Lord Hendy:

Moved by Lord Hendy

122A: After Clause 53, insert the following new Clause—“Statutory rights of GB-linked ships’ crews(1) The members of the crew of a GB-linked ship shall be entitled to the statutory rights to which employees in the UK are entitled under statute.(2) In this section, “GB-linked ship” means a ship providing a service—(a) for the carriage of persons or goods, with or without vehicles, and(b) that is within subsection (3) or (4).(3) A service is within this subsection if it is operated between a place in Great Britain and Another place in the United Kingdom.(4) A service is within this subsection if—(a) ships providing the service entered a harbour in Great Britain on at least 120 occasions in the period of 12 months ending with the day on which one or more of the statutory rights referred to in subsection (1) is claimed, or(b) 15 if the service has been provided for less than 12 months before that day, ships providing the service entered a harbour in Great Britain on at least 10 occasions in each month for which the service has been provided.(5) But a service is not within subsection (4) if the service—(a) is for the purpose of leisure or recreation, or(b) is provided by a fishing vessel.(6) In this section—“harbour” has the same meaning as in the Harbours Act 1964;“ship” has the same meaning as in section 193A of the trade union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (see subsection (4) of that section).” Member's explanatory statementThis new clause is intended to extend entitlement of the rights of GB-linked ships’ crews from the right to collective redundancy notification in clause 29 to entitlement to all statutory rights enjoyed by UK employees.

My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to probe the extent to which the new category of seafarers, “GB-linked ships’ crews”, should benefit from other employment rights apart from the one bestowed by the Bill, which gives them a right in relation to consultation over collective redundancies, as a consequence of the P&O Ferries scandal. I understand that there have been discussions between the unions representing these seafarers and the ministerial team. In the light of that, I shall leave it to the Minister to set out the situation. I beg to move.

Having raised these issues at the beginning of Committee, I just want to say that, following the favourable response of the front bench to the idea of arranging a meeting at which they can be discussed, I very much look forward—at least, I hope I can—to the reply of my noble friend the Minister.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for moving his Amendment.

Amendments 123 and 124 in my name relate to Clause 54, which provides powers to make regulations giving effect to two named international conventions and to give effect to international agreements as they relate to maritime employment. I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its thoughtful consideration of these powers, and its recommendation to amend the procedure for new Section 84A(2) from first-time affirmative to affirmative for all uses. I wrote to the committee on 7 July, setting out our response in full.

These amendments will change the parliamentary procedure applicable to regulations made under the power in new Section 84A(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, giving effect to international agreements as they relate to maritime employment. The amendments mean that all uses of the power to give effect to future or unspecified international agreements will now be subject to the affirmative procedure, and not just the first use. They will mean that Parliament has greater oversight of these agreements and amendments to them.

I turn to Amendment 122A tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy. The amendment would specify that the statutory rights to which shore-based workers in the UK are entitled also apply to ships’ crews working aboard services that enter ports in Great Britain 120 or more times per year, or that operate

“between a place in Great Britain and Another place in the United Kingdom”.

The scope of services covered follows the approach taken in Clause 29, where the Government have sought to ensure that those employed aboard these services are captured by the requirement to provide proposed notification of collective redundancy.

I thank my noble friend for this amendment on the application of employment rights to seafarers, and the maritime trade unions for their continuing engagement on these issues. I hope to be able to provide some clarity today, but we can also commit to continuing ongoing discussion about how we can ensure that seafarers are receiving robust protections.

The Government want to see stronger employment rights for seafarers. That is why, in addition to the broader changes to employment rights, we have included a package of maritime-specific measures in this Bill. As my noble friend knows, we are closing the loophole that meant that P&O Ferries could avoid prosecution for failing to provide advance notice of proposed collective redundancies. We are also providing powers for a mandatory seafarers’ charter, which will allow us to set a higher minimum standard for wages and for how long seafarers can spend at sea without a break. This will establish a level playing field that will help prevent the undercutting of working conditions in the way that P&O Ferries sought to do.

The new power to give effect to the Maritime Labour Convention, and other international agreements as they relate to maritime employment, is also important. Where international agreement is needed to improve protections, we can implement those changes.

In relation to broader employment rights. It is important to note that many seafarers with strong connections to Great Britain are already entitled to British employment rights and would be entitled to protections in the Bill. This would include seafarers who ordinarily work in the territorial waters of Great Britain. The courts would also consider how seafarers who spend some time working outside GB would be covered. These legal tests ensure that those seafarers who have such a strong connection that they would expect to be covered by GB law are indeed protected.

While we appreciate the intention behind the amendment, as drafted it is very broad and would apply a wide but uncertain range of rights on to seafarers with varying levels of connection to Great Britain, spanning across a significant number of different pieces of legislation. Accepting the amendment without undertaking a proper review of the consequences of this across all the relevant legislation would run the risk of unintended consequences for seafarers. It could not only disapply certain rights from seafarers who currently receive them but force UK employment protections on those who wish to be covered by a different jurisdiction, depending on the interpretation of the courts. Applying the “frequency of port calls” test to all statutory rights is not the same as applying it to the collective redundancy measure, on which the amendment is based, or the Seafarers Wages Act, which is also based on port calls. Neither of these measures confer any individual rights on to seafarers, and the mechanism was carefully designed to ensure compliance of these specific measures with international law.

Since the amendment would confer individual rights on seafarers working on non-UK flagged ships that would be enforceable in UK courts, it is important that we consider the legal consequences of this. In particular, we would need to carefully consider the international law implications. It is important that we chart the right course between protecting seafarers connected to the UK and making sure that our framework is legally robust.

For the reasons set out, we cannot accept the amendment as drafted. It would have far-reaching implications that would need proper consideration and scrutiny of the issue. As I say, the risk of unintended consequences is too great, and it could undermine the progress for seafarers that we have made through the carefully designed measures in the Bill. However, we appreciate the intention behind the amendment. I assure noble Lords that this Government are committed to protecting seafarers, and we will continue to work with ambition and determination to advance seafarers’ rights, internationally and domestically.

We would welcome the opportunity to continue the extensive engagement that we have already undertaken with the unions and industry about the application of employment protection to seafarers. The Maritime Minister recently met the RMT and undertook to continue dialogue on this matter. He would be happy to meet the RMT again following official-level discussions to explore how we could secure the objectives behind my noble friend’s amendment. With that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw Amendment 122A.

My Lords, in the light of my noble friend the Minister’s recognition of the shortfall in employment rights for seafarers and the commitment to continued engagement with the maritime unions, and indeed employers, to discuss the ways in which the intent behind the Amendment might be ultimately achieved, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 122A withdrawn.

Clause 54: International agreements relating to maritime employment