so operated.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction—

(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or

(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”—(Mr Holden.)

This is connected with the group of amendments introduced by Amendment 1. It provides for an offence of acting inconsistently with an equivalence declaration, in place of the offence in clause 3(5) and (6). It caters for the fact that a declaration may be provided before, during or after the year to which it relates.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Imposition of surcharges: failure to provide declaration in time

“(1) This section applies if—

(a) a harbour authority requests the operator of a service to which this Act applies to provide the authority with an equivalence declaration in respect of the service for a relevant year, and

(b) the operator does not provide an equivalence declaration in the prescribed form and manner before the end of the prescribed period.

(2) If the prescribed period expires before the beginning of the relevant year, the harbour authority must impose a charge on the operator of the service in respect of each occasion when a ship providing the service enters its harbour between—

(a) the beginning of the relevant year, and

(b) whichever is the earlier of—

(i) the end of the relevant year, and

(ii) the time when the operator provides the authority with an equivalence declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year in the prescribed form and manner.

(3) If the prescribed period expires during the relevant year, the harbour authority must—

(a) impose a charge on the operator of the service in respect of each occasion when a ship providing the service entered its harbour between—

(i) the beginning of the relevant year, and

(ii) the end of the prescribed period, and

(b) impose a charge on the operator of the service in respect of each occasion when a ship providing the service enters its harbour between the expiry of the prescribed period and whichever is the earlier of—

(i) the end of the relevant year, and

(ii) the time when the operator provides the authority with an equivalence declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year in the prescribed form and manner.

(4) If the prescribed period expires after the end of the relevant year, the harbour authority must impose a charge on the operator of the service in respect of each occasion when a ship providing the service entered its harbour during the relevant year.

(5) But charges imposed by a harbour authority under subsection (3)(a) or (4) must be refunded if—

(a) at any time after the end of the prescribed period the operator provides the authority with an equivalence declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year in the prescribed form and manner, and

(b) the declaration is within section 4(1C) or (1D).

(6) For the purposes of this section, in relation to an equivalence declaration which an operator of a service is required to provide—

‘prescribed period’ means the period within which the operator is required to provide the declaration in accordance with regulations under section 3(4)(za);

‘prescribed form and manner’ means the form and manner in which the operator is required to provide the declaration in accordance with regulations under section 3(4)(a) and (b).”—(Mr Holden.)

This and the following new clauses set out the circumstances in which surcharges must be imposed. In summary, surcharges are to be imposed when an equivalence declaration is not provided in time (this new clause); when a declaration relates only to part of a year (NC3); or when a service is operated inconsistently with a declaration (NC4).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Imposition of surcharges: in-year declaration that is prospective only

“(1) This section applies if—

(a) a harbour authority requests the operator of a service to which this Act applies to provide the authority with an equivalence declaration in respect of the service for a relevant year,

(b) the operator provides the declaration during the relevant year in accordance with regulations under section 3(4), and

(c) the declaration is within subsection (1B) of section 4 (and not also within subsection (1C) of that section).

(2) The harbour authority must impose a charge on the operator of the service in respect of each occasion when a ship providing the service entered its harbour between the beginning of the relevant year and the time the declaration was provided.”—(Mr Holden.)

See NC2.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Imposition of surcharges: operating inconsistently with declaration

“(1) This section applies if—

(a) the operator of a service to which this Act applies has provided a harbour authority with an equivalence declaration in respect of the service for a relevant year, and

(b) either—

(i) the operator notifies the authority that at a specified time after the declaration was provided the service was, or started to be, operated inconsistently with the declaration, or

(ii) the authority has reasonable grounds to believe that, at a time after the declaration was provided, the service was, or started to be, operated inconsistently with the declaration.

(2) The harbour authority must impose a charge on the operator in respect of each occasion when a ship providing the service entered or enters the harbour between—

(a) the time mentioned in subsection (1)(b)(i) or (ii), and

(b) the end of the relevant year.

(3) But if after the time mentioned in subsection (1)(b)(i) or (ii) the operator provides the harbour authority with a fresh equivalence declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year, the authority must not impose a charge under this section in respect of an occasion when a ship providing the service enters the harbour after the fresh declaration is provided (unless this section applies again by reference to that or a later declaration).”—(Mr Holden.)

See NC2.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Implementation and monitoring

“(1) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the implementation of, and monitoring of the effects of, this Act.

(2) The report must include—

(a) an assessment of the impact of this Act on—

(i) roster patterns,

(ii) pensions, and

(iii) wages of seafarers;

(b) a statement as to whether further legislation will be introduced by the Government as a result of the findings of the assessment under paragraph (a);

(c) a strategy for engaging with trade unions for the purposes of monitoring the implementation of this Act, including in reference to conventions of the International Labour Conference;

(d) a strategy for monitoring the establishment of minimum wage corridor agreements with international partners of the United Kingdom, insofar as any such agreement ensures that any non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated for UK work at a rate that is equal to or exceeds the rate that would otherwise be required under this Act;

(e) an assessment of the interaction between this Act and existing international agreements or international maritime law, including reference to any litigation that has arisen as a result of this Act.

(3) The report must be laid before each House of Parliament.”—(Mike Kane.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

I will explain what I want to ensure even if we cannot get the changes that we want in the Bill in relation to 52 days instead of 120 days—that provision is taking out a whole lot of seafarers who we were hoping would be covered by the Bill. To be fair, 52 days was in the initial iteration of the Bill, but it was subsequently taken out. The very least that we can ask for is to have some monitoring of the effectiveness of the measures that the Minister assures us will address the issues that we are all concerned about.

[Mr Holden]

I will write to the hon. Member for Easington on the specific issue of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. I will start now by saying that there have been some strong and robust improvements from this Bill, not the least of which is the imposition of a duty on the harbour operators, which I think goes a long way to addressing many of the concerns expressed at earlier stages by hon. Members.

I would like to reflect on a couple of comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. She mentioned the bilateral agreements and how important they are. With us legislating in this way and other countries now starting to look to the legislation for their own societies, perhaps the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North will reflect on how it is Britain leading the way in this space—a little.

In terms of the Laffer curve, I did not think I would see my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East perhaps come out on the same side of things, but they do seem to have reflected a general, cross-party consensus that it is important to act in the best interests of working Britain. That is entirely what this legislation is designed to do.

Regarding fire and rehire, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members but is outside the scope of this Bill, I want to put it on record that BEIS will be launching a consultation and code of practice on fire and rehire shortly.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Can the Minister tell the Public Bill Committee how many consultations and letters BEIS has issued about fire and rehire? There is cross-party agreement in this House about what the problem is, so why do the Government have to take forward yet another consultation on it?

[Mr Holden]

I do speak for the Government but, on the specifics of what BEIS has been up to, I urge the hon. Member to speak to a BEIS Minister. But I do understand the broad thrust of his point. Where we are taking action here today is regarding seafarers.

The hon. Member makes quite an important point: how many consultations and reports can be had? The Opposition are currently proposing two more reports in their new clauses 5 and 7, both of which seek to legislate for the Government to produce a report. The first seeks to legislate for the Government to produce a report within six months of the Bill being passed on its implementation and monitoring. A number of the points that are sought to be included in such a report are well beyond the scope of the Bill. As hon. Members have said, the Bill is focused very much on the remuneration of seafarers who do not qualify for the national minimum wage. Six months after the Bill has been passed, there will be little to report on—hopefully very little indeed, as people will be complying with it. Indeed, the Bill will not be brought into force until secondary legislation is in place, and it is not expected that that will be the case within a short space of time after the Bill has passed.

Let me turn to the detail of the new clause, in particular subsection (2)(a). As a matter of course, we will be conducting a post-implementation review of the Act within five years of it being passed that will cover pensions and pay, as covered in the impact assessment. In any event, pensions and roster patterns are outside the scope of the Bill, and any effect on rostering would be indirect and challenging to distinguish from other factors.

Subsection (2)(b) goes beyond the implementation and monitoring of the Bill itself, and is therefore out of scope. We do not have plans to legislate further than is necessary, but that does not mean that we will not take action on areas beyond the matter of minimum pay, which we all know is not the only aspect of seafarer welfare that requires attention. As hon. Members have mentioned, as part of the nine-point plan, a new seafarers’ charter will be launched as a voluntary agreement, which aims to improve long-term employment and welfare conditions for seafarers. It covers a far wider range of employment protections than is currently covered by the Bill.

[Gavin Newlands]

The Minister confirms again that the seafarers’ charter, when it is published, will be voluntary. Does he think that P&O Ferries and other operators—perhaps Irish Ferries—will sign up to the charter?

While I am on my feet, I forgot to say in my earlier contribution that I also add my thanks to everyone on the Committee, given that this is my last contribution on the Committee. I thank the team, the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, Hansard and of course yourself, Ms Harris, and your glamorous assistant this afternoon, Mr Davies, who chaired us so ably this morning.

[Mr Holden]

I hope that people do sign up. The entire aim of the Bill is not to have people being fined but to drive best practice, so I hope that, in time, operators that have not operated in a positive way towards employees in the past, in a way that we would like to see, will sign up.

[Karl Turner]

The Minister must accept that, when we consider the shocking and utterly disgraceful behaviour of P&O Ferries, companies such as that—and Irish Ferries, which I respectfully submit is equally as bad—will not do anything if it is just a “hope”. We need to put things in statute to force these bad employers to behave in a way that is acceptable. That is the truth of it. Hoping is not enough; unlimited fines are necessary as well.

[Mr Holden]

As the hon. Member will know, we are indeed legislating, but we are looking at the seafarers’ charter. The Government are not opposed to looking at this again if the voluntary charter is not successful, but it steps in the right direction. We will see how it plays out. I do not want to see a race to the bottom; I want to see standards rising, and we think that the voluntary charter will be a step in that direction. We have had to legislate in order to deliver another element of what we are looking to do.

[Karl Turner]

The analogy for fining a company such as P&O Ferries 2,500 quid is a bit like slapping a parking ticket on the windscreen of a Bentley for parking in a disabled bay. They are just laughing at it. In reality, the fines need to be punitive. They need to be threatening and to make the company realise that if it behaves in this intolerable, disgraceful manner, it will be fined savagely and brought to justice. That is the only way we will get the results that the Government want—I agree that the Government intend to do the right thing, but we need the punitive tool to make it happen.

[Mr Holden]

I appreciate exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I think we have strayed a little from new clauses 5 and 7.

The scope of the Bill is limited to ensuring that seafarers are paid the equivalent of the UK national minimum wage and it is not concerned with broader relationships. Furthermore, there is no requirement for crews to be unionised, so it would be an unusual requirement to put so much focus on that, as the new clause proposes. That does not mean that the Government are not looking to work with the unions, as we have done throughout the process and will continue to, as we look at the regulations to come.

The requirement to publish a strategy for monitoring the establishment of corridors would also be out of the scope of the Bill. In any event, it would be inappropriate and potentially counterproductive to provide a running commentary on live negotiations with international partners, such as those with the French Republic, which I mentioned earlier.

On proposed subsection (2)(e), we do not consider that the proposals in the Bill interfere with rights and obligations under international law, including the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. We therefore we do not deem it necessary to state as such in the Bill, or to have an obligation to assess the interaction between international law and the Bill on the face of the legislation.

Measures taken under the Bill will not interfere with the right of innocent passage, so as to breach the obligations under UNCLOS. The Bill requirements will apply and be enforced only as a condition of entry to UK ports in which the UK has jurisdiction over visiting ships, and where the right of innocent passage does not apply. Vessels visiting a port are not in innocent passage and not merely passing through territorial sea, so associated restrictions on the exercise of jurisdiction as set out in UNCLOS do not apply.

The measures that may be taken under the Bill can be applied only to a narrow subset of services with a close connection to the UK: services on a regular scheduled service, determined by clear, objective criteria—for example, services for the carriage of persons or goods by ship between a place in the UK and a place outside the UK that will have entered the harbour on at least 120 occasions in the period of a year. Given the huge number of additional areas that the new clause would bring in scope, I cannot accept it.

New clause 7 would require an assessment of the impact of the Bill

“on the remuneration of seafarers”

and also whether there is any evidence that, as a result of the Bill,

“seafarers have been dismissed and re-engaged on lower wages at or closer to the National Minimum Wage”

within one year of the Bill being passed. This is simply not feasible. Again, one year after the Bill receives Royal Assent would be far too early to see the real impact. I have already made the point that we will naturally be looking at the legislation five years after implementation. Also, as I have said, there will already be a delay between Royal Assent and the Bill becoming fully operative.

In any event, it is not necessary to include that as a requirement on the face of the Bill. As a matter of course, we will conduct a post-implementation review. I hope I have provided colleagues with enough reassurance to withdraw new clause 7 with confidence.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. This new clause would provide an actual deterrent to prevent other bad employers from copying what happened with P&O Ferries. I can see that I am testing the patience of the Chair, so I am going to conclude there. Thank you for your indulgence, Ms Harris.

[Mr Holden]

Just before we finish, I want to say that it is a pleasure to have served under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Harris. We are both virgins on the Bill Committee Front Benches in our respective ways, under the supreme guidance of Mr Davies, which has been superb.

The new clause would create criminal offences for directors of companies operating a service to which the Bill applies where the service is operated inconsistently with an equivalence declaration or the operator has failed to comply with a request for a declaration. While I understand and share the anger against some of the bosses who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover mentioned, carry out such underhand employment practices, introducing such offences to the Bill would not improve its effectiveness. There is already a robust compliance mechanism that will provide a severe disincentive against operators that pay less than the national minimum wage equivalent.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

This is the Seafarers’ Wages Bill, and I think we all agree, across the House, that further action and other Bills are needed. However, this Bill will be a disincentive to companies that think they can act improperly and take on cheap foreign labour rather than looking after staff on a proper minimum wage or more. That is exactly what the Bill is meant to do.

[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.

[David Linden]

I am not sure that is the case, given that Peter Hebblethwaite can continue to act with impunity and had a promotion recently.

I will not seek to make this party political; I have been tempted to in the past, but I will not. I was interested in the point the hon. Member for Dover made in an exchange that was probably the hottest point of our proceedings today. I offer a hand of friendship; I will act as the Cilla Black of Parliament and bring us all together. If the hon. Lady says that she appreciates the sentiment behind new clause 9 but wants it to go further, I am happy to work with her.

On that basis, I will not press the new clause to a Division in Committee, but I ask the hon. Lady to join me for a cup of tea at some point to help me look at how to strengthen it. Then we can bring it back for a vote on the Floor of the House during remaining stages. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Seafarers' Wages Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Richard Holden Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Davies, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members present for taking part. It was particularly gracious of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, and indeed the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, to note the complexities around international maritime law relating to this piece of legislation. I will address some of those points a little bit further when I address some of the amendments later on.

Broadly, the Bill will play an important role in improving seafarers’ welfare and working conditions, and I am pleased that, today, we are taking another step towards it becoming law. There is broad support for the Bill, and I hope that during the course of our discussion, I will be able to address colleagues’ concerns and questions relating to the amendments. I have tabled several broader amendments in my own name: while they may appear great in number, the majority of them—as Members will see when we go through them—are consequential on a small number of changes to the Bill that will improve the functioning of the legislation.

To address hon. Members’ concerns, following on from our continued stakeholder engagement, particularly as we develop our secondary legislation, we have identified some areas of the Bill that would benefit from the improvements made by our amendments. As hon. Members have said, the Bill was introduced at pace to respond quickly to P&O’s disgraceful treatment of its seafarers. It is right that we continue to listen to stakeholders and examine how the Bill will function, and I make no apology for taking every opportunity to ensure the right outcome for seafarers.

Clause 1 sets out the services to which the Bill will apply, namely services for the carriage of persons or goods by ship, with or without vehicles, between a place outside the United Kingdom and a place in the United Kingdom. In other words, the Bill applies to international services, as the majority of seafarers on domestic services between places within the UK will be entitled to the UK minimum wage under existing legislation.

[Grahame Morris]

I recognise that this is a complex piece of legislation and that trying to understand its finer points is quite testing, but could I seek a point of clarification in relation to apprentices? As I am sure the Minister will recall, when Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive of P&O Ferries, dismissed those 800 seafarers, he also dismissed the apprentices. Will the Minister indicate whether the wage bands in the UK national minimum wage, to which clause 2 refers, will apply to apprentices as well as the hundreds of directly employed seafarers? The apprentice wage is £4.81 per hour, which does not seem like a princely sum to me.

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. The banding is an issue that we will address fully through the UK national minimum wage equivalence in the regulations that will come forward at a later stage. We intend for it to mirror the national minimum wage in the UK, and will set that out through secondary legislation. There are exemptions for services provided by fishing vessels and services for the purpose of leisure or recreation, in line with other maritime employment legislation and to account for the different remuneration practices in those areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

I do not mean to be picky, but can I just point out a contradiction? The scope of the Bill covers seafarers who are working on the continental shelf on oil and gas installations and the servicing of those, but not seafarers who are in the offshore wind turbine energy sector or those working on the continental shelf. It seems a contradiction to leave out that whole section of seafarers.

[Mr Holden]

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

[Gavin Newlands]

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

[Mr Holden]

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

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

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for bringing forward this important Bill. We in Ynys Môn, like others across the UK, were very shocked by the actions of P&O in Q1 last year. Holyhead is the second busiest ro-ro port in the UK, and Stena is one of the island’s largest employers. It is working with the Isle of Anglesey County Council on its freeport bid.

I wanted to sit on this Bill Committee because Anglesey is known as energy island. We have a significant amount of renewable energy. We have Morlais and Minesto, as well as BP Mona and BP Morgan looking at offshore wind. The Bill is focused on improving protections and welfare for seafarers, which is important in these challenging times, and is particularly important for Anglesey, which certainly needs investment in apprenticeships and skills. In terms of this amendment, will the Minister confirm that those who are looking to invest in the renewable sector and in ports can be reassured?

[Mr Holden]

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

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

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

as defined in clause 1—

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gavin Newlands]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Power to request declaration

[Mr Holden]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 44, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, leave out “the harbour” and insert “any UK Harbour”.

Amendment 45, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, leave out “120” and insert “52”.

Government amendments 2 to 6.

Amendment 46, in clause 3, page 2, line 23, leave out “the harbour authority” and insert

“all relevant harbour authorities to which the declaration is applicable”.

Clause 3 stand part.

Government amendment 7.

Amendment 47, in clause 4, page 3, line 6, at end insert—

“(c) pension and other payments to be made that formulate a part of seafarer remuneration in relation to a service to which this Act applies.”

Amendment 62, in clause 4, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(c) provision prohibiting deductions from remuneration for accommodation costs, food or other entitlements.”

Amendment 49, in clause 4, page 3, line 16, at end insert—

“(5A) The national minimum wage equivalent must not be adjusted to account for accommodation, food, or other items exempted from being charged to seafarers under international convention”.

This amendment will mean that deductions cannot be made for food, accommodation or other exempted items under convention and will facilitate future changes being made with respect to changes in permissible deductions.

Clause 4 stand part.

Amendment 39, in clause 14, page 9, line 13, at end insert—

“‘equivalence declaration’ has the meaning given by section 3(2);”.

See Amendment 1.

Amendment 40, in clause 14, page 9, line 25, at end insert—

“‘relevant year’ has the meaning given by section 3(4A);”.

See Amendment 1.

Clause 13 stand part.

Government new clause 1—Offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration.

[Mr Holden]

As currently drafted, clause 3 confers on harbour authorities the powers to provide that the operator of a service within scope of the Bill provides a national minimum wage equivalence declaration. The nature of the declaration is set out in clause 4, so I will address it when we turn to that clause, but it is essentially a declaration to the effect that they pay any seafarers on board who do not qualify for the national minimum wage at least the national minimum wage equivalent for the time that they worked in the UK or its territorial waters.

A harbour authority may not request an equivalence declaration in respect of any year unless it appears to the authority that ships providing the service will have used the harbour on at least 120 occasions in that year. Clause 3 also includes a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the form of the national minimum wage equivalence declarations and the manner in which declarations are to be provided. Finally, it makes it an offence for an operator to operate a service inconsistently with the declaration and fail to inform the harbour authority within a certain period.

Clause 4 sets out the nature of an equivalence declaration. As it stands, subsection (1) provides that an equivalence declaration in respect of a service to which the Bill applies is a declaration to the effect that either

“there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service”

or non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be paid at least the national minimum wage equivalent for their work on that service in the UK or its territorial waters.

The national minimum wage equivalent will be at an hourly rate specified further in regulations—the hon. Member for Easington asked about that earlier. Regulations may make provision for the hourly rate at which non-qualifying seafarers are remunerated in any period in respect of any work, which may include any provision referred to in subsections 2(2) to (6) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, or provision relating to currency conversion. Regulations may also make provision for whether, or the extent to which, a non-qualifying seafarer’s work in relation to a service is carried out in the UK or its territorial waters.

In making regulations under clause 4, the Secretary of State must

“seek to secure that a non-qualifying seafarer is…remunerated at a rate equal to the national minimum wage equivalent only if their remuneration is in all the circumstances broadly equivalent to the remuneration they would receive if they qualified for the national minimum wage.”

That essentially means that we will seek to ensure that the total pay that a seafarer receives for time worked in the UK and its territorial waters is, as a result of the regulations, no less than if they had qualified for the national minimum wage.

We will run a public consultation on the regulations, and my officials are working closely with stakeholders and officials in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to draft them. As the public consultation takes place, I hope that hon. Members will be able to see what happens.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The port of Dover is one of those directly affected and, given the situation in relation to P&O, which affected so many seafarers in my constituency, it is a particular concern. In relation to clauses 3 and 4, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could confirm that he will take into account the considerable concerns of port operators about how the declarations—with the regulations underpinning them—will be managed and administered, because that is not within the usual business of port operators; it is an exception to the way in which they ordinarily operate. I know—I say this on behalf of the port of Dover in particular—that although of course they will play their part in ensuring that seafarers have the right terms and conditions, they want to ensure that they know what they have to do and how they are supposed to do it, that there is no room for dispute and that they are given the support that they need to be able to administer this.

[Mr Holden]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gavin Newlands]

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

[Mr Holden]

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

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

Amendments 3 and 4, tabled in my name, abbreviate

“national minimum wage equivalence declaration”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gavin Newlands]

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

[Mr Holden]

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

[Grahame Morris]

I hope this intervention does not prejudice the fact that I would like to speak to amendment 67, which stands in my name and that of a number of colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Member for the first point he made, about the amendment creating a duty rather than a power. That is exactly why we have done this; hon. Members from across the House made the point, and I am glad that we have got there.

I am fully aware of the issue around level 4 and the levels of fines. I will write to the hon. Member about the specifics, and we can discuss them during the Bill’s later stages, but my understanding is that there were specific reasons behind that decision, related to different fine levels in different parts of the United Kingdom; I raised that issue myself in earlier discussions with officials. We will happily look at it again, because as the hon. Member has rightly said, I do not want it to be a lesser offence for the port operator to not comply with its duty than to comply with its duty. That is a very sensible and important point, and I will happily write to the hon. Member to explain why we have arrived at our position.

Opposition amendments 44 and 46 aim to change the applicability of the Bill from “the harbour” to “any UK harbour”, and from “the harbour authority” to

“all relevant harbour authorities to which the declaration is applicable”.

As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill refers to “the harbour” rather than “a harbour” in order to keep the focus on particular services calling between two specific ports. The scope of the Bill encompasses services calling at the harbour in question at least 120 times a year. In particular, the effective enforcement of the Bill relies on there being one harbour authority responsible for monitoring and enforcement of a service. Individual harbours may be able to anticipate that a particular service will call in that harbour 120 times in the year, especially if that service has done so in previous years or via volume of a new service. However, it would be very difficult for a harbour to anticipate whether a particular operator will have services to other harbours that would amount to 120 calls in harbours in the UK per year.

The amendments would also create confusion about which harbour authority should request an equivalence declaration, and which is therefore responsible for imposing a surcharge. For example, if an operator operated two services using the same ships interchangeably, with one calling at one port 60 times a year and another calling at another port 60 times a year, which would be responsible for requesting a declaration or imposing a surcharge?

--- Later in debate ---

We continue to believe, as the Government originally did, that calling at a UK port once a week is a sufficiently close tie between a seafarer and the UK economy. From experience, we know that rogue operators will do whatever they can to get round and exploit the rules. We should not let them. That is why we fully support amendment 45.

[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.

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Holden]

I have finished my comments already.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Requirement to Provide Information

[Mr Holden]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 5, page 3, line 22, after “is” insert “or at any time was”.

This is consequential on Amendment 7.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 9.

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 10 to 12.

Amendment 63, in clause 6, page 4, line 37, at end insert—

‘(6A) An inspector may request information from—

(a) an officer of Revenue and Customs, or

(b) Maritime and Coastguard Agency,

if they consider it necessary for either of the purposes specified in subsection (2), and the authority to which the request was made must respond within 14 days.”

Clause 6 stand part.

New clause 8—Report: evidence of nationality-based pay discrimination—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must produce and publish a report setting out any evidence of nationality-based pay discrimination against non-qualifying seafarers.

(2) The evidence referred to in subsection (1) must include, but need not be limited to, aggregated data drawn from—

(a) minimum wage equivalence declarations requested by harbour authorities;

(b) information provided in response to notices under section 5;

(c) evidence from inspections under section 6; and

(d) any other sources of information as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

[Mr Holden]

As previously, I will address the clauses and speak to the amendments, including those from the Opposition. Clause 5 allows the Secretary of State—in practice, operating through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—by notice to require operators to provide information for the purpose of establishing whether a service is being operated consistently with an equivalence declaration provided by the operator. It is an offence for an operator to fail to provide information required by the Secretary of State under this clause or to provide information that is false or misleading.

An offence under this clause is punishable on summary conviction by a fine in England and Wales, or by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The sort of information that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency may request under this clause may include, but is not limited to, payslips, seafarer employment agreements and payroll information.

Clause 6 empowers an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to board a ship in a harbour in the United Kingdom or enter any premises for the purposes of establishing whether a service is being operated consistently with an equivalence declaration, or of verifying information provided under clause 5. In practice, this will be an inspector from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which is responsible for enforcement in many areas in this sector and is the most appropriate agency for the job.

It is an offence for any person to intentionally obstruct an inspector in the exercise of their powers; to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement imposed by this clause, or to prevent another person from completing such a requirement; or to make a statement that the person knows is false or misleading, or recklessly make a statement which is false or misleading, in purported compliance with a requirement imposed under this clause. Such an offence is punishable on summary conviction by a fine in England and Wales, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

This clause, together with requests for information under clause 5, will allow the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to play an enforcement role in checking whether a service is being operated consistently with a declaration. In practice, this will be done through intelligence-based checks in the event of credible evidence suggesting a service may be being operated inconsistently with a declaration and random spot checks. It is important to distinguish the enforcement role from the harbour authority’s role in the compliance process, which is mostly administrative. Harbour authorities are not required to make inquiries as to whether a service is being operated consistently with a declaration.

Amendment 8, tabled in my name, is consequential on amendment 7 to clause 4, which allows for equivalence declarations to be provided before, during or after the year to which they relate and for declarations to relate to part of a year. Amendment 9 is a minor drafting change to abbreviate “national minimum wage equivalent declaration” to “equivalence declaration”, as discussed with respect to amendments 1, 3 and 4.

Amendment 10 to clause 6, tabled in my name, is consequential on amendment 7 to clause 4, which allows for equivalence declarations to be provided before, during or after the year to which they relate and for declarations to relate to part of a year. Amendments 11 and 12 to clause 6 are consequential on the abbreviation of “national minimum wage equivalence declaration” to “equivalence declaration”. In particular, amendment 12 changes the word “declaration” in clause 6(4)(c) to “statement”, so that this is not confused with the term “equivalence declaration”.

Opposition amendment 63 to clause 6 seeks to ensure that inspectors are able to access the appropriate information from Government agencies in order to exercise their enforcement powers. This is unnecessary, as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will be the relevant enforcement agency and so will already have access to its own information. We have discussed data access with His Majesty’s Customs and Revenue, and it is considered unlikely that it would hold relevant information on seafarers in the scope of the Bill, as they are not already entitled to national minimum wage. As such, we do not consider it necessary to include information-sharing provisions in the Bill, as the MCA is the relevant authority.

Opposition new clause 8 would require the Government to produce and publish a report setting out any evidence of nationality-based pay discrimination against non-qualifying seafarers. Under the Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011, limited nationality-based discrimination is permitted. Under the Bill, we will not have the relevant evidence to which the new clause refers. Nationality is not relevant to whether someone is a non-qualifying seafarer, so we do not intend for declarations to require operators to provide information relating to nationality. Such information would also not be requested by a notice under clause 5, as it is not relevant to whether the national minimum wage equivalent is being paid. The Government are conducting a post-implementation review of the Equality Act 2010, which will consider nationality-based pay discrimination. I request that the Opposition do not press the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

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

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

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

[Mr Holden]

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

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

[Gavin Newlands]

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

[Mr Holden]

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

[Gavin Newlands]

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

[Mr Holden]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With the leave of the Committee, I will put a single question on these amendments.

Amendments made: 10, in clause 6, page 4, line 7, after “is” insert “or at any time was”.

This is consequential on Amendment 7.

Amendment 11, in clause 6, page 4, line 8, leave out “a national minimum wage” and insert “an”.

See Amendment 1.

Amendment 12, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, leave out “declaration” and insert “statement”.—(Mr Holden.)

This is consequential on Amendment 1.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Imposition of Surcharges

[Mr Holden]

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 7, page 5, line 8, leave out subsections (1) to (4).

This is the first of a number of amendments and new clauses which, taken together, require harbour authorities to impose surcharges (as opposed to merely allowing them to do so) and set out the circumstances in which they must do so. The circumstances are related to the fact that equivalence declarations may be provided before, during or after the year to which they relate.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss 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 and 19.

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.

[Mr Holden]

I rise to speak to the Government amendments, the Opposition amendments, clauses 7 and 8 and Government new clauses 2 to 4.

As drafted, clause 7 empowers a harbour authority to impose a surcharge on an operator. The power applies in the event that the operator fails to provide an equivalence declaration under clause 3, or if it appears to the authority that the operator has committed an offence under clause 3(5). Where such a determination is made, the harbour authority may impose a surcharge on the operator on any occasion when a ship providing the service enters the harbour.

The amount of the surcharge is to be determined by a published tariff of surcharges set by the harbour authority in accordance with regulations made under the clause.

[Grahame Morris]

On that specific point, I am sure the Minister can clear up the issue I want to raise. The surcharge relates to ports and harbour authorities competing with one another. Will the surcharge be consistent or will it vary from one port and harbour authority to another?

[Mr Holden]

That will be clarified through the tariff regulations, which we will introduce. It will depend on the nature of the ship and the size of it, but we aim for consistency in terms of different vessels in different areas, and a tariff will be established.

The clause provides a power to make regulations that will make provision to—

[Grahame Morris]

rose—

[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.

Dartford-Thurrock Crossing: Annual Accounts

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

Under regulation 3(1)(d) of the Trunk Road Charging Schemes (Bridges and Tunnels) (Keeping of Accounts) (England) Regulations 2003, annual accounts for the Dartford-Thurrock crossing charging scheme are published today. The accounts relate to financial year 2021-22 and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS494]

M1: Junction 28

Richard Holden Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to respond to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher)—the best of Bolsover. He has raised some very important points, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who have helped the hon. Member for Bolsover champion improvements to junction 28 of the M1. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend and his ability to pull in colleagues that they are here to support him.

Junction 28 is an important intersection with the A38, connecting the communities of Alfreton in the west and Sutton-in-Ashfield and Mansfield in the east to the vital strategic road network. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is a passionate advocate for his constituency, and indeed for the wider region and all those areas that the last Labour Government—in fact, several Labour Governments—left behind for so long. I congratulate him on securing this debate. More broadly, he is clearly not only a fantastic political champion but a real local champion, getting Midlands Connect onside and achieving local cross-party support. That shows exactly the sort of MP he is, standing up for his constituents in Bolsover.

The M1 is Britain’s oldest and longest motorway. I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is possibly one of the most significant pieces of national infrastructure in our country. It is the spine of our country’s road network. It has connected north and south for more than half a century—long enough to have had the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield work on it. It will continue to play that vital role for decades to come. Therefore, the importance that the Government place on this junction cannot be understated, nor can its role in supporting national, regional and local development, particularly across both the Derbyshire and the Nottinghamshire areas.

I am sure we can all agree that reliable, resilient transport links can be a catalyst for enterprise and growth. That is why this Government have invested record amounts in our country’s strategic road network since the first road investment strategy was announced. RIS1 took place between 2015 and 2020 and invested £15.2 billion. RIS2, which we are currently in, has almost double that investment, at £27.4 billion I am very hopeful that, with the entreaties of Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, the Treasury will listen and ensure that we get extra funding in RIS3 from 2025 onwards.

Of the £24 billion currently being invested in this period, £12.5 billion is being spent on operation and maintenance—to answer to the questions posed by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss)—and the renewal of the existing network, including beginning the structural renewals and concrete road surface replacements where the network is reaching the end of its design life following its creation decades ago. Over £10 billion is being spent on improving the performance of the network, supporting the Government’s broader levelling-up agenda and underpinning national and regional growth.

It was an absolute pleasure to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield and for Bolsover about their positivity for their areas and about what they want to see for their communities. They want to see jobs and investment. They are not asking for handouts for the day to day. What they want to see is investment to deliver jobs and opportunities for the long term for their constituents.

Work is well under way to prepare for the third road investment strategy beyond 2025. Negotiations are literally happening over the coming weeks between the Secretary of State for Transport, Treasury officials and Ministers. As part of these preparations for the future network, we are seeking to identify ways to improve it and important schemes.

The case for improving junction 28 of the M1 is well understood, and the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and regional partners has been exemplary, with extensive parliamentary engagement to work with key stakeholders, such as the roundtable he hosted last year, which brought together businesses and local authorities to consider and strengthen the case for improvements. This work has been supported, as he mentioned in his speech, by the regional, sub-national transport body, Midlands Connect, which highlighted the scheme as an investment priority for the midlands within its strategic transport plan, and the strong local support for improvements to the junction.

As we plan for the future of the strategic road network, National Highways, as the network operator, is required to produce a series of strategies covering the country, which will inform its assessment of the current performance of the network and its future needs. Strategies review the performance, pressures and opportunities on each part of the network, and the issues associated with junction 28 and the potential interventions to alleviate congestion and improve safety will be considered principally in the London to Scotland east route strategy. As part of the process, National Highways has spent much of 2021 and 2022 engaging with vital local stakeholders in the region.

Using the evidence gathered as part of the development of the route strategies, National Highways has been conducting extensive analysis and preliminary study work on junction 28 already. This will assist its understanding of what options are feasible and also can address key safety concerns in the short term, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, among others. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has been party to this work as it has developed and has provided helpful insights to National Highways. I can confirm that a significant proportion of the preliminary study work will conclude in February. I encourage my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, as well as local stakeholders, to engage with National Highways to discuss its findings.

As I am sure my hon. Friend understands, considerable effort and work is required to develop solutions from the ground up, and when dealing with the significant sums involved for even a comparatively modest investment in the network, investment decisions cannot be taken in isolation. Rather, they need to be considered as part of the wider development of the road investment strategy.

The core principle of our strategy is to create a road network that is safe, accessible and reliable for all road users and that meets the needs of those who use it. Ultimately, final decisions on the balance of RIS3, the third road investment strategy, and possible enhancement schemes to be included in it will not be finalised until the road investment strategy is published in 2024, accompanied by the significant analytical work that has got us to that point. My hon. Friend has made a very important contribution to that today.

Perhaps junction 29 is for another Westminster Hall debate, as my hon. Friend suggested. I know that he enjoys seeing me almost as much as I enjoy seeing him, so I hope he will be successful in that venture. I urge him to write to me about his local road lowering project, because even if it is not something that the Department would involve itself in directly, I would be very happy to engage with local stakeholders to see if we can do more in that sphere.

I would like to close by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield and for Amber Valley for supporting him in this debate. I also thank him for his commendable efforts on behalf of his constituents, the region and the whole country. As someone who regularly drives from Westminster to County Durham, I can tell him that I have seen those queues on the M1 before weaving off further north and merging into the A1 as I head to my constituency. It is vital for the whole country and its connectivity, not just the region.

I want to make clear that the Government recognise the concerns regarding junction 28 and the many positive benefits of seeing it improved, as my hon. Friend highlighted, including its benefits-cost ratio and other factors. My hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover, for Ashfield and for Amber Valley have really shown their commitment to the long-term project that is levelling up the UK outside London via jobs, accessibility to education, training and skills. Transport, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield said, is a vital part of that. My hon. Friends epitomise the positive 2019 generation of Conservative MPs who want to make a real difference to their communities.

I will ensure that my officials work closely with National Highways as its study work concludes to understand the feasibility of options for the junction, and that all Members are fully engaged and kept up to speed with its progress. I encourage my hon. Friends and local stakeholders to continue to advocate for improvements as the investment plan for RIS3 develops over the coming year or so—not just for his constituents in South Normanton and Pinxton, but for the wider region and, in fact, the whole country.

Improving Driver Safety

Richard Holden Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for opening this debate on improving driver safety, and for her sensitive speech. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Robert.

I begin by offering my condolences to the bereaved families who are the driving force behind today’s debate: to Mrs Sharron Huddleston, who tragically lost her daughter Caitlin; and to Chris and Nicole, who are here in the hall, who lost their 18-year-old daughter Rebecca, both in road traffic incidents. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for mentioning her constituent, Emily Challen.

Sadly, as a constituency MP, I am no stranger to helping bereaved families in similar circumstances. I continue to support my constituents John and Karen Rowlands, whose son Andrew was killed when an acquaintance was able to purchase a car without even holding a driving licence, and drove it with tragic consequences for Andrew. To lose a child is the worst thing imaginable, and I commend all the families on their bravery and determination in wanting some good to come from their grief.

My right hon. Friend is right about road deaths being the greatest killer and greatest threat to the lives of young people, which is something the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and I have spoken about before. Any death or serious injury on our roads is unacceptable, and our deepest condolences go to all road collision victims and their families. I reassure right hon. and hon. Members here today that the Government take road safety for all road users very seriously. It is at the core of the Department for Transport’s agenda and is something that I am honoured to work on. I am committed to doing as much as I can to improve road safety.

[Mr Sheerman]

My intervention is merely to make a plea. When I was a very young MP, we introduced the compulsory seatbelt legislation and banned children from being carried in cars without restraint. Does the Minister agree that we have been a wonderful exemplar of good practice, but it is slipping a bit? There is not as much interest in Parliament as there used to be in road safety, and our figures, after plateauing, are getting a little worse. Does he agree that it is worrying that not wearing a seatbelt is a factor in 30% of deaths in cars?

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point, and he and I were both at the recent reception on that subject. The fact that 30% of deaths are related to seatbelts when it is compulsory to wear them is totally unacceptable. We have made great progress in this country, but we need to do more. He is right about plateauing, which I will address a little later in my speech. I am glad that hon. Members are present here today for this short debate. They are all committed to this issue, and I urge other hon. Members to join the hon. Member for Huddersfield and get involved in his campaigns.

In November in Portcullis House, I presented the annual Livia award, which was established in 1999 in memory of George and Giulietta’s 16-year-old daughter Livia, who was killed in Enfield by a driver who mounted a pavement while she was walking home. The award recognises excellence in road fatality or serious injury investigation and the contribution to the investigation through family liaison work by police officers in the Met. I learned about the challenges faced by officers in bringing to justice people who had been driving in a criminal manner, leading to the death or serious injury of others, and gained an insight into the dedication required to effectively support families who have suffered from bereavement because of a dangerous driver. As a constituency MP, I now know the importance of that family liaison.

In December, I was fortunate to spend a day with Sussex Police and to see at first hand its work on drink and drug enforcement, which is another important aspect of road safety, as part of their wider drink-drive campaign. In fact, the chief constable is the national lead on road safety, alongside their police and crime commissioner. The chief constable has a personal story, as her father was a victim of a road traffic incident when she was a teenager.

My constituency work, my work in the House and now my role as a Minister have all enabled me to gain a greater understanding of the operational and strategic challenges faced in this area. I am committed to ensuring that Government can support those who are affected and do everything we can to reduce incidents.

[Mr Sheerman]

Before the Minister concludes, may I remind him that Brake, which is based in my constituency, is a national organisation that supports victims of road accidents? I hope he will come to Huddersfield soon to meet the wonderful people who run that lovely charity.

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to mention Brake, which does great and amazing work. I am sure my officials have noted his request for a visit; they know I am keen to get out and about as much as possible, so I hope to be able to visit the hon. Gentleman in his constituency and meet the campaigners at Brake.

I am committed, as are the Government, to supporting families and, crucially, to making a difference to the number of deaths and serious injuries that occur in the first place. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield knows, I had the pleasure of attending the Project EDWARD—Every Day Without A Road Death—parliamentary reception with him to present the Government’s views and outline our keenness to act. I have learned a great deal from listening to other Members, and in his speech the hon. Gentleman highlighted the importance of seatbelt compliance in making a difference. I am grateful to him for being here today.

[Alicia Kearns]

We are rightly placing an emphasis on drivers. In discussions about road safety, a misplaced responsibility is often placed on roads rather than drivers, so it right that we are talking about how we make drivers safer. However, there are some junctions and roads that are inherently dangerous; one such road is the A52 at Bottesford in my constituency. The problem in rural constituencies, such as mine and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), is that decisions about whether to invest in safety upgrades to junctions depend on how many fatalities take place there. If the junction that is outside the small village of Bottesford were outside Loughborough, there would be far more accidents because there would be far more people using the junction. I know we have discussed this before, but would the Minister kindly look at taking rurality into account when deciding whether the number of fatalities is significant enough to invest in infrastructure and safety upgrades?

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I grew up in a rural area myself with a job, like those that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire mentioned, that finished after midnight and that I had to drive home from. I now represent a rural constituency, and this issue is a concern to my constituents. They want road safety—road traffic accidents are the biggest killer of young people in my constituency, as they probably are in everybody’s—but they also want the safe and sensible approach outlined by my right hon. Friend. As I move towards my concluding remarks, I will pick up on the details of what she and the family who are here today have proposed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton is right to point out that road safety is a particular issue in rural areas and we have to do more to make rural roads safer. That is why, as part of our consideration of the call for evidence on road traffic offences and their policing, we are considering testing all sorts of different proposals. One of them is about making not wearing a seat belt an endorsable offence, which should help to squeeze the very small number of people who do not wear seat belts. Given the potential for deaths and serious injuries, that is a major concern. It is especially a concern on some of our rural roads, where people think, “Well, there’s nobody else on the other side of the road, so I might be all right.”

Turning to the subject of the debate, we know that young drivers are massively over-represented in collisions, as my right hon. Friend made clear with the statistics. That is the case not just here in the UK, but around the world. Among OECD countries, road traffic crashes are the single greatest cause of death among 15 to 24-year-olds. As Members have mentioned, young drivers in the UK account for around 6% of licence holders, but around 22% of fatal and serious collisions—those statistics are from 2021. Fatalities among young drivers have fallen over the decades and are around half of what they were in 1990, but we are still seeing far too many young drivers killed—78 in 2021—and we have much more to do to address this issue.

Although the reductions are encouraging, we really are not complacent. A focus for the Government is to make roads safer for all users, but especially for new and novice drivers. This group was one of the four key road user groups outlined in the road safety statement in 2019, and it continues to be so. The Department’s broad aim for young road users is to improve road safety through technology, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, through the research that we are conducting at the moment and by developing better learning opportunities and targeted messaging for them.

We have made good progress with the actions set out in the road safety statement. We have commissioned research to explore the potential of the graduated learning scheme, which was awarded to the Driving Instructors Association. This is now a modular learning project that uses a comparative trial to assess whether a modular approach to learning is feasible to deliver, and whether it can improve novice driver competence and safety. The trial commenced in the spring of 2021, and the findings are expected later this year. I am sure that Members present will be very interested in the results.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

What form will the results of that survey take? Will there be a written ministerial statement? Will the Minister come to the House and tell people what the results are? Obviously, that is key to what action we take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

My right hon. Friend asks a very good question. I will write to her on exactly what form we are expecting the results to take, but I would certainly be delighted to address the House on this issue, because it is something I am particularly interested in. I will write to her, and perhaps we could do another Westminster Hall debate after that if there is not going to be a formal statement on the Floor of the House.

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency continues to ensure that the practical driving test allows for the assessment of candidates’ ability to drive safely and responsibly, and the agency has reviewed its national standards to ensure that they reflect what is required of safer and responsible drivers and riders. Its “Learning to Drive” publication was refreshed and published alongside the online driving record in 2020. Last year, refreshed guidance to help approved driving instructors to conduct mock tests was also published.

The pinnacle of our work on improving driver safety for young and novice drivers is, of course, the Department’s £2 million research project, Driver2020. Around 16,000 new drivers and 12,000 novice drivers have taken part in the project, which began in 2019 and trialled five non-legislative measures to help understand what works best to improve learning and pre-test experiences for young drivers. That is a huge number of young people to reach out to, and so far we have research involving guardians, with mentor agreement; mutually agreed driving restrictions, if applicable; a log book, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, to record the amount of time in different learning situations, including driving at night or on motorways; and a telematics-based app, to record and coach driving behaviour. My right hon. Friend mentioned some of those in her speech.

We are also providing extra classroom-based tuition to enhance young drivers’ learning, and extra hazard protection training to help young drivers understand risky situations on our roads. Members have mentioned the first 1,000 miles. From my personal experience, I know that driving in one type of road condition can be very different from driving in a totally novel one, so this is particularly important for young drivers.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

May I press the Minister on driving in different conditions? Is that intended to become a prerequisite prior to drivers being let loose on the roads?

[Mr Holden]

We are looking at the evidence and the research. We will see what works best, and that is what we want to do. Some things could be superb and the best thing to do; others might not be as suitable. When the research is published, we will be able to see what is most effective. It will probably be a combination of measures, but I do not want to prejudge the report.

[Mr Sheerman]

If we are to have good behaviour on the roads, we need laws to be enforced. Will the Minister talk to the Home Secretary about having more police on the roads? People do not see police cars on the roads any more.

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Member for making that point. Enforcement is obviously a major issue and it cannot be done just by automatic number plate recognition cameras. When I was down in Sussex recently looking at the impact the police are having on drink and drug driving, I saw that those enforcement issues are particularly important. It is about having more police, which the Government are putting in, but it is also about being able to get quick processing, particularly on drug driving, because the processing times can be longer than the charge period for some of these offences. It is a combination of different enforcement measures, but he is right to raise that issue.

As I mentioned, all the issues that are being looked at are potentially valuable tools in helping our young drivers as they embark on their lifelong road safety journey. Because of the pandemic, the research sadly had to pause. That is why we expect the final report to be published by the DIA later this year, and that will help to inform our young driver policy.

Turning to future work, the Department is working on the road safety strategic framework, which it also aims to publish in the spring. The framework will establish a safe system approach. As part of that, we are considering what might be appropriate and we are supporting indicators on casualty reduction. The key principle of the safe system approach is to recognise that people make mistakes and things go wrong. The approach accepts that responsibility is shared, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned, and that collisions are the result of a combination of factors, which can be mitigated. The road safety strategic framework will provide the structure needed to deliver a safe system approach effectively and efficiently. This approach is proven and accepted in many other sectors, including health and safety and public health. It has already been adopted as best practice in other countries, which have subsequently seen significant reductions in road deaths and casualties.

Safer road users are one of the five pillars of a safe system approach. Young and novice drivers will therefore feature in the framework, as well as rural road users, which hon. Members have mentioned. It is on rural roads that many of our young and novice drivers are tragically killed or seriously injured, often after they have had driving tests in suburban locations and then moved out on to rural roads in constituencies such as mine.

Safer roads and road signs form another of the safe system pillars. Since 2018, the Department for Transport has provided more than £100 million for the award-winning safer roads fund to improve the top 50 most dangerous roads in England, many of which are rural roads. Many in the first round of the scheme are now complete, and all of those in round two are under way. At some point, I hope that I can announce more of them, because they are important for improving specific junctions and roads. I hope that all this excellent work not only by the Department and DVSA, but in conjunction with research partners, TRL, the Road Safety Foundation, voluntary organisations and others, reassures hon. Members that the Department takes driver safety seriously. I look forward to sharing more of our future plans with hon. Members on all these different aspects in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Lifeboat Services: Search and Rescue

Richard Holden Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The words just quoted by the Opposition Front-Bencher, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), were very moving. I thank him for his contribution, and all hon. Members for theirs; in particular, I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for bringing this debate to the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who has done so much work on this issue, which is extremely important. The debate highlights the role of our dedicated lifeboat services, which seek to rescue any persons in distress or difficulty around the coast of the United Kingdom.

It is good to reflect a little on the Penlee lifeboat disaster, which the Opposition Front-Bencher brought up, and which we both mentioned on the 41st anniversary of the death of those men, just a few weeks ago.

During these challenging times, it is extremely important that we continue to support our lifesaving services, and recognise their contribution to search and rescue across the United Kingdom search and rescue region. I thank the hon. Member for Totnes for his dedication to the subject, and for his sterling efforts over the last few years to establish an association for independent lifeboats—those that operate at sea and inland—across the United Kingdom. As a result of hon. Members’ actions, for the first time, our independent lifeboats have the opportunity to form an association, which will support their operations. The contribution of our voluntary search and rescue services is often not considered until they are called into action to save lives, so I am grateful to hon. Members for raising the subject today. The point made by several hon. Members, about whether this type of debate could take place regularly, was particularly interesting.

I thank all those who fundraise for and support these charitable organisations in the way that hon. Members have described. That fundraising is absolutely vital; millions of pounds are raised every year. We have heard stories from many hon. Members about the impact of the RNLI on their families or their own life. I pay tribute to my great-uncle, John Clough, who left his entire estate to the RNLI when he passed away a few years ago. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the volunteers in our maritime search and rescue services, who have continued to provide lifesaving operations, often in the most challenging of conditions. I especially thank our brave volunteers in independent lifeboats, as well as those who volunteer for the RNLI and His Majesty’s Coastguard, who risk their life to save others at sea and around our coastline. The UK has one of the best water safety records in the world in large part because of their personal commitment and skill. As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, the need for search and rescue will always be there, and we need ensure search and rescue services are maintained. The conditions in which teams deploy are often challenging and potentially life-threatening, as hon. Members can imagine. I know all Members of the House will join me in thanking those who put themselves on the line.

Our volunteer lifeboat services have a long and proud history, spanning 200 years, of contributing to the safety of lives at sea, and their volunteer ethos is a cherished cornerstone of British society. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made a fantastic speech highlighting the understated heroism of those who put themselves on the line. The United Kingdom is also proud to have approximately 40 independent lifeboats that continue to provide life-saving services around the clock; they support our emergency services and protect the environment.

In 2022, HM Coastguard was proud to celebrate its 200th anniversary with events across the country. Our 3,500 volunteer coastguard rescue officers are proud to maintain a tradition of voluntary life-saving services, and to continue their traditional role in local communities across the country, as we heard from many Members today. It has been great to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) and for Moray (Douglas Ross), and from the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and many others about their local lifeboat services, or other lifeboat services that they wanted to recognise.

Our esteemed RNLI is recognised the world over for its service, and for its contribution to life saving and to search and rescue operations. However, as we have heard, we are fortunate to also have a large number of independent operators who are not part of the RNLI. Those operators provide vital life-saving services both at sea and in inland waters, as many hon. Members highlighted, and face significant challenges in maintaining their operations. Through the dedication and actions of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, the new National Independent Lifeboat Association has been formed. The NILA was formally launched at the emergency services show in September last year, and its intention is to support independent lifeboats and provide a cohesive voice for smaller organisations that continue to support search and rescue around the clock. I welcome the development, as do the Government, of the association; it will recognise the contribution of independent lifeboats, and provide ongoing support to charities—an important point mentioned by my hon. Friend.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

I have not only the RNLI but two independent lifeboats in my beautiful constituency, one at Pett Level and one in Hastings. Does the Minister agree that independent lifeboats, along with the RNLI, provide an invaluable service to our local communities and save thousands of lives every year, and that it is important to highlight the challenges they face, including with funding, public awareness and long-term support?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I could not agree more. I will come on to some of the ways the Government are trying to help independent lifeboats.

The coastguard has been working alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes to support and guide the development of the NILA, to enable independent lifeboats to apply to be represented on the UK search and operators group. That would enable those small, dedicated charities to contribute to discussions on shaping the future of our maritime and rescue services, which is vital.

[Jamie Stone]

I mentioned the East Sutherland Rescue Association. Clearly, my constituency is in a part of the United Kingdom that is far away, which means we can feel a little bit left out, but the new body is a brilliant way of making such associations feel that they are part of a much bigger whole.

[Mr Holden]

I quite agree. It was great to hear from the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr about how remote parts of the United Kingdom, such as Carmarthen Bay—although that is not as remote as parts of Caithness, where some of my family lived for many years—need to have a voice in a central organisation. The NILA is so important in bringing those voices together into a single voice, and recognising their broader contribution. I urge all independent lifeboat operators to join the association. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes for his support for the association, which has increased recognition of the role and dedication of independent search and rescue operators.

Our independent lifeboats and lifeguards, who are not part of the RNLI, continue to provide support to search and rescue operators around the coast and on our inland rivers, lochs and lakes, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), for Torbay, for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) made a particularly important point about water safety, and I thank him for his vital work on that. It is a major issue. Through the National Water Safety Forum and our partners, we reach millions of people a year with advertising and information campaigns. It is particularly important that we continue to do that as drowning is, sadly, still a major cause of death, especially among young people. The UK is proud to continue to support World Drowning Prevention Day, and to promote the selfless work of lifesavers across the UK and the world to prevent drowning and push further prevention strategies.

Our independent lifeboats are often not recognised, but they are run by dedicated volunteers and provide vital emergency services and lifesaving capability. They offer assistance to any person who may be in difficulty around our beautiful coast and countryside. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay made the important point that these charitable organisations rely on community organisation and voluntary support, which is at the core of a lot of what they offer. As mentioned, independent lifeboats operate across England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Jersey, and are dedicated to the appropriate tasking authority, which may ask for assistance in life-critical operations. Independent lifeboats, in common with all our search and rescue operations, are responding to an increasing number of call-outs, particularly following the pandemic, because members of the public have been holidaying in the UK and taking part in more adventurous leisure activities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes mentioned, support from the Department is very much there, and I urge him to write to the Secretary of State inviting him to come and see some of the independent operators.

I turn to a couple of the questions that have been raised. On VAT, fuel duty and the rescue grant fund, I will happily write to the Treasury about this issue, and I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes to do so as well. My office will write to him when we have a response from the Treasury. It is an issue that I know hon. Members are keenly aware of, but we will require further support to get to where we want to be.

Regarding recognition of His Majesty’s Coastguard rescue facilities, independent lifeboats operating at sea and in a coastal environment are required to meet the standards laid down in the rescue boat code, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay mentioned, in order to meet the appropriate construction and safety standards. However, I am pleased that, following feedback from independent operators, the RNLI and key stakeholders, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is undertaking a review of the code to modernise and simplify the requirements, which will assist our dedicated volunteers in continuing to support search and rescue operations. The MCA hopes to complete the review of the code in the early part of this year.

A presentation was held on the membership of the UK SAR in October 2022. Now that the NILA is fully established, membership applications would be welcomed, although I cannot confirm anything at this stage, as hon. Members will be aware. In some cases, independent lifeboats offer specialist skills that would support rescue and prevention activities, both in our cities and in remote inland locations, as hon. Members mentioned. Those operators continue to provide lifesaving operations during these particularly difficult times, saving hundreds of lives annually. I ask the House to join me in thanking them for their continued support for search and rescue services across the length and breadth of the UK.

I am very proud to have responded to the debate on behalf of the Minister responsible for maritime search and rescue, and I hope to have the privilege of meeting some of our wonderful volunteers and dedicated teams, who continue to rise to the challenge of providing lifesaving services, whatever the circumstances and whoever needs them. I finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay for raising this important subject, and all hon. Members who have taken part in a very worthwhile debate highlighting the vital search and rescue services.

Road Traffic Collisions Involving Cats

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. As the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) pointed out, Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and Members on both sides have made heartfelt speeches. I want to acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), who has had to leave early, on Gizmo’s law and the private Member’s Bill that he introduced. I am grateful to Members who have spoken in this debate on the subject of making it a legal requirement for drivers to stop and report collisions with cats. I also thank Olivia, and the thousands of people across the country who signed the petition that brings us here.

As a Back Bencher, I spoke out in support of microchipping in Westminster Hall less than two years ago. I reassure right hon. and hon. Members that the Government take road safety extremely seriously; it is at the core of the Department’s agenda, and any death or serious injury on our roads is unacceptable. Our deepest condolences go out to the victims of road traffic incidents and their families. A focus of the Government is to make roads safer for all users; that will in turn help reduce the risk to all animals on them. We must all be clear about the heartbreak that the loss of pets—particularly cats, as we have discussed—cause people. For many, it is like losing a family member, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) said. Other Members reflected on how, during the pandemic, in what was a particularly difficult time, pets, especially cats and dogs, were particularly important to people’s mental health and physical wellbeing.

The Department is working on the road safety strategic framework, which—to give the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) some assurance —we hope to publish in spring this year. That framework will be based on a safe system approach, and we are considering what supporting indicators on casualty reduction might be appropriate. The key principle in a safe system approach is to recognise that people make mistakes and things can go wrong. The approach accepts that responsibility is shared, and that collisions can be the result of a combination of factors that can be mitigated. The road safety strategic framework provides the instruction needed to deliver a safe system approach effectively and efficiently. That approach has been accepted in many other sectors, including health and safety and public health. It is already adopted as best practice in other countries that have gone on to make further significant reductions in road deaths and casualties. While Britain has some of the safest roads in the world, we can always do more, and we intend to do just that.

Let me quickly address an issue raised by the hon. Members for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough: I have been advised by officials that primary legislation, and not a simple statutory instrument, would be required to change the law in this area. However, if that does not prove to be the case, I will write to both hon. Members to clarify further.

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and for all he does on road safety. On stopping and reporting after an accident, is the Minister saying that the road safety review will specifically look at what parliamentarians have said today about adding cats to section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988? At the moment, it is not clear whether it will.

[Mr Holden]

I am happy to take that question back to the Department, and will write to my hon. Friend about that, as well as to the hon. Member for Gower. That is something that we need to look at urgently.

[Rehman Chishti]

I am most grateful to the Minister for clarifying that the question will be taken back to the Department. The Prime Minister said in his speech in January that the Government would look at doing things differently—at innovation, and at trying new ideas. Will the Minister look at amending the legislation, so that it does not simply deal with the value of the animal or whether it is wildlife, and so that its aim is to alleviate pain and suffering and ensure parity? That would be in line with the Prime Minister’s commitment, and with what has been said today.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that issue forward. It is an important issue, and I will take it back to the Department and write to him about it.

As I have been saying, we are looking at the holistic, best-practice approach that has been adopted in other countries, and that we have adopted for public health and health and safety legislation, in order to both minimise the impact of road traffic accidents on humans, and prevent further injury and accidents involving animals. For example, not that long ago, when I was in the Department as a special adviser, we brought forward some road signage designed to protect small mammals. The change is something that the Government are prepared to look at, but as I have said, primary legislation would be required.

I would like to speak more broadly on this issue, because Members have brought up different aspects of the legislation, including microchipping, which I would like to touch on.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Just to be clear, the Minister is saying that he is 100% sure that the change has to be made through primary legislation, so what exactly would he be getting back to us about, if that is not flexible?

[Mr Holden]

That is what I was advised, but if that is not the case, I will write to the hon. Lady and make it clear what can be done. My understanding at the moment is that primary legislation is needed.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

If the change can be made through secondary legislation, will the Minister take steps to bring that forward?

[Mr Holden]

If the change can be made through secondary legislation, we would have to look at that, but I am assured by officials that it has to be done through primary legislation. That would obviously require a significant piece of legislation to go through both Houses. It is not a quick fix. We then get into timetabling and all sorts of other issues well beyond my remit as a junior Minister. On whether the change can be made through secondary legislation, I will definitely write to the hon. Lady.

[Mrs Murray]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that if primary legislation is needed, Members may be able to bring forward a ten-minute rule Bill or private Member’s Bill that amends the Act?

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If primary legislation is needed, then the way to change the law could indeed be via a private Member’s Bill. Whether it would get Government support and time is a matter for others, but that would be a way to do it.

While we must do all we can to improve the safety of our roads, we must be careful not to make any decisions that could make things worse or have unforeseen effects in a rush to resolve concerns about how the law operates. Hon. Members from across the House have made important points about doing the right thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) gave the personal example of Stevie, and set out how she stepped in and did the right thing.

The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) also said that doing the right thing is particularly important. As hon. Members have pointed out, although there is no obligation to report all animal collisions on the road, rule 286 of the Highway Code advises drivers to report any collision involving an animal to the police; if possible, they should make inquiries to ascertain the owner of a domestic animal, so as to advise them of the situation.

As Members, including the hon. Member for Gower, have made clear, cats tend to roam unaccompanied and are likely to go out at night. Drivers may not realise that they have had a collision with a cat in some instances, as they are small animals, similar to rabbits or other wild animals that can cross roads late at night. There are also hazards associated with stopping to check whether animals are alive after people have knocked them over, especially with very small animals. A requirement to report road collisions involving a cat would be difficult to enforce, especially when, as hon. Members have made clear, Petplan suggests there might be hundreds of thousands of these incidents brought forward a year.

In 2021, there were 348 reported road collisions in which both an animal and a person were involved directly. That is just an animal and a person. If we were talking about hundreds of thousands of cases, there would be a huge extra impact and administrative burden, especially given the free-roaming nature of cats. It is for that reason that the Government do not plan at present to make it a legal requirement for drivers to stop and report collisions with cats, but I would like to go into what we are attempting to do in this space, because we recognise how painful it is for owners to lose a pet. I remember going home from school as a youngster and learning—this was when I first realised that animals could die—that my family dog had sadly passed away. I think we have all had that experience at some point in our life.

In the last few years, we have pushed microchipping. It is the best way of reuniting owners with pets that have been tragically killed, stolen, or had a variety of other issues. Since the introduction of compulsory microchipping for dogs in 2016, over 90% of the dog population has been microchipped. That has been particularly successful in increasing reunification rates for stray dogs.

As hon. Members from across the House have pointed out, we have a manifesto commitment to introduce compulsory cat microchipping, and we consulted on that last year. The consultation showed that there was well over 99% support for that measure, which is fantastic. I spoke about the issue in Westminster Hall a couple of years ago, and both my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned it. We are committed to introducing it, and we will lay the legislation for England before Parliament in the coming weeks. I hope that the devolved Administrations will follow closely, as this is a devolved issue in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I welcome the words of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). She has used her platform in this place to press for similar action in Holyrood and across the rest of the United Kingdom. I recognise that it is terribly sad when a cat is injured or killed on the roads, and it does not matter what side of the border it is on.

As the hon. Member for Gower mentioned, National Highways already requires its contractors to record details of any cats or dogs found on the roadside, and the location in which they were found. Some of that is due to the importance of strategic roads. We do not want stray animals on the national highways, so we want to know of any gaps in fences and so on. There is a different health and safety dynamic to that, but it is something that we implemented. National Highways is under the Department for Transport and so is a direct responsibility of the Government. National Highways must also scan for a microchip, and store the animal, with the aim of reuniting it with its owner where possible.

Similarly, we understand that the overwhelming majority of local authorities have arrangements in place to scan cats and dogs found by the roadside, and to endeavour to reunite the animal with its keeper. Many pets will therefore be reunited, but we recognise that there may be challenges to successful reunification in some cases. For example, sadly reunification may not be possible if the nature of the animal’s injuries affect the functionality of the microchip, or if a microchip’s records are out of date. That is particularly the case with cats.

[Patricia Gibson]

I am delighted to hear the Minister talking about moving towards making microchipping compulsory for cats. Does he share the view put forward by Blue Cross, which is that cats should be registered on a single database, to make attempts at reunification as efficient and successful as possible?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Member makes a very good point, and I am just about to come on to the best practice issues that she raised. The legislation on compulsory microchipping that will be brought forward is England only, because this matter is devolved to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. I hope that these issues will be looked at by the devolved Administrations in the coming months.

Local authorities may adopt different approaches to reuniting cats and dogs found by the roadside. As the hon. Member for Gower mentioned, 92% of local authorities have the necessary facilities, but only 75% use them. It is important that we address that inconsistency. To show our commitment to the issue, we will shortly commission a research project to help us better understand any barriers and to explore best practice. We will then work with local authorities and other stakeholders to develop and promote best practice in this area, which is particularly important.

I pay tribute to Cats Protection and other volunteers, including Mandy and her team from CatsMatter, Heléna Abrahams and the team behind Gizmo’s legacy campaign, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North for their tireless efforts to help reunite animals found by the roadside with their owners. We recently consulted on improvements to the pet microchipping regime, which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned. We are analysing the results and will publish them soon.

A key area of the consultation was about how to make it easier for approved users, including local authorities, to access database records, and that will be covered in the response to the consultation. We also consulted on the introduction of a single point of portal search, which would allow approved users to quickly search compliant databases for animal records without needing to contact the database operator directly, which can obviously be time-consuming and can act as a deterrent, as I found when speaking about this issue to vets in my constituency of North West Durham. Quicker access to database records also supports other campaigns that seek to make better use of microchip scanning, as we have all discussed.

I pay particular tribute to Sue and Dawn, who are behind the Tuk’s law campaign, which would require vets to scan microchips and check for rescue back-up contact details prior to euthanising a healthy animal. Members from both sides of the House have been glad to get behind that. We worked closely with the campaign and the veterinary profession to find an approach that worked for everyone, and have incorporated the principle of scanning before euthanasia into the guidelines that underpin the code of professional conduct for veterinary surgeons. That is now in place.

The new single point of search will also support the aims of the Fern’s law campaign, led by Debbie Matthews, which calls on vets to scan the microchip of an animal at the first presentation to check whether it is stolen. That issue can also affect cats, which, as we know, have a tendency to roam a little further than other animals.

In summary, the Government believe that microchipping is the most effective and quickest way of returning a cat to its owner. We are progressing further with it, both through the call for evidence and through the new best practices guidelines that are coming down the line. In coming weeks, microchipping legislation for England is being introduced, and we hope to see that happen across the rest of the United Kingdom as well. We remain committed to microchipping; we look forward to the introduction of legislation that will make it compulsory, and to making further improvements later in the year.

Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

Richard Holden Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing the debate. On ultra low emissions, we heard quite a few emissions from the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), but I am not sure that any of them were really relevant to the broader debate. He seemed to praise the Mayor of Greater Manchester for what he is up to. The Mayor stopped his ULEZ. I not sure that the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East are on the same page regarding the Mayor of Greater Manchester, given the Leader of the Opposition’s recent jokes at the Mayor’s expense.

The need to tackle air pollution is something on which I hope that Members on both sides of the House—and indeed the Government and the Mayor of London—agree, to answer the question from the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). Air pollution is a big environmental risk to human health, and the Government are determined to tackle it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) said, that is why we have invested more than £800 million to tackle air pollution in 64 local council areas. Much more can be done, although we can be proud that air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010, with emissions of particulate matter down by 18% and nitrogen oxides down by 44%, to their lowest level since records began.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) made very clear in a tour de force speech, ULEZ will have only a minor or negligible impact, as the Jacobs report has said. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) put forward various sensible solutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) also reflected some of the issues, particularly around accessibility of public transport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said, the expansion to the London boundary was not in the Mayor’s manifesto—a point reflected by my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), for Orpington, and for Watford (Dean Russell). It was against the Mayor’s manifesto and against his own consultation. Those are not political points, as some Opposition Members would like to suggest; they are facts, eloquently put forward by hon. Members.

[David Simmonds]

I commend the Minister on the work that he has been doing on buses. Does he agree that the fact that the Labour group in Hillingdon Council supports the Conservatives’ campaign against ULEZ is evidence that this is not a matter of party politics but one of people putting their constituents and residents first?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who is not in the Chamber at the moment. She seemed to be on a slightly different page from some of the other Labour Whips’ remarks from the other hon. Members present.

Many hon. Members have spoken clearly and eloquently about the anger that their constituents feel about what is going on. I hope that the Mayor, the Labour party in London, the Lib Dems and the Greens hear that too. The Mayor of London, however, needs no agreement from the Government to pursue his proposed expansion of ULEZ. He is doing so using powers granted to him under section 295 and schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to implement any road schemes that charge users within greater London. He has previously used those powers to introduce the congestion charge, the low emission zone, and the current ultra low emission zone. While he has notified my Department of his intention, he is not obliged to consult us. As hon. Members will also be aware, the Department for Transport will not provide any of the £250 million that the scheme needs in order to be set up.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), my right hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and other hon. Members from across the south-east of England who have also made representations to me on this matter, and who met with me recently. Sadly, the Government do not have the power to veto the Mayor’s decision. There has been some suggestion that the Secretary of State has powers under section 143 of the GLA Act to block the measure.

[Geraint Davies]

The Minister will know that it is the 10-year anniversary of the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah, who was the first person to have air pollution listed as the cause of death on her death certificate. Will he support the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill that went through the Lords completely, with the support of Conservatives, and its ambition to introduce World Health Organisation air quality standards, ideally by 2030?

[Mr Holden]

As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, we have already made substantial progress in that area. On the specifics of any legislation, I will write to him.

I have been advised by my officials in the strongest terms that section 143 of the GLA Act is focused on correcting inconsistencies between national policy and the Mayor’s transport strategy. It is not intended to be used to block specific measures that the Mayor would like to introduce under the devolution settlement.

Hon. Members raised two specific issues about councils and their land and about council consent and the environment. I will write to Members on those issues, as well as the other issues that they raised with me recently. In fact, I will write to Members across the House in the coming days.

I understand the concerns of hon. Members. Estimates show that approximately 160,000 cars and 42,000 vans that use London’s roads would be liable for the £12.50 ULEZ charge on an average day—approximately 8% of cars and 18% of journeys. But it is not just about the charge of around £1 million a day, as hon. Members have said. It is also about the fines, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said.

In spite of the hundreds of millions of pounds that it is proposed will be raised annually, the Mayor has announced a new £110 million pound scrappage scheme to help certain Londoners prepare for expansion. The scheme will launch at the end of next month, but it will be open only to certain residents and to Londoners, not those from outside London who are affected and travel in every day, including 50% of people who work in blue light services. They will not be touched by that scheme at all. Moreover, it will only be for those on specific benefits, including universal credit. There will be no help at all for the majority of Londoners affected, with many small and medium-sized businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said, left to bear that heavy burden alone.

As the hon. Member for Putney quoted from the FSB report, I will cite it as well. For businesses that do not currently comply with the zone, 25% said that they will immediately pass any increase on to customers directly, creating further inflationary pressure, and 18% of firms—almost one in five—said that they would close their business. That is from a Federation of Small Businesses press release today.

[Fleur Anderson]

The Federation of Small Businesses has asked the Government to deal with this by topping up the scrappage scheme. Will the Minister consider topping up the scrappage scheme to help more people, as he has outlined?

[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.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Holden]

I am sorry, but I will make further progress.

I reassure Members that if that were to occur, the Government would explore what more could be done and consider whether the Mayor was using his authority properly and fairly, without detriment to even more people. It is clear that the Mayor is prepared to go well beyond any pledges or manifesto he was elected on in order to pursue his own objectives.

The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East made an interesting point about there being no Government support for TfL or transport. He needs to look at the amount of support that the Government provide to the Labour Mayor of London. We understand that the pressure on Transport for London has been huge. Before covid, 70% of TfL’s revenue came from passenger fares, but passenger journeys reduced by as much as 95%. Fare income has recovered, but it is still less than nine tenths of what it was previously.

The TfL long-term funding settlement of 30 August provided TfL with £1.2 billion until the end of March 2024. That takes total Government funding of TfL to more than £6 billion since the beginning of the pandemic, or £650 for every Londoner. What has the Mayor done with the money? The £1.2 billion matches the Mayor’s own pre-pandemic spending. It will ensure that London’s transport network remains protected against potential lost revenue and the uncertainty of post-pandemic demand. Furthermore, it will enable the delivery of a number of projects set to revolutionise travel across London, including supporting £3.6 billion-worth of critical infrastructure projects, which will benefit not just London but the wider economy.

The Government have supported and helped passengers to benefit from major upgrades to our world-class transport network, including the Elizabeth line, which opened recently. The settlement also requires the Mayor and TfL to control their operating costs and to continue to progress initiatives to modernise, reform and become more efficient. We have been clear that the Mayor needs to put TfL on to a financially sustainable footing. In no way, however, does that require ULEZ expansion. That is clear. Taxpayers across the UK have had to support TfL continually. It is imperative that they get a fair deal.

The purpose of devolution is that decisions are taken by elected local politicians, not in this House or in Whitehall. Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens need to know that political decisions have political consequences, and that there are political solutions to them. Were I the Mayor of London, I would not be going down the path he has chosen—but I am not. If Londoners do not like the decisions that he has taken, they will have the opportunity to have their say in 2024. In their local elections, I am sure that hon. Members will make it clear about the Mayor of London’s policies.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartmouth for bringing this matter to the attention of the Government. I thank hon. Members from all across the south-east for their ongoing work, and I will continue to use my role in Government to work with them. As I said, in the coming days I will write to all hon. Members across London and the south-east on the important questions asked not only in the debate, but in other recent meetings and by Members who have approached me. I also assure Members that, across Government, we will continue to ensure that the Mayor of London is held accountable for his decisions in our capital city.

Bus Routes: Local Consultation

Richard Holden Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

It is a pleasure to take the last Adjournment debate before Christmas. In addition to thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), I would like to thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for their contributions today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford on securing another opportunity to speak on the behalf of his constituents in Watford. I know he works relentlessly to champion the issues that matter to them, and local bus services are part of the suite of issues that he regularly brings to the House and to Ministers.

I was fortunate enough to be able to visit Hertfordshire a couple of weeks ago, when I met Councillor Phil Bibby, the executive member for highways and transport, and experienced at first hand some of the great work that is going on within the county to improve bus services. I was delighted to see Arriva’s new depot in Stevenage, which will house its new zero-emission bus fleet just up the road, and to learn more about the HertsLynx demand-responsive transport service, providing vital connectivity for rural villages in the north of the county, although those are admittedly not so close to my hon. Friend’s constituency. These are things that could make a huge and positive difference in Hertfordshire and elsewhere.

The Government are clear that bus services are vital to ensuring that people can access work and education, as well as crucial services such as healthcare, as my hon. Friend said. We also recognise the fundamental importance of ensuring that people can stay connected to their local communities. I would like to address one of the issues around late cancellations and poor communications from bus companies. I am supportive of the general public being better informed about changes to local bus services, and my Department is working with local authorities and operators to seek improvements in that area. We recognise that the sector is facing challenges at the moment, but we expect operators to provide the services that they have advertised. It is unacceptable when they do not do so, especially when they do not give proper notice of those changes. That is one reason why I am so keen to welcome this debate. Ensuring that passengers who rely solely on local bus services are easily able to provide their views to bus operators and local transport authorities when changes to services are due to be made is a key aspect of the reforms to bus services in England that we set out in the national bus strategy, one of a plethora of measures we are bringing forward.

Crucially, we want local authorities to have greater oversight of bus service provision so that they can work more closely with bus operators to ensure the provision of bus networks that meet the needs of local people. That includes having an element of flexibility in respect of bus service plans. When things change, we need the operators to be able to change with them.

My Department is ready and willing to work with local transport authorities and operators as they work together as part of their bus service improvement plans. I know that Hertfordshire County Council is looking forward to establishing an enhanced partnership with local operators. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford mentioned the £29.7 million that has already been allocated to the council.

The issue of consultation is particularly important. I really do hope that through the enhanced partnership we will see the operators working more closely with the service providers. That will really help provision. I urge my hon. Friend to keep pressing the council and his local operators on that.

In its guidance on enhanced partnerships and BSIPs, the Department has highlighted the importance of councils and operators working with bus-user groups and local groups when they consider how to improve services and make sure that passengers are well informed about changes to local bus routes. There will always be changes and, hopefully, improvements—that is what the plans are there to deliver.

We have provided a capacity support grant to all local transport authorities to develop and deliver their enhanced partnerships. In addition, we are providing capacity funding to those areas that did not receive funding through the BSIP process, to ensure that they have better enhanced partnerships. Whether or not they have received the full large grant or have that working relationship, we are there for them in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in the constituencies of other Members. The Department will also provide guidance and training for teams through the planned new bus centre of excellence.

The national bus strategy sets out a requirement for local transport authorities to create a new passenger charter—I think my hon. Friend will be interested in this —as part of developing their BSIPs. The charters are intended to give bus users the rights to receive certain standards of service, including in respect of punctuality, the proportion of services operated, information and, crucially, redress, an issue that many Members from all parties have raised with me since I took over this brief. I hope that other councils, as well as my hon. Friend’s, hear the call for better communication.

One of the issues we face is the recovery from covid. In August, we confirmed that we would continue providing funding under the bus services recovery grant to help to protect bus services until the end of March 2023. We have also taken additional steps to prevent significant reductions to bus services. As a condition of receiving funding, bus operators are required to maintain a minimum service floor of 80% compared with pre-covid service levels. We are also working to get services and, crucially, ridership back up to provide the longer-term stability that people need.

We know that driver shortages have been a major issue and we are working with transport industry bodies such as the Confederation of Passenger Transport. We recently held a summit on the issue that I was delighted to attend. Things like that are important. We must work to really drive home things such as the “Thank You Driver” campaign. We must encourage people to take up really important opportunities. I am really keen to continue to support such work. My hon. Friend mentioned the DVSA; I have already prioritised tests for bus drivers to help to speed up the process and provide us with valuable assistance in tackling some of the serious issues around driver shortages. I continue to ensure that that is prioritised, even as we face difficulties and strike action.

I know that in Hertfordshire more broadly the enhanced partnership process is slightly different. The council has responsibility for the registration of bus services rather than the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. However, the statutory 42-day notice period is particularly important. I hope that those involved can look into more enhanced ways to communicate with local people.

In closing, I congratulate my hon. Friend again. The BSIP is a major step forward, as is the £2 single fare that we are set to introduce throughout the country before the House returns in January. I look forward to that. There are undoubtedly challenges facing the sector, but we are committed to working with it to address them. I look forward to engaging with colleagues from all parties going forward.

Finally, ahead of the Christmas break I thank my team in the Department, my team in Parliament, my team in North West Durham, the House staff, Members from all sides and you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish all Members a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Question put and agreed to.

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

I thank hon. Members for all their contributions and join the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) in commemorating, 41 years on, the memory and service of the eight RNLI lifeboatmen from Mousehole who operated the Penlee lifeboat.

I think that everyone in the Chamber agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who put it bluntly by saying that all of us, especially at this time of year, are reliant on those who operate our ports and bring everything into our country. Ninety-five per cent of all of our trade travels by boat, and a lot of that comes into her constituency. That is why it is so important to all of us that we see the Bill progress.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Robert Courts) and for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) and, across the political divide, the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Easington (Grahame Morris), who all made the point that everyone in the House was shocked by the behaviour of P&O earlier this year, and they have come together in wanting to do something about it. It was particularly gratifying to see both the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) supporting the legislation and wanting to see good standards and raised standards not only through the Bill but through the Government’s nine-point plan.

I am glad that those on the Opposition Front Bench broadly welcome the Bill, as do the SNP representatives. I just point out to the SNP Front Bench that the RMT did meet my hon. Friends in the Department on Thursday. We are always happy to engage with unions and anybody else who is interested in bringing things to a head in that regard.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) was also very kind to praise the Government for dragging the French to start looking at issues in this space. I am glad that he is supporting those of us on the Government Benches who are leading our European partners forward on legislation in this space. More broadly, I am delighted that everyone across the House is supporting where we are going, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whose voice it is always a pleasure to hear.

I think we can all agree that the Bill is not a silver bullet, but it is a starting point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney said. I pay tribute to previous Ministers, including him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) who brought it forward. I look forward to picking up on many of the issues raised at later stages if I cannot address them at the Dispatch Box today.

I want to turn first to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), the Chair of the Transport Committee, who raised three points. First, on the International Labour Organisation, the measures in the Bill will be stronger than what it has brought forward. They are compatible with the ILO, but they will be stronger than what it has as a baseline. On which is the best body—the harbour authorities or the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—the MCA will have the power to investigate and prosecute offences under the Bill. It is responsible for the enforcement role, although port operators will collect the moneys. He made another important point on minimum wage corridors. We are looking at that across the piece at the moment. I mentioned France, but we are looking at other European counterparts for where we can have routes to really drive forward standards for workers across the country.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Holden]

I have only eight minutes, but I will give way once.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister write to us with some form of timetable on the agreements and when they will be ready?

[Mr Holden]

I would be delighted to update the right hon. Gentleman at a future point. We can perhaps go into that further in Committee. If he raises it at that point, we can perhaps take it further from there.

Those were the three points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South. I want to touch on a few more points.

One main point was the concern, expressed by many hon. Members including the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), about the potential for port hopping. The key thing is that the Secretary of State has the power to direct anybody who is trying to abuse the system.

On the civil investigation and the ongoing matters mentioned by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) relating to P&O, I think we can all agree about Mr Hebblethwaite—the way that he has tret his workers is totally unacceptable. Given the ongoing civil action, it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment at this time. However, after that point I will be happy to comment further.

I want to draw Members’ attention to the broader issue regarding the Government’s nine-point plan. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock made a point about global standards, which was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). We want to see them leading the world with the highest standards possible.

The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock and for Dover, the hon. Member for Easington and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney all mentioned training and quality. They are part of the seafarers’ charter, which we want to see driven further forward.

On rostering, an important point mentioned by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East and for Weaver Vale, and my County Durham neighbour the hon. Member for Easington, we have commissioned an independent assessment of rostering and I look forward to its conclusions.

Offshore wind was mentioned by several hon. Members, including Members from Scotland. Under article 2 of the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order, on working in connection with the exploration of the sea or subsoil, basically if you are in the UK’s exclusive economic zone, there is a difference between that and the continental shelf. I look forward to further debate on that in Committee. It is a technical area, which is worth us looking at further.

The Bill marks great progress on the Government’s nine-point plan. It is a step forward, delivering a suite of measures to improve seafarers’ protections and welfare. It is not a silver bullet and will not solve every problem, but it will incentivise operators to pay fair wages, particularly for those with the closest ties to the UK, and recognise the pivotal role that they play in the movement of the UK’s goods and services. It will drive best practice.

Beyond the Bill, the UK will continue to be a leading voice on the international stage as the home of the International Maritime Organisation. That proximity will help us to work more closely with counterparts across the seas in driving forward better standards, as we have already seen from the reaction of France, Denmark, Belgium and other continental neighbours. We will continue to make progress on the rest of the nine-point plan and will work with our international partners to ensure a fairer deal for seafarers.

I wish you a merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall save my merry Christmases for the rest of the House until tomorrow evening when I reply to the Adjournment debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 17 January 2023.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mike Wood.)

Question agreed to.

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords] (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any expenditure incurred by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mike Wood.)

Question agreed to.