Seafarers’ Wages Bill [HL]

Report

Clause 3: Power to request declaration

Amendment 1

1: Clause 3, page 2, line 15, leave out “the harbour” and insert “a harbour in the United Kingdom”

My Lords, I declare my interest as honorary president of the UK Maritime Pilots’ Association and a former harbour commissioner for the port authority in Cornwall.

In moving Amendments 1 and 2 I will reflect on the purpose of the Bill. Although it was created, as Ministers have said, to avoid a repeat of the frankly disastrous attempt by P&O Ferries earlier this year to change all their seafarers, it was the process that I felt was abhorrent. Clearly, the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the national minimum wage legislation applies to all seafarers when working in UK waters but not within the UK.

We debated the two issues in Amendments 1 and 2 in col. GC 102 of the Grand Committee on 12 October. I would like to start on Amendment 1, which is linked to Amendment 2. The question is: what is a harbour?

My Amendment 1 would leave out the words “the harbour” and insert

“a harbour in the United Kingdom”.

We understood what the Minister told us in Committee, but then it got a bit confusing. She kindly wrote a long letter to us, which was helpful, but she said in the letter:

“A service is defined … as being ‘for the carriage of persons and goods by ship, with or without vehicles, between a place outside the United Kingdom and a place in the United Kingdom’”.

The word “a” is interesting. If it were “the”, as in the Bill, that would be just one harbour, but my argument is that “a” place can be any harbour. This comes into the scope of whether the Government are trying to protect all seafarers who are, shall we say, based in the UK—those who work in UK waters but are not necessarily employed on UK land—or whether this provision just sorts out the P&O Ferries problem. It is my contention that as the Minister referred in her letter to “a” place, that is what should be in the Bill.

I am grateful to the RMT trade union for some information it has sent to me and, I expect, many other noble Lords. There are two issues here. Is there a need for this when you are operating a ferry service to a close member state of the European Union such as France, the Netherlands or the Republic of Ireland, where maybe the national minimum wage is higher than what we pay here? The argument may be that it is not really important. But this is legislation that could be on the books for many years and most countries could change their policies, so it is as well to make this applicable to many countries—member states and other reasonably close places—rather than saying that we do not need to bother with France because its pay is high anyway.

More interestingly, rather than just talking about Dover/Calais, the RMT has given me a list of services and vessels which go to and from the UK and could well meet the 52-visit figure I am proposing; the Government would rather have 120 visits. I have counted and there are 34 vessels and routes, not just one or two. I shall not read them all out. There are probably seven or eight different operators: P&O is a big one and there are DFDS, Stena and Cobelfret. We all know them. Some pay very well and, according to the RMT, some pay very badly. The lowest I have seen is Condor Ferries, which pays £2.40 per hour. That is a little bit below the national minimum wage, is it not?

It is difficult and dangerous to try to limit this legislation to services which are a bit like Dover/Calais. If you are a seafarer on many of those 40 or so services, the same comments and worries apply to you all. This applies only within UK territorial waters; what happens outside is a separate issue. That is why I have tabled Amendment 2: to reduce the number of visits of a ship or a service from 120 to 52. We can debate whether 52 is the right number—that is one a week on average—but it means that we can include a much greater range of services for which seafarers deserve to be treated properly. That includes cruise ships. Why should people on cruise ships not get paid a national minimum wage? I shall not go into detail—there is another amendment that could have come in—but the key is that the 52 visits a year can be measured. That can be controlled and I think it is a much better number than the 120 in the Bill.

In moving and speaking to these amendments, I look forward to the Minister’s response to Amendment 1 on whether option A or option B on harbours is favoured. It will be very interesting but I think the key is the 52 visits in Amendment 2. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say and then I will decide whether to seek the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of J&J Denholm, which has shipping and port services interests. I have not participated in this Bill because I thought it was excellent and doing the job that Ministers made clear was its purpose, which was to prevent a recurrence of the appalling behaviour of P&O in its ferry services. That was declared at the time.

We are looking at the provisions in the Bill and the suggestion in Amendment 2 that we should leave out 120 and insert 52. I believe that P&O has something like 15 crossings per day between Dover and Calais, so the Bill clearly deals with the problem that it was presented as seeking to solve. I am not unsympathetic to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who is splendid and very careful in the work that he does in this House. Indeed, we have agreed on matters such as HS2 and others from time to time. But his amendment would completely change the Bill’s scope, and to do that on Report would be quite ridiculous, when the whole thing has been presented to the public.

I am intervening because of representations from the Chamber of Shipping, which accepts that the Bill is right and the number 120 is right, but is concerned that we are drawing in other services. I have no idea what those services are and the noble Lord did not say what they were; I have no idea what the implications and costs are for the administration of the ports and so on. What I do know, however, is that it is not what the Bill was introduced to deal with. Therefore, at this late stage, it would be wholly inappropriate to amend the Bill in this way or to create an unknown administrative burden on the ports.

I guess that the noble Lord chose the number 52 because it meant once a week, but that does not address the problem that has occurred, so I hope my noble friend will continue to resist the amendment. The noble Lord seems to me to be in danger of trespassing on international conventions and rules. The Labour Party has always been a great supporter of the ILO and so on, and of having an international approach. We must tread with care. The Government, in seeking to deal with the P&O episode, took a step in a direction that moved away from the conventions that the flag of convenience should govern the rules on board ships, which was entirely justified. But this amendment is a step too far. As it is Report, I shall say no more.

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Forsyth has said. We have set out to deal with the problem of P&O. I have heard nothing from the RMT—it is clearly not that bothered about this side of the House—but this pushes things a bit further than they should go. I hope the noble Lord will not test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, I very much endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, just said. I am very concerned about this amendment, as is the Chamber of Shipping. The Bill is part of the Government’s nine-point plan to address the whole problem of seafarer welfare—an important one nevertheless, dealing with services with close ties to the UK, making regular port-to-port international voyages adding up to 120 calls a year. It is not just about Dover/Calais; ports all around the country will be affected, so it is wrong to concentrate just on Dover/Calais, although admittedly that is where the main problem occurred.

The Government went through extensive consultation on the Bill and came up with the figure of 120 calls a year, which is probably the right balance. I know that the chamber is very concerned that widening the scope of the services affected to those making only a single call a week would draw in a very large number of non-UK ships, subjecting many more foreign companies to UK national minimum wage legislation. In turn, that would provoke a severe reaction from the international shipping community—and I know that the International Chamber of Shipping is especially worried about this. In turn, this could be seen as an even greater infringement of international conventions and an excessive claim to prescriptive jurisdiction.

It would also be impractical for the Government to oversee such a large and diverse number of shipping services calling at UK ports, increasing the administrative burden on ports, as has already been said, and creating uncertainty across different shipping sectors such as coastal, wet and tanker services, dredgers and other services that were never intended to be part of this Bill. Any decision to have a scope in the Bill that is way beyond the original stated intention will seriously damage confidence in the UK as a global centre for shipping; it also risks fewer ships calling at UK ports.

My Lords, I want to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his usual attention to detail on these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said that he had not participated before. If he had, he would know that the scope of the Bill has been a persistent topic, and those of us who have been engaged throughout have pressed the Minister on a number of occasions, and in a number of ways, to define it more closely. I am particularly interested in Amendment 2; the key point here is the reduction in the number of visits required to demonstrate close ties and regular links with the UK—the noble Lord has suggested a reduction from 120 to 52.

The argument against that is that it might bring in a new range of services, and I understand the Government’s desire to avoid mission creep. But the truth is that although we all agree with the principle of this Bill—that seafarers should be paid a decent wage—in practice it is very poorly drafted. It has imprecise definitions, penalties that are in practice not going to be imposed—such as the denial of access to the harbour, which will come up in an amendment later—and a very cumbersome structure whereby the Government will rely on harbour authorities to implement the rules. I believe it would not have got this far in its current state if the Government had not been so distracted recently; we are after all on the third Secretary of State in three weeks, and it is difficult to get that continuity.

To address the specific issue of the numbers, the noble Lord suggests that the total is 52. It is easy, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has just pointed out, to base one’s judgments on what happens from Dover; in practice, there are ferry services in the rest of the UK that are in every way similar in structure, ownership of the company and the seafarers involved, but they go much less frequently. It is possible to envisage, for example, some of the ferries between the north of England and Scandinavia and ferries between the south-west of England—maybe Poole—and the north of Spain. Those are regular ferry services that often do not run at all in winter, so a total of 52 may not be out of kilter with what is required.

My Lords, I support both my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s amendments. They make it more likely that operators will not be able to evade their obligation to pay at least the national minimum wage equivalent. The behaviour of P&O Ferries in March this year is the very reason for the Bill, and that behaviour shows the lengths to which operators will go to save money on seafarers’ wages. The Bill should bend over backwards to narrow every opportunity for operators to evade their very modest obligation to pay seafarers the national minimum wage equivalent and prevent such behaviour.

It is not just P&O Ferries. The effect of allowing ship operators to evade the national minimum wage equivalent is that they undercut their competitors, which then join the race to the bottom and put at risk the jobs of some 2,000 UK-resident ratings and officers. Like my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I looked at the table provided by RMT. Perhaps he will forgive me giving a correction: he said that the lowest rate was £2.40, paid by Condor Ferries. However, according to the table, the lowest rate is P&O Ferries on the “Pride of York”—a vessel registered in the Bahamas—on the Hull-Zeebrugge route, which pays €2.04 per hour for cooks of Lithuanian extraction. There are a number of other low rates. For example, DFDS’s “King Seaways”, going from Newcastle to Ijmuiden, is on the Danish international ship register and has Polish, Ukrainian, Romanian and Filipino crew, and it pays $2.63 an hour for a cabin steward. I will not read any more examples, but this appears to be a perpetuation of nationality-based discrimination on pay which this legislation should be tight enough to avoid.

I hope the Minister will forgive me for asking before I sit down for her to clarify a point raised in Committee—namely, whether a harbour in one of the Crown dependencies is a UK harbour or whether it will become subject to a national minimum wage equivalent corridor. I did not understand the answer she gave in her very kind letter of 21 October. If it is to become the subject of a corridor, can I ask how negotiations are progressing, and whether they involve the social partners?