Seafarers' Wages Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Robert Courts and Richard Holden

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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.

P&O Ferries

Debate between Robert Courts and Richard Holden

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that the way these people have been treated is not on. It is absolutely unacceptable. This is complicated, so there are a number of things we just have to go through to get this right. As soon as we can come back to the House we will, but in the meantime the letter the Secretary of State has written makes precisely the demand that the hon. Gentleman asks for.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State and the Department for the robust way they have taken on P&O over its disgraceful actions over the last few weeks. Can the Minister confirm a couple of things? First, will all contracts and relationships that P&O has with the Government be under review? Secondly, will he block the outcome that P&O is after, specifically trying to pay workers less than the minimum wage? Thirdly, does he agree with me that the CEO should either resign or be sacked immediately?

[Robert Courts]

My hon. Friend makes a number of excellent points. We will consider them as part of the package, but I can assure him that the thrust of what he is seeking to achieve is the same as the Government’s.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robert Courts and Richard Holden

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts]

As I have outlined, over £3 billion of new spend on buses is coming along during the course of this Parliament. The hon. Member is quite right to draw attention to the bus service improvement plans, and we will be able to provide some information on indicative allocations for that by the end of February.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

Buses are vital for many of my North West Durham constituents, but to put it simply, at the moment there are not enough of them and they are prohibitively expensive, especially for single-fare journeys. Will the Minister look closely at our bus back better strategy for the north-east to give us the funding and the buses we need for our communities?

[Robert Courts]

I know that the Buses Minister will be delighted to look at that particular strategy in the context of the overall funding the Government are providing.