Chris Law
MP for Dundee Central · Scottish National Party · United Kingdom
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I represent the city of Dundee, which is twinned with the city of Nablus in the west bank—I am also a member of that twinning association—and I have had thousands of constituents write of their disgust at the continued trade we do with illegal settlements and their continued expansion.”
“Their inaction only emboldens further settlement expansion and makes the UK complicit in Israel’s criminal behaviour against the Palestinian people.”
“In the interests of time, I will focus my speech on four key areas, having waited nearly 10 months for a response to a letter that I sent to the Minister in which he neglected to answer the questions posed. First is the issue of complexity.”
“I agree with the hon. Member, who pre-empts a point that I am about to come to. Again, the options are there. The Government are either unwilling or unable to deliver what other countries are already preparing to do—including bans—and to look at legalities later. Secondly, touching on the point made by the hon.”
“I welcome my Celtic cousin’s remarks and I agree with her. On arms sales, one suggestion would be a recommitment to the Committees on Arms Export Controls that we once had and that I served on for seven years, which were dissolved two or three years ago.”
“Therefore, why is it too complex to implement a ban on illegal settlement goods when, as was mentioned, the Government can apply complex trade sanctions relating to territory in Ukraine illegally occupied by Russia, including an outright ban on goods imported from Crimea?”
The complete record
Every one of 611 lines we hold for Chris Law, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 13.
“—[ Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee Delegated Legislation Committee, 25 January 2021; c. 7.] To be clear, the UK is lagging behind in its provision of SSP, offering one of the least generous systems in the OECD. While the Labour Government propose a rate of £118.75 a week, or 80% of average weekly earnings—whichever is lower—numerous other European countries, such as Austria, Germany, Iceland and Luxembourg either provide full salary payments or cover a portion of earnings ranging from 50% to 90%. Amendment 272 would bring the UK into closer alignment with other OECD countries. With limited coverage and relatively low rates, many workers and particularly low-income and part-time employees are left without sufficient financial support when they fall ill.”
“I rise to speak to new clause 75 and to other new clauses and amendments in my name. Last year, the Labour party committed to “strengthen statutory sick pay, remove the lower earnings limit to make it available to all workers and remove the waiting period.” Although the removal of the lower earnings limit and the waiting period are welcome, the fact remains that the UK’s statutory sick pay does not meet the needs of working people. The miserly increases to the rate—it has just been increased by £2 after five years—are far from the transformative change that Labour promised and will not help to deliver a healthier population and a growing economy. Indeed, only a few years ago, during the covid period, the Minister noted that the then Health Secretary had “admitted that he could not live on statutory sick pay”.”
“Q3. This week President Trump has ended military aid to Ukraine, reportedly banned the UK from sharing US intelligence with Ukraine and is now seeking to lift sanctions on Russia to appease Vladimir Putin, a murderous lying dictator. Regrettably, it is clear that, for now, the US can no longer be relied upon for security and peace in Europe, so will the Prime Minister provide leadership to our allies by urgently making the decision to be the first leader to release seized Russian state assets to Ukraine under the established principle of international law, so that Putin must pay, as the aggressor?”
“These issues should be a catalyst for increasing development aid and for solving these problems collectively, but tragically, this Labour Government are following in the footsteps of the Conservative Government, who used covid as an excuse to make cuts. Labour is using defence spending as its excuse to step away when it should be stepping up. This madness must stop. All of us in this House must come together and find another route for financing defence spending—a route that is in our national interest. This simply cannot come to pass without a fight.”
“It is wrong. The UK’s role in the world is built on hard power, soft power and diplomacy. As a former member of the International Development Committee, I travelled around the world, and heard of the devastating impact of the UK’s first cut to ODA in 2020. I heard how trust in the UK has been eroded, and I heard directly from leaders of countries who are increasingly turning to others, such as China and Russia, to fill the void left by the UK’s absence. The threats that we face are interconnected and disregard international borders. We have faced a global pandemic and we will encounter more. We are in the midst of a climate emergency, which is not going away. We are experiencing war in Europe and a challenge to the rules-based system.”
“The Prime Minister has reneged on his promises, and the UK Government have abandoned their moral duty, all without any impact assessment whatsoever. They have done this with a callous disregard for the lives of others throughout the world. It does not have to be like this. In 2023, Germany, our G7 European ally, spent 0.82% of GNI on ODA, while others such as the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway spent greater percentages than the UK. We are all facing the same threats, so why is the UK the only one cutting back? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that. The Prime Minister has once again sought to appease President Trump, and to follow the leader of Reform and short-sighted right-wingers who believe that those in the rest of the world simply do not matter, and that our actions abroad have no impact at home.”
“We all agree with the need for that. Instead, in a fashion that has become typical of his leadership, he has U-turned on his promise, and went even further in making cuts than the Conservatives were willing to go. Put simply, this decision by the Prime Minister is a death sentence for hundreds of thousands of people. It will have a devastating impact on millions of the world’s most vulnerable and marginalised. Children will go hungry and will miss out on lifesaving vaccinations. They will die as a result. Girls will lose access to education, family planning and reproductive health clinics. As a consequence, they will be forced into early marriage and will have an increased risk of being victims of gender-based violence. Refugees will lose access to accommodation and vital support services, and will be displaced once again.”
“Like everyone in this House, I stand in full solidarity with Ukraine and recognise the threat posed by hostile actors such as Putin. I agree that UK defence spending must increase to enhance our national security. However, the decision to raid the development budget does not increase security. It does the very opposite. Decreasing overseas development assistance is utter folly, and it fundamentally undermines efforts to bring about justice, peace and security in the world. The Prime Minister knows that. He stood in this Chamber and criticised Boris Johnson and the previous Conservative Government when they made their first cuts. He made these very points. He was elected on a manifesto that pledged to rebuild Britain’s reputation for international development, with a new approach based on genuine respect and partnership.”
“I am glad that the hon. Gentleman would like to hear it. What I just heard was breathtaking. I remind him that Scotland’s economy is one of the best performing in the UK. Since 2007, Scotland’s GDP per person has grown by 10.5%, outperforming the UK’s 6.5%, while productivity has risen at an annual rate of 1%. I would be curious to know what figures he is working from, because it is a topsy-turvy world, since Scotland has had the highest rate of foreign direct investment in the UK for the past nine years in a row outside of London.”
“I would speak about the vulnerable whisky industry, which needs to be revisited. I heard only today that the Government are withdrawing the idea of making English whisky a single malt, and I am pleased to hear that. I will finish by saying that the UK must recognise the value of Scotland’s industries and potential emerging sectors. Scotland is at the forefront of the energy transition and cutting-age technologies, presenting substantial opportunities for future growth. I look forward to hearing more about investments in Scotland, particularly in those sectors.”
“Brexit—a decision Scotland never voted for— continues to hurt Scottish businesses, trade opportunities and economic prospects. A January 2025 analysis by the office of the chief economic adviser estimates that Brexit trade barriers could cost Scotland £4 billion, with exports potentially down 7.2% or £3 billion compared with EU membership. Scotland’s future therefore lies in the EU and the European single market. The Labour Government must acknowledge that standing outside the EU is driving down investment and growth. This will be crystalised by the potential trade war being initiated by President Trump as part of the “America first” trade policy. Free trade, a long-established principle, is under significant strain, bringing uncertainty for trade, with the USA and other nations imposing tariffs.”
“In 2023, Scotland secured a record number of foreign direct investment projects, maintaining its position as the top performing UK area outside London for the ninth year running. According to Ernst and Young’s annual analysis, 142 FDI projects were secured in Scotland, which is double the UK’s growth rate. Scotland is clearly the best place to invest in these islands. However, this success must not be jeopardised by decisions by the UK Government. Obviously, the pressure employers are feeling on national insurance is negatively impacting on Scottish businesses, limiting their capacity to contribute to the economy. This tax on jobs undermines efforts to support businesses, entrepreneurs and investment. Labour’s political choice to remain outside the EU single market and customs union is costing the UK billions every year.”
“Obviously, increasing investment in Scotland’s economy is crucial to delivering the SNP Government’s priorities, which are improving public services, supporting a thriving economy, tackling the climate emergency and eradicating child poverty. I want to put this on the record again, just to be very clear in this House about the facts: Scotland’s economy makes it one of the best-performing parts of the UK. Its GDP has outgrown the rest of the UK by 50% since 2007, and productivity is at an average rate of 1.1%. It is vital that the spending of the Department for Business and Trade complements the Scottish Government’s efforts to increase investment and ensure economic prosperity. Increasing trade and attracting inward investment are critical for Scotland.”
“I thank the Prime Minister for being consistent in his message to his allies that any future negotiated peace must include Europe and Ukraine, must be sustainable, and must protect the territory and sovereignty of Ukraine. However, achieving that lasting peace will require engagement with civic societies engaged in peacebuilding, atrocity prevention and long-term conflict prevention initiatives, all of which are currently funded by our foreign aid budget. How does the Prime Minister hope to achieve those objectives when he has just followed the Trump playbook and announced a plan to cut overseas aid spending by 40%?”
“What details can the Minister give us about the financing that will be given to the Global Fund? More importantly, there is a rumour that official development assistance is going to be cut from 0.5% to 0.2%, to cover an increase in defence spending. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case?”
“On the third anniversary of Putin’s brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I welcome the United Nations having just passed a resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine. However, in the last 15 minutes—this will shock the House —it was opposed by Russia and the United States. It was said in the press that “This isn’t appeasement by Trump. It’s a direct stab in the back.” Will the Foreign Secretary condemn what has just happened in the United Nations, where the United States has joined Russia in not signing up to the resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine?”
“I have listened very carefully to what has been said this morning. We have known since November that this was coming, even though the press were saying that we would somehow get a special relationship. What is clear today is that Trump shows strength towards countries that are in a position of weakness, which is where the UK currently is. Is it not now time for this Government to think very seriously about being back in the EU, where there is strength against strength through the customs union and the single market? We do not know what else is coming down the line, and Scottish businesses need to know the future—it could be whisky, it could be fish or it could be manufacturing. Can the Minister give us some assurance about how he will stand up to the strength of global protectionism?”
“Biomass burning has always been a sticking plaster, and it has allowed successive Governments to claim green progress while continuing to emit immense amounts of CO 2 . The public were promised £20 billion a year of green investment, but instead we are getting less than 6% of what is needed. When will the UK Government commit to significant direct investment in long-term energy storage such as pumped hydro storage and green hydrogen production, so that the UK can move past burning forests for its energy?”
“The reason I stand here to make a point of order is this: have the UK Government moved away from what we have agreed to since 1947 in the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide? I seek clarification on the matter.”
“It is not defined by the number of people killed, but rather the acts committed and the intent behind them. Indeed, as recently as July 2024, the UK Government made a statement on the 29th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide, commemorating the massacre of approximately 8,000 mainly Muslim men and boys. I could go into some detail, but to get to the point, I have subsequently written two letters to seek clarification from the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary. In both accounts, I have had letters from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), neither of which address either what was said in the House or, indeed, the definition of genocide.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 28 October, in response to a question on his statement on the middle east, the Foreign Secretary stated that the terms of annihilation, extermination and genocide were “largely used when millions of people lost their lives in crises such as Rwanda and the Holocaust of the second world war. The way that people are now using those terms undermines their seriousness.” —[ Official Report , 28 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 556.] The following day, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary seeking urgent clarification. The convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide states clearly that the genocide means a specific set of acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.”
“Despite Scotland being one of the most energy-rich nations in Europe, decades of mismanagement by different colours of UK Government—whether Labour or Conservative—have led to a shocking one third of households in Scotland living in fuel poverty. That number is set to rise, along with energy bills. The Government were elected on Labour’s pledge to cut energy bills by £300, but yesterday the chair of GB Energy admitted that that was “not in its remit” and was completely unable to say when bills would come down, alleviating fuel poverty. If this is not another broken promise from the Prime Minister, can the Secretary of State confirm exactly when in this parliamentary term consumers in Scotland will see that reduction?”
“Over the past week, the UK Government have committed to support a runway in London, a football stadium in Manchester and a science corridor for Oxford and Cambridge, yet for the past year, Conservative and Labour Governments have failed to act to secure the long-term future of Grangemouth, after INEOS announced the closure of the oil refinery. Despite general election promises to step in and save the plant, why are the Labour Government willing to jeopardise jobs at Grangemouth, the country’s energy security, which the Minister has just spoken passionately about the need to secure, and the wider industrial strategy through this inaction?”
“I thank the Minster for his update to the House about the spread of avian flu. I want to ask a couple questions. First, as this is happening in cities as much as in rural areas, how are people who live in cities being made aware that they should look out for dead or dying birds so that we can get a more accurate reflection of where it is spreading? Secondly, what discussions has he had with Departments of the Scottish Government to ensure that we have reliable and up-to-date data across these islands?”
“This week, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation forecasted child poverty levels across England and Wales for the next five years. The results are stark: child poverty rates are forecast to increase in both Labour-run Wales and Labour-run England. However, there is hope and a way forward. Child poverty rates in Scotland, which are already estimated to be the lowest in the UK, are set to drop further, with the SNP Scottish Government’s Scottish child payment recognised as a driving force in that reduction. Can we have an urgent statement from the UK Government on extending the Scottish Government’s approach to child poverty, including the Scottish child payment, to the rest of these islands to ensure that a reduction in child poverty is not confined solely to Scotland?”
“This morning, I was struck to hear the Foreign Secretary describe Donald Trump as a man of “incredible grace, generosity…very funny, very friendly, very warm” and say that most of the world is glad he is back in power. Yet, as Trump re-enters the White House, there are significant concerns about whether support for Ukraine from the US—so far Ukraine’s biggest backer—will continue. With Trump boasting that he will stop the war in Ukraine in a day, and with his choice for US Secretary of State saying on Wednesday that Ukraine will have to make “concessions” to Russia, does the Foreign Secretary think that Ukraine is as happy as he is to see Trump back in power?”
“Such a visa would provide 12 months of renewable limited leave for those who have visas dependent on their employment and who have experienced labour exploitation or lost their employment and limited leave through no fault of their own. That would ensure that migrants with work visas who experience such issues have a route to remain and settle in the UK, to enable them to leave abusive work situations and, most importantly, to access justice. The new clause does not propose such a visa, but it is one option the Secretary of State should strongly consider as a way of supporting workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.”
“Any immigration system that does not proactively include mechanisms that enable workers to report exploitation—and ultimately leave an exploitative employer without jeopardising their employment, accommodation and immigration status—inevitably has exploitation baked into its design. To meet its aims, the Employment Rights Bill needs to address that. It is especially important that the use of restrictive or short-term visas is not allowed to prevent improvements in working conditions and pay in certain work sectors by facilitating access to workers who, due to immigration restrictions, are unable to challenge poor working conditions. One option open to the Government to combat that would be to introduce a UK workplace justice visa, drawing on international best practice.”
“Where minor breaches of rights occur and are not sufficiently addressed, it increases the risk of more severe exploitation further along, as well as driving down workplace standards. Surely the new Labour Government find that totally unacceptable? In working on the new clause, I engaged with Focus on Labour Exploitation—I have a briefing from it here, which I am happy to share with the Minister. FLEX is a research and policy organisation working towards an end to labour exploitation, and its recent research and policy work has focused on sectors where workers are known to be at higher risk of exploitation. The new clause, which is intended to be friendly and collaborative, would lead to an investigation into the extent of these issues and how they can be addressed.”
“This results in a vicious cycle, in which migrant workers are doubly punished for speaking out, first by unscrupulous employers and then by immigration enforcement, with a resulting loss of work, income and immigration status. That has allowed a proliferation of abuses, from non-payment of wages to overwork and sexual assault, among a litany of other labour and criminal law violations. It is important to recognise that workers’ experiences of exploitation can vary, but all these instances need addressed. At one end of the scale, there is decent, well-paid work, with bad practices such as breaches of employment rights culminating, at the opposite end, in severe labour exploitation, such as human trafficking and forced labour.”
“By not addressing this issue, we are allowing a huge blind spot in the UK’s employment rights framework to continue unchecked. Until the Government address temporary and restrictive visas, the gap between workers only widens, entrenching the UK’s tiered workforce and leaving migrant workers behind. That is simply unacceptable. Restrictive visas have created a tiered workforce, where migrant workers face significant barriers to enforcing their rights, driving a race to the bottom in pay and conditions across the UK labour market. Such visas often limit the sectors in which workers are permitted to work or the employers for which they can work. Workers’ immigration sponsors may also be their employers or responsible for placing them in employment.”
“More often than not, they do not have the same safety nets that others benefit from. For people in that situation, the stakes are simply so much higher. We know that migrant workers, who often incur large debts to migrate to the UK to work—to address labour shortages—simply cannot afford to report abuse, if doing so risks their jobs and visas. They are justifiably fearful that their employer, who sponsors their visa, will punish them and that they will be left without redress. Time and again, we see cases of workers who face unsafe conditions—including in my constituency and, I am sure, in those of everyone in this room. Whether it is underpayment or sexual harassment, they do not feel able to do anything about it, for fear of deportation. That lets exploitation run rife.”
“We must do our utmost to prevent scenarios in which denial of employment rights and exploitation can exist. I have therefore tabled this new clause on access to employment rights for workers on temporary visas. I know that most of us in this room will have had constituents on those visas who have been exploited. If we accept the new clause, it will compel the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill being passed, to commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law. Workers on temporary visas consistently report that they are unable to assert the basic rights derived from being a worker in the UK. Why is that? Because they are dependent on their employer for not only their job but their ability to live in this country.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I believe this is the last of the new clauses to the Bill. It is imperative that employment rights are universal. Everyone should have access to them, regardless of their circumstances. That cannot just be theoretical; it needs to be applied in practice too. Although the Bill increases workers’ rights for many people, which I fully support, it will make no difference to their realities if they do not have the ability to access those rights or to seek redress when they are breached. To make the Bill as worth while and effective as it can be, we must take every possible action to strengthen it and to ensure that no one is denied their rights.”
“The hon. Member’s last point is an important one. When I approached this area of work to decide whether it fitted this Committee or whether it should be considered in immigration legislation, I took some advice. I appreciate, from a home affairs point of view, that this might not be the place for that point. However, it is the place for talking about it, and that is why the new clause has been accepted by the Clerks for debate today. I appreciate that this might also be an issue for the Home Office, but it is clearly an issue for the Minister in charge of employment rights, because at the end of the day it is not immigration rules that need to be changed. This is about making sure that employment rights are fit for everyone, regardless of whether they are here on a temporary or a permanent visa.”
“Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. Clause 113 Power to make consequential amendments Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“(8) In the definition of ‘UK work’, for ‘has the meaning given by section 4(10)’ substitute ‘means work which is carried out in the United Kingdom or its territorial waters’. Amendment of title of the Act 24 (1) The Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 may be cited as the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023. (2) For the words ‘Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023’ wherever they occur in any enactment substitute ‘Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023’.”— (Justin Madders.) This schedule amends the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations specifying conditions relating to the wages and working conditions of seafarers working on ships providing services currently covered by that Act. Those conditions are enforceable in the same way as existing provisions of that Act.”
“(4) In the definition of ‘operator’, for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’. (5) After the definition of ‘operator’ insert— ‘“relevant service” has the meaning given by section 1;’. (6) In the definition of ‘relevant year’, for ‘has the meaning given by section 3(6);’ substitute ‘means— (a) the period of 12 months beginning with a date specified in regulations, and (b) each successive period of 12 months;’. (7) After the definition of ‘relevant year’ insert— ‘“remuneration declaration” has the meaning given by section 4C(1); “remuneration regulations” has the meaning given by section 4A(2); “safe working declaration” has the meaning given by section 4G(1); “safe working regulations” has the meaning given by section 4E(6);’.”
“(2) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may specify a single form combining different kinds of declarations (but a requirement to provide a declaration in such a form does not require an operator of a service to provide a declaration which a harbour authority has not requested the operator to provide).’ 22 In section 17 (regulations)— (a) in the heading, at the end insert ‘: general’; (b) in subsection (2)(a), for sub-paragraph (i) (but not the ‘or’ after it) substitute— ‘(i) relevant service,’. 23 (1) Section 19 (general interpretation) is amended as follows. (2) After the definition of ‘the data protection legislation’ insert— ‘“declaration” (without more) means— (a) an equivalence declaration, (b) a remuneration declaration, or (c) a safe working declaration;’. (3) Omit the definition of ‘national minimum wage equivalent’.”
“18 In section 13 (provision of information by harbour authorities), in subsection (2)(b), omit ‘equivalence’. 19 In section 14 (inspections), in subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’; (b) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’. Part 5 of the Act: general and final provisions 20 After section 15 insert— ‘ Part 5 General and final provisions’. 21 After section 16 insert— ‘ 16A Regulations about declarations (1) Regulations may make provision— (a) as to the period within which declarations are to be provided; (b) as to the wording of declarations and the form in which they are to be provided; (c) as to the manner in which declarations are to be provided.”
“17 (1) Section 12 (provision of information by operators) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)— (a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’; (b) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’. (3) In subsection (2)— (a) in paragraph (b), at the beginning insert ‘for the purposes of Part 2,’; (b) after paragraph (b) insert— ‘(c) for the purposes of Part 3— (i) information relating to the working pattern, working conditions or training of persons working on ships providing the service; (ii) a fatigue management plan produced by the operator of the service (see section 4E(4)(a)).’ (4) In subsection (5), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.”
“(2) In subsection (1)(a)— (a) for ‘service to which this Act applies” substitute ‘relevant service’; (b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’. (3) In subsection (3), after ‘equivalence declaration’ insert ‘, remuneration declaration or safe working declaration (as the case may be)’; (4) In subsection (4)(a)— (a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’; (b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’. (5) In subsection (6), after ‘equivalence declaration’ insert ‘, remuneration declaration or safe working declaration (as the case may be)’. 16 In section 11 (refusal of harbour access for failure to pay surcharge), in subsection (1), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.”
“14 In section 7 (imposition of surcharges: in-year declaration that is prospective only), in subsection (1)— (a) in paragraph (a)— (i) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’; (ii) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’; (b) in paragraph (b), for ‘3(5)’ substitute ‘16A(1)’; (c) in paragraph (c), for the words from ‘within subsection (3)’ to the end substitute ‘— (i) within subsection (3) of section 4 (and not also within subsection (4) of that section), (ii) within subsection (3) of section 4C (and not also within subsection (4) of that section), or (iii) within subsection (3) of section 4G (and not also within subsection (4) of that section), (whichever applies).’ 15 (1) Section 8 (imposition of surcharges: operating inconsistently with declaration) is amended as follows.”
“(7) In subsection (5)(b), for ‘section 4(4) or (5).’ substitute ‘— (i) section 4(4) or (5), (ii) section 4C(4) or (5), or (iii) section 4G(4) or (5), (whichever applies).’ (8) In subsection (6)— (a) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’; (b) in the definition of ‘prescribed period’, for ‘3(5)(a)’ substitute ‘16A(1)(a)’; (c) in the definition of ‘prescribed form and manner’, for ‘3(5)(b) and (c)’ substitute ‘16A(1)(b) and (c)’.”
“(2) In subsection (1)(a)— (a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’; (b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’. (3) In subsection (1)(b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’. (4) In subsection (2)(b)(ii), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’. (5) In subsection (3)(b)(ii), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’. (6) In subsection (5)(a), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.”
“(7) References in subsection (6) to the operation of a service include references to its operation outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.’ Part 4 of the Act: enforcement of Parts 2 and 3 11 After section 4G (inserted by paragraph 10 of this Schedule) insert— ‘ Part 4 Enforcement of Parts 2 and 3 Offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration ’. 12 In section 5 (offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration)— (a) in subsection (1)— (i) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’; (ii) in paragraph (a), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’; (b) in subsections (2), (3) and (4), omit ‘equivalence’. 13 (1) Section 6 (imposition of surcharges: failure to provide declaration in time) is amended as follows.”
“(6) For the purposes of this section the safe working conditions are met in relation to a service at a particular time if at that time— (a) the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4E(2) or (3) that apply to the service, (b) the service is operated in compliance with a fatigue management plan that is required for the service by regulations under section 4E(3) (see section 4E(4)), and (c) the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4E(5) that apply to the service.”
“(3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year. (4) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that— (a) the safe working conditions have been met in relation to the service in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred, and (b) the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year. (5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions were met in relation to the service in the relevant year.”
“(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a). (4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction— (a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or (b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. 4G Nature of safe working declaration (1) A safe working declaration in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5). (2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in the relevant year.”
“Safe working declarations 4F Request for safe working declaration (1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which safe working regulations apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least— (a) 120 occasions, or (b) if safe working regulations specify a higher number in relation to services of a specified description and the service is of that description, that higher number of occasions, during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”). (2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a safe working declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year.”