contents - rmt · web viewthe work i am doing on the maritime growth study should fill some gaps...

RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP

RMT

PARLIAMENTARY

GROUP

UPDATE

6 December 2016 – 7 March 2017

This report was compiled and prepared by:Union Services Parliamentary Consultancy

in liaison with RMT Head OfficeFull Details of all Parliamentary Questions, Early Day Motions and debates can be obtained on

request or by accessing www.parliament.uk

1

http://www.parliament.uk/


CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Parliamentary Overview 3 Legislation Summary 4 Group Overview 6

Main Campaigns Update

Rail 9

Buses 11

London Transport 12

Maritime & Offshore 12

TUCG 14

ANNEXES

Annex 1 Early Day Motions (EDMs) 15

Annex 2 Parliamentary Questions (PQs) 21

Annex 3 Debates 38

Annex 4 Correspondence 51

Annex 5 Group Membership 52

2


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report covers the period from 6 December – 7 March, a period which included Christmas Recess (21 December – 9 January), and a short half-term recess (10-20 February). The report therefore covers around nine weeks when Parliament was sitting.

PARLIAMENTARY OVERVIEW

Much of the Parliamentary focus for the period covered by this report has been given to the continued uncertainty around the plans for Brexit and the triggering of Article 50. Opposition MPs were unhappy about the lack of opportunity for detailed scrutiny of the Government’s proposals, and successfully lobbied for a “White Paper” to be produced to allow for such discussion. There currently exists uncertainty over the terms by which Britain would access the single-market once we have left, and the status of our membership of the Customs Union. The Supreme Court also ruled that Article 50 could not be triggered by Royal Prerogative powers (which would have allowed the Government to take the decision without consulting Parliament), but would require a short piece of primary legislation.

Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has warned of the dangers of Britain setting itself as a “bargain-basement” tax haven on the shores of Europe aiming to undercut EU member states, with workers’ rights torn up, although Britain already has the worst workers rights in Europe with the Trade Union Act and all of Thatcher’s anti-trade union laws introduced whilst we were members of the EU. Following the result of the referendum, Labour supported the triggering of Article 50.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill continues its progress in the Lords where the Government will resist all hostile amendments as it did in the Commons. Any opposition in the Upper Chamber is likely to be fairly short-lived as their Lordships will not wish to be seen thwarting the will of the people or the elected chamber, and the Bill should pass all its stages in time for the Government to trigger ’Article 50’ and begin negotiating the UK’s withdrawal in line with its timetable by the end of March.

The proposed State Visit of new US President Donald Trump has faced opposition in Parliament, including from Speaker John Bercow whose position has in turn been threatened by Conservative backbenchers. Meanwhile, over 1 million British people signed a petition arguing that Trump should not be granted a State visit whilst pursuing such racist policies as a ban on migrants from seven mainly Islamic nations, which culminated in a debate in Parliament on February 20. The issue was also debated in an urgent question to Parliament, where Labour MPs dubbed the Prime Minister “Theresa the Appeaser”. MPs were also angered when the PM moved to cap the number of child migrants to taken by Britain from the refugee camps in Europe, overturning the promise secured by Lord Alf Dubs to accept over 3,000 such vulnerable children, when at present only just over 300 are thought to have been accepted.

3


The period had earlier been marked by the resignation of two Labour MPs – Jamie Reed (Copeland) and Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) – who have chosen to take up other jobs, rather than risk not being selected owing to the boundary changes. The by-elections took place on February 23, with Labour experiencing a disappointing loss to the Tories in Copeland, but managing to see off the threat of UKIP in Stoke-on-Trent.

The parliamentary group have been extremely busy during this period fighting on numerous fronts providing RMT with an on the spot presence in Westminster, and ensuring that parliamentarians are up to speed with the details of the union’s concerns.

LEGISLATION SUMMARY:

BUSES BILL

The Buses Bill was first announced in last year’s Queen’s Speech. All companies will have to share information about routes, fares and timetables — paving the way for programmers to develop new apps passengers can use to plan their journeys. Councils will not have to use the new powers and they may decide they are happy with the arrangements already in place. The reforms are designed to give them new tools to drive up standards in the interests of residents.

Local authorities will be given new powers to enter into stronger partnerships with bus companies, and agree minimum standards for services, improving reliability and punctuality. They could make sure buses run more regularly, to avoid several being timetabled to arrive at once.

The new partnerships will also be given the power to set standards for local buses and introduce standard ticketing rules over wider areas, paving the way for Oyster-style schemes. The government will also honour its devolution deal commitment to provide some local authorities with bus franchising powers — like those used in London. We defeated the Government in the Lords over its proposal to outlaw the ability of local authorities to form new municipally owned bus companies (see below), however it remains to be seen what the Government will do when the Bill arrives in the Commons. The Bill completed its Final Stages in the Upper House on 23 November and is now heading for the Commons, where it will receive its Second Reading on 1 March.

INDUSTRIAL ACTION (PROTECTION OF CRITICAL NATIONAL SERVICES) TEN-MINUTE RULE BILL – Chris Philp MP

4


On 24 January Tory backbencher Chris Philp used the pretext of the Southern Rail dispute to introduce, under the ‘Ten Minute Rule,’ his Bill to restrict strike action in essential services such as Transport, the Fire Service, the NHS and the Civil Service. This essentially builds on the Trade Union Act imposing an even higher hurdle for strike action to be considered lawful on “critical national services”. Here, before any action could be taken, a High Court judge would be asked to adjudicate on whether the proposed strike was “proportionate and reasonable” and to determine a minimal required level of service to the public to be provided in the case of such action taking place.

A ‘Ten Minute Rule Bill’ has no possibility of becoming law without overt Government support. Nevertheless it is important that such deliberate and provocative Tory ‘trail blazing’ is stopped in its tracks and Labour responded forcefully to defeat the Bill 206 votes to 127.

FORTHCOMING LEGISLATION:

GREAT REPEAL BILL

Prime Minister Theresa May has announced that as part of the Brexit process, the Government will bring forward a Bill formally repealing the European Community Act (1972) and incorporating all EU legislation into British Law. It is expected that initially any employment rights which have arisen from the EU will be fully transferred into British law and remain in force for the time being. However over a period of time the Government is likely to seek to amend or repeal those aspects which they regard as unhelpful to business. This could be done at any time over a number of years by means of secondary legislation which would present us with considerable difficulty because Statutory Instruments are notoriously difficult to defeat, amend or even debate. However there is great uncertainty on all of this and much will depend on how the legislation is framed when the Bill is published.

AUTONOMOUS VEHCILES BILL

The Queen’s Speech contained the lines “My ministers will ensure the United Kingdom is at the forefront of technology for new forms of transport, including autonomous and electric vehicles”. This is likely to include measures legalising driverless cars, however we will monitor the draft legislation when the Bill has been published, to see if it makes provision for buses or any wider roll-out of driverless trains. We await publication of the Bil.

EXTREMISM BILL

This Bill, which has been pre-announced but is yet to be published, is claimed to target radical Islamist organisations who, whilst not directly involved in terrorist activities, are giving ideological and political support to terrorists. However, the definition of “extremism” appears to not to be limited to such organisations, but could instead be broad enough to target those deemed guilty of encouraging direct action or civil disobedience – including anti-austerity

5


and environmental activists. The new powers could see the police given powers to ban meetings, disrupt activities, and prevent media coverage. The Group will be monitoring this Bill closely, and seeking to ensure that it does not curb freedom of political expression or association.

GROUP OVERVIEW

The RMT Parliamentary Group was formed in 2002 with Labour MPs keen to work with the union on the basis of support for four key policies: Public Ownership of Rail; Employment for UK Seafarers; Opposition to privatisation of London Underground; and Repeal of the Anti-Trade union laws. It is a ‘campaigning’ group and members of the group are not “sponsored”, i.e. there is no financial link between the group and the union, and none of the MPs receives any payment or funding for being a member of the Group. If the union decides to provide a financial donation to any MP’s constituency at any given time, as it did during the last Election campaign, that is an entirely separate matter. The RMT is also working with Caroline Lucas to establish a cross-party group of progressive MPs

The Group normally meets every 2 months whilst Parliament is sitting with Executive Officers of the RMT, and works to an agenda set by the union. The group was originally convened by John McDonnell and professionally administered by Union Services in liaison with RMT Head Office. Following his promotion to Shadow Chancellor, the Chairmanship of the Group has now passed to Ian Mearns. Membership of the Group presently stands at 20, following the death of Father of the House and long-term RMT Group member Sir Gerald Kaufman, who sadly passed away during the period of this report. One formal meeting of the Group was held during this period, on

Group Meeting: Wednesday 1 Feb, 4.00 - 5.30 pm, Room S, Portcullis House

AGENDA1. Apologies2. Railways (inc. Southern Rail Guards Dispute update)3. London Underground (inc. TfL update)4. Buses Bill5. Maritime6. Other Political and Industrial issues (inc. Taxis update)7. *Diary Dates*8. Any other Business

This meeting was chaired by Ian Lavery, owing to regular Chair Ian Mearns being unable to attend owing to a back injury.

The union is also holding part of its political school in Parliament on 23 March with group members Ruth Smeeth and Karl Turner hosting.

BRIEFINGS

The union is notified of forthcoming Parliamentary business on a weekly basis, and keeps the union informed regarding Transport Committee events and reports. During this period

6


MPs received a large number of RMT Briefings and Press Notices circulated by the parliamentary group, including:

12 December – RMT responds to Chris Grayling attack on unions14 December - Guard’s calm intervention after sex-attack underlines need to scrap driver-only plans, RMT tells Merseytravel14 December - Rail union RMT barred from ACAS talks on Southern Rail20 December – RMT says Christmas Truce on Southern Rail in Government’s hands21 December - Southern owners Go–Ahead set to pocket Christmas Bonus from Theresa May's rail replacement bus stunt10 January – RMT: Future of UK Maritime Briefing11 January - Offshore union RMT welcomes safety action by Sikorsky over North Sea helicopters11 January – RMT issues January 26 deadline for assurances over Arriva Rail North guard posts11 January - National Minimum Wage for seafarers Legal Working Group12 January – RMT calls on MPs to press Shipping Minister to end pay discrimination in maritime industry12 January – RMT campaign secures major breakthrough in low pay fight on Seatruck/Serco Scottish Ferries20 January – RMT slams bid to spin tragedy as case for driver-only Merseyrail trains23 January – RMT Southern Guards action "solid and absolutely determined" this morning23 January - Offshore Helicopter Safety briefing24 January - Government Plans For Taxpayer To Pay Hundreds Of Millions To Take On Unions To Introduce Driver Only Trains3 February – RMT moves into dispute and confirms ballot for industrial action as company fails to give assurances on guards on Merseyrail6 February - Tube strike action suspended as on-going RMT fight leads to reinstatement of nearly 60% of axed jobs10 February – RMT declares dispute on Arriva North and confirms ballot for action over failed assurances on guards13 February - Equivalent of at least a 1000 services a year running driver only on Southern16 February – RMT Confirms New Strikes On Southern Rail17 February - Southern Rip Up Saftey Rule Book In Scabbing Drive For Next Week's Strike Action22 February - RMT Southern Guards standing firm this morning in teeth of threats and intimidation from GTR bosses

EARLY DAY MOTIONS (EDMs)

Note on Early Day Motions

Following concerns expressed at the 2013 RMT AGM and these being considered by the Executive and conveyed to the convenor of the Group, it was thought the following note would be useful.

The number of MPs signing an EDM does not always indicate the level of Parliamentary support for an issue and cannot be taken as a hard and fast statistic of the total number or names of MPs who are supportive.

Group members are systematically lobbied to sign RMT initiated EDMs however there may still be reasons why MPs cannot sign EDMs, for example if they are part of the shadow team, if they are members of select committees or if the EDM is regionally focused. Since the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Leader a majority of Group members now fall into this category.

Scores of EDMs are tabled every week with well over 1000 tabled each session. In addition once an EDM is tabled it is only automatically reprinted in an MP’s papers for the next 2 weeks. After that the MP may not be aware of the EDM. So for example it won’t be uncommon for group members to actually initiate and table a EDM on behalf of the Union but may then miss or not get round to signing an EDM tabled by another group member.

7


Whilst EDMs have a role in highlighting a campaign to other MPs, and sometimes the press, they are only one aspect of campaigning in parliament and there are a number of other mechanisms that the group will seek to maximise such as the tabling of Parliamentary questions, letters to Ministers, and intervention in debates. It is hoped the above process can assist in continuing to ensure members of the parliamentary group are supportive of the Union and its key polices.

Previous EDMs fell on dissolution of the House in March ahead of the General Election, the current EDMs will last until the next Queen’s Speech. Below is a list of all EDMs tabled by the Group during this parliamentary session, and in bold the EDM’s submitted during the period of this report. The EDMs tabled in the 2015-16 session have now fallen. The full wording of the EDMs and lists of signatories may be viewed in Annex 1.

EDM TITLE MAIN SPONSOR No of sigs.

62 FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF SEAMAN STRIKE

IAN MEARNS 26

151 RETENTION OF RAILWAY GUARDS IAN MEARNS 27231 NON-PAYMENT OF NATIONAL LIVING WAGE

AND SEAFARER EMPLOYMENT ON OFFSHORE SUPPLY VESSELS

IAN MEARNS 29

349 DRIVER ONLY OPERATION ON SCOTRAIL IAN MURRAY 10516 MARITIME SOS 2020 CAMPAIGN IAN MEARNS 25587 REGULATION OF BLACK TAXIS AND

MINICABSKATE HOEY 13

787 UK RAIL FREIGHT JOBS AND CAPACITY PAUL FLYNN 18

816 GOVERNMENT RAIL CONTRACTS AND DRIVER ONLY OPERATION

KELVIN HOPKINS 9

999 NORTHERN RAIL DISPUTE IAN MEARNS 9

8


Campaigns Update

Rail

Southern

The dispute over Govia Thameslink Railway’s proposal to remove guards from the Southern trains in a move to the Driver Only Operation (DOO) model - has continued throughout the period of this report. RMT Guards taking thirty days of strike action since last April on the grounds that the changes to staffing levels undermine passenger safety and accessibility on its services. The RMT action has been arguably the highest profile trade dispute in the last year, with numerous parliamentary debates, questions, two select committee inquiries, a National Audit Office inquiry and extensive media coverage. The RMT has received the full support of the Labour leadership and has been grateful for the work done by Shadow Secretary of State Andy McDonald, and members of the RMT Parliamentary Group have provided and support and assistance wherever possible.

The parliamentary group was made aware of the union’s totally understandable anger regarding the role of the TUC leadership in brokering talks with ASLEF from which the RMT was excluded, resulting in what they believed would be an agreement with GTR in the drivers’ dispute which would have isolated the guards on Southern

Meanwhile, leaks from the Department of Transport suggest that ministers are giving consideration to the temporary renationalisation of Southern rail services, owing to the Company’s currently being in default of its contractual obligations. This proposal has been backed publicly by some Tory MPs in the region, including right-winger Chris Philp who sponsored a Ten Minute Rule Bill calling for further restrictions on the right of transport workers to take industrial action (see annex where Labour in response highlighted that the government are indemnifying TOCs in dispute). Southern has submitted detailed “Force Majeure” claims to the Department demanding to be let off the hook for its poor performance owing to the industrial action.

Members of the RMT Parliamentary Group have submitted numerous written questions on the subject (see Annex), and industry insiders are starting conclude that Southern’s claims to do not add up. The Secretary of State can either choose to uphold Southern’s claims, but risk massive public and political pressure for allowing them to continue to run services in a manner widely regarded as unacceptable, or reject their claim, giving support to those arguing for taking back the franchise in-house. Ministers are currently facing mounting Parliamentary pressure (see for example the Westminster Hall debate on 20 January in Annex 3), but are attempting to kick into the long grass the decision for a final decision on the Force Majeure claim. The issues at stake in the dispute are very high as there is a clear agenda from the Government to use the Southern dispute to roll out DOO across the country.

Clearly, the removal of the guard has accessibility consequences for disabled and elderly passengers. This was raised by Shadow Rail Minister Pat Glass at Transport Questions (23

9


February) but her counterpart Paul Maynard ducked the question regarding the roll out of DOO:

Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that six weeks ago I asked a question at Transport questions about the experience of disabled passengers. I have subsequently been contacted by lots of people who have told me their stories—awful stories that shame us all. I want to ask the Minister about the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, of which this House can be rightly proud. Does the Act apply to train operating companies? I think we would all expect the answer to be yes. If so, what are the Government doing to make sure that train operating companies allow disabled passengers to travel? I have been told that in the past disabled passengers were able to turn up at the station and travel in the guard’s van like a parcel. However unacceptable that is, we are taking that away. Do the Government accept that by encouraging train operating companies to take guards off trains, they are contributing to a breach of the Disability Discrimination Act?

Paul Maynard

I would be very concerned at any suggestion that it is appropriate, in any way shape or form, for passengers with a disability to travel in the guard’s van. Indeed, most of our rolling stock these days does not have a guard’s van to travel in. Like the hon. Lady, I have received a number of worrying complaints. I have met the Office of Rail and Road, which scrutinises the licence conditions under which all train operating companies operate. It is conducting a very careful evaluation of the thresholds for triggering licence conditions, which is why it is doing a mystery shopping exercise. Over and above that, I want to ensure that where individual passengers have an inadequate level of service, they too have a route to go down to seek redress from train operating companies.

Northern Rail The Government have insisted that half of all services on the new Northern Rail Franchise (operated by German-state owned Arriva) must be Driver-Only by the end of the decade. MPs have been made aware that, following a longstanding political campaign, the union is moving into an industrial dispute over the issue. As with the Southern dispute, the Northern franchise contains a clause which allows the Government to reimburse losses due to industrial action, meaning the operator has a reduced incentive to settle. In this instance the UK taxpayer would be bankrolling a German rail company to take force through UK government policy undermining British rail workers and passengers. This is a point brought out in Early Day Motion 816 on “Government Rail Contracts and Driver-Only Operation” tabled by Kelvin Hopkins.

The Group will be using its auspices to bring influence to bear on Rail North, the devolved body comprised of 30 northern councils [a majority of which are Labour-controlled] which jointly manages the Northern franchise along with the DfT. Interestingly the other franchise jointly managed by Rail North, Transpennine Express, has agreed to retain the guard as have neighbouring Scotrail. The Group has been made aware that the union is now balloting members working for Arriva, and is about to table an EDM on Northern Rail.

10

https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=3926




Mersey Rail

Members have been made aware that Merseytravel, the fully devolved transport authority responsible for letting the Merseyrail contract, has decided to introduce new rolling stock which is only configured for DOO. They claim that this has been done as the only way of paying for new trains is to cut the number of staff on trains. Merseyside MPs have been briefed with results of RMT research suggest that the cost of retaining the Guards on Merseyrail would only amount to approximately a third of the dividend paid out to of Merseyrail’s joint operators Serco and Abellio (latter owned by the Dutch state). Several CLPs have back the RMTs position, and – as with Northern rail – the political campaign over the issue is about to move into an industrial phase. Members of the Group have undertaken to raise the union’s concerns with Steve Rotheram, Labour candidate for Mayor of Liverpool City Region.

Rail Freight

It will be recalled from the previous report that Group members were concerned that DB Cargo, the UK’s largest rail freight company, announced it is to cut 900 rail jobs representing a 30 per cent reduction on a skilled railway workforce therefore threatening the future of UK rail freight. Whilst a range of reasons are cited, the company – ultimately owned by the German state railways – has its own short-term commercial interests to consider. However, this begs the question why a key strategic industry should be owned by a foreign government rather than under public ownership in this country. Newport MP Paul Flynn tabled EDM 787 in this session to highlight the importance of renationalisation in protecting rail freight jobs.

Buses

The date of the Second Reading of the Buses Bill in the Commons is still awaited, following its rescheduling owing to the urgency of the EU Withdrawal Bill debates. The Bill has already been through its stages in House of Lords, during which the union assisted in drafting amendments to address key concerns over the protection of jobs, pay and terms of conditions in the event of franchising; a statutory duty to consult the unions; and the need for a confidential safety hotline for bus workers to report concerns.

When the Bill arrives in the Commons it is feared that the Government may attempt to overturn the amendment moved successfully by Labour’s Lord Kennedy, which strikes out the clause of the Bill which would have prevented local authorities from forming new municipally-owned bus companies. The Group has also received a letter from Transport Minister Andrew Jones (with whom a delegation met on 31 October last year), acknowledging our concerns and undertaking to consider the issues raised with him.

The Group continues to liaise with Shadow Buses minister Daniel Zeichner.

11


London Transport

Controversy hit Transport Secretary Chris Grayling in December last year, when a leaked letter to Boris Johnson revealed that he had blocked proposals to devolve suburban rail services in the Capital (including Southern, together with Southeastern and South West metro services) to Transport for London, in order to keep them “out of the clutches of any future Labour Mayor”. This led fellow Tory MP Bob Neill to call on Grayling to resign calling him “unfit for office” in putting party political interests ahead of passengers.

Meanwhile, the effect of Johnson’s ticket office closure programme with the loss of 800 frontline station staff jobs continues to be felt, not least because Tube journeys are up by 23% over the last six years. Even London Underground management have been forced to concede that the job cuts have had an impact on passenger safety. RMT members on the Tube have taken strike action in order to secure improved staffing levels to counteract the worst aspects of the cuts. The impact of such strikes are considerable, a fact implicit in the inclusion of tube strikes as a target of Chris Philp’s Ten-Minute-Rule Bill on Industrial Action (Protection of Critical National Services) Bill (see above, and the debates Annex).

At Transport Questions on 23 February, Group member Alex Cunningham asked the Minister about the Government’s plans regarding the Law Commission recommendations on regulation of taxi and private hire vehicles. Andrew Jones responded:

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)

At the request of the Department for Transport, the Law Commission conducted a comprehensive review of taxi and private hire regulation in England and Wales. The Government are currently considering all the recommendations in the report, against the background of a rapidly changing industry. We will formally respond to the Law Commission and announce our intentions once that scrutiny is completed.

The Group will continue to press the case for a statutory definition of “plying for hire”.

Maritime & Offshore

Orkney and Shetland MP Alistair Carmichael, with the support of RMT Parliamentary Group members including Karl Turner and Kelvin Hopkins, secured a backbench business debate on the UK maritime industry on January 17. Just a day before the debate took place, a partial victory was won with the announcement that ratings employed on the Serco/Seatruck ferry services to the Northern Isles, who had previously been paid just £4 per hour, would now receive the National Minimum Wage following an agreement with the Scottish Government.

The debate saw MPs raise with re-appointed Shipping Minister John Hayes a range of issues including enforcement of the National Minimum Wage; training of UK ratings; Maritime apprenticeships and cuts to the Maritime and Coastguard agency (see Annex for an edited transcript). Labour Shadow Minister, Pat Glass, had been well briefed by the

12



union and highlighted the scandalously low rates of pay on which some ratings are employed by shipping companies operating out of UK ports. Karl Turner also raised ongoing issues around the compatability and transferability of qualifications between people who work in the Offshore Oil and Gas sector, and those who could work on vessels involved in supply vessels for Offshore wind (see Debate Annex).

Replying for the Government, Hayes made constructive noises in response to the debate:

Let me highlight the key issues that have been raised, which fall into the following categories. First, there is the maritime growth study, which I have mentioned. That was a very important piece of work and I am immensely grateful to Lord Mountevans for leading it and to others who took part. It provided a series of recommendations that will inform future policy, but as he and others acknowledged, it must be a living document. The great risk with such exercises is that the document is published, the work is done, there is a great furore around its publication and then a year later people think, “What on earth was that study?” In order to give the document continuing relevance, it needs to be regularly updated, which is precisely what I am doing through the work I just described.

The points made about the flag—as highlighted by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass)—and tonnage tax should be pertinent to that review of the study. We can do more with tonnage tax, particularly on recruitment and training, and we need to do more, as has been acknowledged by the Government and those with whom we work, to make the flag more attractive. There has to be an offer in respect of the register that goes beyond simply raising the flag and includes a range of services that we can provide to make it more attractive. We are committed to that.

Secondly, the issue of ports was raised. [...]

The third issue that was raised was skills and recruitment. I share almost all the views that permeated—indeed coloured—this debate, begun by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I think that we are doing too little on recruitment and that we need to do more on skills. As Members will know, I was the apprenticeships Minister when the coalition Government first came into office. I am proud of our work on revitalising apprenticeships, but I take the point that was made. More can be done, and in my discussions on the industrial strategy I will raise the continuing importance of training in this sector. We need to recruit and train more British seafarers. It is as simple as that. Throughout this short debate Members have made the point that there has to be a career path for those seafarers. It is not enough simply to recruit people at different levels; there has to be a career path so that people can build their life in seafaring. That is a good thing and something of which we should be proud.

Albert Owen

[...]Will he work with the unions and others to ensure that we have a proper campaign for skills and safety at sea?

Mr Hayes

Indeed I will. I recently held a roundtable meeting, which the unions attended, on precisely those matters. I have discussed recruitment with the trade unions, and I welcome the excellent briefing produced by my trade union friends. When I first became a Minister, I said to my officials, “I want to meet the unions regularly,” and they looked slightly nervous about it. During the course of those meetings, a union representative—I will not say who—said, “We never got this much out of Labour.” I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and particularly the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who called for this specifically in his contribution—that I will continue to work with the trade unions in exactly the way in which he has described. It is vital not only that we recruit people, but that we train them appropriately and allow them the kind of career opportunities that he called for.

Karl Turner

13





Will the Minister commit to meeting a group of cross-party MPs, along with the RMT representatives, very soon to see what progress he has made following this debate?

Mr Hayes

Yes, I am happy to do that, perhaps under the auspices of the all-party group, which I have already met, but I am happy to meet again. That would be a useful vehicle for precisely that kind of discussion.

The fourth area that the debate touched on—this was referred to by a number of hon. Members—was what might be called the welfare and conditions that prevail in the maritime sector. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the conditions are appropriate. [...]We will take this further. As a direct result of the debate—perhaps it will happen in the discussions that were just described—I am very happy to consider what more the Government must do. The work I am doing on the maritime growth study should fill some gaps and allow us to consider what more can be done on recruitment, as well as how we can approach skills in a fresh way and how the terms and conditions that apply across the industry can be improved.

Karl Turner is now writing to Hayes, on a cross-party basis – together with other MPs who made useful points – seeking to set up a meeting with a delegation to press for action arising from the debate. He has also tabled written Parliamentary Questions regarding the number of training opportunities for Merchant Navy ratings (see Annex). The Group will be looking for opportunities to raise the delay in agreeing the standards for the Maritime Caterer Apprenticeship, now delayed for over a year and delaying agreement of apprenticeships for engine, electro-technical and on-board service Ratings.

The union has also been working effectively with shadow shipping minister Richard Burden who has submitted a number of parliamentary questions.

In the Offshore sector the issue of helicopter safety remains a key concern, with the European Safety Agency seeking to launch a legal challenge to the grounding of the Airbus Super Puma models introduced by the UK and Norway following the fatal accident on April 229 last year. The final report from the Norweigan accident investigation is still awaited.

Trade Union Coordinating Group

RMT is a founder member of the TUCG which was set up in 2008 to coordinate the campaigning work of member unions in Parliament and within the wider movement. A detailed report of the work of the TUCG is distributed bi-annually in February and September. With UCU having rejoined the TUCG currently brings together 10 trade unions (BFAWU, FBU, NAPO, NUJ, NUT, PCS, POA, RMT, UCU and URTU) and represents around one million trade unionists. It meets at a General Secretary level every 2 months and its Annual Chair rotates alphabetically between member unions. The Chair for 2017 is URTU.

The Executive last met in December and again in February for its AGM and will next meet in April. The December meeting was also attended by Jeremy Corbyn’s Trade Union Liaison Manager, Nancy Platts, and Workplace 2020 researcher, Martin Smith. In February the meeting also included a discussion with the Shadow Treasury Team regarding the forthcoming budget statement and Labour’s plans for investment in public services and

14



infrastructure post 2020. Unions updated fellow Executive members of ongoing disputes and strike action and the Executive heard from the RMT details of their dispute with Southern Rail and the situation with regards to the TUC.

The Executive hosted a special meeting on 11 January with the former Shadow Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office and Chair of Workplace 2020, Ian Lavery. This meeting was established to update member unions of the progress of Labour’s Workplace 2020 initiative. However, following several reshuffles and internal struggles, it seems the initiative has started afresh with Ian and Martin requesting that TUCG union resend their initial submissions which would be considered before an interim report is published in the autumn. Although member unions are keen to take part in the initiative, delays in the process have been slightly frustrating. It is hoped that an outline of the report will be circulated in the spring however Brexit is likely to dominate the political agenda in Westminster for some time ahead.

With the Government’s squeeze on pay set to continue, a prime focus for TUCG campaigning in 2017 is certain to include pay and member unions will be doing all they can to encourage the TUC to mount a high profile campaign. Pay will be a central topic for discussion at the April TUCG Executive, with a positional paper being prepared. An invitation has also been sent to John Hendy QC to discuss what room for manoeuvre unions still have under the provisions of the new TU Act which are now coming into force.

In the next twelve months the TUCG will host fringe meetings at the STUC, TUC Congress and Labour Party Conference, as well as our annual parliamentary seminar in commemoration of the Tolpuddle Martyrs. The TUCG is also currently investigating the possibility of holding a fringe meeting at the Tolpuddle Festival itself for the first time.

ANNEXES

Annex 1 – Early Day Motions

EDM 62 – FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF NATIONAL UNION OF SEAMAN STRIKEIan Mearns MP

Total number of signatures: 26

Ahmed-Sheikh, Tasmina Black, Mhairi Bottomley, Peter Brown, Alan

Campbell, Ronnie Crausby, David Crawley, Angela Donaldson, Stuart

Doughty, Stephen Fellows, Marion Flynn, Paul Gethins, Stephen

Glindon, Mary Hopkins, Kelvin Kerevan, George Law, Chris

15


MacNeil, Angus Meale, Alan Mearns, Ian Oswald, Kirsten

Saville Roberts, Liz Shannon, Jim Skinner, D

That this House commemorates the 50th anniversary of the National Union of Seamen (NUS) strike for a 40-hour working week and an increase in monthly pay to £60 or around £780 by 2016 prices; notes that the stoppage lasted 47 days and involved over 26,000 seafarers on nearly 1,000 ships across the globe; further notes that regional NUS officials were subject to covert state surveillance during the dispute which was only concluded by the introduction of emergency legislation; recognises that NUS members who took strike action in 1966 achieved a shorter working week, better pay and democratisation of their union; notes that the NUS's successor, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, continues to campaign for employment, equality and safety improvements for UK seafarers; is concerned that a 72-hour working week is legal for seafarers; is appalled that shipping companies in the UK pay seafarers as little as £2.25 an hour; and calls on the Government to remember the 1966 NUS strike through effective enforcement of the national minimum wage in the UK shipping industry.

EDM 152 – RETENTION OF RAILWAY GUARDSIan Mearns MP


Ahmed-Sheikh, Tasmina Bardell, Hannah Black, Mhairi Brown, Alan

Crawley, Angela Day, Martyn Docherty, Martin Donaldson, Stuart

Fellows, Marion Ferrier, Margaret Gethins, Stephen Gibson, Patricia

Gray, Neil Law, Chris MacNeil, Angus McCaig, Callum

McDonald, Stewart McDonald, Stuart McGarry, Natalie Monaghan, Carol

Mullin, Roger Nicolson, John Paterson, Steven Shannon, Jim

Stephens, Christopher Thewliss, AlisonThompson, Owen

That this House welcomes the fact that passengers on two thirds of the rail network are currently guaranteed the protection of a highly-trained railway guard; notes that the guard must be fully trained in operational safety and route knowledge, including protecting the train and acting in emergencies such as derailments, fires, driver incapacitation, and is also responsible for safely securing the doors and protecting the platform train interface; further welcomes the fact that the guard’s safety role also means passengers are guaranteed to have a guard on board their train at all times to provide advice, assurance and assistance and to look after disabled, older and other passengers who may be vulnerable; believes that this train guard guarantee is even more relevant at a time of growing passenger numbers and heightened security threats; is therefore concerned that the Government and some rail operators are seeking to introduce driver-only operation, which will jeopardise passenger safety and service by removing guards, meaning that the driver will be expected to drive the train whilst at the same time being responsible for passenger safety; and calls on the Government and rail employers to withdraw proposals for driver-only operation and instead work constructively with ASLEF and RMT to protect passenger service and safety.

16


EDM 231 – NON-PAYMENT OF NATIONAL LIVING WAGE AND SEAFARER EMPLOYMENT ON OFFSHORE SUPPLY VESSELSIan Mearns MP


Ahmed-Sheikh, Tasmina Bottomley, Peter Campbell, Ronnie Carmichael, Alistair

Cherry, Joanna Crawley, Angela Cunningham, Jim Day, Martyn

Docherty, Martin Dodds, Nigel Donaldson, Stuart Elmore, Chris

Ferrier, Margaret Gethins, Stephen Hendry, Drew Hopkins, Kelvin

Law, Chris MacNeil, Angus Matheson, Chris McDonald, Stewart

Meale, Alan Mearns, Ian Nicolson, John Qureshi, Yasmin

Skinner, Dennis Smeeth, Ruth Stephens, Christopher Thompson, Owen

Whiteford, Eilidh

That this House is concerned by ongoing job losses, alleged visa abuses and low pay in the offshore supply vessel (OSV) sector which services the UK oil and gas industry in the North Sea; notes that the downturn in oil prices since August 2014 has led to over 1,000 job losses amongst UK seafarers on OSVs, in many cases being replaced by non-EEA seafarers on rates of pay as low as £2 per hour; is further concerned that seafarer ratings replaced by low-cost foreign crews in the OSV sector will be lost to the maritime industry; believes that this practice puts UK seafarers and the national economy at an unfair disadvantage, particularly in the event of an increase in oil prices; further notes that the number of UK owned OSVs fell by 10 per cent in the year to 31 December 2015; is concerned that a record number of OSVs are currently laid up in UK ports, in some cases with non-EEA crew living on board in contravention of transit visa requirements and the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC); and calls on the Government to enforce visa and employment law and the MLC in the OSV sector as a matter of urgency.

EDM 349 – DRIVER ONLY OPERATION ON SCOTRAILIan Murray MPTotal number of signatures: 10

Campbell, Ronnie Cunningham, Jim Glindon, Mary Lavery, Ian

McKinnell, Catherine Meale, Alan Mearns, Ian Murray, Ian

Shannon, JimSkinner, Dennis

That this House welcomes the fact that passengers on the Scotrail network benefit from the protection of a highly-trained railway conductor or guard; notes that the conductor must be fully trained in operational safety and route knowledge, including protecting the train and acting in emergencies such as derailments, fires, driver incapacitation and is also responsible for safely securing the doors and protecting the platform train interface; further welcomes that the conductor safety role means passengers are guaranteed to have a conductor on board their train at all times to provide advice, assurance and assistance and to look after disabled, older and other passengers who may be

17


vulnerable; believes that this train guard guarantee is even more relevant at a time of growing passenger numbers and heightened security threats; is therefore concerned that Scotrail is seeking to introduce driver-only operation, which could jeopardise passenger safety and service by removing conductors, meaning that the driver will be expected to drive the train whilst at the same time being responsible for passenger safety; further notes that RMT members voted overwhelmingly to take industrial action to oppose driver-only operation and that the vast majority of passengers also oppose driver-only operation; calls on Scotrail to reach a negotiated settlement with trade unions and withdraw any proposals for driver-only operation; and further calls on the Scottish Government to intervene to resolve the dispute as the awarder of the train franchise to the Dutch-government owned Abellio.

EDM 516 – SOS 2020 CAMPAIGN FOR SEAFARERSIan Mearns MP


Bottomley, Peter Crausby, David Cunningham, Jim Day, Martyn

Durkan, Mark Flynn, Paul Glindon, Mary Goodman, Helen

Hermon, Lady Hopkins, Kelvin McGarry, Natalie Meale, Alan

Mearns, Ian Owen, Albert Ritchie, Margaret Saville Roberts, Liz

Shannon, Jim Simpson, David Skinner, Dennis Smeeth, Ruth

Stephens, Christopher Thewliss, Alison Weir, Mike

That this House notes that merchant shipping handles 95 per cent of the UK's internationally traded goods, carries over 22 million passengers and makes a direct contribution to the UK economy of over £3 billion every year; is concerned that UK seafarer numbers have fallen by nearly 60 per cent in the last 30 years and that UK seafarers are ageing, with a significant number of ratings and officers expected to retire by 2020; further notes that this decline is the result of factors such as the exclusion of seafarers from full employment and equality rights, persistently low levels of training, public unawareness and the rise of Flag of Convenience registers; believes that the UK is on the verge of a maritime skills crisis which threatens the UK's national economic, social and security interests; is alarmed that rates of pay well below the national minimum wage are common amongst non-UK ratings recruited overseas to work on ships from UK ports; and calls on the Government to support the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers' SOS 2020 campaign to repair the maritime skills base by extending employment and equality rights, safety standards and jobs and training for UK seafarers.

EDM 587 – REGULATION OF BLACK TAXIS AND MINICABSKate Hoey MP


Cunningham, Jim Godsiff, Roger Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin

Lucas, Caroline Matheson, Chris Meale, Alan Mearns, Ian

Robinson, Gavin Rosindell, Andrew Skinner, Dennis Stephens, Christopher

Streeting, Wes

18


That this House is concerned that companies such as Uber, that use smartphone apps, continue to entrench their market position while routinely flouting the law governing the taxi and mincab industry; welcomes Mayor Sadiq Khan and Transport for London's position that a statutory definition of plying for hire is needed to remove ambiguity and clearly define the difference between taxi and private hire services; agrees that such a definition is necessary to provide passengers with important safety protections against unregulated drivers; believes that in the absence of a statutory definition of plying for hire, public confidence in a safe and secure licensing regime will be undermined and will ultimately undermine the viability of the current taxi service; and calls on the Government to bring forward legislation which provides a clear statutory definition of plying for hire to protect the distinction between taxis and private hire vehicles.

EDM 787 – UK RAIL FREIGHT JOBS IN CAPACITYPaul Flynn MP


Brown, Alan Cherry, Joanna Cunningham, Jim Day, Martyn

Ferrier, Margaret Flynn, Paul Hendry, Drew Hopkins, Kelvin

Meale, Alan Mearns, Ian Nandy, Lisa Nicolson, John

Salmond, Alex Saville Roberts, Liz Shannon, Jim Smeeth, Ruth

Stephens, Christopher Thompson, OwenThat this House recognises the huge importance of rail freight in reducing carbon emissions and costs associated with road congestion; is therefore concerned at the announcement by the UK's largest rail freight company, DB Cargo, that it is to cut 900 rail jobs throughout the UK which will be a 30 per cent reduction in a skilled railway workforce, therefore further threatening the future of UK rail freight; notes that the cuts are in part being blamed on a decline in coal and steel freight, but is concerned that this decision is being driven by the business interests of the German state railway which owns DB Cargo; is further concerned that the most recent company return for DB Cargo (UK) Ltd states that in the previous year the company disposed of its interest in 90 railway properties to third parties raising £156 million which will ultimately be used as a source of revenue for German state railways; believes that instead of allowing the asset stripping of the UK's freight industry the Government should be urgently intervening to stop these job losses; and calls on the Government as a matter of urgency to begin to develop a long-term strategy for freight as part of a sustainable industrial strategy, including expanding rail freight infrastructure and capacity, giving greater priority to freight in railway strategy and developing publicly owned rail freight.

EDM 816 – GOVERNMENT RAIL CONTRACTS AND DRIVER ONLY OPERATIONKelvin Hopkins MP


Crausby, David Harman, Harriet Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin

Lucas, Caroline Matheson, Chris Mearns, Ian Shannon, Jim

Skinner, Dennis Smeeth, Ruth

That this House notes that Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR), which is seeking to extend driver only operation, runs Southern Rail services through a contract let by the Government; further notes that the unions have recently reached agreement on other government rail contracts, such as Great

19


Western and East Coast in respect of new modern rolling stock, the role of the guard and train dispatch; therefore believes that the basis for a resolution to the Southern rail dispute exists; and calls on the Government to urgently meet the unions without any preconditions and before further strike action to explore how its contractor GTR can reach a similar deal with the unions.

EDM999 - Northern Rail Dispute EDM to be tabled shortly

“That this House welcomes that Northern Rail passengers are currently guaranteed a safety critical Train Guard on board every Northern Rail train to assist in protecting the safety of the train and passengers, provide advice and assistance and to allow disabled passengers to embark and disembark at unstaffed stations; is deeply concerned however at proposals for the Arriva Northern Rail franchise let by the Department for Transport and jointly managed with Rail North Councils that will end the guarantee of a guard on every train by introducing Driver Only Operation on at least fifty per cent of services; is further concerned that this has resulted in a industrial dispute between Arriva Northern Rail and the RMT union; believes however there is no need for a dispute if Northern Rail is allowed by the Government and Rail North to reach a similar agreement to those recently reached by Transpennine Express and Scotrail which have retained Guards, and calls on the Government and Rail North to act urgently to facilitate such an agreement.”

Ian MearnsLisa NandyRachael MaskellSir David CrausbyRuth SmeethKelvin Hopkins

20


Annex 2 – Parliamentary Questions

RAIL

Govia Thameslink Railway:Written question - 55324

QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 29 November 2016Department for TransportGovia Thameslink Railway55324To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether he has written to hon. Members to say that pressure by trade union leaders has prompted staff working for Govia Thameslink Railway to call in sick.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 02 December 2016It is apparent that as the industrial dispute on Southern has continued, staff sickness levels have risen. Both publicly and in correspondence with hon. Members, we have consistently called for the union to stop all industrial action - which is not about jobs or safety - and which is doing nothing but hurting passengers, not least when Driver Only Operation is already in operation on the network.

Railways: Standards:Written question - 55323

QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 29 November 2016Department for TransportRailways: Standards55323To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what information his Department has received on the number of delays or cancellations caused on national rail services by faulty rolling stock in the last 12 months.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 02 December 2016The Department does not hold information for the number of delays or cancellations caused by faulty rolling stock.


QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 29 November 2016Department for TransportGovia Thameslink Railway55345

21

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-11-29/55345/

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/kelvin-hopkins/2

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/paul-maynard/3926







To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment his Department has made of which aspects of the Govia Thameslink Railway remedial plan have (a) been and (b) not been achieved.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 02 December 2016Govia Thameslink Railway have delivered the commitments detailed in the Remedial Plan to date, including exceeding the key requirement to maintain a minimum number of drivers. The other requirements which are due to be delivered at a later stage will be kept under review by the Department.


QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 29 November 2016Department for TransportRailways: Standards55354To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what information his Department holds on the number of delays or cancellations that have been caused on national Driver Operation Only (P) services by faulty rolling stock in the last 12 months.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 02 December 2016Train operators report the number of cancellations and delay minutes that they are responsible for which includes delays caused by faulty rolling stock. This information is not segregated by type of operation.


QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 29 November 2016Department for TransportGovia Thameslink Railway55353To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what information his Department holds on the number of delays and cancellations that have been caused on Govia Thameslink Railway Driver Operation Only (P) services by faulty rolling stock in the last 12 months.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 02 December 2016Govia Thameslink Railway report the number of cancellations and delay minutes that they are responsible for which includes delays caused by faulty rolling stock.


QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 30 November 2016Department for Transport

22











Govia Thameslink Railway55726To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 22 November 2016 to Question 53644, on Govia Thameslink Railway, if he will publish the force majeure guidance provided to operators.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 05 December 2016The Department has not issued general guidance to franchised train operating companies, as the force majeure provisions are defined as part of franchise agreements, which form the contract between the Department for Transport and train operating companies for the provision of franchised rail passenger services.


QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 30 November 2016Department for TransportGovia Thameslink Railway55754To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 21 November 2016 to Question 53181 and with reference to point 2 in the letter of 17 November 2016 from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport to the Chair of the Transport Committee, on what basis the calculation of the amount of farebox revenue lost as a result of industrial action was made in the absence of a completed assessment of the force majeure claim for such action.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 05 December 2016Govia Thameslink Railway provided the Department with the figure that was given to the Chair of the Transport Committee. The force majeure claim has no impact on such calculations.


QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 30 November 2016Department for TransportGovia Thameslink Railway55752To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 21 November 2016 to Question 53179, what meetings officials of his Department have had with Govia Thameslink Railway since January 2016; and who was present at each such meeting.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 05 December 2016As this is a management contract, officials have regular meetings with Govia Thameslink Railway. All levels of official can and do attend, from the Director General for Rail Group and the Managing Director for Passengers Services down.

23









Department for Transport: Disclosure of Information:Written question - 62398

QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 30 January 2017Department for TransportDepartment for Transport: Disclosure of Information62398To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 1 December 2016 to Question 55011, for what reasons his Department provided the information requested in that Question to the Guardian newspaper in response to a Freedom of Information request but did not provide the information in that Answer.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 02 February 2017The Department has not provided the information requested in Question 55011 to the Guardian.

Peter Wilkinson:Written question - 62338

QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 30 January 2017Department for TransportPeter Wilkinson62338To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether Peter Wilkinson has notified the Department of any conflicts of interest in the last three years.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 02 February 2017The Department has robust safeguards in place to guard against any conflicts of interest.

Peter Wilkinson:Written question - 62339

QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 30 January 2017Department for TransportPeter Wilkinson62339To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether Peter Wilkinson notified the Department of any conflicts of interest while assessing the Govia Thameslink Railway bid.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 02 February 2017The Department has robust safeguards in place to guard against any conflicts of interest.

Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern Franchise: Disability:Written question - 62411

Q

24











Asked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 31 January 2017Department for TransportThameslink, Southern and Great Northern Franchise: Disability62411To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, which vehicles operated on the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern Franchise are (a) compliant and (b) not compliant with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Non-Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2010.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 03 February 2017The Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Non-Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2010 standards apply to non-mainline operations (such as trams, light rail and metro systems). Accessibility standards for trains operated on the mainline are either the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 or the Persons of Reduced Mobility Technical Specification for Interoperability (PRM-TSI) (under the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011).Thameslink is in the process of commissioning and operating 1140 brand new Class 700 vehicles, which are PRM-TSI compliant. The following units are built to the standards mandated in the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998:Class 171 (6 x4 car units plus 10 x 2 car units), Class 377/1 (64 x 4 car units), Class 377/2 (15 x 4 car units), Class 377/3 (28 x 3 car units), 377/4 (75 x 4 car units), class 377/5 (23 x 4 car units).

Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern Franchise: Disability:Written question - 62412

QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 31 January 2017Department for TransportThameslink, Southern and Great Northern Franchise: Disability62412To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what exemptions have been given for vehicles operated on the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern Franchise since that franchise began; and when those exemptions were granted.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 03 February 2017No exemptions have been requested for these vehicles in the period 2014 to date.


QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 31 January 2017Department for TransportGovia Thameslink Railway62410To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether Govia Thameslink Railway will be in default of its franchise agreement if its applications for force majeure are not agreed by his Department.A

25










Answered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 03 February 2017The scale of the industrial action on Southern has caused significant disruption to passengers, which is reflected in the force majeure claim by Govia Thameslink Railway. The Department analyses claims and must be satisfied that force majeure is appropriate. This is a complex claim to analyse and the process is ongoing.Whether GTR meets performance benchmarks will be affected by the outcome of the force majeure claim. If the force majeure claim is not agreed, or agreed in part only, the Secretary of State will consider appropriate remedial action.


QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 01 February 2017Department for TransportGovia Thameslink Railway62685To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether Peter Wilkinson, when engaged in any capacity by his Department, has been involved in assessing franchise bids by Govia Thameslink Railway while (a) providing consultancy advice for Govia Thameslink Railway and (b) holding shares in any company providing consultancy advice for Govia Thameslink Railway.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 06 February 2017The Department’s franchising system operates to the highest standards of public procurement and includes numerous checks and balances to ensure no impropriety. Decisions on the award of franchises are taken by the Department, not by any individual official, and follow a comprehensive process to ensure a fair and open competition. Each franchise award is subject to thorough and independent audit.

Govia Thameslink Railway: Industrial Disputes:Written question - 63675

QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 08 February 2017Department for TransportGovia Thameslink Railway: Industrial Disputes63675To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps his Department is taking to ensure the (a) transparency and (b) impartiality of its assessment of the force majeure claims made by Govia Thameslink Railway for industrial action.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 20 February 2017The assessment of the force majeure claim has been undertaken by permanent members of staff within the Department.All Civil Servants are bound by the Civil Service Code and the four core values of impartiality, integrity, honesty and objectivity. The same process has been applied to Govia Thameslink Railway’s claim as that applied to claims from other operators and the outcome of the assessment will be shared in due course.

26









Govia Thameslink Railway: Industrial Disputes:Written question - 63567

QAsked by Kelvin Hopkins(Luton North)[N]Asked on: 08 February 2017Department for TransportGovia Thameslink Railway: Industrial Disputes63567To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what evidence has been provided by Govia Thameslink Railway in its claim of force majeure to support the assertion that industrial action by staff is unofficial.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 20 February 2017Govia Thameslink Railway have provided us with a range of confidential information in support of their force majeure claim. This is a complex claim to analyse and the process is ongoing.


QAsked by Andy McDonald(Middlesbrough)[N]Asked on: 02 December 2016Department for TransportRailways: Standards55987To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, on what dates (a) his and (b) predecessor departments received force majeure claims from train operating companies since January 1996; and what the outcome was in each such case.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 07 December 2016The information requested can only be provided at disproportionate cost.


QAsked by Andy McDonald(Middlesbrough)Asked on: 15 December 2016Department for TransportGovia Thameslink Railway57821To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how much Network Rail paid in schedule and compensation payments to Govia Thameslink Railway in 2016-17.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 20 December 2016This information is published by Network Rail annually at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/transparency/datasets/. As financial year 2016-17 is ongoing, these figures are not yet available.


Q

27

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/transparency/datasets/


http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/andy-mcdonald/4269








Asked by Andy McDonald(Middlesbrough)[N]Asked on: 15 December 2016Department for TransportGovia Thameslink Railway57973To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether fares revenue not received by Govia Thameslink Railway on account of poor performance and industrial action is to be paid back to the public purse.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 20 December 2016There is no mechanism within the Franchise Agreement for such an action. The Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise agreement is a management contract in which the operator manages the delivery of rail services on the franchise network on behalf of the Department. Under the terms of the Franchise Agreement government receives the fare revenue from Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR), with GTR receiving a subsidy. It is the Department that is therefore on revenue risk. GTR are at risk if its costs are higher than those envisaged at that time.

Southern: Industrial Disputes:Written question - 57460

QAsked by Andy McDonald(Middlesbrough)Asked on: 13 December 2016Department for TransportSouthern: Industrial Disputes57460To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what responsibilities the Director of Rail Passenger Services in his Department has in (a) processing and (b) advising on each of Govia Thameslink Railway's claims for force majeure in relation to industrial action on Southern rail services since 26 April 2016.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 20 December 2016The team processing Govia Thameslink Railway’s force majeure claim sit within the command of the Managing Director of Rail Passenger Services. However, the Managing Director of Rail Passenger Services has had no involvement in processing or advising on the Department’s assessment of the claim.

Southern: Standards:Written question - 60337

QAsked by Andy McDonald(Middlesbrough)[N]Asked on: 17 January 2017Department for TransportSouthern: Standards60337To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans he has to publish the (a) key findings and (b) full report of Chris Gibb's project board into rapid improvements of Southern Rail.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 20 January 2017

28










As requested, Chris Gibb has provided advice to the Secretary of State, much of which is already being taken forward. Chris Gibb is now working on developing his advice into a set of recommendations which will be published in due course.


QAsked by Andy McDonald(Middlesbrough)[N]Asked on: 25 January 2017Department for TransportGovia Thameslink Railway61654To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when his Department plans to make a final decision on Govia Thameslink Railway's existing force majeure claims.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 30 January 2017This is a complex claim to analyse and the process is still ongoing. The Department is currently discussing the claim with Govia Thameslink Railway and considering the points made by the operator before making its determination.

Railways: Industrial Disputes:Written question - 61884

QAsked by Andy McDonald(Middlesbrough)[N]Asked on: 26 January 2017Department for TransportRailways: Industrial Disputes61884To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 20 December 2016 to Question 57840, on railways: industrial disputes, if he will list the train operating companies that submitted each force majeure claim.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 31 January 2017The train operating companies which have had force majeure claims agreed by the Department since 2005 in respect of industrial disputes on the railway are set out in the table below:

TOCNumber of force majeure events agreed in respect of industrial relations

Chiltern 1

First Capital Connect (franchise ended 2014) 3

Northern 1

Virgin West Coast Trains 1

29








Great Western Railway 4

TransPennine Express 3

East Midlands Trains 3

Total 16


QAsked by Andy McDonald(Middlesbrough)[N]Asked on: 26 January 2017Department for TransportRailways: Industrial Disputes61883To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 20 December 2016 to Question 57840, on railways: industrial disputes, if he will list the payments made from the public purse to each train operating company in respect of each agreed claim for force majeure; and what the total was of those such payments.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 31 January 2017The approval of such claims provides train operators with contractual relief against the performance benchmark targets in their franchise agreements; this may in some cases ultimately have an effect on the contractual payments due between the franchisee and the Department, but it does not of itself trigger payments from the Department to the operator.

Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern Rail Franchise:Written question - 62010

QAsked by Andy McDonald(Middlesbrough)[N]Asked on: 27 January 2017Department for TransportThameslink, Southern and Great Northern Rail Franchise62010To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if his Department will take direct control of the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern passenger rail franchise.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 01 February 2017We have no plans to nationalise the franchise.However, as is the case with all train operating companies, performance is kept under constant review and the government reserves the right to take action if a company does not meet the terms of its franchise agreement


Q

30








Asked by Andy McDonald(Middlesbrough)[N]Asked on: 01 February 2017Department for TransportRailways: Industrial Disputes62736To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 31 January 2017 to Question 61884, on railways: industrial disputes, what the value of each agreed claim was to the train-operating company in each instance.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 06 February 2017I refer the hon. Member the answer I gave on 31 January to Question 61883.The ultimate financial consequences of force majeure claims are not separately calculated or identifiable within the overall financial payments made between the Department and the operator concerned.

Southern: Standards:Written question - 62745

QAsked by Andy McDonald(Middlesbrough)[N]Asked on: 01 February 2017Department for TransportSouthern: Standards62745To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he expects the review of Southern Rail's performance to be completed; and if he will make a statement.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 06 February 2017The scale of the industrial action on Southern has caused significant disruption to passengers, which is reflected in the force majeure claim by Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR). The Department analyses claims and must be satisfied that force majeure is appropriate. This is a complex claim to analyse and the process is ongoing.We are working with both GTR and Network Rail to deliver much-needed improvements to passengers and considering a number of recommendations from the industry at present.


QAsked by Andy McDonald(Middlesbrough)[N]Asked on: 01 February 2017Department for TransportSouthern: Industrial Disputes62735To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 31 January 2017 to Question 61886, on railways: industrial disputes, what steps he has taken to record the amount of staff hours spent on Southern Southern Govia Thameslink Railway's current force majeure claims; and how many staff have worked on those claims to date.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 06 February 2017

31











The current Force Majeure claim is unprecedented in its scale and complexity and the focus within the Department has been to provide the time and resources to reach the correct conclusion.We have not recorded staff hours as it does not serve a useful purpose to meet this outcome; however, I can confirm that there has been a team of officials across the Department assessing the core part of the claim.


QAsked by Andy McDonald(Middlesbrough)[N]Asked on: 01 February 2017Department for TransportSouthern: Industrial Disputes62734To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 31 January 2017 to Question 61887, on railways: industrial disputes, what steps he has taken to ensure that the dates of submission and conclusion of Southern Govia Thameslink Railway's existing force majeure claims are centrally recorded.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 06 February 2017Details of the Force Majeure claim are a contractual matter between the Department and Govia Thameslink Railway. The claims have been received at appropriate times and expedited as quickly as possible.

Transport for London:Written question - 56667

QAsked by Karl Turner(Kingston upon Hull East)[N]Asked on: 07 December 2016Department for TransportTransport for London56667To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what criteria he used to decide whether or not to extend Transport for London's remit to cover the London suburban rail network; and if he will make a statement.AAnswered by: Paul MaynardAnswered on: 12 December 2016The Mayor of London presented a business case for the devolution of suburban London services on the South Eastern franchise. This was scrutinised by Departmental and Treasury officials, analysing the costs and benefits of the proposal including the impact on the South Eastern franchise and the forthcoming competition.

Offshore Industry: Infrastructure:Written question - 61182

QAsked by Richard Burden(Birmingham, Northfield)Asked on: 23 January 2017Department for TransportOffshore Industry: Infrastructure61182

32

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/richard-burden/301



http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/karl-turner/4030





To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate he has made of the amount of (a) dry and (b) wet towage of decommissioned oil and gas infrastructure that will use (i) Western and Northern Isles and (ii) Pentland Firth sea lanes in each year from 2017-18 to 2019-20.AAnswered by: Mr John HayesAnswered on: 27 January 2017Arrangements for the towage of decommissioned oil and gas infrastructure, and the routes they may take, are commercial decisions and government does not collect data to allow for a meaningful forward estimate to be made.Those managing such operations will need to comply with national and international conventions and regulations applying to shipping and the decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure.

Merchant Shipping: Conditions of Employment:Written question - 61180

QAsked by Richard Burden(Birmingham, Northfield)Asked on: 23 January 2017Department for TransportMerchant Shipping: Conditions of Employment61180To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what training Maritime and Coastguard Agency staff receive on the enforcement of the Maritime Labour Convention on internationally registered merchant vessels working from (a) UK and (b) Red Ensign Group ports.AAnswered by: Mr John HayesAnswered on: 27 January 2017The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has provided in-house training for 152 Marine Surveyors since 2010. This is provided by MCA experts on the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC), 2006 and its enforcement. Some Marine Surveyors have also attended international training courses on matters relating to the International Labour Organisation and the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control.All new Marine Surveyors are given training on the MLC, 2006 as part of their induction process.The MCA is not responsible for enforcement of the MLC, 2006 in Red Ensign Group ports.

Merchant Shipping: Conditions of Employment:Written question - 61274

QAsked by Richard Burden(Birmingham, Northfield)Asked on: 23 January 2017Department for TransportMerchant Shipping: Conditions of Employment61274To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's (MCA) press release of 18 January 2017, what the process is for ensuring the welfare of seafarers working on internationally registered merchant ships detained in UK ports by the MCA for breaches of international maritime regulations.AAnswered by: Mr John HayesAnswered on: 27 January 2017The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) will work with the ship’s owner and the flag-State to ensure the welfare of the crew when an internationally registered ship is detained in a UK port.The MCA also works closely with local welfare bodies, such as the Merchant Navy Welfare Board, the Mission to Seafarers and the Apostleship of the Sea, who also provide assistance to the seafarers.

Shipping: Registration:Written question - 61288

Q

33

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/mr-john-hayes/350






Asked by Richard Burden(Birmingham, Northfield)Asked on: 23 January 2017Department for TransportShipping: Registration61288To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he plans to bring forward proposals to reform the UK Shipping Register.AAnswered by: Mr John HayesAnswered on: 27 January 2017In response to the Maritime Growth Study the Government has been taking action to put the UK Ship Register on a more commercial footing. Progress to put in place appropriate resource and infrastructure to commercialise the UKSR is already being demonstrated.In January 2017 Michael Parker was appointed as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s (MCA’s) first Non-Executive Chairman. In addition, Doug Barrow has also been appointed as the Director for the UK Ship Register and will take up the post in April 2017. Both these appointments will play a leading role in shaping the future transformation of the UKSR and championing the UK Flag.Simultaneously, the MCA is working on a number of reforms to improve the quality of its services as part of a wider commitment to generate growth in the maritime sector, encourage greater investment in the UK and promote the UK flag as a world-class register that attracts quality ship owners.The Department for Transport will continue to work closely with the MCA, in particular the new Non-Executive Chairman and new Director of the UKSR as it explores options for future reforms of the UK Ship register.

Shipping:Written question - 58146

QAsked by Richard Burden(Birmingham, Northfield)Asked on: 19 December 2016Department for TransportShipping58146To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of legislative changes required for (a) the shipping industry, (b) the ports sector and (c) UK seafarers and dock workers once the UK leaves the EU.AAnswered by: Mr John HayesAnswered on: 09 January 2017The European Communities Act will be repealed on the day we leave the European Union – meaning that the authority of EU law in Britain will end. We will convert the body of existing EU law into domestic law and Parliament will be free to amend, repeal and improve any law it chooses.This process will give businesses and workers maximum certainty as we leave the European Union. And we are absolutely clear: existing workers’ legal rights will continue to be guaranteed in law.The maritime sector is, of course, being considered as part of the Government’s work developing an overall approach to negotiations.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency:Written question - 58107

QAsked by Richard Burden(Birmingham, Northfield)[N]Asked on: 19 December 2016Department for TransportMaritime and Coastguard Agency58107

34








To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to paragraphs 4.82 to 4.84 of the Maritime Growth Study: Keeping the UK competitive in a global market, published 7 September 2015, what actions the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has taken to implement the conclusions of the Survey and Inspection Transformation Programme (SITP); and which conclusions from the SITP currently await implementation by the MCA.AAnswered by: Mr John HayesAnswered on: 09 January 2017The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is implementing changes so that they can operate in a more effective, efficient and commercial manner, with respect to ship survey and inspection activities. This follows the public consultation on estates laydown and organisational structure. The MCA has completed its dialogue with trade union representatives and a formal offer in relation to pay, terms and conditions has been made. That offer is now subject of a union ballot that closes on 13 January.In terms of the fees that the MCA charges for its services, officials are developing a revised fee structure in light of the recent separate consultation on this matter. I expect the revised fee structure to be in place in the first half of 2017.

Shipping: Minimum Wage:Written question - 56565QAsked by Richard Burden(Birmingham, Northfield)[N]Asked on: 07 December 2016Department for TransportShipping: Minimum Wage56565To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to the oral contribution of the Minister of State for Transport of 17 November 2016, Official Report, column 376, when the review of the application of national minimum wage legislation to seafarers in UK waters will commence; and if he will take steps to ensure that that review applies to seafarers working in all sectors of the UK shipping industry.AAnswered by: Mr John HayesAnswered on: 12 December 2016Officials are already preparing for the review which will commence in the New Year and the Group leading the review will consist of relevant industry and government stakeholders. I can state that the review will apply to seafarers working in all sectors of the UK shipping industry.

Shipping: Pay:Written question - 56562

QAsked by Richard Burden(Birmingham, Northfield)[N]Asked on: 07 December 2016Department for TransportShipping: Pay56562To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to the oral contribution of the Minister of State for Transport of 17 November 2016, Official Report, column 376, if he will detail the existing working arrangements between the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and HM Revenue and Customs' National Minimum Wage (NMW) Enforcement Team in the event of a complaint of (a) nationality-based pay discrimination and (b) non-payment of the NMW for seafarers employed on vessels working from and between UK ports.AAnswered by: Mr John HayesAnswered on: 12 December 2016

35









(a) The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has not been involved in any complaints regarding nationality-based pay discrimination.(b) The MCA has produced a proforma for seafarers to complete if they wish to make a complaint about non-compliance with the National Minimum Wage. Surveyors can make this available to any seafarer raising a concern. The proforma contains contact details for the National Minimum Enforcement Team at HM Revenue and Customs. The MCA will forward the proforma on request.

Shipping: Pay:Written question - 56563

QAsked by Richard Burden(Birmingham, Northfield)[N]Asked on: 07 December 2016Department for TransportShipping: Pay56563To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to the oral contribution of the Minister of State for Transport of 17 November 2016, Official Report, column 376, if he will take steps to establish formal working arrangements between the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and HM Revenue and Customs' National Minimum Wage (NMW) Enforcement Team to ensure that all complaints of (a) nationality-based pay discrimination or (b) non-payment of the NMW for seafarers employed on vessels working from and between UK ports are fully investigated.AAnswered by: Mr John HayesAnswered on: 12 December 2016We will discuss with HM Revenue and Customs what improvements can be made to current arrangements, including whether the Maritime and Coastguard Agency can provide better support.

Shipping: Minimum Wage:Written question - 56564

QAsked by Richard Burden(Birmingham, Northfield)[N]Asked on: 07 December 2016Department for TransportShipping: Minimum Wage56564To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to the oral contribution of the Minister of State for Transport of 17 November 2016, Official Report, column 376, if he will list the (a) Government departments, (b) maritime trade unions, (c) shipping companies and (d) other stakeholders who will participate in the review of the application of national minimum wage legislation to seafarers in UK waters; and when the first meeting of the legal review group is planned to take place.AAnswered by: Mr John HayesAnswered on: 12 December 2016It is expected that this will have a similar membership to the previous legal working group that looked at these issues in 2010. Therefore;a) Department for TransportDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial StrategyForeign and Commonwealth Officeb) Rail, Maritime and Transport UnionNautilus Internationalc) UK Chamber of ShippingThese are the core members of the Group.

36








Officials are planning for the first meeting in January.

Merchant Shipping: Recruitment:Written question - 56670

QAsked by Karl Turner(Kingston upon Hull East)[N]Asked on: 07 December 2016Department for TransportMerchant Shipping: Recruitment56670To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans the Government has to encourage more young people to take up careers as Merchant Navy ratings.AAnswered by: Mr John HayesAnswered on: 12 December 2016The Government is fully committed to encouraging more young people to enter the Merchant Navy at all levels working across the maritime sector.To support the training of ratings and officers the Government provides support through the £15m “Support for Maritime Training” (SMarT) scheme. There is also a 3 year pilot within the tonnage tax training link allowing tonnage tax companies to train three able seafarer ratings in place of one officer trainee each year responding to industry calls to provide more flexibility. Ratings training is also offered through maritime apprenticeships and further ratings apprenticeships are under development.To encourage the take up of ratings training, the Government works with the maritime industry including the maritime unions in addressing this through, for example, the Ratings Taskforce. The Maritime Growth Study also highlighted the need to raise awareness of careers in the maritime sector. As a result, the industry led “Maritime UK People and Skills Steering Group”, has created an “Awareness subgroup” to identify ways to raise the profile of maritime careers. The group comprises of a cross section of representatives from across the sector, including Government.

Merchant Shipping: Staff:Written question - 56668

QAsked by Karl Turner(Kingston upon Hull East)[N]Asked on: 07 December 2016Department for TransportMerchant Shipping: Staff56668To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make an assessment of trends in the number of Merchant Navy ratings and the long-term effects of such trends on the UK shipping industry.AAnswered by: Mr John HayesAnswered on: 12 December 2016In 2015, the total number of UK ratings was estimated to be 8,330. This was 4.9 per cent higher than in 2014, but 5.9 per cent lower than a decade earlier.The Government has commissioned a Seafarers Projections study and a review of Support for Maritime Training (SMarT). Both pieces are due to report shortly and will provide further intelligence to determine what future action to take. The Government is committed to encouraging more young people to enter the Merchant Navy at all levels.

37








Annex 3 – Debates

(The following excerpts are selected from Hansard, which is the official parliamentary record. The full debate can be supplied on request and may be read on-line at www.parliament.uk under the relevant date.)

Industrial Action (Protection of Critical National Services)24 January 2017

Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a bill to regulate industrial action by those providing certain critical national services; to define critical national services to include railways, operators providing buses, trams and underground railways, the National Health Service and fire and ambulance services; to require those taking industrial action in relation to critical national services to demonstrate that the matter in dispute is such that the adverse effects on the provision of service to the public caused by the action is proportionate and reasonable; to provide for the High Court in England and Wales and the Court of Session in Scotland to adjudicate on proportionality and reasonableness of action and to determine a minimal required level of service to the public to be provided in the case of such action taking place; and for connected purposes.

Trade unions have a long history of campaigning for workers’ rights, stretching back to the 19th century. Trade unions ushered in an era of regulated working hours, holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay, health and safety at work and decent wages. I applaud those achievements, fought for by trade unions and made law by past Parliaments. I respect what trade unions have achieved in the past 150 years, and I understand that the right to strike is inseparable from the struggles that led to these victories that have helped to civilise our country. But we must also recognise that strikes have a profound effect on the wider public, especially where those strikes occur on critical national services. It is time to consider again the impact that strikes have on the wider public, and to protect the public as well as uphold the right to strike.

A few weeks ago, I received a heart-rending message from a constituent, Jenny Lehane. She said that tears were streaming down her face as she wrote about the effect of the recent Southern Railway strikes on her family. She wrote that she had to get her six-year-old son to walk to a bus stop at 5.30 in the morning when the trains were not running so that she could get to work and her son could get to school. She said those responsible should

“hang their heads in shame”,

and she attached a photo of her son trudging disconsolately down a cold, dark street wrapped in his blanket.

That is the human impact of nearly 40 days of strike action that the RMT and ASLEF have taken in the past few months, most recently only yesterday, to say nothing of the unofficial strike action and work-to-rule that have been taking place on non-strike days. The operator, Southern rail, must shoulder a great deal of blame. I am not here to defend it; in fact, I think it should lose the franchise. But there is no question that the strike action has made a bad service unusable in the last six months.

In this case, I do not believe that the unions have a substantial complaint. No one is losing their job. No one is getting a pay cut. Every single train currently scheduled to run with two members of staff will continue to be scheduled to run with two members of staff. The dispute centres simply on who opens and closes the doors, and whether the train can still run if the conductor does not turn up for work. The rail regulator says that there is no safety issue, contrary to the union position. In fact, millions of trains have run perfectly safely since 1984, including 1.5 million trains in the last five years, without a single fatality. All of London underground runs with driver-operated doors perfectly safely, as does most of continental Europe. The RMT is disputing these issues simply to retain its ability to shut down the rail network in the course of future strike action by its conductors.

38


http://www.parliament.uk/


It is on this flimsy pretext that 400 conductors are preventing 300,000 people from getting to work or getting home to see their loved ones. Sue Gaitskell had to quit her job as a sales manager. My constituent Lee Fenton was fired from his job working for a local council. Emma Green had to quit her job as a commercial lawyer. Many people are having to consider moving home. It is just not acceptable that the rights of these people are not being adequately protected.

I am afraid to say that there are signs that this kind of industrial action—hugely disruptive to the public, but based on a flimsy pretext—is spreading. Merseyrail and Great Northern are apparently next in the union’s sights, and two weeks ago London ground to a halt due to an RMT strike on the underground over changes that were in fact introduced some time ago.

I am pleased that the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to his great credit condemned the RMT underground strike without reservation, but it is very disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition did not follow the Mayor’s example. Far from following the Mayor of London’s fine example, he said that, instead of siding with the public, he would in fact join the picket line. [Hon. Members: “Shame.”] Indeed.

The president of the RMT, a man called Sean Hoyle, did not even bother to disguise his motives. He was recently filmed speaking to a group of trade unionists, saying that the strikes had the objective of “bringing down the Government”; those are his words, not mine. Mr Hoyle is entitled to his political views, but he is not entitled to use the power he has as the president of a major trade union to inflict misery on hundreds of thousands of people simply in furtherance of his nakedly political objectives.

We now need further legislation to recognise the public’s right to get to work, to see loved ones or to receive medical treatment, as well as respecting the unions’ right to strike, which I fully accept. We in Parliament should not stand by and allow strike action to cause people to lose their own jobs.

This Bill goes further than previous legislation and proposes that strikes on critical national services, such as the railways, tubes, buses and NHS, should be “proportionate and reasonable” in the view of a High Court judge in order to be lawful. The judge would weigh up the complaint of the striking workers against the impact on the wider public in deciding what is “proportionate and reasonable”, and where strikes were allowed, the judge would specify a level of basic service that would be available during any strike. The law in Canada, Spain and Italy already works in a similar way, guaranteeing a basic level of service.

A poll published in yesterday’s Evening Standard found that 55% of Londoners support these proposals, and public support for them is growing daily. Many other Members support these proposals, too. In a similar vein, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who is in his place, is introducing his own ten-minute rule Bill on 4 February to stipulate that strikes based on the pretext of safety concerns cannot proceed unless the relevant regulator agrees that there is a safety issue.

I do not for one moment dispute the right to strike, but the public also have a right to get to work and not be forced out of their own jobs by union action. A fair balance is needed between the two, and I am afraid to say that current legislation does not provide it.

If there is a Division, in order to support this motion today Members do not need to agree with the precise details of the Bill. For example, Members may think that there are better methods of arbitrating between the rights of the unions and the rights of the public than through a High Court judge; some have suggested to me in the last few days that Parliament itself might be an alternative. But if the House supports this motion, we are sending a simple message that the public have rights as well as trade unions, and that it is Parliament’s duty to protect the public as well.

This Bill is about balance and fairness, and I commend it to the House.

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)

I rise to oppose the motion moved by the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). I do so because the proposed Bill is disproportionate and unnecessary, and an attack on a fundamental British liberty—the right to withdraw labour in a legal trade dispute with an employer.

39



It is not as though we have not already experienced a full-frontal attack on the rights of workers who are in dispute with their employer under this Government. I draw the attention of the House to yesterday’s Order Paper, which I am sure hon. Members have read. Page 34 gives details of “Remaining Orders and Notices”, and states:

“Business in this section has not yet been scheduled for a specific date. It has therefore been set down formally to be taken in the Chamber today but is not expected to be taken today.”

What could this business be? Point No. 3 on the Order Paper is a motion on trade unions in the name of “Secretary Greg Clark”, dealing with political funds. Point No. 4 is also a motion on trade unions from the Secretary of State, dealing with the draft Important Public Services (Transport) Regulations 2017. Point No. 5 is a motion on trade unions dealing with the draft Important Public Services (Fire) Regulations 2017. Point No. 6 is—you’ve got it—a motion on trade unions dealing with the draft Important Public Services (Border Security) Regulations 2017. Point No. 7 is a motion on trade unions dealing with the draft Important Public Services (Education) Regulations 2017, and point No. 8 is a motion on trade unions dealing with the draft Important Public Services (Health) Regulations 2017.

The Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Croydon South would restrict the rights of people in the workplace further, even before the Government have brought into force their latest full-frontal attack on workers. We all know that if the Bill were allowed to proceed, it would simply be the thin end of the wedge of even more anti-trade union legislation from the Conservatives, because this is what they do when they are in power—dogs bark, birds fly and Tories attack workers’ rights.

In the press, as he did in his speech, the hon. Gentleman framed his Bill specifically as a response to the Southern rail dispute, but of course it goes much further, as it covers transport in general, the national health service, and fire and ambulance services. This is not just about one industrial dispute, whatever its rights and wrongs. The Bill is about further restricting the long-fought-for right of workers in a free society to withhold their labour.

The hon. Gentleman talks about disproportionate industrial action, but it is important to bear in mind what the proportions really are. There were 106 strikes in 2015—the last year for which we have figures—which is an eighth of the number of strikes that took place in 1985. That equates to a loss of 0.003% of all working days in 2015, when 81,000 workers went on strike. That is the lowest level since records began in 1893.

Let us look at the type of so-called disproportionate action that occurs in the industries that the hon. Gentleman highlighted. One of the most widely covered strikes this year was that of British Airways workers, who have taken a total of five days’ action to protest against their poverty-level pay. For those workers, that action was a real hardship and sacrifice. On average, mixed fleet cabin crew—the category was introduced deliberately to create a second-class group of workers at the company—earn £16,000 a year including allowances. Willie Walsh, the boss of the parent company, pocketed £6.5 million. That is the very definition of “disproportionate”.

Industrial action is already highly regulated, especially in the light of the execrable Trade Union Act 2016, the regulations under which I mentioned earlier and are yet to be brought into force. Through that Act, the Government created specific strike thresholds for important public services—50% of the union membership must vote, and 40% of those entitled to vote must be in favour of industrial action for a strike to be legal—but even that is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman. His Bill would put the decision about whether workers can withdraw their labour into the hands of High Court judges. Ironically, that is one group of workers whose pensions the Government are unable to touch. In the light of today’s events, I would have thought that Conservative Members might be more wary about handing over decisions to judges, but that is another matter.

The proposal is also insidious because it comes from the same party that is picking the pension pockets of nuclear workers in places such as Sellafield. The Government’s latest raid on the pensions of nuclear workers will adversely affect communities such as Copeland, where a large number of nuclear workers live. At the time of privatisation, promises were made to ensure the protection of their pensions. During the Committee stage of the Bill that became the Enterprise Act 2016, I tabled amendments that would have ensured that workers in that sector would be exempt from the public sector redundancy cap. The Government refused to support those amendments, and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has now announced its intention to save the Treasury a reported £660 million from those workers, despite the promises that were made when the

40


industry was privatised. It will not escape the attention of the workers of Sellafield—and, indeed, the voters of Copeland —that the Conservatives are not only seeking to make it more difficult for people to take action in specified industries, but robbing those people of their promised pensions.

Where was the hon. Gentleman’s concern for ending industrial disputes when the Government promised to bankroll Southern in this dispute using taxpayers’ money? The Government have inserted clauses into franchise agreements setting out that any losses accrued by the rail company in the event of industrial action can be compensated by the Government using taxpayers’ funds, which removes any incentive for the company to come to the table.

Where was the hon. Gentleman’s concern for consumer access to our critical national services when the Prime Minister dismissed the humanitarian crisis in our hospitals as “overblown”? The real problem facing our national health service is not a handful of days of doctors’ strikes, but this Government’s policy of systemic and constant underfunding, understaffing and overworking. Where was his concern for consumer access to our critical national services when we saw train fares rise again in the new year? Labour protested against the price hikes, but there was no ten-minute rule Bill from the hon. Gentleman about people’s right to a reasonable fare when traveling to work.

There is another way to deal with industrial relations. The Labour Government in Wales recently introduced their own trade union Bill. They are a Government who understand that workers are not an “enemy within” to be isolated and vilified, and that workers themselves are consumers who contribute to the economy and are members of the community. That is the approach that the hon. Gentleman should be advocating. This Bill is an attack on working people by a party that is bankrolling employer intransigence with public money in the very industry that he has been talking about, and I hope that the House will reject it.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).

24 January 2017: 2.37 pm – The House divided: Ayes: 127 / Noes: 206

41


UK Maritime Industry: 12 January 2017

Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us the opportunity to debate this most important industry today, and I am grateful to see so many colleagues from across the House present. [...]

The UK maritime industry faces a number of fairly significant challenges. Those are not new. We have been on a track that has taken us mostly down—occasionally up—for some decades. I will start, however, with a rare piece of good news. Hon. Members will have heard me speak before about the situation pertaining to the arrangements involving Seatruck, which provides the freight ferry to the Northern Isles that serves Orkney and Shetland. It was announced yesterday that Serco, which holds the franchise for the service, and Seatruck, which provides the ferries, have been able to do a deal that guarantees that the ratings on the ferries will be paid the minimum wage at the very least. It remains to be seen whether the collective bargaining agreement between the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and NorthLink for the remainder of that franchised public service will be extended to those ferry services, but the guarantee is at least something to welcome.

Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that it would be helpful if the shipping Minister were to announce today that the national minimum wage would be paid to all seafarers across the United Kingdom?

Mr Carmichael

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to hear that I will have a fair bit to say about national minimum wage and national living wage enforcement, because that is something that has come very much to the fore this year. It came to my attention in particular through the detention of the Malaviya Seven in Aberdeen and its sister ship, the Malaviya Twenty, in Great Yarmouth. Those ships have been detained by the International Transport Workers Federation as a result of non-payment of the crew’s wages. Those are cases where the ownership of the ships is being contested—it is winding its way through the courts. I am afraid I have to say that the willingness of the shipowners in those cases to leave the seafarers they employ effectively destitute does them no credit. Sadly, it does not reflect particularly well on the wider industry, either.

Where we have seen some progress—the Seatruck case—is however perhaps the low-hanging fruit. As I see it, that is just the tip of the iceberg. As we speak here in London, there are non-domiciled seafarers, principally Filipinos, working out of Scottish ports, being paid significantly less than the national minimum wage but still having retained by their employment agents—also domiciled outside the EU and also principally Filipinos, I am told—some 32% of their wages in respect of UK tax and national insurance. In some ways, that illustrates the absurdity and inadequacy of the current enforcement arrangements. If these men are not here working as part of the UK, why are they paying UK taxes? If they are here working as part of the UK, why are they not given the protection offered to other UK employees and workers?

The more I find out, the more it seems that the situation facing many seafarers working on ships that in some cases have not left UK waters effectively for decades is just as bad as the situation that led the previous Labour Government to set up the gangmasters licensing system. It may be that at some point we will have to take a similar approach on the position of seafarers.

The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)

I intervene because it is so often the case that there is not sufficient time at the end to answer all the points made in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman is striking a chord with me, with which I have considerable sympathy, as he will know from our work together in the past. We

42






will do more on this—he can be assured of that—and I hope to say a little more about that at the end.

Mr Carmichael

I am immensely grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I know he has a personal and political commitment in this regard and I am delighted that he was able to offer us that assurance again.

This is not just about the treatment of Filipino seafarers; there is also an effect on UK seafarers. First, because of such employment practices, UK seafarers are excluded from employment opportunities that would otherwise be available to them. That also drives down wages for those who are employed. I am told that Stena Line, the largest UK employer of seafarers, cut the hourly rate of pay for ratings employed seasonally—from June to September—from £8.31 to £7.20, which is the minimum wage rate. That is a graphic illustration of the direct impact on UK seafarers.

The situation has a context. For the Government’s purposes, that context is the maritime growth strategy that they commissioned in 2014. That was a good, comprehensive piece of work, and it was welcomed. If anything, it was somewhat overdue, coming the best part of two decades after the previous piece of work had been done. It made a number of recommendations. The most important was that leadership was required from both Government and the industry, including though a more commercial and responsive UK maritime administration within Government and an industry-led promotional body, with more proactive action to replenish and develop the skills needed to maintain our position as a world-leading maritime sector and effective marketing by the industry and Government of what the UK maritime sector has to offer both domestically and internationally to be strengthened.

I could probably do 90 minutes on the maritime growth strategy alone, but in view of the number of others who wish to take part in the debate, I will concentrate on the one aspect that, to my mind, is probably the most significant: training of seafarers. The Minister will know that since the turn of the century, we have had the SMarT—support for maritime training—scheme, which currently holds something in the region of £15 million. The British Chamber of Shipping tells me that it is looking for a doubling of that. I hope the Minister will look at that, because in terms of Government expenditure that is of course a significant ask, but it could bring significant rewards. I hope, though, that when the Minister engages with the industry in respect of that ask, he will not be shy about attaching some strings to any increase in funding.

I am told that a year’s guaranteed employment is on offer for those who are trained as officers under the scheme. That of course would tackle one of the major difficulties that I hear about consistently from constituents who work in the industry: that officers in particular are trained under SMarT scheme funding, but there is no employment for them once they qualify. There has to be a little more detail. We have to do more than simply extend the cliff edge out by one year, so that a situation in which we currently have training followed by no employment does not then become training followed by one year’s employment followed by no employment.

Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)

I think the right hon. Gentleman is right about the officers being trained under the scheme—15, I think—but only one rating is required to be trained under the deal, and that does not happen either.

Mr Carmichael

Indeed, and the hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. Currently within SMarT training, a minuscule proportion of the fund is allocated to the training of ratings, and even that portion is not being taken up by the industry. When the Minister comes to look at the question of SMarT funding and the training scheme that comes under it, it should not be all about officers; it also needs to be about the training of ratings as well, otherwise we are again only seizing the low-hanging fruit.

My constituents have significant concerns not only about the lack of availability of jobs when the training is concluded, but very often about the quality of the training provided for them. I

43





have been told of one constituent who in five months as a cadet officer was able to speak English on his ship only once. Given that we are talking about predominantly young men who are away from home for the first time, the significance of that as a living experience should not be overlooked.

The Minister and the Government really need to look at the roles of the Merchant Navy Training Board and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the lack of joined-up administration between them. We might then see people getting quality training that gets the taxpayer value for the money that they are putting into it. I do not believe there is any shortage of people looking for a career at sea, but there are obvious and significant obstacles being put in their way.

Drew Hendry

This is about the future of the UK maritime industry, and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said it was about leadership. He is right: the future needs a vision and a plan—for employment, fair conditions, business and safety, as well as to attract young people and, especially, correct the lack of young women in the industry.

To begin with employment and fair conditions, I join the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in being delighted at the fact that there is now an agreement in principle to end the long-running issue about the freight vessel serving the Northern Isles. The new charter basis will allow the wage issue to be resolved and crew members will be paid the minimum wage. The new arrangements come into effect next month, which is to be welcomed. I shall not go through the details, which he covered.

Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the important question of the number of women employed in the industry, because there is a significant shortage. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) raised the matter of vacancies, training and how much more effort could go into bringing more women into the industry. I have seen in the Humber ports a number of women playing an important and valuable role in the portside industry.

Drew Hendry

I welcome that comment, and will talk some more about such opportunities.

The wage deal that has been struck adds to the CalMac public sector contractor deal that runs in Scotland; it was named the Living Wage Foundation’s Scottish champion in 2016. Let us be straight about it: fair pay and conditions attract people to the industry and we should support that. All seafarers should have the national minimum wage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) mentioned. However, while the RMT and Nautilus International have welcomed the actions in Scotland, they have sounded a code blue over the health of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in the UK. They say that it is in crisis over current rates of recruitment and retention:

“In the view of the Maritime unions, it is no exaggeration to say that the MCA is in crisis. At current rates of recruitment and retention it will soon reach the stage where maritime safety is compromised because the regulator simply does not have sufficient number of qualified staff to discharge its core statutory duties, particularly vessel safety surveys and inspections.”

They also say that they are

“disappointed that the Government rejected the Transport Select Committee’s recommendation for ‘an independent review of how the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will successfully take on new responsibilities without a proportionate increase in its resources.’.”

I join them in that disappointment over those opportunities.

While I am talking about the MCA, I want to mention that at the moment it has the final say over ship-to-ship transfers in the Moray firth. I hope that the Minister will take on board the strength of feeling of the communities around the coast in my constituency and those of my colleagues about the order for ship-to-ship, and that he will consider that we have many times called—and still do—for power over that to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

44





The UK Government will need to get their act together on employment opportunities. According to their own transport figures—this relates to recruitment—more than half of UK seafarers are over 41 years old. Only 3% are women. Women make up only 28% to 30% of uncertified officers and ratings, and the bulk of those jobs are in catering. Men take up almost 100% of the engineering jobs. Brexit will no doubt pose challenges, but we should also consider that a high number of EU nationals are employed. For example, Polish people alone make up 16% of non-UK holders of certificates of equivalent competency for the UK shipping industry.

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and to follow the excellent speech by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who led the debate. Much of what I was going to say has been said, but perhaps in different words.

I speak as a member of the RMT group of MPs. What I will say is largely informed by what the RMT thinks, with which I agree. I urge the Minister to ensure that he consults on all occasions and on all matters with the trade unions properly, including not only the RMT but Nautilus International—I have its excellent “Charter for Jobs” report with me.

There are serious concerns about the declining number of UK seafarers, which has fallen by 60% since 1982. The number of ratings has fallen by 25% in just the past five years, so there is undoubtedly a problem with not only the seafarers concerned but with the young people who we should be recruiting and training to be the next generation of seafarers.

It is a matter of national security to have a substantial and sufficient body of seafarers who are UK nationals, home-grown and home-based, and whose personal loyalties are to the UK. That is not in any way to denigrate foreign workers; nevertheless, it is significant to have a majority and a large body of home-grown seafarers whose primary loyalty is, naturally, to their own country. The major factor in that decline has been the employment of foreign nationals from poorer areas of the world, who are often paid pitifully low wages, which has been driving down wages and terms and conditions across the maritime sector. Employers are effectively discriminating against and exploiting foreign workers, as well as undermining the jobs market for British seafarers.

These concerns were taken up in the independent Carter review, which concluded that such discrimination must be outlawed and that the then Government—the previous Labour Government—should commit to a timetable for achieving that. The RMT remains committed, and rightly so, to the enforcement of the minimum wage for all seafarers, which should be just what it says: a minimum, not the normal pay for all. Properly negotiated pay rights for UK seafarers would be higher than that, but the minimum wage would at least provide a basic wage for all seafarers. The unions are urging the Government to form a working group to look at reform of the visa and work permit system as it applies to the UK shipping industry.

Proper training is necessary for UK ratings, supported by public funding and with proper marine apprenticeships. The new Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ships should be designed and built in the UK to supply the UK market. Rebuilding a British shipbuilding industry would be a very good idea.

Employers will no doubt complain about the excessive cost of higher pay, safety, security, training and so on, but labour costs for shipping are a small proportion of the total cost and amount to between 2% and 3% of the total cost. Providing good and proper pay with proper training and security for all workers would not add massively to overall shipping costs. It is time to listen to seafarers and their representatives to make sure there are sufficient UK seafarers for our long-term shipping needs and for national security. They should all be properly paid, properly trained and kept safe in their work. Government action is necessary to ensure that happens.

3.51 pm

Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate.

45




I thought I would take only a moment or two to discuss seafarers, but the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) goaded me with her interpretation of the national shipbuilding strategy, so I will say something about that, although I doubt whether I will take five minutes.

On the principal issue of seafarers and the national minimum wage, I welcome the Minister’s remark that a chord has been struck. I want to take this opportunity to applaud the actions of the Scottish Government, in particular the Minister for Transport and the Islands, Humza Yousaf, who shares a constituency office with me. He knows that I have been on at him about this issue for a while. It is good that a deal seems to have been secured, or at least an agreement in principle, that will ensure that the services operated by Seatruck, which is contracted by Serco Northlink, will now pay its employees the national minimum wage. Many of us in the House today have been concerned about the ill treatment of workers in the maritime industry.

Representatives from various agencies deserve great credit for working hard to find a solution to a complicated situation, including Transport Scotland. I have not been a fan of Transport Scotland for many years, because I was a trade union activist who had to deal with it when I was employed by Glasgow city council. This is a rare occasion when I applaud it for dealing with the matter.

It was manifestly disgraceful that seafarers were being paid as little as £4 an hour—I think the actual figure was £3.66 an hour. I hope the Minister will announce a legislative timetable for ending pay discrimination in the UK shipping industry, which the RMT union has called for and which the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) emphasised. It is not right that shipowners have been cutting the wage bill because they can discriminate against seafarers by paying them less than the statutory minimum wage.

If practices that we have heard about today took place on dry land, the enforcement agencies would be acting almost immediately. I hope the Minister will tell us what discussions are taking place with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to address the situation and ensure adequate enforcement, because the out-of-sight, out-of-mind attitude must be replaced with action.[...]

Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)

It is always an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I declare an indirect interest, because if I did not, I suspect my father would be upset with me. For more than 30 years he was a full-time trade union officer for the National Union of Seamen, which is the maritime branch of the RMT. I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group and a very proud member at that.

It is scandalous that we have this problem. The number of UK seafarers has fallen by a whopping 60% since 1982. This is not an issue that only just come about; it has been an historical issue. However, the number of UK ratings has fallen by a further 25% since 2011 and now stands at about 8,800.

Pay discrimination is outrageous, but before talking about that, I will talk about people coming into the industry without being trained. That is scandalous, especially when we have a deal under the tonnage tax, the SMarT scheme—the support for maritime training scheme—which makes it a requirement for companies to train ratings and officers, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned. It is scandalous that we are not doing anything about that.

Since coming to this place in 2010, I think I have met every Shipping Minister, along with Steve Todd, the senior assistant general secretary of the RMT, and on one occasion the then general secretary, Bob Crow. Shipping Ministers always say, “Yes, this is an issue. We’re going to deal with it,” but they do not deal with the problem. It is not even party political. Although the previous Labour Government at least commissioned the independent Carter review, I am ashamed to say that we did not do anything about a timetable to implement its recommendations. That was scandalous. I am not being party political, because we have to be honest. It is time for the Government to act.

46



The situation in my constituency is just grotesque. P&O North sea ferries run out of my constituency in east Hull, with a hugely declining number of UK ratings. The company is paying £4.70 an hour to Spanish and Portuguese seafarers, more than 300 of whom are employed on those routes, although the minimum wage is £7.20 an hour. That is scandalous. When I speak to the company about the situation, it tells me that it is not making much profit. Well, as my father always reminds me, we do not see many skint shipowners. [Interruption.] The Minister is wondering what I said: I said “skint”. I am told that shipowners do not have much money, but I think that the opposite is true. The reality is that there are an awful lot of unemployed seafarers in my constituency, people who are keen to be employed, but there are not many skint shipowners.

In the short time that I have left, I want to just mention that we are doing great things in Hull. Siemens is investing in offshore wind, and Mick Cash, general secretary of the RMT, has written to the Health and Safety Executive to raise the issue that some employers are looking particularly for seafarers to go into the industry. We therefore have a real opportunity to do something about this now. We hope that a cruise terminal will be opened in 2022. We will need more seafarers to manage that terminal—I nearly said to “man” it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) would have been unimpressed if I had. Let us just get on with it and deal with the issue. The situation is scandalous. It needs sorting out.

The role of seafarers is perhaps the most concerning aspect of the maritime industry. Since 2011, the number of UK ratings has declined by 25%, while the number of UK seafarers has decreased by some 13%. That portends a very serious risk of loss of skills and may even threaten the viability of our home-grown industry, unless training and employment rates improve significantly. That skills deficit is set to be compounded further by future retirals of an increasingly ageing workforce. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the work of the RMT and its SOS 2020 campaign to highlight that threat to the UK seafarers skills base.

While we face that decline in skilled seafarers, there is in fact a global surplus of ratings, with many of the ratings in the international shipping industry coming from cheaper-wage economies. That is compounded by exploitative practices by some operators, which abuse the complexities of the national minimum wage regulations and pay scandalous rates of pay to some seafarers. That has been much commented on today, so I will just add my disappointment that many seafarers are not receiving a fair wage. Confusion and complexity surrounding the NMW needs to be addressed by the Government. In particular, the meaning of the term “ordinarily working in the UK” needs to be made crystal clear. I would welcome hearing from the Minister how that can best be achieved and how the situation whereby there are current cases of two people working on the same ship and doing the same job but being paid different amounts based largely on nationality can be addressed.

Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. This has been a very full debate, with many important contributions. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate. I was going to say that Opposition Members welcome it, but judging by the tone of the debate as a whole, I think it is welcomed right across the House, and I look forward to what the Minister will have to say at the end.

I would like first to give credit where it is due. I very rarely give credit to the Scottish Government, but I will on this occasion. I welcome the announcement by the Scottish Government of changes to the charter agreement for the two Seatruck vessels operating between Aberdeen, Shetland and the Orkneys.

However, I have to be fair: we have heard a lot about maritime companies paying less than the national minimum wage. On Scotland’s only commercial maritime freight link to the continent, the hourly rate paid to Lithuanian seafarers can be as low as £1.64. Justifiably, we get angry when we hear about modern-day slavery on ships in the far east harvesting prawns, but we are prepared to see £1.64 an hour paid within our own waters, so I think that although a great job has been done, there is much more to do.

Drew Hendry

47




The hon. Lady will of course be aware that that shipping route is in international waters and the Scottish Government have no locus over the pay rates of that company.

Pat Glass

I am simply pointing out that the company is operating in our waters and that we need collectively to do something about it.

We are an island nation, a net importer, and we are now leaving the European Union. We have the largest port sector in Europe in terms of tonnage handled and, as has been said, we have millions of ferry passengers every year. Our economic, social and security interests will depend more than at any time since the second world war on seafarers and a resilient UK maritime skills base. It is probably worth putting this in context. At the time of the Falklands war in 1982, the UK had a strong merchant naval sector; we employed 58,000 UK seafarers. That figure has now shrunk by almost 60% to 23,000. That is the context in which we are working.

Sub-national minimum wages continue to blight the lives of seafarers working on UK domestic and short sea journeys. I have seen figures alleging that at least eight operators along 11 short sea routes to and from the UK are underpaying more than 800 crew. In my own area, on ships crossing from Newcastle to Amsterdam, DFDS pays its staff £2.93 an hour—less than £3. I took a recent weekend trip to Amsterdam, which I really enjoyed, but quite honestly, if I had known that—well, I feel really uncomfortable about it. As a result of this debate, I will be writing to DFDS and other companies to say that it is simply not acceptable.

At present, passengers and businesses are travelling on Condor Ferries to the Channel Islands on vessels crewed by seafarers earning as little as £2.40 an hour. On freight-only ships, the pay is as low as £1.64 an hour. That is not acceptable. Prior to the national living wage increase for over-24s last April, it was estimated that 8,300 ratings were working the UK shipping industry for rates of pay below the national minimum wage. That was in April last year; the figure is now considerably higher than 8,300. Increasingly, companies are recruiting outside the UK to crew their ships with non-UK seafarers, particularly ratings, in order to profit from these sub-national minimum wage rates.

This is not a new problem. It has to be said that this goes well beyond the current Government. Beyond the simple injustices, we can see the cost of not having acted in the past. This legalised exploitation has systematically undermined maritime jobs in the UK, damaged the skill base and driven up unemployment rates in seafarer communities across the UK. Since 2011 alone, the number of UK ratings has fallen by 25%. If we end the pay exploitation in shipping, we can help to reverse the decline of our merchant navy. This need not be a party political issue, but one of sense, fairness and humanity.

There are three points that I would like the Minister to take forward from this debate. First, he has already committed to review the application of pay legislation across the shipping industry imminently. However, as we have already heard, that has already happened—the Carter review did it—so this is just a case of setting a timeframe and getting it implemented. Secondly, can the Minister give a date for when we can expect publication of updated guidance to HMRC on enforcement of the national minimum wage for seafarers? Thirdly, when will he publish the outcomes of the review of the existing protections in part 5 of the Equality Act 2010 against nationality-based pay discrimination for seafarers? That work was completed in April last year, yet 10 months later it has still not been published.

However, as we have heard, pay is only part of the problem and part of the solution. More than 70% of deck and 74% of engine ratings are now aged over 40. We are heading for a shortfall in trained and skilled seafarers. If we take no action, that will be filled by non-UK staff. The Select Committee on Transport warned over two years ago that the Government needed to act on funding, on approved standards for maritime apprenticeships, on the take-up of apprenticeships in the industry, on setting annual statutory targets for seafarer training and on including the number of trainee ratings in annual seafarer statistics. We would like to know from the Minister when we will get some action on that.

One area of maritime growth where the Government have not dragged their feet is on the recommendations to make the UK shipping register more commercially responsive, in the

48



form of a Government corporation. I would gently point out to the Minister some other areas where this and former Governments have rushed to privatise—the rail industry, the energy industry and the water industry come to mind. Recent attitude polls among the electorate now show that the majority of our constituents—in some cases over 90%—want to see those decisions reversed, because they see formerly Government-owned, privatised industries making massive profits, but customers paying massive bills and getting a poor service. I would gently ask the Minister whether he will properly and carefully consider the costs and benefits of transforming the UK shipping register, fully consider all the options and also promise that this House will be given time to scrutinise those options?

Before closing, I wish to press the Minister on leaving the EU. At the moment we know nothing about the Government’s wider maritime priorities, at a time when we need a clear direction on maritime issues that would inform the Brexit negotiations. How will any changes to the single market affect shipping and seafarers? Will there be customs checks? Will there be tariffs? Is his Department feeding into the Brexit negotiations on these matters? If it is, will he tell us how?

In closing, I hope the Minister can elaborate on his Government’s plans for Brexit, or at least recognise that maritime is an exceptional issue that needs to take precedence. He must also assure the House about the future of the shipping register, along with the timeframe and process for any reforms. Will he outline his priorities for seafarer training and skills, and say whether he will set targets for recruitment? Finally, I look forward to him addressing the key point to come out of this debate about seafarer pay and conditions.

The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)

[...]As has been said repeatedly, this is not the first time that I have done this job; it is my second visit to the Department for Transport as Shipping Minister. By the way, all ministerial jobs are visits—no more than that—as it is very important to recognise. None the less, when I was there the first time I initiated the maritime growth study to which the right hon. Gentleman and others have referred. He was very generous about it too, if I might say so. The reason for the study is that it seemed really important that we had a stocktake of our maritime circumstances and our maritime future. However, since then we have had the debate on the European Union. I will not digress by saying that the result was, for me, a dream come true, but it certainly changes our maritime future. It is therefore important that we review that growth study. I have put into place a stocktake of the study itself, which is currently taking place, so that we can consider its very helpful recommendations in the context of Brexit.

[..]Let me highlight the key issues that have been raised, which fall into the following categories. First, there is the maritime growth study, which I have mentioned. That was a very important piece of work and I am immensely grateful to Lord Mountevans for leading it and to others who took part. It provided a series of recommendations that will inform future policy, but as he and others acknowledged, it must be a living document. The great risk with such exercises is that the document is published, the work is done, there is a great furore around its publication and then a year later people think, “What on earth was that study?” In order to give the document continuing relevance, it needs to be regularly updated, which is precisely what I am doing through the work I just described.

The points made about the flag—as highlighted by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass)—and tonnage tax should be pertinent to that review of the study. We can do more with tonnage tax, particularly on recruitment and training, and we need to do more, as has been acknowledged by the Government and those with whom we work, to make the flag more attractive. There has to be an offer in respect of the register that goes beyond simply raising the flag and includes a range of services that we can provide to make it more attractive. We are committed to that.

Secondly, the issue of ports was raised. We may have emphasised ports insufficiently. At the risk of adding contumely to our affairs, I disagreed to some degree with the Opposition spokesman on this issue; the ports are perhaps the best example of how private organisations investing heavily, being responsive to changing circumstances and being very efficient and competitive, compared with their European counterparts, can make a significant difference to the sector. The fact that we have private organisations—not wholly, but for the

49



most part—running our ports is testament to what can be done when private and public interests coincide.

However, we should not be complacent. The shadow Minister is right that we need to look at the new challenges that our ports face, because they work in an extremely dynamic sector and more can be done to support them. We certainly should not have the port services regulation. As I made perfectly clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, we will not have it as we do not want it and will fight it at every opportunity.

The third issue that was raised was skills and recruitment. I share almost all the views that permeated—indeed coloured—this debate, begun by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I think that we are doing too little on recruitment and that we need to do more on skills. As Members will know, I was the apprenticeships Minister when the coalition Government first came into office. I am proud of our work on revitalising apprenticeships, but I take the point that was made. More can be done, and in my discussions on the industrial strategy I will raise the continuing importance of training in this sector. We need to recruit and train more British seafarers. It is as simple as that. Throughout this short debate Members have made the point that there has to be a career path for those seafarers. It is not enough simply to recruit people at different levels; there has to be a career path so that people can build their life in seafaring. That is a good thing and something of which we should be proud.

Albert Owen

[.... ]Will he do more to train youngsters up in those facilities? He will also be aware of early-day motion 516, which has been suggested by the unions. Will he work with the unions and others to ensure that we have a proper campaign for skills and safety at sea?

Mr Hayes

Indeed I will. I recently held a roundtable meeting, which the unions attended, on precisely those matters. I have discussed recruitment with the trade unions, and I welcome the excellent briefing produced by my trade union friends. When I first became a Minister, I said to my officials, “I want to meet the unions regularly,” and they looked slightly nervous about it. During the course of those meetings, a union representative—I will not say who—said, “We never got this much out of Labour.” I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and particularly the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who called for this specifically in his contribution—that I will continue to work with the trade unions in exactly the way in which he has described. It is vital not only that we recruit people, but that we train them appropriately and allow them the kind of career opportunities that he called for.

Karl Turner

Will the Minister commit to meeting a group of cross-party MPs, along with the RMT representatives, very soon to see what progress he has made following this debate?

Mr Hayes

Yes, I am happy to do that, perhaps under the auspices of the all-party group, which I have already met, but I am happy to meet again. That would be a useful vehicle for precisely that kind of discussion.

The fourth area that the debate touched on—this was referred to by a number of hon. Members—was what might be called the welfare and conditions that prevail in the maritime sector. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the conditions are appropriate. Some alarming claims have been made today, which I take very seriously indeed, particularly if people are not being paid the appropriate wage and if the circumstances and conditions in which they are working are not adequate [...] We will take this further. As a direct result of the debate—perhaps it will happen in the discussions that were just described—I am very happy to consider what more the Government must do. The work I am doing on the maritime growth study should fill some gaps and allow us to consider what more can be done on recruitment, as well as how we can approach skills in a fresh way and how the terms and conditions that apply across the industry can be improved.[....]

50






Annex 4 – Correspondence*

*(Below are the formal letters sent on behalf of the RMT Group. Informal contact is maintained with Government, Opposition Front Benches, Backbench MPs and members of the RMT Group through email, telephone and informal meetings)

Rt Hon. John Hayes MPMinister of StateDepartment for TransportGreat Minster House76 Marsham StreetLondon SW1P 2DR

28 February 2017

Seafarer Pay Discrimination – Cross-Party meeting

During our exchanges in the Future of UK Maritime Westminster Hall debate, on 17 January, you agreed to meet with a group of MPs on a cross-party basis.

As you will recall from the debate, MPs from across the political spectrum and from across the UK were united in their concern over the impact of the ongoing practice of nationality based pay discrimination against foreign seafarers in the UK shipping industry. This practice is widespread in all sectors of the shipping industry, where a lack of enforcement of the National Minimum Wage for seafarers is making this problem worse, especially for young people in port towns and cities, who cannot compete for work at rates of pay which are often well below the legal minimum.

For the record, we welcome the Government’s decision to re-convene the Legal Working Group on application of the National Minimum Wage for seafarers. We are optimistic that this will result in revised enforcement guidance and activity which successfully challenges the established industry practice of paying crew below the NMW, including on routes between UK ports and on UK flagged vessels.

Given the importance of this issue in maritime constituencies, we trust that you will be able to meet, shortly with a cross-party group of MPs to discuss in detail the potential remedies to the sort of discriminatory pay and employment practices against seafarers which are all too common in the UK shipping industry today.

It would be helpful if you would address your reply to the RMT Parliamentary Consultant, Simeon Andrews at Union Services (details above) who will pass on all correspondence and make any arrangements that are necessary for a meeting.

We look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Karl Turner MPAlistair Carmichael MPChris Stephens MPLiz Saville-Roberts MPMelanie Onn MPAlbert Owen MPKelvin Hopkins MP

51


Annex 5 - Group Membership

RMT PG

First Name Surname Constituency

Diane Abbott Hackney North & Stoke NewingtonJeremy Corbyn Islington NorthAlex Cunningham Stockton NorthPaul Flynn Newport WestKate Hoey VauxhallKelvin Hopkins Luton NorthIan Lavery WansbeckClive Lewis Norwich SouthRebecca Long-Bailey SalfordJohn McDonnell Hayes & HarlingtonLiz McInnes Heywood & MiddletonIan Mearns GatesheadGraham Morris EasingtonLisa Nandy WiganTeresa Pearce Erith & ThamesmeadAngela Rayner Ashton-under-LyneRuth Smeeth Stoke on Trent NorthCatherine Smith Lancaster & FleetwoodJo Stevens Cardiff CentralKarl Turner Hull East

The names in bold are those currently part of the Labour frontbench team

52

contents - rmt · web viewthe work i am doing on the maritime growth study should fill some gaps...

Documents