A14: Kettering

Richard Holden Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to respond to the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who is a diligent Member and a great representative of the people and businesses of Kettering. I had the pleasure of visiting Kettering back in December to launch the £2 bus fare cap, which has now been extended all the way to 30 June. It is clear that where Kettering leads, the rest of the country follows. He has consistently championed the proposed improvements on the A14 on behalf of his constituents, and I congratulate him on securing this important debate.

The A14 is one of the country’s most important east-west arteries on the strategic road network, stretching for 127 miles and connecting Felixstowe in the east to Rugby and the logistics hub at the heart of the midlands at the other end, where it meets the M1 and the M6. The importance of this corridor in connecting the country and providing access to some of the nation’s key international gateways cannot be overstated. That is why we have invested heavily in the route since 2015.

In 2017, we completed the £190 million remodelling and capacity improvements to the Catthorpe interchange, where the A14 intersects with the M1. In 2020, the 12-mile, £1.5 billion Cambridge-to-Huntingdon improvement scheme was completed, providing much-needed added capacity for commuters and long-distance traffic. We are considering further improvements to the A14 where it meets the A12 west of Ipswich, as part of the pipeline of schemes being addressed in the road investment strategy.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that the Copdock interchange is being looked at. Further to the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), every Member who has a constituency that crosses the A14 would agree that investment in all aspects of the road, including junction 10A, is vital. It is a key gateway from the midlands to Felixstowe. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are looking not just at the projects that he has outlined, but at additional future projects? This is about supporting British manufacturing, house building growth and the British economy. Many of us who represent A14 constituencies do not feel that the road has had the focus that it deserves.

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend makes some excellent points. I am trying to highlight the strategic national importance of the route. I know that my hon. Friend and MPs from across the region have been campaigning on this issue. There are definitely further schemes in the pipeline that are currently being looked at, and I would be delighted to discuss them with him further at a later date.

Although the strategic national case for this vital road transport corridor between the north, the midlands and the east of England is clear, its role in the places and communities it passes through along its length is also vital, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering recognises. Kettering, Barton Seagrave, Cranford and Burton Latimer are all important towns along the route that all deserve to be properly served. That is exactly what the proposed A14 junction 10A would help to achieve, making lives in the communities served by the A14 better.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, it would also support the development of approximately 5,500 much-needed homes and associated infrastructure to the east of Kettering, with new schools, shops, community buildings and, importantly, jobs, unlocking investment into this stretch of the important strategic road network. I am pleased to hear that this is a sustainable, mixed-used development, with new schools, shops and leisure facilities that are easily accessible for new residents, and that it is tied into the historic town of Kettering.

Successful development depends on a network that makes connections to destinations, places and communities that are further afield. Alongside rail and the local road network, the strategic road network provides critical links between our cities and other urban areas, connecting our communities and families, providing job opportunities, and binding and strengthening our Union, as well as driving productivity and prosperity by unlocking growth, encouraging trade, attracting investment and playing a vital role in levelling up across the country. That is why the A14 is so important.

We all agree that a reliable and resilient transport network is a catalyst for growth. However, making transformative investments in the fabric of our transport network requires long-term thinking and planning, as has certainly been the case with this piece of development. That rationale underpins RIS2, which we are currently in and which has delivered record levels of investment in the motorways and trunk networks of England. In the first RIS strategy, £17.6 billion was committed; since then, we have gone even further and are now investing £24 billion between 2024 and 2025 as part of RIS2. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering to use his good offices to lobby the Treasury to ensure we can increase the level of investment into RIS3 for his scheme, and many others across the country.

Our first priority is the safe operation, maintenance and renewal of the existing network, including by beginning multi-road period programmes of structural renewals where the network is reaching the end of its design life. Even so, in the current period more than £10 billion is being spent on significant improvements to the performance and safety of the network, through enhancements that support the Government’s levelling-up agenda and underpin national and regional growth. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering that there is clearly a strong economic case for junction 10A of the A14 and, from what I have seen, it presents a good cost-benefit ratio and value for money for the taxpayer.

As my hon. Friend is well aware, preparations for the third road investment strategy—RIS3—are well under way, with the A14 junction 10A scheme forming part of the pipeline of more than 30 major projects that are currently being considered for possible construction beyond 2025. The decisions on which pipeline schemes to progress will need to be taken in the round as part of the wider development of RIS3 funding, in the light of the funding headroom available.

In respect of my hon. Friend’s local project, it is important that, unlike many other projects throughout the country, half the cost is due to be met by local developers. That further strengthens the case for the junction. The case for the project is clear, and Hanwood Park and National Highways have been working closely to build a robust business case for the proposals. The key objectives of the project are to support the sustainable development of much-needed homes in the area and to facilitate economic growth in the region. In achieving that, the safety and performance of the existing network needs to be maintained, mindful of the route’s key national strategic role, and negative impacts on users, communities and the environment must be kept to a minimum during construction.

Considerable effort and work is required to develop major projects from the ground up and, as I have said previously, when dealing with the significant sums involved, investment decisions cannot be taken in isolation. Ultimately, decisions on the balance of RIS3, and possible enhancement schemes to be included in it, will sadly not be finalised until the strategy is published in 2024. We are hoping to open that up to bids in the coming months. The core principle of our strategy is to create a safe, accessible and reliable road network that meets the needs of all road users and drives important economic growth across the country.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am listening to the Minister’s remarks with great interest and appreciate the attention to detail he is applying to junction 10A. Is he aware of perhaps the most important point of all? On its present trajectory, Hanwood Park will reach its ceiling of 2,700 houses in 2026. Not one further home will be built after that date, unless funding for junction 10A comes from the Government. Unless the Government come up with the cash, no more than 2,700 homes will be built on that estate in Kettering. That will make it far more difficult for the Government to achieve their housing objectives.

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend made that point clearly in his speech and I will take it away. There is a timescale for the RIS3 projects. Given the level of development that has already gone into the scheme, as part of the investment strategy through the five-year period, the requirements will put it clearly towards the front if funding is made available.

I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this debate and for his exemplary efforts to support the proposals on behalf of his constituents. I also take the opportunity to be clear that I recognise the strong case for the proposals and the many benefits they will unlock for Kettering and the surrounding area. I will ensure that my officials and National Highways work closely with Hanwood Park as the case for the scheme is developed further, and that my hon. Friend is fully engaged in that process. I also encourage him to meet further with the project teams for the scheme at National Highways for a more detailed briefing in future months. I will happily facilitate that.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to press the case for the scheme on behalf of his constituents and the businesses that he serves in his constituency. Although I cannot give him the firm commitment that he is naturally after today, given the unique funding nature of the project, the strong local and national economic significance of the A14 and the good benefit-to-cost ratio, the people of Kettering can be assured that it will be looked at very favourably in the funding rounds to come. The people of Kettering could not have a better champion, and I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friend as the investment plan for RIS3 is developed over the coming months.

Question put and agreed to.

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]

Richard Holden Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—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.’

New clause 4—Directors of companies operating services to which this Act applies: personal liability for non-compliance of operator—

‘(1) A director of a company operating a service to which this Act applies (the “operator”) commits an offence where the operator has committed an offence under—

(a) section 5(1); or

(b) section 6(5)

of this Act.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine, or

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

(3) Where a person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may make a disqualification order against that person if that person is registered as a director of any company registered in the United Kingdom.

(4) The maximum period of disqualification under subsection (3) is 15 years.’

New clause 5—The role of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the role of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) in enforcing the provisions of this Act.

(2) The report in subsection (1) must include assessments of—

(a) the extent to which the MCA has sufficient resources to undertake such enforcement, and

(b) the efficacy of such enforcement.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay this report before both Houses of Parliament before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.’

Government amendment 1.

Amendment 30, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after “Act” insert—

‘“place in the United Kingdom” includes energy installations within the UK Exclusive Economic Zone.’

Amendment 24, in clause 3, page 2, line 5 , leave out “120” and insert “52”

Government amendment 25.

Amendment 31, in clause 4, page 3, line 30, 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 32, page 3, line 40, at end insert—

‘(9A) 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.’

Amendment 40, page 3, line 42, leave out from “Kingdom” to end of line and insert

‘, its territorial waters and the UK Continental Shelf.’

This amendment would ensure that the legislation is in line with the existing regulations providing entitlement to the NMW for seafarers working from a UK port to an offshore oil and gas installation on the UK Continental Shelf and returning to a UK port.

Amendment 33, page 3, line 42, leave out “or its territorial waters” and insert

‘, its territorial waters, or within the Renewable Energy Zone as specified by The Renewable Energy Zone (Designation of Area) Order 2004.’

Government amendments 2 to 7.

Government motion to transfer clause 6.

Government amendments 8 to 10.

Government motion to transfer clause 7.

Government amendments 11 to 15.

Amendment 34, in clause 11, page 8, line 9, after “regulations” insert

‘, where the minimum surcharge to be imposed on an operator 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 amendments 16, 26, 17, 18, 27, 19 and 20.

Amendment 36, in clause 13, page 10, line 15, at end insert—

‘(e) where there is need to provide crew with access to necessary welfare facilities or undertake crew repatriation.’

Government amendment 28.

Amendment 37, in clause 15, page 10, line 30, after “may” insert

‘following consultation with relevant stakeholders’

Government amendment 29.

Amendment 38, in clause 16, page 11, line 11, 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.’

Amendment 41, page 11, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

‘(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’

Government amendments 21 to 23.

[Mr Holden]

It is a pleasure to report to the House, to move Government new clause 3, to speak to the other amendments and to be able to listen to the important debate we will have on the Bill’s remaining stages. Over the past few months, the Bill has been subject to scrutiny and debate not only in Committee but through the ongoing debate in this House and in the other place. I am pleased that we are moving forwards together towards seeing this important legislation on the statute book and seafarers seeing the benefit of increased wage protection. I will first introduce the new clause and a number of the amendments introduced by the Government.

The first group—amendments 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 23 —relates to the powers to request information from harbour authorities to monitor their compliance with their duties under the Bill. New clause 3 provides the Secretary of State with the power to require harbour authorities to provide information for the purpose of establishing whether, or to what extent, they are complying with their duties under the Bill. In practice, this power will be used by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides an indicative list of the sort of information the MCA might require in order to establish whether a harbour authority is complying with its duties, including information about equivalence declarations and surcharges. It will be an offence for a harbour authority to fail to provide the information required in the manner and within the period specified by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, to provide false or misleading information, or not to inform the Secretary of State within four weeks if the information becomes false or misleading. The penalty for this offence is an unlimited fine in England and Wales and a fine not exceeding level 5 in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

This new clause is necessary following amendments made in Committee that mean that harbour authorities are now under a duty to request declarations, impose surcharges or refuse access to their ports in the circumstances set out in the Bill. It is a criminal offence for a harbour authority to fail to comply with these duties. The new clause will therefore ensure that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has the necessary information to carry out its enforcement role and to bring prosecutions if necessary, in line with its powers of enforcement of operators in clause 6.

Government amendments 5 and 23 and subsection (3) of new clause 3 all relate to savings for data protection regulation, making it clear that the Bill is not intended to override any existing data protection obligations. Subsection (3) of new clause 3 provides that a requirement to provide information

“does not require a harbour authority to provide information to the extent that doing so would cause the authority to breach the data protection legislation”.

The data protection is defined by amendment 23 as having

“the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018”—

that is, all relevant UK data protection legislation.

Amendment 5 makes it clear that the data protection saving in clause 6(3) applies in relation to the UK’s data protection legislation as well as to the data production laws of other countries or territories. In new clause 3(3) and clause 6(3), the amendments clarify that in determining whether the provision of information would cause a breach of the data protection laws, the requirement imposed by subsection (1) of the clause is to be taken into account. This is to make it clear that the disclosure of information may be authorised when pursuant to a legal obligation.

It is an offence under clause 6(5) of the Bill for an operator to fail to provide information required to the Secretary of State or, in practice, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. However, at present clause 6 does not specify the time within which this information is to be provided, as several hon. Members pointed out in Committee. Amendments 6 and 7 will therefore make it explicit that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency can specify the period within which the information must be provided, and that it is an offence for the operator to fail to provide the information within that period and in the manner specified. The same applies for requests for information from harbour authorities under new clause 3. These amendments will provide greater clarity for harbour authorities and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

Amendments 9 and 10 are linked to new clause 3 in that they extend MCA enforcement powers in consequence of Government amendments made in Committee to impose duties and corresponding criminal offences on harbour authorities. These amendments will extend the powers in clause 7 for inspectors to board ships or enter premises for the purpose of establishing whether harbour authorities are complying with their duties or to verify information provided under new clause 3. These amendments will allow the MCA properly to enforce the duties on harbour authorities and to bring prosecutions where necessary if the duties are not being complied with.

The next group of Government amendments relate to new offences for false and misleading declarations. As currently drafted, an operator commits an offence under clause 5 in two broad circumstances: first, where it provides an equivalence declaration and the service is operated inconsistently with that declaration at the time that it is provided, or from the beginning of the relevant year if that is later; and secondly, where an operator provides a declaration and subsequently starts to operate the service inconsistently with the declaration and fails to notify the harbour authority of that fact within four weeks.

Clause 5 does not currently cover circumstances where a declaration is provided during or after the relevant year, and the service was operated inconsistently with the declaration for a period of that year in the past, such that the declaration is false or misleading at the time it is provided. This is why I have tabled amendments 2 and 3, which create a new criminal offence where an operator provides a declaration that is false and misleading in so far as it concerns the operation of the service before the declaration was provided.

Amendments 4 and 8 are consequential on this new offence and extend the Secretary of State’s enforcement powers to include establishing whether a declaration is false or misleading. In practice, enforcement will be carried out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Amendment 4 extends the purposes for which the Maritime and Coastguard Agency may require an operator to provide information under clause 6 to include establishing whether an equivalence declaration is false or misleading in so far as it concerns the operation of the service before the declaration was provided.

Amendment 8 extends the power in clause 7 to provide that inspections of ships or premises may be carried out for the same purpose. Related to that, amendments 11 to 14 provide that harbour authorities must impose surcharges on an operator if they have reasonable grounds to believe that an equivalence declaration provided by the operator is false or misleading about the time before the declaration was provided. That mirrors the approach taken when an operator provides a declaration and the harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the service is or was being operated inconsistently with that declaration, ensuring that surcharges are imposed in both circumstances.

Taken together, these amendments strengthen the enforcement of the Bill and will mean that operators that seek to pay their seafarers a rate lower than the national minimum wage equivalent cannot avoid the consequences through such dishonest means.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for these amendments, as the issues to which they relate were raised by Opposition Members in Committee and on Second Reading. What is the position on the fines? Does he remember our discussion about whether level 4 fines are enough of a deterrent? A level 5 fine is unlimited and may be a greater deterrent, although the Secretary of State will still have discretion on whether to apply it.

[Mr Holden]

I was about to address those amendments. After the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members raised this in Committee, I said that I was looking at it.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I welcome the introduction of a criminal offence, but I wonder who will be prosecuted and held liable in that instance. Will it be a company director? At what level of the decision-making process will an individual be held liable? I would be happy if the Minister secures wisdom and inspiration over the next few minutes.

[Mr Holden]

I will address that point later in my speech.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), I agreed in Committee to consider raising the maximum penalty for harbour authorities guilty of failing to comply with their duties under the Bill—I think the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was also referring to this—from a level 4 fine to an unlimited fine in England and Wales, or a level 5 fine in Scotland and Northern Ireland. On reflection, I decided to do so. That is why the Government tabled amendments 25, 26, 28 and 29 and subsection (6) of new clause 3.

These amendments will bring the penalties into line with those for service operators that commit an offence under the legislation. As hon. Members will remember, we discussed in Committee the possibility of a harbour authority also being an operator, which would create a discrepancy. We know that the reputational impact clearly did not stop P&O Ferries doing what it did, which is why we have this Bill.

To answer the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, the fines will be levied on the company, and they will be unlimited fines, except in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where level 5 fines are limited by legislation—the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland have not yet changed their legislation, so it will be up to them to mirror these changes. This will send a strong message that harbour authorities must comply with their duties under legislation. I thank the noble Lord Tunnicliffe for his interest in the level of fines when the Bill was considered in the other place.

Amendment 1 adds a regulation-making power to clause 1 to allow the Secretary of State to specify matters that must or must not be taken into account in determining whether provision for the carriage of persons or goods between two places by ship on two or more journeys constitutes a single service. Amendments 21 and 22 provide that this power is subject to the affirmative procedure.

The Bill applies to services for the carriage of persons or goods by ship, with or without vehicles, between a place outside the UK and a place inside the UK. The concept of service is not defined in the Bill, but it will be a question of fact whether ships on the same route are providing the same service, which will need to take account of all the circumstances of the particular case.

By adding a power to specify in regulations the factors that must or must not be taken into account in determining what is a service for the purpose of this Bill, we will be able to clarify the intended meaning of “service” if needed, such as if there is an inconsistency in interpretation across or between different harbour authorities and operators. This provision therefore allows the Department to react, if necessary, to how the definition of “service” is interpreted over time. This will ensure consistency in the application of the Bill, and it is therefore necessary for the effective implementation and delivery of policy objectives. Because the measure will be made through the affirmative procedure, hon. Members will be able to provide a degree of scrutiny.

We recognise this is a broad power with potential to adjust the interpretation of “service,” which is the Bill’s central concept. We plan to use the power only to clarify the intended meaning of “service,” if needed, not to alter the services in scope of the Bill. It is intended that the power will be used only if necessary and only in relation to circumstances that may become apparent once the Bill has been enacted. That being said, we accept that a high level of scrutiny for this power is appropriate. As such, the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 15 requires the tariff of surcharges to be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, as opposed to being specified by the harbour authorities. In other words, the amendment will switch the duty for setting the surcharge tariff from the harbour authorities to the Secretary of State. I thank the noble Baroness Scott of Needham Market for raising the issue in the other place, and the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) tabled a similar amendment that sought to reduce the role of harbour authorities in the compliance process by taking away their duty to set the surcharge rate, giving that role to the Secretary of State.

The surcharge is an important mechanism to deter operators from paying below the national minimum wage equivalent. We still consider that harbour authorities are reasonably placed to set the tariff of surcharges, given their proximity to services, but we have heard the concerns raised by the ports industry and, as promised, went away after Committee to consider it further. Having done so, we tabled amendment 15 to switch the duty for setting the surcharge tariff under the Bill from harbour authorities to the Secretary of State. This will not fundamentally change the compliance process, as ports will still have a role in imposing the surcharge, but they will not set the rate. I hope this alleviates the concerns that some Members expressed in Committee about the role of harbour authorities.

Amendments 16 and 18 to 20 are consequential on amendment 15. Amendment 16 removes the requirement for harbour authorities to publish the tariff of surcharges, as this will now be set in regulations. Amendments 18 to 20 make consequential changes to clause 12 to remove the ability to object to a tariff of surcharges specified by a harbour authority.

Amendment 17 confers a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying a time limit on objecting to a surcharge under clause 12. I promised in Committee to consider this further, in response to an amendment tabled by the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Glasgow East (David Linden). I had been considering it before Committee because there was a concern that things could drag on and, having considered it, I agree that a time limit on objections will provide greater certainty for harbour authorities by preventing objections from being raised long after a surcharge is imposed. We intend for the draft regulations to be subject to public consultation, and we will work with stakeholders to determine a reasonable length of time in which objections will be required to be made following the imposition of a surcharge.

Amendment 17 states that surcharges may be applied only for the purpose of providing shore-based welfare facilities for seafarers. The objective of this amendment is to ensure that funds collected from surcharges are invested in the welfare of seafarers and cannot be used for the functioning of harbour authorities. A similar amendment was tabled in Committee by the hon. Members for Glasgow East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, and it was supported by other Opposition Members, who expressed concern about a conflict of interest where a harbour authority and an operator are owned by a connected company, thereby weakening the surcharge’s financial disincentive. I thank the noble Baroness Scott of Needham Market for raising this conflict of interest in the other place. Although we do not think it is likely in practice that such an operator would seek to avoid paying the national minimum wage equivalent, and would instead continue to pay the surcharge to its connected company, this amendment reduces that theoretical risk. It is also in line with the Bill’s overall intention of improving the welfare of seafarers.

We understand that ports may object to amendment 17, as they might have used surcharge funds to cover the costs of administering the Bill. However, we do not expect surcharges to be paid routinely, so harbour authorities could never have relied on the surcharge to cover the costs of administering the Bill—they are minimal costs that harbour authorities should be able to cover through their harbour duties. This Bill leaves it open as to how the money can be applied to shore-based welfare facilities and so harbour authorities will have some flexibility on that. I hope that hon. Members will see that in tabling these amendments the Government have listened to the concern from across the House and from stakeholders, and that the Bill is better for it.

I will now turn to the amendments tabled by hon. Members of this House. Amendment 24 would require harbour authorities to request equivalence declarations from operators of services that call at their harbour on at least 52 occasions a year, instead of 120. That would mean that services calling at UK ports once a week, on average, would be brought into the scope of the Bill. The measures that may be taken under the Bill can be applied only to a narrow subset of operators with a close connection to the UK: those on a regular scheduled service determined by clear, objective criteria. This represents a focused and proportionate means to address a specific issue and avoids any wider impact on the diversity of shipping that makes use of UK ports. The figure of 120 has been arrived at following thorough consultation and bilateral discussions with industry and others.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I recognise that this measure was based on data carefully collected. However, does the Minister not accept that the figure of once a week would bring into scope an awful lot of shipping with seafarers who do have a close connection to the UK, and that once a week might be a fairer figure?

[Mr Holden]

I understand what the hon. Lady is saying and I will address that point directly in a moment, after I have gone through the main points of why we are pushing back on this suggestion. The rationale for the high-frequency criterion is to ensure that seafarers affected by the policy are only those with close ties to the UK by virtue of their working on services that regularly call in UK ports. That covers the overwhelming majority of passenger ferries. We have assessed this using Department for Transport data, which has also been backed up by the Chamber of Shipping’s written evidence to the Public Bill Committee. Crucially, this focuses the Bill on the short-sea services, clearly justifying the seafarers’ connections to the UK and therefore a UK-equivalent level of pay protection. Reducing the frequency with which services must call at UK ports before coming into the scope of the Bill’s requirements to include weekly services would dilute the concentration of the Bill in protecting seafarers with the closest ties. It would then bring into scope some deep-sea container services which we do not feel can legitimately be said to have close ties to the UK. Services that might visit many ports in a foreign country, perhaps coming to the UK once a week, would also be included, which gives rise to the question of whether we would be legislating for another country.

Furthermore, the national minimum wage equivalence will apply only in UK waters and therefore would extend to a cargo service dropping off once a week for a matter of hours, with marginal if any impact. The proposal therefore has multiple downsides, and I hope the hon. Lady can understand why we are looking at it in that sphere.

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

I hear what the Minister says and understand his point about which services may be collected under the proposal, but surely there is a soft spot between 52 and 120 that we can all agree on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

Well, 120 is what has been discussed broadly in the past few weeks. Opposition Members have tabled no amendment for any proposal except 52 or 120. That is why we are discussing 120. A once-a-week service could be in the UK’s waters for a matter of hours every week, when the minimum wage equivalence would apply, and it may be calling at multiple foreign ports before it gets here. Obviously, questions of international maritime law start to arise in those circumstances, as do our relationships with other countries, which are looking at this and at where these ships may operate from.

[Grahame Morris]

We have to agree to disagree on this point. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has estimated that the 2020 legal extension of the national minimum wage equivalent entitlement to all seafarers on domestic routes and on routes from UK ports to offshore oil and gas installations, which are not included in the scope of the Bill, would benefit a maximum of 13,000 seafarers—I refer to ratings grades—regardless of the number of port calls. So the issue of port calls is fundamental to whether this Bill will be fit for purpose—in other words, whether it will meet the Government’s basic requirement to protect UK seafarers on these short sea routes.

[Mr Holden]

I will come later to the hon. Gentleman’s point about offshore workers in the energy sector. If the proposal were 52 weeks, we would be including services that were in UK waters for only a matter of a few hours a week. We think that would be a disproportionate measure and it would not address what we are trying to address, which is short-service ferry operations. They are the major point of concern. If we include other services, we move swiftly into international maritime law.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

My understanding was that 52 weeks was the original threshold in the Government’s proposals and that that was changed after consultation with industry. The trade unions supported 52 weeks. As that was the Government’s initial proposition and only after the intervention of the British Ports Association did they chose to ignore the trade unions, can the Minister clarify why that was? If there was compelling evidence to make that change, will he place it in the Library of the House?

[Mr Holden]

My understanding is that the initial consultation was on that broader thing, but the legislation that was introduced was always based on a figure of 120, because after that broad consultation we looked at various issues, including where an operator, perhaps from Holland, visits several European ports and then pops into the UK once a week. The minimum wage equivalence being introduced for those operators would be very minimal and would affect a small number of people. Obviously, where someone was based in Holland, visited several European ports and then popped into the UK occasionally, we would be bringing in real questions of international jurisdiction, particularly under maritime law, as to where those services were being operated from.

[John McDonnell]

I do not think that just popping in every two or three weeks is just popping in. I have been at this for a while and international law is always thrown against it. Will the Minister publish any legal opinion that he has on that matter, so that we could examine it, across the House, to ensure that it is true?

[Mr Holden]

I will write to the right hon. Gentleman about that to see whether we can publish anything further. I just say that a full consultation took place, and the details of it have been fully in the public domain. We have arrived at this position having considered all the implications of the proposal. On a major number of issues the Government have moved significantly in this area. I have listened to Members from across the House and in the other place to address their concerns. However, on this specific issue the scope would be widened to operators that really are not UK operators; they are from other countries and would just be popping into UK ports. That would have major international implications, as I am sure he can understand.

[Christine Jardine]

rose—

[Mr Holden]

I will take one final intervention.

[Christine Jardine]

I appreciate that the Minister is giving up a lot of time on this. However, would most people listening to this debate not feel that vising a port once a week is a regular, substantial amount of presence, and that we would be missing out a substantial number of people?

[Mr Holden]

I think the hon. Lady is incorrect on this point. We are talking about someone based overseas who visits a UK port once a week for a matter of hours and who may be operating in the territorial waters of another country for the overwhelming majority of their working time. This would be similar to someone employed under a British lorry driver’s licence going over to do deliveries in another country as well. There is this idea that we would suddenly change things for those few hours that people were perhaps at a UK port, but that would be inconsistent with our obligations and it raises real issues associated with our interactions with other port operators, particularly across the North sea, and with our friends and allies in Europe, who are looking at similar legislation. We have been working on that with our European partners. We are already in conversations with the French on this issue and on others. The UK is leading the way on legislation in this area of regular services, but we have to do it in such a way that it also fits with international maritime law. We also need to ensure that we are on the same page as our friends and partners across the continent.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

To clarify something that my hon. Friend said earlier, is the point of the measure not to avoid a situation where, as we saw with P&O Ferries, a company is effectively making a choice whether to employ British people working in British waters on the acceptable living minimum wage, or to make wholesale redundancies so that it can bring in low-paid workers, and quite often low-paid foreign workers?

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is the crux of this legislation. We are trying to address the operators who regularly access UK ports on those short straits routes. What we are not trying to do is pass legislation for people who are perhaps in UK waters for a matter of hours a week, the benefit of which is relatively minimal anyway, because they are in international waters, or in the waters of a foreign country, for the majority of the time. The impact of that would be seen as relatively negligible.

Let me move on from that point. I think I have explained very clearly the UK Government’s position. The implications of the extension to once a week for port calls would place a huge burden, the effects and benefits of which are difficult to ascertain, and appear to be incredibly minimal.

Clearly, the Bill focuses on the short sea services, justifying the seafarers’ connection to the UK and therefore a UK equivalent level of pay protection. To reduce the frequency that services must call at UK ports before coming into scope of the Bill’s requirements to include weekly services would dilute the concentration of the Bill in protecting those seafarers. In any event, the time in our waters spent by seafarers who call only weekly would be so short that it would have very little effect, while hugely widening the scope of the Bill to container services, which may have very little connection to the UK.

New clause 2 would ensure that the Government produce a report on implementation and monitoring within six months of the Bill being passed. The same new clause was introduced in Committee and I am afraid that the Government’s position has not changed. Many of the areas that such a report would cover are out of scope of the narrow focus of the Bill. We have acted quickly and decisively with the Bill to prevent operators of regular services to the UK being able to replace seafarers with those being paid less than an equivalent of the national minimum wage. Furthermore, it would be impossible to measure due to any indirect impact. Six months from a Bill becoming law is far too soon for a report to be of any use. We would still be in the process of developing secondary legislation in order to bring the Bill into full force.

In Committee, we discussed each provision of the new clause in detail, and Baroness Vere also discussed the provisions of a similar amendment at length in the other place. The points that I made in Committee are unchanged, so I will not repeat them, but I will provide an update to the House on various aspects that the report would cover.

Subsections 2 (a) and (b) request the reporting of the impact of the Act on roster patterns, pay, pensions and future plans to legislate in these areas. We do not have plans to legislate more than is necessary, but that does not mean that we are not taking action on areas beyond the matter of minimum pay, which we all know is not the only aspect of seafarers’ welfare that requires attention. As part of the seafarers’ protection nine-point plan, we will launch a new seafarers charter to improve the long-term employment and welfare conditions of seafarers. It includes a wide range of employment protections that is currently covered in the Bill. The Government are committed to delivering a voluntary seafarers charter in the near future. They will act legislatively only where it is proven that it is appropriate to do so. The impact of the charter and the need to provide a legislative basis will be continuously reviewed, and it is not necessary or desirable to constrain ourselves to committing to any action on a strategy on these timescales. The charter will be published very soon. We are working closely with the French Government, who are also developing their own version of the seafarers charter. We are commissioning independent research into roster patterns to ensure that we have a strong evidence base to support policy on this subject. The French Government are also doing their own research, and we are liaising closely with them to share our learning and further build a robust evidence base in this important area.

On subsection 2(d), with regards to a strategy for monitoring the establishment of minimum wage corridors, the Government appreciate the interest in this area and we are working hard to seek agreement on how the UK and our near European neighbours can collaborate on the international stage to improve seafarer welfare. As part of that, we are exploring the creation of minimum wage-equivalent corridors.

I am pleased to say that the French Government deposited a Bill in their National Assembly on Wednesday 1 February. Their Bill aims to ensure that seafarers working on certain cross-channel ferry services between the UK and France will also benefit from pay protections while in specific parts of French territorial waters. We will continue to work together on our respective pieces of legislation to ensure that we maximise the benefit to seafarers. In addition to our work with France, we have begun our engagement with the Crown dependencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I wish him every success in his bilateral negotiations with the French Government and other seafaring nations. Let me turn to the point made about the litmus test of the success of this Bill. Without placing in the Bill the seafarers charter, which addresses not just minimum wage equivalence but roster patterns and all the other things that allowed rogue employers such as P&O Ferries and Irish Ferries to commit the terrible action that took place almost a year ago, would this Bill prevent such action? I am afraid that the answer is no. It fails the litmus test.

[Mr Holden]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; I do not think that the Bill fails the litmus test at all. It is clear that what we are trying to do is protect seafarers with major connections to the UK, and that is exactly what the Bill does.

On the personal liability of directors, the existing criminal offences in the Bill will have serious commercial and reputational impacts, particularly now that we have included unlimited fines, so I do not think that the new clause is necessary. Plus, the Insolvency Service is currently undertaking a civil investigation into the P&O situation, which shows that these things can be addressed, as set out in the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. I request that the new clause be withdrawn.

On the role of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, I would like to assure the House that new clause 5 is unnecessary. The Bill does not refer to the MCA by name. That is because it is an executive agency of the Department for Transport and will be covered by the legislation.

In relation to amendment 30, we seek to make energy installations within the UK exclusive economic zone a

“place in the United Kingdom”

for the purposes of the Bill. The key point here is that we understand the concern in this space. Offshore wind farms and the renewable sector are critical to meeting our targets. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy regularly reviews the national minimum wage legislation to make sure that it is fit for purpose in the current situation. We hope that that will be covered in that.

Similarly, turning to amendments 31 and 32, we hope that pension entitlements and deductions for food and accommodation will be covered in the seafarers charter, which will be brought forward shortly. Although we support the intention of the amendments, it is right that the detail, particularly on food and accommodation, is set out in secondary legislation, which is where we intended it to be, in order that we get it right for this complex matter. We will hold a public consultation on the draft regulations before the Bill receives Royal Assent.

I believe that I covered the refusal of access exceptions in amendments 36 and 37 extensively in Committee, which made it very clear that we are in a very sensible place on both those issues.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. I hope that it is clear from my responses that I have been open to amendments and that the amendments tabled by the Government have also made that clear. I understand that some Members would have liked us to have gone further, but the scope of the Bill has been intentionally tightly drawn to target action on the specific issue of wages for seafarers with close ties to the UK. We introduced this Bill at great pace following the P&O scandal, and it is by keeping the Bill tightly focused that we have been able to take such prompt legislative action. The Government have, however, still been progressing their nine-point plan for seafarers’ protection, and I hope that Members will welcome the progress that we have made, particularly in our co-operation with the French Government on these issues.

The compliance and enforcement mechanisms of the Bill have been carefully designed, and I hope that hon. Members will note the improvements that have been made both on Report and in Committee, which include suggestions from them. The compliance process is a carefully drawn balance between harbour authorities and the MCA on behalf of the Secretary of State. We have been engaging actively with ports and stakeholders and will continue to do so as we develop secondary legislation. We are confident that the combination of surcharges, refusal of access and criminal offences will ensure that operators pay seafarers on services in the scope of the Bill at least the national minimum wage equivalent. I am pleased that the Bill has reached this stage in its passage and look forward to seeing it on the statute book.

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

I rise to speak to new clause 2, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The new clause would ensure that the Bill contains sufficient checks and balances so that it does what it is intended it does. We support the premise of the Bill and have suggested amendments to strengthen it. We do not want a toothless Bill that is wide open to abuse by bad bosses. The Bill attempts to address the problems of seafarer welfare and is intended to cover services with close ties to the UK that make regular port-to-port international voyages and arrive on our shores throughout the year.

The Bill is not merely about pay; it is also about conditions, pensions and roster patterns. It is the first piece of primary legislation on this subject since the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Its scope must be broadened and protections put into the Bill. The easiest way to measure the efficacy of the Bill is to require the Government to report on the additional conditions, specifically those relating to the seafarers welfare charter. Regrettably, that charter, which is the Government’s preferred option for setting minimum conditions for rostering, pensions and other aspects of seafarer employment, has been voluntary and progress has stalled. The Minister said that he is co-operating with the French, which is good to hear, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said, the Bill clearly fails the litmus test. We have to move on this issue: the Bill is toothless without the charter, and the Minister should come back to the Dispatch Box and say that he will move on it, or at least give some sort of guarantee of when the charter will come into force.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I look forward to seeing the seafarers charter. However, I believe that we will be back here, after more disgraceful behaviour by a company or another example of British seafarers and others being exploited, arguing that the seafarers charter—when we see it, if it is comprehensive enough—should have statutory force. I just hope that it is not another 20 years, but if it is, it might be worth me staying on in Parliament, just to make sure it goes through.

[Mr Holden]

I thank all hon. Members for their speeches. I found it a pleasure to work with everybody, particularly in Committee, to try to improve the Bill and get it into its best possible shape. I hope I have been clear in my responses during the debate that, with the Government amendments we have tabled, we have taken on board a lot of the feedback from Members. I understand that some will be disappointed that we did not go further, but I will come on to address a couple of points that were raised.

On amendment 24, the scope is intentionally tightly drawn because seafarers need to have close ties to the UK. The national minimum wage equivalent will be enforced in our territorial waters only. If we were to expand it to include less frequent services, there is a risk of bringing into scope seafarers working on services that we do not feel have legitimate ties to the UK.

The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and others raised the issue of wages. We understand that wages are just one of the issues at stake more broadly, but they are important, which is why we are legislating on them today. On his broader concern, we are working on progressing the nine-point plan. I hope Members welcome the progress we have made, in particular on co-operation at international level. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) did say back in March last year that we needed a binding framework to prevent a race to the bottom on international standards. I hope she can see that we are putting in a new international standard, at least at some level, and that we are working with international partners to improve conditions.

I thank the hon. Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) for their comments on unlimited fines and seafarer welfare. I appreciate their views on wanting things to go further. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) raised Mr Hebblethwaite, as did other hon. Members. I have to agree with their comments about the man as an individual. However, we hope that the unlimited fines element for the company will make a real difference to the operation of people in this space.

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mr Holden]

I do not have enough time to give way, I am afraid. I was very generous earlier on.

The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has raised the issue of the seafarers charter regularly. He and the hon. Member for Easington have raised it on a number of occasions. We will bring it forward in the near future. I hope they will see that it will, in quite a lot of ways, go further than I think they fear it might. Going beyond wages, food and accommodation will be covered under secondary legislation that will follow on from the Bill. They both also mentioned the scope of amendment 32.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) raised broader issues around legislation. In particular, he wanted an update on the maritime growth strategy. I am encouraged by the positive action taken by the industry so far, but I will raise the matters he has raised with the maritime Minister and ask her to write to him.

The hon. Member for Easington raised a number of issues, but went further than other hon. Members on P&O’s royal charter. I will ask the Privy Council Office to write to him. My understanding is that one has not been revoked since the reign of Charles II. We are now in the reign of Charles III, which is quite a long time after that. There was, apparently, a third-party action in an administrative court in 1853, which is slightly more recent. That could possibly be another route, but I will ask the Privy Council Office to write to him with the full details. That is the best place for that to come from—it is stretching my legal knowledge in that particular regard.

We are confident that the combination of surcharges, refusal of access and criminal offences will incentivise operators to pay seafarers on services within the scope of the Bill at least the national minimum wage.

I hope that I have addressed some of the major issues on which hon. Members have pressed me today. On new clause 4, I ask them to consider the impact that making the fines unlimited would have on individual companies and directors, and to think again about what they are asking for. On new clause 2, I put it to them that it really would not be appropriate to have a review within six months, before even the relevant secondary legislation has been made. On amendment 24, I refer them to the extensive comments that I made in my first speech.

I hope that hon. Members will see fit to pass the Bill without further pressing any amendments or new clauses. If they do press their amendments, I hope we can defeat them and see the Bill through to a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 3 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

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.’ —(Louise Haigh.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I was as shocked as everyone else in this House by the actions of P&O Ferries when, without warning, it sacked almost 800 of its workforce to replace them with cheaper labour. Those actions brought to light the urgent need to improve welfare and working conditions, and this legislation is part of the Government’s nine-point plan to address those issues.

The Bill delivers on the Government’s commitment to ensure that employers such as P&O Ferries, and all ferry operators that frequently use UK ports, are incentivised to pay at least the national minimum wage equivalent while their seafarers work in the UK or in our territorial waters. Although there is no silver bullet to address all the outstanding seafarer welfare issues, the Bill is a vital step in the right direction. At the same time, the Government will make progress on the other pillars of the nine-point plan.

We have been working closely with our near European neighbours on how we can collaborate to improve seafarer welfare and explore the creation of minimum wage corridors. We have been working closely with the French Government on improving seafarer pay, welfare and working conditions, and I am pleased to report that the French Government deposited in their National Assembly a Bill that aims to provide a level of pay protection to seafarers working on certain cross-channel services between the UK and France. It will ensure that seafarers working on certain cross-channel services will have pay protections while in specific parts of French territorial waters, mirroring our own UK territorial waters. We will continue to work together on our respective pieces of legislation to maximise their benefit.

In addition, we have begun our engagement with the Crown dependencies, and we will continue to engage with other European neighbours on strengthening co-operation to bolster seafarer welfare. The voluntary seafarers charter is being developed with the maritime industry and social partners to enhance core employment protections. It will be launched soon and will cover a wider range of seafarer employment standards. We are also supporting the French Government as they develop their own seafarers charter.

All this sends a message to every operator: “If you want to serve UK ports on a regular basis, you must meet our standards.” I reiterate the Government’s intention to continue working closely with ports, the shipping sector and unions as the Bill continues its passage through the House of Commons and, crucially, as we develop secondary legislation.

We are grateful to stakeholders for their constructive engagement and continued close working. I thank officials at the Department for Transport for all their work in bringing the Bill to its current stage and for progressing the nine-point plan, and Baroness Vere, who, as Maritime Minister, steered the Bill through the other place. I thank the parliamentary counsel for their work to draft the Bill and its amendments, and I also thank House staff.

I thank all Members from across the House, especially those who took part in the Bill Committee, for their support for and engagement with this important legislation. I am pleased that the Bill has reached this stage, and I look forward to seeing it in statute.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency Annual Report and Accounts 2021-22

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, Baroness Vere of Norbiton, has made the following written ministerial statement:



I am proud to announce the publication of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s annual report and accounts for 2021-22. The MCA does vital work to save lives at sea, regulate ship standards and protect the marine environment. The agency has been playing its part in encouraging and enabling the industry to move towards zero carbon emissions from shipping and to prepare the way to regulate the safety of autonomous shipping.



The annual report and accounts consists of:



Performance report—how the MCA performed against its key performance indicators, and highlighting success;

Accountability report—including the corporate governance statement and the certificate and report of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the House of Commons; and

Financial statements—statement of financial position and notes to the agency’s accounts. During January 2022, the MCA celebrated 200 years of HM Coastguard undertaking crucial rescue activities. The last reporting year saw the coastguard respond to more than 36,000 incidents around the coast, an increase of around 2,500 from the previous year. There was a significant rise in cases of illegal migrants crossing the channel in unseaworthy small boats. The coastguard continues to work closely with the French coastguard to respond to these incidents. On 13 December 2022, the Government also set out their plans to tackle illegal migration and criminal gangs who exploit our system.



MCA continued to raise the profile of the UK ship register during the last reporting year, with the launch of the concierge service. MCA also played a major role in supporting the decarbonisation of shipping.



The UK Maritime Administration was subject to an audit of the IMO Implementations Code during 2021-22. This audit resulted in one of the best reports the International Maritime Organization has ever issued, validating our work to be a world leading organisation.



The MCA has let the UK’s Second-Generation Search and Rescue Aviation programme. This will take account of how demands on aviation services and technology have evolved and will create a new service for the next 10 years.



The annual report and accounts will be available on www.gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS529]

Midlands Metro Extension

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) for securing this fantastic Adjournment debate. It has come at a particularly appropriate moment as I was in the west midlands just earlier today. I know that this is a vital project for him and for my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), as well as for other Members in the region. I actually visited the Black Country Living Museum, but I have never been to the zoo, so I hope my hon. Friend might be able to take me there at some point.

I met Andy Street today, and I mentioned this and other projects to him. As Minister for roads and local transport, I am always keen to get out and about, and I pledge to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency in the near future. He was very kind in his opening comments, and I pay tribute to him for the work he has done. I can tell the House that West Bromwich West may have been forgotten for 50 years under previous Members of Parliament, but it is now one of the few places I hear about in this House.

The Government are wholeheartedly committed to delivering on their vision of levelling up all areas of our country, not least my hon. Friend’s constituency and the broader west midlands, ensuring that we have a transport network that caters for all users, helps to drive economic prosperity and minimises environmental impacts as far as possible. Responsibility for much of the transport connectivity in the west midlands, including the metro services, rests with the West Midlands Combined Authority and Andy Street, the region’s metro Mayor. Our drive to create mayoral combined authorities has been key to joining up transport, economic development, housing and planning in our largest city regions, and empowering areas to deliver their plans for sustainable economic growth. I was glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that comprehensively in his speech, as it is his vision too.

The west midlands has an ambitious metro programme, and the Government have provided significant funding already. As part of the transforming cities fund, my Department agreed a settlement of £321.5 million for the west midlands. The region allocated £207 million of that funding to the extension of the metro, which is very important for the whole Black Country—it is an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South has mentioned to me too. I recognise the importance of the project in enhancing transport connectivity in the constituencies of several of my hon. Friends and the wider region, and welcome the current plans to open the first phase of the scheme to passengers within the next couple of years.

My Department is keen to work with Mayor Street to understand the funding challenges involved in this scheme, and to identify potential solutions. The Government’s funding support for the expansion of West Midlands Metro has not been limited to the Wednesbury to Brierley Hill scheme, but has included investment in a number of other key projects, and we will continue to work with the Mayor on those as well. West Midlands Combined Authority is currently exploring opportunities with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to make use of an in-year capital investment to fund strategically important projects, aligned with levelling up. The region’s metro extension programme is among the projects under consideration, and I understand that a funding decision is expected imminently. My hon. Friend should definitely contact my colleagues in that Department as well. I shall also seek the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South, the oracle of Brierley Hill, on this matter.

I recognise the role that trams and metros play in our largest towns and cities, helping people to access jobs, education, healthcare and society more widely, which is why we supported our trams and metros throughout the pandemic, when the Government provided more than £250 million for the light rail system. That funding helped to keep services running and enabled key workers to get to work, and West Midlands Metro received over £13 million of it.

England’s largest city regions, including the west midlands, are a key priority of levelling up and driving growth and productivity. Our ambition is for every region to have at least one globally competitive city at its heart. That is why we are investing £5.7 billion in transport networks through the city region sustainable transport settlements. We have agreed a five-year funding settlement from 2022, and I look forward to seeing all the transformational projects that it will bring about, particularly in the west midlands.

More than £1 billion is going to the west midlands. My hon. Friend spoke about enhancements to the metro, but, as he also mentioned, this is not just about the metro, although the metro is a part of it. Schemes proposed in the region include an upgrade of the depot at Wednesbury, which I understand the Mayor visited earlier today, and the integrated hub at Dudley Port, which I know is vital to my hon. Friend.

This investment programme represents the principal transport funding for eligible authorities to invest in their local priorities, and Mayors are responsible to their communities for delivering the agreed outcomes. We recognise that there will always be challenges, but I know that my hon. Friend will continue to work with me, and with local representatives, to address them. We in the Department are always willing to be flexible, while retaining—this was an important point made by my hon. Friend—the degree of transparency and oversight that must be maintained at all times to ensure that public money is always well spent.

I agree that the extension of the metro is vital for the west midlands and my hon. Friend’s constituency. West Bromwich West could not have a more foot-slogging, hard-working, campaigning local Member of Parliament. He has addressed me regularly about these issues: he grabs me in the Tea Room, he corresponds with me by email and in person, and he collars me in the Division Lobbies. He really is batting for his constituency, and I wish him the very best of luck in getting more councillors of his ilk elected in Sandwell in the coming months.

My Department has provided significant funds to support metro infrastructure in my hon. Friend’s region, and is committed to investing in wider improvements to its transport network over the coming years. I look forward to working with him to deliver for the people of Tipton, Wednesbury and beyond. There are acute transport needs there, and this is not a panacea, but it will be a big help. I want to go on working with West Midlands Combined Authority, and also holding its feet to the fire. With financial freedom comes financial responsibility: that important point was made by my hon. Friend.

My door is always open to my hon. Friend if he ever wants to go on pressing the case for his region and his constituents. Transport and regeneration go hand in hand. I hope that we can get this major scheme—which is important to the region, but also to the wider country—over the line, working together: my hon. Friend and me, Mayor Street, the councillors of Dudley and Sandwell, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South and other Members across the region.

Question put and agreed to.

Silsden and Steeton Bridge

Richard Holden Excerpts

Wednesday 25th 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 Pritchard, and it is always important to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). Although I am from the other side of the Pennines, I went to school just up the road from him, so I am aware of the issues that he raises. Being an Ermysted’s old boy, I have friends from the neck of the woods that he mentions, in Silsden and Steeton, and I know how important the road crossing is for him and his constituents.

I thank him for securing the debate and for building on the work of his predecessor but one, Kris Hopkins, who started this campaign. It is astonishing that it is now longer than six years since the project started. I am sure that by working together, we can reach a situation where this is not a bridge too far for Bradford Council and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, and get it delivered for local people.

It is a pleasure to address some of the points that my hon. Friend raised. Putting in place transport infrastructure that supports local communities is a key priority for my Department not just for West Yorkshire, but for the entire north of England and the whole country. That cannot be done without local authorities, which we need on the ground to deliver schemes.

My hon. Friend will recognise the strong investment that the Government have made in transport in the north. That has been reinforced through our flagship city region sustainable transport settlement. That will provide about £6 billion to the largest city regions in England to transform their local transport networks over the next few years.

CRSTS represents an unprecedented investment in West Yorkshire’s transport, and it will play a key role in supporting growth and productivity, levelling up and decarbonisation. The settlement will see West Yorkshire specifically receive £830 million from central Government funding for investment in public transport infrastructure and many important projects. Hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, can be very proud of the role that they have played in helping to ensure that West Yorkshire gets the money for those local schemes.

As part of that £830 million, £9.5 million is provided for the construction of the Silsden and Steeton bridge. Additionally, the Department for Transport provided £700,000 to support the business case for the development. How on earth it took four years, I do not know. It feels to me that there was a clear hiatus between the tenure of Mr Hopkins as the local MP and that of my hon. Friend, who now represents Keighley and Ilkley, when things did not get done because they were not being pushed for for local people. I know from speaking here and in the House that my hon. Friend is a cut above in fighting for his constituents, wherever they are in his patch.

The £830 million commitment through CRSTS is also expected to be supplemented by mayoral combined authorities with a local contribution of 15% to 20%. As well as providing investment for the construction of the bridge, CRSTS gives West Yorkshire’s metro Mayor huge autonomy and flexibility in investing in wider local transport priorities for the region, and it is her decision what to prioritise. Personally, I cannot understand why a relatively small project, which is unlikely to have a broader impact, is not being prioritised, especially when it has been campaigned for for so long not just by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, but by his predecessor’s predecessor. The investments include large transit systems, massive improvements in Bradford city centre and all sorts of other things, but crucially, they also include the important link for his constituents in Steeton and Silsden.

The Government fully appreciate the critical role that our city regions play in driving growth and long-term prosperity, and connectivity is vital to that. It is our ambition that every region has at least one globally competitive city at its heart. The CRSTS programme, which is the latest part of this Government’s significant track record in investment in West Yorkshire, will begin to realise that ambition by investing in transport networks and opening up areas in the region for more employment, education, leisure and housing. My hon. Friend has consistently campaigned for such interventions as a local MP on the ground and through his work in Parliament.

We believe that better transport connectivity helps all our regions to fulfil their potential. Alongside CRSTS, the Government are providing £70 million for West Yorkshire’s bus service improvement plan, which is being used locally to introduce the excellent and very welcome £2 fare cap. That is central Government money for which hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend, have campaigned. We have provided £173 million to a large public transport scheme in Leeds, improving transport for residents and workers. Many of my hon. Friend’s constituents will commute to work in those places, and that is why the regional funding is so important.

The Government have funded important local schemes, including through the transforming cities fund. We are really trying to help to drive up local transport and active travel. We have also helped West Yorkshire to establish a £1 billion transport fund, which is a 20-year commitment for the city region and will help create 20,000 more jobs.

Taken together, all those initiatives will deliver significant improvements to bus services in the region, including safer and more accessible bus stops, better highways and improved journey times. The £830 million is merely the latest in a series of investments in West Yorkshire and the region, which shows our long-term commitment. When we provide such funding, we hand the reins to local people, councils and combined authorities. It is right that those local councils, such as Bradford Council, and combined authorities are held to account for what they deliver with that money for local people. That is why I think today’s debate is so important.

Across the north more broadly, the Government have been investing very substantially: around £33 billion has been invested in transport since 2010, and around a tenth of that will come from the CRSTS funding. There have been projects across Yorkshire and the Humber, and the integrated rail plan is providing £100 million to look at the best way to take HS2 trains into West Yorkshire. Furthermore, over £239 million is being distributed to local authorities across the north that are not receiving the CRSTS funding that West Yorkshire is receiving, in order to support pothole repairs and local transport measures in 2022 and 2023.

Through greater investment in local areas, we can grow the economy, create good jobs and spread opportunity everywhere. The new funding will help to do that, and— this is important for towns such as those in my hon. Friend’s area—it will help to reflect that real local pride. That is part of what he said: he wants to see those things delivered for local people to create pride in their towns, especially when they have fought for so long and so hard for some of these things.

With the Government providing significant funding for places to fulfil their ambitions, I look forward to seeing this being delivered, and it is all about delivery. The responsibility lies with West Yorkshire Combined Authority and the city region’s metro Mayor, Tracy Brabin. West Yorkshire was at the forefront of our drive to create mayoral combined authorities and we recognise the strategic importance of joining up transport connectivity, which is why we put it at the front of the queue. Now it is up to Tracy Brabin to deliver.

Through a series of devolution deals, we have provided more transport powers—we want to provide more—and more funding to support mayoral combined authorities, but we have to see them delivering. The best way for them to do that is to push forward schemes such as the one in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We understand that there are the skills and the capacity in local government; that is why they have been asking for these powers and why we have given the powers to them. Now they need to deliver.

Central Government supports local government’s capacity and capability in a huge number of ways, including through the resourcing grant for the combined authority of £7 million, which is huge money. It is there to help and to deliver projects such as the one that my hon. Friend has been fighting for.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the construction of this bridge is very important for local people, and I am excited and proud that the Department has been able to support it through funding. I take this opportunity to commend the combined authority for part of its track record on some of these projects, which they have pushed forward. However, we want to see all these schemes being delivered—not just some that have been handpicked—as quickly as possible, so that as many people as possible can benefit from them.

My Department will work closely with West Yorkshire Combined Authority on the progress of its whole settlement to realise positive outcomes for people living in Steeton and Silsden, as well as for people living in the wider West Yorkshire area, and to understand whether the local authority can take up any of the opportunities perhaps to accelerate the schemes as they go ahead to construction.

As my hon. Friend requested, I will ask my officials to raise this issue in their regular meetings with the combined authority, and I will write to him about that. The Department will monitor each MCA’s progress throughout their settlement period to ensure that ambitious plans are matched by successful delivery, so he can rest assured that we will continue to monitor this work. However, the responsibility for delivery and deployment ultimately sits with the local authority in Bradford. That is why it is so important that these issues continue to be raised.

I look forward to seeing the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council deliver promptly on the investment that my Department has made in this scheme, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. I will also be delighted to come up and visit him, because I think that we all need to put our shoulders to the wheel, just to give this scheme a bit of a nudge in the right direction.

I hope that I have been clear about the level of support that the Department has been providing to West Yorkshire, the importance we attach to the bridge between Steeton and Silsden, and, importantly, the broader connectivity investment that we are providing for my hon. Friend’s area and the region. The sluggishness of the local authorities in this case stands in stark contrast to the sterling work of my hon. Friend, who is always at the forefront of championing his constituents. I look forward to continuing to work with him and the local authorities to get this project delivered, to get the area thriving, and to make this happen sooner rather than later.

Question put and agreed to.

MOTs: Increased Particulate Matter Testing

Richard Holden Excerpts

Tuesday 24th 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 Hollobone. I commend the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on securing a debate on such an important topic, which affects not only the owners of diesel vehicles but all of us affected by air pollutants from vehicles. He has been a staunch advocate of action to tackle these problems in his role as chairman of the Westminster Commission for Road Air Quality. We know each other well from his work on road safety. It is great to see him again pressing an important cause, which I know he cares deeply about, especially on what would have been Ella’s 19th birthday.

The hon. Member has eloquently explained the reasons that action is needed, especially to deal with the harmful substances called particulates, which have been linked to a number of serious health problems. Diesel engines have historically had higher emissions of nitrous oxides and particulate matter. In urban areas with large amounts of slow-moving traffic, that can result in an increased risk of harm for residents, including of respiratory illness. He was right to point out that it is often the most densely populated and poorest areas that suffer the most.

In the long term, we are committed to moving from vehicles based on internal combustion engines to zero-emission vehicles. The sale of new petrol and diesel cars will end by 2030. However, that does not mean that petrol and diesel cars will be off our roads immediately. In fact, they will still be on our roads for a considerable period, so we need to tackle pollution from such vehicles.

Considerable progress has been made. Since 2013, all new diesel vehicles have had to meet limits on the number of particulates emitted from their exhausts. That has resulted in diesel particulate filters, or DPFs, being fitted as standard. The effectiveness of DPFs is shown by their impact on emissions. As the hon. Member mentioned, removing a diesel particulate filter from a vehicle’s exhaust can increase harmful pollutants by up to 1,000 times. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) echoed that point.

Since 2014, MOT tests have included a check that diesel filters are in place and functioning. However, the Government recognise that the MOT test is not effective in measuring particulate emissions and in checking that DPFs are in place. The smoke opacity test, which is part of the MOT test, measures only the density of smoke and not the level of particulates. It is often difficult to check visually whether a DPF is in place because of its positioning within a vehicle’s exhaust system. We have made it clear in our current MOT consultation that we are committed to implementing more effective testing of particulate emissions from diesel vehicles in order to identify and deal with those that have excessive emissions.

There has been substantial progress in developing particulate number testing. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned, some European countries have already introduced it, and some are doing it to much more effective standards than ourselves. In the UK, the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency has been trialling the use of particulate number testing machines, mainly on heavy goods vehicles but on some light goods vehicles as well. Those pilots have provided us with a better understanding of how changes could be implemented to introduce PN testing and to ensure that particulate filters are present and working.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield raised the important issue of cost. With the potential cost of these changes falling on our network of 23,500 MOT garages, many of which are small local businesses, we want to ensure the measures are effective and proportionate, and will help to tackle the issue. The typical cost of a particulate number testing device is currently between £3,500 and £6,100. However, after discussion with equipment manufacturers, we believe the cost may well drop substantially as demand increases off the back of any Government decision to implement the device in an MOT test.

[Mr Sheerman]

Does the Minister agree that the auto industry has some responsibility here? It would be wonderful if big companies such as Volkswagen, which must have a guilty conscience in some ways about this issue, could put some resources in to ease the transition.

[Mr Holden]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We would certainly welcome any private sector investment, particularly from large businesses, to help ease the cost for some of our garages, which are often either small or owner-run businesses in constituencies up and down the country.

We hope that a big increase in demand would see that supply increase and costs decrease. At current prices, introducing PN testing would cost approximately £100 million to the sector but, as I said, if it was rolled out nationally we could see that figure substantially reduce. I agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield that it would be great to see some innovation from some large car manufacturers in this space.

[Mr Sheerman]

Will the Minister give me one last go?

[Mr Holden]

I will give the hon. Gentleman one last go.

[Mr Sheerman]

I missed mentioning the name of that fine chemist from the University of York: Professor Al Lewis. I did not mention his name, but he is the one who has been measuring the levels of pollution so scientifically and said, “If you want to know where it is most polluted, it is where the poorest people live.”

[Mr Holden]

It is always wise that we parliamentarians realise that we stand on the shoulders of our researchers—or, in my case, my civil servants—and those who do so much externally to provide us with the background for these debates and the policies we push for. It is great to hear the hon. Gentleman paying tribute to those who work in research.

We are seeking views on particulate number testing in the consultation on MOT reforms, which we published last week. I hope the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and others will take part and feed into that interesting and important consultation. The case for introducing PN testing is clear; we now need the evidence to understand how and when we should make this change, and its impact.

We all have the same aim in reducing harmful emissions from road vehicles, including from diesel-powered cars. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, this is an invisible poison that we need to tackle. We are taking the matter seriously, and we encourage all those with an interest to respond to the consultation and help to provide the evidence we need to make further progress in reducing diesel emissions in the near future.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2023 Written Statements

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

I have today published the draft Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, with an accompanying explanatory memorandum. A de minimis assessment has been drafted and will be available when the draft statutory instrument is laid.

The use of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and alternatively fuelled vehicles (AFVs) can contribute to transport decarbonisation, as well as reduce emissions of air quality-related pollutants. Currently, alternatively fuelled and zero-emission heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) may have heavier powertrain technology than traditionally fuelled internal combustion engine (ICE) HGVs. There are particular components in AFVs or ZEVs which are likely to be heavier than their equivalents in an ICE vehicle, most notably batteries, which are significantly heavier than a petrol or diesel fuel tank providing an equivalent vehicle range. Fuel tanks for pressurised gaseous fuels such as biomethane or hydrogen are also likely to be heavier than ICE equivalents, due to the need to reinforce these to cope with high pressure.

All vehicles are subject to a gross vehicle weight limit, which varies depending on the axle configuration. Current weight allowances are set out within the Road Vehicles (Authorised Weight) Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/3111) and the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1078). Due to current maximum weight limit restrictions, the heavier powertrain means AFVs and ZEVs can carry a decreased cargo weight than comparable ICE vehicles. This acts as a payload penalty, potentially decreasing their commercial appeal.

The statutory instrument provides for a weight limit increase of a flat 2 tonnes for certain ZEVs and up to 1 tonne for certain AFVs. The relevant ZEVs and AFVs are mainly types of HGV. No additional weight allowance for ZEVs or AFVs will apply over the existing maximum of 44 tonnes. The maximum weight limits for individual axles will remain unchanged. This slightly different approach for ZEVs compared with AFVs is to provide the maximum possible incentive for ZEVs to be adopted.

The statutory instrument is published in accordance with the procedure required by schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and agreed with Parliament. The statutory instrument is being published in draft at least 28 days before being laid in draft to be considered under affirmative procedures in Parliament.

The Department consulted on these proposals between July and September 2021 as part of a wider consultation on phase-out dates for new non-zero emission HGVs, “Heavy goods vehicles: ending the sale of new non-zero emission models.” A response confirming our intention to introduce these changes was published on 12 May 2022.

[HCWS510]

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

1. What assessment he has made of trends in the quality, availability and accessibility of bus services in Newcastle since 2019.

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

In response to the Government’s national bus strategy, all local transport authorities in England outside London, including Transport North East, produced bus service improvement plans. Following a detailed assessment process, we have awarded TNE an indicative allocation of £163.5 million to support the delivery of its BSIP, which covers seven local authorities, including Newcastle City Council.

In December, ahead of the launch of the Government’s £2 bus fare on 1 January, I visited the north-east, including Blaydon and Newcastle, and the Go North East depot. I was pleased to hear about the work that operators and local transport authorities are doing to continue to provide bus services for local people in challenging circumstances.

[Chi Onwurah]

An elderly man waits two hours in the rain not knowing whether a bus will turn up. A lone woman is left stranded at 11 pm. A business cannot open because half of its workforce are delayed on different bus services. The bus companies say that the services are improving, but my constituents tell a very different story. We need accessible, affordable, regular, sustainable bus services; information about where the buses are; and accountability when they are not where they should be. How long do we have to wait?

[Mr Holden]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady that we need affordable bus services, which is why we have introduced the £2 cap. She will be aware that today £19.5 million of levelling-up fund investment has been announced for her area, including for 52 new electric buses, supported by 26 rapid chargers in the depots, to help provide that more regular and reliable service in the future. I will continue to work with operators to ensure that we have the drivers we need across the country, including in her constituency and mine.

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

In March 2021, in the middle of the pandemic, the previous Secretary of State promised buses so frequent that people would not need a timetable and said that the Government would

“not only stop the decline”—

in bus services, but—

“reverse it”. —[Official Report, 15 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 50.]

Since then, have bus services increased or decreased?

[Mr Holden]

The pandemic had a major impact on many bus services across the country. As the hon. Lady will well know, that included a huge fall in the number of concessionary fare users and, as people were having to work from home or were not able to go into the office, in the number of paid fare users. We have put in more than £2 billion in support for the bus network since the start of the pandemic in order to support services.

[Louise Haigh]

I repeat that that promise was made in the middle of the pandemic. Only once before on record, also under a Conservative Government, have bus numbers fallen by as much as they did last year. So instead of continuing to defend this broken bus system, will the Minister extend franchising powers nationwide, remove the hurdles that operators use to block reform and finally put power and control over routes and fares into the hands of the communities who depend on them?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the BSIPs and the devolution deals allow franchising powers to go forward, and Labour Mayors, if they want them, can apply for them. If she wants all of this across the country, she should speak to some of her Labour colleagues in order to do that. Some are doing franchising, but a lot are taking the other alternatives and working in close partnerships. As for the new buses across the country, perhaps she could welcome the extra money going into the north-east today—the 52 extra electric buses in the north-east depot. Perhaps she could welcome the news of that extra funding today.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the accessibility of electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to help improve traffic flow in Congleton constituency.

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

Managing the traffic on local roads is the responsibility of the local traffic authorities—in this case, Cheshire East Council. They are subject to a network management duty which requires them to manage their roads to deliver expeditious movement for all traffic, including pedestrians. A wide range of tools is already available to help them to manage congestion and traffic flow.

[Fiona Bruce]

I was prompted to raise this question by Cheshire East Council. Can the Minister explain, for the benefit of Holmes Chapel residents, why the Middlewich Road-Chester Road junction may require alteration in connection with plans for High Speed 2, bearing in mind that the planned HS2 route is some distance away?

[Mr Holden]

I know how strongly my hon. Friend campaigns on behalf of her constituents. The A54 Middlewich Road services an emergency diversion route for the M6. HS2 Ltd and National Highways identified the need for works on the route to mitigate traffic impacts forecast at the Chester Road junction during the construction of HS2, and measures have therefore been developed to improve the junction. A supplementary environmental statement for additional provision 1 to the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill describes the reasoning behind the inclusion of this junction improvement, and HS2 is in the process of sharing the technical work that supports it with the local highways authority in Chester East. If my hon. Friend is concerned about any further issues, I invite her to meet me so that we can discuss them.

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to reduce rail fare evasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

12. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency.

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

The DVSA is recovering after the pandemic. The theory test service is performing well. There are 620,000 practical test appointments in the booking system. Since April 2021, the DVSA has created an extra 695,000 car practical driving test appointments and the average waiting time to take a car test is at 15.1 weeks, with more than 80,000 slots currently available. The average waiting time for an HGV or other vocational driving test is currently just over two weeks. The heavy vehicle testing service is operating normally and enforcement operations continued throughout the pandemic.

[Mr Carmichael]

If the Minister were to go online to book a test in my constituency today, he would find that in Shetland, the earliest date is 18 weeks away and in Orkney, there are no test dates available. That is quite apart from the continued lack of availability of off-road motorcycle testing. The history of the DVSA in Orkney and in Shetland in particular in recent years has been frankly pitiful. When it comes to the next performance appraisal interview with the chief executive of the DVSA, could the Minister prevail upon her to find a day or two to come north and see for herself the effect that her stewardship has had on our communities?

[Mr Holden]

My understanding is that in Shetland, the average waiting time is 18 weeks, but in Orkney the waiting time is significantly less. I do not understand the discrepancy between us, so I shall write to the right hon. Member about that. I was surprised that he did not also welcome the £26.7 million that has just been announced today for transport funding for the Shetland Islands Council for the Fair Isle infrastructure project, showing how much this Government are investing in his constituency.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Notwithstanding the answer that my hon. Friend just gave, multiple constituents have written to me this week about the inability to get a driving test. One said that despite logging on daily, they cannot get a test at all in nearby test centres at Bletchley, Leighton Buzzard, Aylesbury, Banbury or Northampton. For rural communities like those I represent, the car is essential for people, young or old, to get anywhere, so when my hon. Friend talks to the DVSA, will he prioritise test centres for rural communities to get back on track?

[Mr Holden]

I also represent a rural constituency, although in a different part of the country. What I would say to my hon. Friend is that we have made big progress in recent years, with more than 300,000 new slots available due to the extra 300 driving examiners we have hired since the pandemic. Waiting lists are coming down for driving tests, and rapidly, and we hope to achieve pre-pandemic levels within the next few months.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Nationwide, almost one in 10 bus driver positions is vacant, hitting vital services across the country hard, but Ministers are asleep at the wheel, with no action plan to tackle it. Currently, the DVSA requires a provisional bus licence to start training, but with huge paperwork delays, 20% of applicants give up before their training begins. Will the Minister listen to calls to speed up this glacial process to allow applicants to begin their theory tests while they wait for their provisional licences?

[Mr Holden]

The Opposition spokesperson raises an important point that I have been raising myself. I have spoken to both the unions and the management during recent visits to Stevenage and Gateshead bus depots. There is an under three-week wait for practical driving tests for bus drivers. We are looking to do everything we can to speed that up. On a recent visit to the Gateshead depot I was told that at the start of the pandemic they had more than 150 vacancies. They are now down to under 20. We are seeing massive progress across the country. I want us to do everything we can to go further, which is why we have increased the number of driving tests, and during the pandemic we prioritised both HGV drivers and passenger transport drivers. I will continue to do everything I can in that space.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

T2. The Law Society of Scotland, the RMT and others have all expressed concerns about the Seafarers’ Wages Bill only covering services that dock in our port 120 times a year. That threshold is so high that several services will not be covered. Why will the Minister not listen to their concerns and reduce that threshold, thereby protecting more seafarers?

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

My understanding is that around 98% of services will be covered by the Bill, including the short straits services around which there have been concerns about P&O.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

T3. Despite more than £2 billion of support for buses from the Government during the pandemic, my right hon. Friend will be aware that the well-used and popular route 41 has suffered a massive reduction of service across my constituency. The local authority was made aware of plans to reduce the service in May 2022. However, my constituents still do not have a replacement service and are unable to access healthcare, jobs and education. Will my right hon. Friend meet me urgently to work out what more we can do to encourage local authorities to keep those vital bus services going?

[Mr Holden]

I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friend. He will be aware that under our bus service improvement plans we are ensuring that local authorities and transport providers work more closely together. We provided more than £2 billion during the pandemic, as he says. I would be delighted to meet him and his constituents on this matter.

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

T4. Cuts to local bus services have left some of the most deprived communities in my constituency, including the Beechwood and Noctorum estates, effectively cut off from the wider Wirral at evenings and weekends. Many constituents now find it almost impossible to reach Arrowe Park Hospital by public transport. Will the Minister commit to increasing funding for local transport authorities so they can guarantee that no one is left behind by cuts to local services? Will he commit to a review of the Bus Service Act 2017, to allow the creation of municipal bus services that serve the needs of local communities?

[Mr Holden]

My understanding is that talks are already under way about a franchising service in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We have already provided an extra £60 million over these three months for the £2 maximum fare cap, which will particularly help low-paid working people who regularly use buses to get to work.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

T5. The commitment in the Williams-Shapps plan to reform the structure of rail fares has particular resonance for commuters in Swindon, who have historically endured disproportionately high rail fares for journeys to London compared with those in Didcot, Bath and Bristol. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, in any forthcoming legislation, those plans will be brought to fruition? Is the Treasury supportive of them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

T9. In thanking the roads Minister for visiting Kettering in December to promote the £2 bus fare scheme, I ask him when National Highways will complete its planning development work on the proposed junction 10A on the A14 at Kettering so that it can be submitted for potential inclusion in road investment strategy 3?

[Mr Holden]

I was delighted to visit Kettering—in fact, it was the same day that I visited Gateshead—and to see such great coverage in the Northamptonshire Telegraph, which is Northamptonshire’s paper of record. My hon. Friend is an ever-passionate advocate for his constituency and for the proposals to improve the A14. I can confirm that National Highways is considering proposals for junction 10A of the A14 as part of the RIS3 pipeline. Those proposals will be considered alongside a further 30 schemes in the pipeline this year as candidates for potential inclusion in the scheme.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

This week, there were media reports that an 87-year-old south London resident has been unable to attend her hospital appointments since Southeastern made changes and cuts to its timetable. My social media is inundated with complaints of overcrowding, cancellations and continual delays on Southeastern services. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the new timetable on reliability?

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

Tomorrow, I will be meeting Nottingham City Transport to discuss the new £2 single bus fare. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that—coupled with the recent £11.4 million grant to Nottingham to support bus services, including the Lime Line services and 53 and 39 buses that run through my constituency—there is no better time for Gedling residents to take the bus for work and leisure?

[Mr Holden]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The £2 bus fare cap is not only innovative in helping people save money on their regular transport costs, but helping to take 2 million car journeys off our roads. There are 4,600 routes across England in the scheme, including the 44 bus from Nottingham and the 53 and 39 buses. I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend very soon.

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

The Conservatives’ promise of great bus services for everyone everywhere is clearly another empty promise. The Minister was right that the only way to solve this is through the devolution of powers and funds to places such as Chester. Will he therefore urge the Secretary of State to take seriously the devolution bid put forward by Cheshire and Warrington, so that we can get buses going where Cestrians need them?

[Mr Holden]

We always look forward to working with local authorities on whatever plans they bring forward, but I remind the hon. Lady that this Government put in over £2 billion of support during the pandemic. We are trying to drive the crucial ridership that will ensure services are sustainable in the long term via the £2 bus fare scheme, which I am sure she will be promoting in her constituency. It has been really good news to see Cheshire West and Chester Council getting an extra £13.3 million today from the levelling-up fund.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

I am working with the Stonehouse company BorgWarner in Stroud to raise the profile of hydrogen combustion engines and the need to ensure that they are considered compliant with the upcoming zero-emission vehicle mandate and vehicle requirements from 2035. Will my right hon. Friend agree to visit this important local provider of hundreds of skilled jobs and apprenticeships to learn more about its world-leading work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

Building on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) about the £2 bus fare, I am delighted to see it. However, for my Cornforth constituents, the bus no longer exists to Spennymoor, where the supermarket is, so they actually have to take two buses, changing at Ferryhill. What can be done to help such constituents, and will the Minister meet me to discuss this in more detail?

[Mr Holden]

I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. He will be aware that the enhanced partnership put forward by the Labour North East Joint Transport Committee is currently looking at the BSIP as well. I hope to work with him not only on that, but on the broader regional transport issues of which I know he has been a major champion since he was elected in 2019.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Reddish South and Denton stations are served by just one train a week. This line is the subject of a restoring your railway business case, but it is all coming down to the crossover with the west coast main line at Heaton Norris junction, just north of Stockport. Can I have a meeting with the Rail Minister so we can highlight the case of this line for growth in south-east Manchester and get train services to Denton and Reddish South?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend will know, National Highways has now submitted a development consent order on the construction of the lower Thames crossing. Who will be assessing the accuracy across Government of the benefit-cost ratio, and who will make the final decision on whether the £10 billion-plus-plus-plus budget still represents value for money?

[Mr Holden]

My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment further while the DCO process is ongoing. The LTC is a major transport infrastructure project and I am happy to meet with him and other hon. Members interested in this, as is the Secretary of State; it is a major piece of infrastructure investment and we need to get it right.

Draft South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (Transfer of Functions) Order 2023

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Draft South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (Transfer of Functions) Order 2023.

The draft order was laid before Parliament on 8 November and agreed to in the House of Lords on 19 December. It is solely concerned with the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority. Henceforth, I shall refer to passenger transport executives as PTEs and mayoral combined authorities as MCAs.

The draft order was laid at the original request of the former Mayor of South Yorkshire, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), with the full support of the current Mayor of South Yorkshire. The order is being made under section 85 of the Passenger Transport Act 1985, which allows the Secretary of State for Transport to make provision for the dissolution of PTEs and to transfer their functions, property, rights and liabilities to an integrated transport authority for the area. The order will dissolve the South Yorkshire PTE and transfer its functions, property, rights and liabilities to the South Yorkshire MCA.

PTEs are delivery bodies responsible for implementing the strategic transport plans in their area and for securing the provision of local public transport across the area as they consider appropriate. That includes commissioning socially necessary bus services and administering travel concessionary schemes. PTEs have existed in many of our larger city regions, predating the combined authorities, which are now largely responsible for transport planning in those areas.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

The explanatory memorandum that the Minister’s Department has produced, at paragraph 12.2, under “Impact”, states:

“The impact on the public sector is beneficial, as this consolidates two local public bodies into a single organisation, which should lead to operational efficiencies.”

Will there be any departmental review, say in 12 months’ time, to see whether that is indeed the case?

[Mr Holden]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. We are not planning any reviews at the moment. The main issue is that the mayoral combined authority has responsibility in this space. The passenger transport executive operates in the same building, as I understand it, but has to publish its own independent set of accounts, so although they work closely together, the dual administrative set-up continues. Merging them into one means little need to look at what extra can be done, as we are mainly removing the extra administrative burdens that exist currently for the PTE body, but which will now be automatically covered by the MCA. I hope that reassures him. In fact, my first decision as a Minister was to pass this draft statutory instrument, so I have spent an inordinate quantity of time looking at it in depth.

The South Yorkshire PTE was established by the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Area Order 1973. It has variously been accountable to the metropolitan county council, the passenger transport authority and the integrated transport authority.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give us a flavour of the different rules, if this legislation is passed, between the SYMCA and the SYPTE?

[Mr Holden]

If the hon. Gentleman is asking about the difference in the rules of the two different bodies, there are no different rules. Basically, the PTE is operating, but in conjunction with and under the mayoral authority. In that scheme, it has to provide a different set of accounts and that sort of thing, but it does not have democratic accountability in the same way as the MCA does—the Mayor is directly elected by the people, rather than being a collection of councillors and other appointed officials. We hope to provide greater democratic accountability. There are no real issues aside from removing some of the dual administrative burden on both bodies, if that makes sense.

The PTE most recently became accountable to the mayoral combined authority in 2014, when the Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority Order 2014 dissolved the integrated transport authority for the area, transferring its functions to the MCA. As well as the PTE responsibility for buses, the South Yorkshire PTE owns the supertram and is responsible for the arrangements for its operation.

South Yorkshire MCA’s 2019 review of bus services in its area, chaired by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), recommended, among other things, that the PTE should cease to exist as a separate organisation and instead become fully part of the combined authority. The review concluded that the separate arm’s length transport authority was no longer the right model. It concluded that a single entity responsible for bus transport strategy and delivery in South Yorkshire would provide a clearer focus on passenger needs, user-centred transport design and delivery and, of course, democratic oversight. As the review notes, this is already the case in some other city regions, such as the West Midlands and West Yorkshire, while other city regions have chosen to retain their PTEs as executive bodies of their combined authorities, such as in Greater Manchester or the Liverpool city region.

The Government recognise that a single entity may better support alignment of transport priorities with economic growth and decarbonisation objectives. However, provided that there are clear lines of accountability and sound governance in place, it is right that the combined authorities themselves determine which arrangements are best for their area. In this case, South Yorkshire has also identified scope for significant efficiency savings, which it is hoping to reinvest in the local bus network, away from administration.

Following the bus review, the then Mayor of South Yorkshire asked the Department for Transport to take the necessary steps to transfer the functions of the PTE to the combined authority. The Secretary of State agreed to do so, and my officials have worked closely with the Mayor’s team to bring forward this order. The order will make the combined authority responsible for planning, delivering and managing public transport services, bringing those functions under a single roof. Though as I said before, my understanding is that they are physically under a single roof now, but now it will be under a combined authority too.

To conclude, this order will make a straightforward and sensible amendment to the administration of local transport services in South Yorkshire at the request of the Mayor. It is important that the Government deliver on devolution by supporting local authorities in providing services in the most efficient way for the people in their area. I commend this statutory instrument to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I thank the hon. Member for Wakefield for his comments. In terms of funding, hon. Members will know that we have provided a huge amount of support through the bus service recovery grant, including over £5.7 million recently for South Yorkshire, and an additional £22 million in operational subsidy for the supertram during the pandemic period.

On top of that, when it comes to long-term funding going forwards, one of the most crucial things—not just for South Yorkshire, but for other combined authorities—has been trying to decarbonise their bus fleets. To date, South Yorkshire has received over £8.3 million towards that end, so we are providing some significant long-term funding for South Yorkshire. That is in addition to its £570 million city region sustainable transport settlement, which is part of a £5.7 billion deal for combined authorities that will run over a significant number of years. That will hopefully provide some of the long-term funding that the hon. Member for Wakefield mentioned.

To respond to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, while there will not be a separate look at the individual merger of the two organisations, DLUHC carries out an overall review of the mayoral combined authorities, their measures and what they are looking after every five years. There is an ongoing review there, but a review of the broader picture, rather than this specific measure.

To conclude, this order will dissolve the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and transfer its functions, rights and property liabilities to the combined authority. We hope that doing so will increase the accountability of transport services delivery in the area and, in particular, streamline administrative procedures, which will help realise efficiencies that can be properly invested in the services that local people across South Yorkshire need.

Question put and agreed to.

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.