Grahame Morris
MP for Easington · Labour · United Kingdom
“I am grateful for the Minister’s engagement, but can I point out a practical problem in the context of seafarers? With the vast majority of the merchant fleet not flagged with GB owners, the problem—including on the ferries and so on that are working out of British ports for more than 120 days a year—is that there is a relatively small nu…”
“Member for Bromsgrove is new to the House, so he may not be aware of this—that the chief exec of P&O Ferries admitted publicly, to a joint sitting of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, that he was fully aware that P&O Ferries were breaking the law in three areas, not just on consultation, a…”
“I do not have a formal speech, but I want to make a couple of points about context and put a particular question to the Minister, if that is okay.”
“I have been involved in discussions, lobbying of Ministers, members of my party and shadow Ministers to ensure that the legislation affords a degree of protection to UK-based seafarers.”
“I fully understand the difficulties and the complexities of international law, but that cannot be a get-out for P&O Ferries, Irish Ferries or any other commercial entity to simply walk away from their legal responsibilities in respect of employment protections.”
“The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head—that is perfectly put. I believe there is cross-party consensus that this is the way forward. Over the last 16 years that I have been a Member, along with the hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Grahame Morris, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 12.
“A huge annual economic stimulus of £6.5 billion would empower people to participate in their local economy. For the poorest communities such as mine, the average household saving could be as high as £900 a year. The Government’s refusal to invest in our poorest communities will hold back regeneration, growth and employment. Rather than the Government’s tax and spend investment policy, a proportional property tax is much more efficient at allowing the poorest communities to keep more of their own money to spend and invest in their own local economy as they see fit. That might be a philosophy that the Conservatives could agree with. The success of the levelling-up fund should be judged on the extent to which it narrows the economic divisions in our country. In fact, those divisions are widening and inequality is growing.”
“For that reason, an £8 million townhouse in Westminster bizarrely, or perversely, ends up paying less council tax each year than somebody living in a £150,000 home in my constituency. The most affluent areas have other advantages, with Westminster City Council better placed to raise revenues through business rates, fees and charges such as car parking charges compared to poorer local authorities like mine. This is the opposite of levelling up. It is widening the economic gap between London and the regions, as well as between the richest and poorest in society. The theme of the Budget yesterday was boosting employment, and the key to that aim is strengthening regional economies to sustain additional employment. A proportional property tax strengthens local economies and supports employment by cutting taxes in the regions by £6.5 billion.”
“My county council, Durham County Council, is led by a Conservative-led coalition. It faces a £10.2 million deficit, despite raising council tax by the maximum—5%—and proposing cuts of £12.4 million. The truth is that the system is broken. It is the poorest households that pay more and get less, while councils remain unable to fund vital services. Currently, households are taxed based not on their ability to pay, but on the 1991 valuation of their home and the area in which they live. That means that local authorities must impose tax levels on their residents to cover the costs of essential statutory services such as caring for looked-after children and adult social care regardless of the wealth, or lack of it, in those communities.”
“It would help to alleviate and mitigate the cost of living crisis and deliver a tax cut—a council tax cut—to more than 75% of households in the country, and 100% of households in Easington. The problem with council tax is very simple. In the days ahead, the majority of people will receive a council tax bill. At Prime Minister’s questions, a lot of political capital was made about Conservative councils being better than Labour councils, but the truth is that almost all councils, irrespective of their political colour, are facing huge pressures. Most people will face a council tax increase of about 5%. The County Councils Network reported in February that three in four councils will increase council tax by the maximum amount permitted. This is an issue that cuts across all parties.”
“That is meant to be the Government’s priority. It would be worthwhile for the Government to address the fundamental unfairness of council tax. I want to explore why replacing council tax with a proportional property tax should command the support of those on the Opposition and Government Benches. It is advocated by the Fairer Share campaign, which I recommend the Minister and other Members have a look at. Fair taxation is the foundation on which Labour can build a better Britain and help to secure the missions recently set out by the Leader of the Opposition. For the Conservatives, abolishing council tax in favour of a proportional property tax would demonstrate a long-term and systematic commitment to levelling up.”
“It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and his excellent speech. In the time that I have, I wonder if I might focus on one specific issue —council tax and its failings. I was very interested in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), when he spoke about the advantages of a wealth tax for those with more than £10 million in assets. It should not be discounted—I think there is a lot of merit in it. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) has also advocated such a policy. We heard a lot from the Chancellor yesterday. There were a lot of Es flying around— [ Interruption. ] I was paying attention, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are a couple of Es in levelling up, but unfortunately Easington did not get any levelling-up money.”
“My hon. Friend is very kind to give way, and he is making an excellent speech, but can I just ask his opinion about left-behind areas? It is all very well for the high earners who are getting advantages with their pension pots, but does he see the benefits, particularly in former mining communities, of implementing the recommendation of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee report and returning the investment fund and the full miners’ pension scheme surplus to retired miners and their widows, who are struggling with the cost of living crisis, not least with huge fuel bills?”
“I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill, which is a welcome step in the right direction. I am aware of the figures for the number of workers who are on zero-hours contracts, but does the hon. Member have a figure for the number of workers who would be covered by the Bill?”
“Not having a secure employment also has implications for any kind of hire purchase debt, such as mobile phone contracts. It will probably come as no surprise to Conservative Members that I support the abolition of zero-hours contracts altogether. I would welcome a comprehensive employment rights Bill that would provide statutory protection against all forms of poor employment practices. Nevertheless, notwithstanding my reservations, I welcome the intention of the Bill and I am pleased to support the hon. Member for Blackpool South today.”
“Once the peak of demand had subsided, the guaranteed hours fell substantially. However, he could not go to his landlord and say, “Well, I have had only 20 hours this week, so is it okay if I give you only half my rent?” The issue affects many hundreds of thousands of workers, and this is an important step forward. I welcome the Bill, because it gives workers on atypical contracts, especially zero-hours contracts, more predictable and stable working hours. It gives people a greater say over when, where and how they work. It is right that the Government address one-sided flexibility, which inevitably benefits employers, and often forces employees to put their lives on hold when they are called up at short notice for shifts.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool South on introducing the Bill and explaining the provisions in such an eloquent and articulate fashion. It is apt that we are considering the Bill on International Women’s Day, as it is women who are disproportionately affected and victimised by poor employment practices, and subjected to insecure employment. I welcome the Bill for that reason and a number of others. My earlier question to the hon. Member was based on some family experiences. My eldest son was working in retail in the north-west. He was in the category where he did not have a zero-hours contract, but he did not have a secure, specified number of hours. Before Christmas, he was expected to work 60 hours a week.”
“I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way before my knee does. Clearly, he is a man with a plan. Is it not incredible that we do not have a plan for dealing with cancer—the Government have dropped the 10-year cancer plan—particularly at a time when 50,000 patients a month are having to wait more than two weeks between diagnosis and seeing a specialist? We need a plan that incorporates workforce recruitment and retention.”
“It is not correct that Labour’s spending plans are unfunded, and I hope that the Minister will put the record right. On the cancer plan, there is information out there that the incidence of cancer is increasing. To get value for money, would it not be sensible for the Government to invest in precision radiotherapy, as a treatment that improves patient outcomes in a cost-effective manner? That would get the best value for money for the taxpayer.”
“The Royal College of Radiologists estimates that the NHS would need to employ 480 radiology consultants overnight to clear the backlog of CT and MRI scans within a month. Numerous workforce surveys point out that the workforce do not have the equipment to meet future demands, and 94% of respondents to one survey did not feel that the Government understood the impact of the current situation on the radiotherapy workforce. If we lose our radiotherapy workforce, we lose the radiotherapy service. If we do not give those people the tools to do the job, we will never have a world-class cancer service.”
“The demands are increasing: Cancer Research UK estimates that the number of cancer patients per year will jump from 384,000 to over 500,000 by 2024. Many of those patients will need radiotherapy, but at present, the workforce levels and the provision of equipment will not meet that demand. I remind the Minister that, among those people who will be diagnosed with cancer, deaths are projected to rise by a quarter. International standards show that at least 53% of cancer patients need radiotherapy, but here in the UK, we are miles off that target. Only 27% of patients had access to radiotherapy in 2019, and that figure got worse during the pandemic. There is a crisis in cancer care; there is a lack of treatment capacity; and there is a workforce crisis in radiotherapy.”
“It is really important that the potential of radiotherapy, and of the workforce, is not overlooked by Ministers. They must take steps to address the cancer backlog and improve patient survival rates. I refer the Minister and hon. Members to an excellent article by Martyn Brown—not in the Labour-supporting Daily Mirror, but in the traditionally Conservative-supporting Express— that highlights some of the shortcomings in the radiotherapy service. In that article, Bryan Robson, the former England and Manchester United captain, expounds and explains the value of precision radiotherapy. It is quite bizarre that a treatment capable of achieving cures for as little as £3,000 to £7,000 is delivered by fewer than 6,500 specialist staff across the whole of the country.”
“Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on being a man with a plan; I hope that the Minister is a woman with a plan to address the real crisis in cancer services and to take the opportunity afforded by making the best use of and expanding our highly dedicated and highly skilled radiotherapy and cancer workforce. Our performance as a nation is lamentable: cancer patients have been waiting longer for treatment every year since 2010, partly due to problems with workforce recruitment and retention. Performance on the two-week cancer referral waiting time has fallen to record lows and the 62-day waiting time standard for cancer treatment following a GP referral has not been met since 2014.”
“I am honoured to speak in the debate and to follow my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley). I, too, place on record my thanks and appreciation and solidarity with all groups of NHS workers, who go above and beyond in keeping us safe and looking after us. In the limited time available, I will concentrate my remarks on the NHS cancer workforce, particularly the NHS radiotherapy workforce. I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on cancer and for radiotherapy. It is important to think about the impact of the Government’s plan—or lack thereof. I congratulate my hon.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for these amendments, as the issues to which they relate were raised by Opposition Members in Committee and on Second Reading. What is the position on the fines? Does he remember our discussion about whether level 4 fines are enough of a deterrent? A level 5 fine is unlimited and may be a greater deterrent, although the Secretary of State will still have discretion on whether to apply it.”
“We have to agree to disagree on this point. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has estimated that the 2020 legal extension of the national minimum wage equivalent entitlement to all seafarers on domestic routes and on routes from UK ports to offshore oil and gas installations, which are not included in the scope of the Bill, would benefit a maximum of 13,000 seafarers—I refer to ratings grades—regardless of the number of port calls. So the issue of port calls is fundamental to whether this Bill will be fit for purpose—in other words, whether it will meet the Government’s basic requirement to protect UK seafarers on these short sea routes.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I wish him every success in his bilateral negotiations with the French Government and other seafaring nations. Let me turn to the point made about the litmus test of the success of this Bill. Without placing in the Bill the seafarers charter, which addresses not just minimum wage equivalence but roster patterns and all the other things that allowed rogue employers such as P&O Ferries and Irish Ferries to commit the terrible action that took place almost a year ago, would this Bill prevent such action? I am afraid that the answer is no. It fails the litmus test.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. It is not that we are not giving the Minister credit for having moved some way; it is just that this Bill presents an ideal opportunity. It is like having a penalty awarded and then double-tapping the ball, so the referee disallows the goal. We have a great opportunity to move ahead of the French and provide the requisite protections for our seafarers. Has my hon. Friend seen a published version of the charter? I know there have been various iterations. I understand that the RMT has asked to see the latest version. The Minister lays such great store by this voluntary agreement, which we have not even seen yet—at least, I have not seen it.”
“That is an important point. The Government are laying so much store by voluntary agreement in the application of the seafarers welfare charter, or the seafarers charter—it has had various names during its transition. The Minister said that there had been consultation and that further consultation was going on, including with the UK Chamber of Shipping. My understanding is that that includes Seatruck and Condor Ferries. They are long-term bad bosses and abusers of seafarer rights, so I hope that they will not have input into the Bill, which could further undermine its provisions.”
“Again, I must mention roster patterns, crewing levels, pension rights, training and taxation, because the additional savings that P&O in particular made were not just down to saving the cost of seafarers’ wages. Most of the financial benefits were from changed roster patterns, pensions and other savings.”
“In the time I have, I want to speak in support of Labour’s amendments and, indeed, those tabled by my friends from the SNP, which I believe would greatly improve the Bill and ensure maximum protections for our seafarers. New clause 2 focuses on the seafarers welfare charter, and I hope that the Labour Front Benchers will put it to a vote. I know that the unions, employers and the Government have been discussing a number of versions of the charter since April as part of the much-publicised nine-point plan, which we very much welcome and which is included in the “Maritime 2050” review. It is intended to set minimum standards on wider employment issues that the Bill does not cover.”
“Those two areas relate to the argument that a ship should be designated as within the scope of the Bill for 52 days rather than 120 days, and to the roster patterns, which are covered by the seafarers charter. That is addressed in the Opposition’s new clause 2. I am thanking the Minister quite a lot, but I have to say that one of his letters to the Committee did not provide the further detail that we had asked for about the Department of Transport’s review of the Equality Act 2010, including the regulations to prevent nationality-based pay discrimination. The Minister is rolling his eyes because that is outside the scope of this Bill, but it was contained in the EU retained law Bill, so I think it is reasonable to seek clarification.”
“Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Glasgow East (David Linden), is to strengthen the Bill, not to undermine or devalue it. They aim to make sure that the Bill achieves its purpose. Government amendment 15 creates a national tariff of surcharges set by the Government rather than tariffs set by individual harbour authorities. In Committee we identified a potential conflict of interest, so I am very pleased to say that the trade unions and the Opposition parties support the amendment. As I have indicated, sadly the Bill does not go far enough in a number of key areas, including the detention of vessels in port as a punishment for non-compliance, and in the two areas that could cause maximum damage to P&O’s business model.”
“I declare my interest as a member and, indeed, vice-chair of the RMT parliamentary group. I want to give the Minister credit. The Government have moved in several areas of concern that were highlighted on Second Reading, in the other place and in Committee. When the Bill was first published, the trade unions representing both ratings and officers, who were attacked by P&O Ferries and DP World, identified a number of the issues that we have raised, including the level of fines for non-compliance and the use of surcharge revenue to fund seafarer welfare facilities onshore. I am glad that the Minister has acknowledged those concerns and acted on them. The purpose of the amendments tabled by His Majesty’s Opposition and my friends from the SNP, the hon.”
“I rise to support the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), in particular new clause 2, which seeks to put the seafarers charter on the face of the Bill; amendment 24 to clause 3, which seeks to reduce the threshold to 52 calls to a UK port; and Opposition amendment 40 to clause 4, which seeks to protect existing seafaring national minimum wage entitlements beyond a 12-mile limit on the UK continental shelf. I am concerned about unintended consequences driving down seafarers’ wages, given that our purpose is to drive them up and protect terms and conditions. I would also like to speak to amendment 41, which proposes making clause 16 subject to the affirmative procedure.”
“That puts hundreds more UK seafarer jobs under threat from bad bosses who are ruthlessly undercutting responsible employees, and I include P&O and Irish Ferries in that. I urge the House not to forget that Irish Ferries started operating on the Dover-Calais route in June 2021 with one vessel doing a freight-only service. It now operates a freight and passenger service with three Cypriot-flagged vessels on the same route. That is the reality, and progressive operators that provide decent seafarer jobs are being undercut every day. It is so important that this Bill is properly targeted.”
“The Minister responded to an issue raised in Committee relating to P&O by writing: “The Department works closely with ports and operators across the Maritime sector to understand the market and any potential sources of disruption. We have not however made any specific assessment of the viability of P&O Ferries’ routes to or from UK ports.” The unions have not seen a draft of the charter since August, and neither to my knowledge has Stena Line or DFDS, whose collective bargaining agreements with the RMT and the officers’ union Nautilus formed the basis of the original framework agreement. Safe roster patterns and crewing levels based on the agreements with Stena and DFDS were prominent, but sadly have since been diluted or removed.”
“In a letter to the Committee, the Minister wrote: “The Seafarers’ Charter is being developed with the maritime industry and social partners to enhance the core employment protections available to seafarers.” For the avoidance of doubt, “social partners” means the trade unions. That is really interesting, and I welcome the fact that the Government have chosen to adopt the language of the European Union in referring to seafarers’ rights. Again, for the avoidance of any doubt, the maritime industry includes P&O Ferries, the Irish Continental Group, which operates Irish Ferries, and DP World. The Government must be honest about the discussions they have had and are having with P&O Ferries about its future viability.”
“That is absolutely spot on. As I have said, the improvements in the amendments and the new clause have the support of the official Opposition and our friends in the SNP, but I believe that our aims for the Bill also command the support of a number of Members of the Government party. Given the importance of linking wages and terms and conditions, the nine-point plan and the seafarers charter really should be on the face of the Bill. The Minister has been quite consistent in disagreeing with that and instead aims to publish a voluntary seafarer welfare charter. I had rather hoped that it would have been published in advance of these remaining stages, including Third Reading, but perhaps it will be published later this month.”
“I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing the Bill forward, and I am pleased to support it. I want to point out, particularly to the Minister, that while the losses that the farming community suffer are terrible, and it is awful when criminals benefit from the subsequent sale of this equipment, another dimension is its use for antisocial purposes, particularly in constituencies such as mine, where quad bikes are being used to terrorise communities. These individuals are using cycleways and cycle paths, and the police find it incredibly difficult to apprehend them, because they are really reckless in their use of these quad bikes. If, through the Bill, we can stop those individuals getting their hands on these all-terrain vehicles, it is to be welcomed, and I am happy to support it.”
“Tackling the antisocial behaviour of individuals using quad bikes and all-terrain vehicles needs enormous police resource, including specialist equipment and specially trained officers, because those involved ride them in a reckless fashion, endangering themselves and others. If, as was suggested, we can do an early intervention, that would save a great deal of police resource that could be redeployed elsewhere.”
“On that specific point, I am sure the Minister can clear up the issue I want to raise. The surcharge relates to ports and harbour authorities competing with one another. Will the surcharge be consistent or will it vary from one port and harbour authority to another?”
“I completely agree with the line the hon. Member is pursuing here—that the fines should present a disincentive to breach the provisions of the legislation—but would he clarify a point on the minimum surcharge? The amendment says it would be “no less than 300 per cent of the difference between the amount calculated as the national minimum wage equivalence for the operator and the amount in total paid by that operator”. We learned in the debates on the previous clause that more than 50% of the savings that P&O were making were not from wages but from the changes in roster patterns. Should that be taken into account as well?”
“I am grateful for the explanation. The Minister said amendment 65; did he mean amendment 64 in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State to set regulations? Can the Minister have a quick look at that? It is a point that in the earlier clauses he had indicated he was going to look at again before Report, so that we have a consistent level set by the Secretary of State in regulation. Could the Minister clarify that?”
“The Minister is being very helpful. Will he list the categories that fall under, or explain how he would describe, “force majeure”? He mentioned a couple of categories. Is that an exhaustive list?”
“It is outside the scope of this Bill, but there have been occasions where, certainly during the course of the pandemic, a number of vessels were laid up. I do not know if comes under the category of force majeure. Many tens of thousands—even hundreds of thousands—of seafarers were unable to access proper conditions. I know there were issues about the spreading of infection and so on, but putting that to one side, surely in terms of welfare it would make far more sense to detain the vessels within the port, rather than outside.”
“Only denying access to ports is not a realistic or sustainable punishment, especially as it relies to some extent on vessels not sailing to the UK if they are found to be non-compliant. Amendment 70 and new clause 6, in relation to vessels that fail to pay the surcharge, would be much more effective. There is also the possibility that capacity in another port would be blocked, if a ship were detained outside the port, perhaps in another harbour or even in a different jurisdiction. It is not clear whether the bilateral agreements the Government are negotiating—the Minister referred to them earlier, in particular that with France, but there are also those with Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Denmark and Norway—would take account of that. I would be interested in the Government’s response to that point. There is a welfare issue.”
“The trade unions, the RMT—National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—and I believe Nautilus International, also support that view, in order to provide a punishment for non-compliance that is more in line with international maritime regulatory standards governing operators’ behaviours. I respectfully point out that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s port state control powers, which already exist under the maritime labour convention, are the only mechanism for inspecting crew employment and welfare standards. Every month, foreign flag vessels detained following those inspections are posted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on the Government’s website. The power that I propose would be a welcome addition to the port state control responsibilities that the MCA discharges for foreign flag vessels working from UK ports.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. In this group, I will speak to amendment 70 in my name and to new clause 6. The Minister explained the reasoning behind his proposal to refuse access to a harbour. Amendment 70 proposes that the ship should be detained within a port. That is far more in line with international maritime law. The denial of harbour access is a matter of some concern. For harbour authorities or, indeed, the Secretary of State to suspend access is dangerous and likely to be ineffective. I therefore support the detention of non-compliant vessels within a UK harbour.”
“The Minister is being patient and I appreciate that. Will he clarify the difference between “guidance” and “direction”? I ask because, on an earlier clause, we agreed that harbour authorities will now have a duty rather than a power. I wonder whether the Secretary of State’s “guidance” is a weaker term than a “direction”. Will he explain the difference?”
“The ground has been very well covered. I am just wondering, particularly in relation to amendment 61, tabled by my colleagues from the SNP, about the impact of the earlier Government amendments. The Secretary of State has quite extensive powers in relation to the declaration, the imposition of surcharges, and directions to harbour authorities. I am sure that that must have been taken into account, but it does seem, given the extensive powers being conferred on the Secretary of State, that it would be reasonable to have reference to the affirmative procedure in the Bill and to specify which sections require delegated power for the Secretary of State. Therefore I support amendments 61 and 66.”
“It was then the fair ferries charter and then the seafarers’ charter. But it still has not been published, as far as I am aware, and it is only voluntary. If it were in the Bill and we could have some confidence that employers would have to implement it, we would have major reassurance.”
“Before we lose sight of it, the whole purpose of the Bill is to protect pay, working hours, pensions and other remunerated conditions of seafarer employment on ferries. We rehearsed many of the arguments on Second Reading, and it is the belief of many on the Opposition Benches that the Bill’s scope needs to be widened to more effectively cover employment issues, as well as minimum pay, for seafarers working on those ferry routes. I am rather disappointed about the seafarers’ charter. I know that it has had a number of iterations; we have at least two former Shipping Ministers on the Committee: the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and the hon. Member for Witney. I think it started off as the—this is a bit of a tongue-twister—fair ferries framework agreement.”
“Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and I are members of the Transport Committee—he was quite open about the three areas of law that he had breached. In fact, he was quite boastful, which was shaming in my opinion. I believe that the 2018 regulations, which P&O Ferries breached, are up for revocation under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. I understand, however, that an agreement was reached to retain a number of labour protections in UK law, so I am looking to the Minister for some reassurance on that. If that is the case, I hope that appropriate action will be taken to keep those protections in place for those who Members on both sides of Committee acknowledge to be an extremely vulnerable employment group because of the nature of their work.”
“Given the powers we have conferred on the Secretary of State, I think it is completely reasonable to suggest that the Government should produce a report within a year of Royal Assent to assess whether they have been effective. Indeed, the Minister and his predecessors have suggested that if those powers are not effective, further measures would be introduced to ensure that seafarers are protected from unscrupulous rogue employers. New clause 5 relates to important issues that the Government need to address, not least the fact that the 2018 regulations were breached by P&O Ferries. When Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive of P&O Ferries, addressed a joint session of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee—the hon.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the new clauses. New clause 7 is in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. We are using the F-word, aren’t we: fire and rehire. In the context of this new clause and new clause 5, I remind Members of the awful circumstances of the sacking of the seafarers on the P&O Ferries. The Minister has brushed aside all attempts by the Opposition to amend the Bill and address concerns about the number of days in port. That means that the Bill’s scope is incredibly narrow. I am afraid that many seafarers who might have anticipated being afforded a degree of protection will be terribly disappointed.”