The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps) Madam Deputy
Speaker, I wish to make a statement on P&O Ferries. Last week,
I stood at this Dispatch Box to address the House on the shameful
sacking of 800 seafarers by P&O Ferries. No British worker
should be treated in this way, devoid of dignity and respect. Our
maritime workers, who supported this country during the pandemic
with great dedication and sacrifice, deserved far better than to be
dismissed via a...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for Transport ()
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on P&O
Ferries.
Last week, I stood at this Dispatch Box to address the House on
the shameful sacking of 800 seafarers by P&O Ferries. No
British worker should be treated in this way, devoid of dignity
and respect. Our maritime workers, who supported this country
during the pandemic with great dedication and sacrifice, deserved
far better than to be dismissed via a pre-recorded Zoom in favour
of cheaper overseas labour.
In response, we urged P&O Ferries to reconsider. Those calls
have fallen on deaf ears. Instead, chief executive Peter
Hebblethwaite—in front of Parliament, no less—set out how he
deliberately broke the law and, in an act of breathtaking
indifference, suggested he would do the same thing again.
The failure of P&O Ferries to see reason, to recognise the
public anger and to do the right thing by its staff has left the
Government with no choice. Today, I am announcing a package of
nine measures that will force it to fundamentally rethink its
decision and send a clear message to the maritime industry that
we will not allow this to happen again: that where new laws are
needed, we will create them, that where legal loopholes are
cynically exploited, we will close them, and that where
employment rights are too weak, we will strengthen them.
I start with the enforcement action we are taking. Far too many
irregularities exist between those who work at sea and those who
work on land. Even where workers have rights, they are not always
enforced. The first measure I can announce is that Her Majesty’s
Revenue and Customs will be dedicating significant resource to
checking that all UK ferry operators are compliant with the
national minimum wage—no ifs, no buts.
Secondly, I have asked the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to
review its enforcement policies, checking they are fit for
purpose, both now and into the future. The House will recall that
the MCA is already, at my request, carrying out inspections of
P&O’s ferries. So far two ships, the European Causeway and
the Pride of Kent, have been detained after failing safety
inspections. I will not compromise the safety of any vessel, and
P&O will not be able to rush new crews through training and
expect those ships to sail. That work is ongoing.
Thirdly, we will take action to prevent employers who have not
made reasonable efforts to reach agreement through consultation,
from using fire and rehire tactics. A new statutory code will
allow a court or employment tribunal to take the manner of
dismissal into account and, if an employer fails to comply with
the code, to impose a 25% uplift to a worker’s compensation.
Fourthly, I have made no secret of my view that P&O Ferries’
boss Peter Hebblethwaite should resign. He set out to break the
law and boasted about it to Parliament. I have written to the
chief executive officer of the Insolvency Service, conveying my
firm belief that Peter Hebblethwaite is unfit to lead a British
company, and have asked it to consider his disqualification. The
Insolvency Service has the legal powers to pursue complaints
where a company has engaged in “sharp practice”. Surely the whole
House agrees that nothing could be sharper than dismissing 800
staff and deliberately breaking the law while doing so. It is, of
course, for the Insolvency Service to decide what happens next,
but in taking this step I want to ensure that such outrageous
behaviour is challenged.
It is a hard truth that those working at sea do not enjoy the
same benefits as those working on land, which brings me to the
fifth element of the package today: a renewed focus on the
training and welfare elements of our flagship maritime strategy.
We are already investing £30 million through the maritime
training fund to grow our seafarer population, but I will go
further, pursuing worldwide agreements at the International
Labour Organisation. We will push for a common set of principles
to support maritime workers, including an international minimum
wage, a global framework for maritime training, and skills and
tools to support seafarer mental health.
Sixthly, we know that P&O Ferries exploited a loophole,
flagging its vessels in Cyprus to escape UK laws. We will take
action on that too. From next week, our reforms to tonnage tax
will come into effect, meaning that maritime businesses set up in
the UK will have unnecessary red tape removed, as well as any
provisions from the EU that are no longer required. By doing so,
we will increasing the attractiveness of UK flagging and bring
more ships under our control, thereby protecting the welfare of
seafarers.
Much of the maritime sector is governed by international laws,
obligations and treaties. That means that we cannot hope to solve
all these problems alone. The seventh plank of our package today
is therefore to engage with our international partners. This
week, I have contacted my counterparts in France, Denmark, the
Netherlands, Ireland and Germany to discuss the idea that
maritime workers on direct routes between our countries should
receive a minimum wage. I am delighted to say that the response,
particularly from the French Minister for Transport, has already
been positive. I will now work quickly with my counterparts to
explore the creation of minimum wage corridors between our
nations, and we will also ask unions and operators to agree
common levels of seafarer protection on those routes.
I have set out how we will step up enforcement, how we will
support the workforce in the long term, how we will get more
vessels under the British flag, and how we are working with
international partners to create minimum wage corridors, but I
know the House is expecting legislative changes, too. Although we
had originally intended to come to the Chamber today to announce
changes to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, after seeking
expert maritime legal advice it has become clear that that will
not be possible. The issue is that maritime law is governed by
international conventions that would too easily override changes
to domestic laws. However, I will not let that stop us. Seafarers
deserve the same wage certainty as onshore workers. They deserve
to be safe in the knowledge that they will not be undercut at a
moment’s notice by cheaper overseas labour. Today, we are
providing that certainty.
I can announce to the House our eighth measure: our intention to
give British ports new statutory powers to refuse access to
regular ferry services that do not pay their crew the national
minimum wage. We will achieve that through primary legislation to
amend the Harbours Act 1964. It will mean that if companies such
as P&O Ferries want to dock in ports such as Dover, Hull or
Liverpool, they will have no choice but to comply. Crucially,
that also means that P&O Ferries can derive no benefit from
the action it has disgracefully taken. It has fired its workers
to replace them with those who are paid below minimum wage but,
as a result of this measure, that cynical attempt will fail. My
message to P&O Ferries is this: “The game is up. Rehire those
who want to return, and pay your workers—all your workers—a
decent wage.”
The Government want to bring that legislation forward as quickly
as possible, but it is important to get it right. We are legally
bound to consult the sector on any changes and, unlike P&O,
we take that consultation seriously. Legislative changes will not
be possible overnight. To that end, I can announce the ninth and
final measure we will be taking. Today I will write to all ports
in the UK, explaining our intention to bring forward legislation
as quickly as possible, but in the meantime instructing them not
to wait. I want to see British ports refusing access to ferry
companies that do not pay a fair wage as soon as is practical.
They will have the full backing of the Government. I have also
instructed the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to get behind that
action, and it has indicated that it will do so.
This issue has united the whole House, and indeed the whole
country, in anger at those responsible and in sympathy for those
affected. We are a proudly pro-business Government, but we will
never support those who treat workers with such callousness and
disrespect as we have seen here. British workers are not
expendable; they are the backbone of this country.
The robust package of measures announced today will give our
maritime workers the rights they deserve, while destroying the
supposed gains P&O Ferries hoped to obtain. It will send a
clear message that those using British waters and British ports
to ply their trade must accept British laws. I commend this
statement to the House.
2.19pm
(Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his
statement, and for the briefing he gave me on these measures last
week.
I know the whole House agrees that the action taken by P&O
Ferries was beneath contempt. A sense of fair play and decency
runs deep in this country—it is part of who we are—so the sight
of a rogue employer who has made a mockery of the rule of law,
trashed the reputation of a great British brand and upended the
lives of 800 families saying that he would do it all again
offends people deeply. The test, therefore, for this Government
in the eyes of the country is simple: do not let them get away
with it—because for too long, they have. The warning sirens have
been sounding for years. P&O Ferries has been exploiting
workers in plain sight. In this House, the Government were told
repeatedly of seafarers on destitution wages, some earning just
£1.74 an hour. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull
East () warned:
“If the Government fail to act, how long will it be before we see
the same thing happen…on other critical shipping lanes?”
The gate was left wide open, and P&O Ferries has sailed
straight through it.
The steps announced by the Government, insisting on the bare
minimum, cannot come a moment too soon. This is a move we warmly
welcome, and which has our wholehearted support. However, can the
Secretary of State confirm that under the harbour legislation he
mentioned, the national minimum wage will apply on the entirety
of all UK international routes, and not just in British waters,
as P&O seemed to suggest yesterday? I very much welcome his
action to instruct the Insolvency Service to consider the CEO’s
disqualification. When will the Insolvency Service respond, so
that the Business Secretary can seek an order for his
disqualification in the courts?
Yesterday’s letter from P&O showed in black and white that
regardless of the proposed legislation, it still intends to carry
out its outrageous plan to sack 800 workers, to trample over the
laws of this country, and to take an axe to the pay and
conditions of these workers’ replacements and force through a 60%
pay cut. This is, as the joint Select Committee was told last
week, fire and rehire on steroids—and P&O Ferries must not
get away with it. That is why the Government’s reluctance to use
every tool at their disposal to force it to change course is
bewildering. No prosecution has been brought, despite the Prime
Minister's announcement last week, and the deadline to act to
protect these workers is tomorrow. The Chancellor confirmed
yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull
West and Hessle () that the review of the
relationship with DP World has already concluded—and it will keep
every single taxpayer-funded contract.
Even with these very welcome steps announced today, the
Government still risk giving the green light to P&O and other
exploitative employers. Will the Secretary of State now guarantee
that he will prosecute, disqualify the directors, and suspend
their lucrative contracts? If P&O continues to proceed with
this unlawful action, and to risk safety, is it not time to
suspend its licence to operate? Will he introduce powers to allow
the Government to step in and stop any such illegal behaviour in
future and force employers back to the negotiating table? Will he
amend the Trade Union Act 2016 so that employees can seek
unlimited punitive damages against such unlawful action in
future?
P&O Ferries has written the blueprint for bad business the
world over. It must know that there will be consequences, because
this scandal extends well beyond P&O. It is the consequence
of a decade in which an axe has been taken to workers’ rights.
The balance has tipped far away from working people. Fire and
rehire has become commonplace, and millions of people are
thinking, “Will I be next?”
The measures announced yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State
for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for
Sutton and Cheam (), show, I am afraid, that the
Government still do not get it. The measures may mean extra
compensation, but only after people have gone through a tribunal
process that is beset with delays and backlogs—and this is a
price that bad bosses have already shown they are prepared to
pay. If Ministers mean what they say—if this is going to be a
line in the sand—they will bring forward an emergency employment
Bill straight after recess. No more half measures, no more
excuses—they must ban fire and rehire for good. They will also
guarantee that not a penny of public money will be handed out to
companies that disregard workers’ rights, and will work with the
RMT and Nautilus International to pursue a binding agreement on
pay and conditions to end the race to the bottom that P&O is
determined to lead.
We will work constructively with the Government on the measures
announced today, but 13 days on from this scandalous act, key
shipping routes are still suspended, 800 workers are still
without their jobs, those responsible have no regrets, and time
is almost out. The stakes could not be higher. To reverse this
scandalous act, the actions of Ministers must now match their
words.
I thank the hon. Lady because throughout this crisis she has been
very proactive in getting in contact and providing additional
ideas and thoughts, many of which have entered into this package.
She has been, broadly speaking, pretty constructive, along with a
number of other Members from across the House.
The hon. Lady asked about the extent of the intention behind
these measures. They are for routes that ply their trade between
Britain and our continental neighbours, which is why I mentioned
the individuals that I have contacted in foreign Governments.
The hon. Lady asked about the speed of the Insolvency Service. It
is of course independent, so we do not have direct control over
that, but I very much hope that it will act appropriately
quickly. She asked why the Government have not taken any court
action. It is because the Government are not in a position to
take court action; that is for the unions and for workers to do.
We understand the limitations of that, which is why I described
some of the items in the package that would address that.
The hon. Lady asked about P&O contracts. We have looked, and
we have not identified any so far. In the spirit of co-operation
with all Members of the House, and with her in particular, I
should say that if anyone is aware of any contracts that we have
yet to uncover, they should let us know. The only two found were
historical, from during coronavirus.
The hon. Lady mentioned that the situation might be indicative of
a wider issue with this Government’s approach towards employees.
I gently mention that it was this Government who, in 2020,
introduced the extension of the national minimum wage to
seafarers on domestic routes. We did that, not any other
Government. I seem to recall that in 2005, when Irish Ferries
introduced the low-cost approach that, according to P&O, has
forced its hand, a chap called used to stand at this Dispatch
Box.
(Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I not only welcome this package of measures but thank—I hope on
behalf of the whole House—the Secretary of State for the
leadership that he has shown. We now have real urgency on this.
That is what we asked for, and that is what we have got. With
regard to consultation rights, when P&O Ferries came before
our Committee last Thursday, it said that it was basically buying
out those rights from the workers because it could. Will he
consider, in the longer term, a power of injunctive relief for
the Insolvency Service, so that it can stop the actions of
P&O Ferries, which has effectively audited our legislative
book and found it wanting?
Yes, that is certainly something we are considering. I thank my
hon. Friend for his work, and that of his Select Committee and
the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which brought the
P&O boss here. I think it astonished the House but also the
whole country to hear that testimony, which has directly led to
the package that we have today, item No. 6 of which goes some way
towards addressing my hon. Friend’s specific point.
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his
statement. I genuinely welcome the action that he has outlined
today, although the strength of his words must be followed by the
strength and urgency of his actions. There are areas where I hope
he can be persuaded to go further. However, I am pleased that
those who perpetrated these shameful actions against P&O
workers are being held to account and shown the consequences of
their law-breaking.
As I have said to a few people in this House, I feared that there
would be a delay to the national minimum wage measures due to
international maritime labour laws. I commend the Secretary of
State for trying to find a work-around, but perhaps he can give
us more detail on that. In the meantime, will he indemnify ports
for any action they may take against ferry operators?
The movement on fire and rehire is welcome, particularly given
the work that I and many Members across the House have done in
recent years. However—this is where I depart from the praise for
the Secretary of State—as I have said to the Under-Secretary of
State for Transport, the hon. Member for Witney (), many British Airways
workers have contacted me in the past few days asking this
progressive, nay socialist, Transport Secretary whether British
Airways workers were being threatened with fire and rehire. The
Secretary of State’s statement says that the Government “will
take action to prevent employers who have not made reasonable
efforts to reach agreement through consultation from using fire
and rehire tactics.” No threat of fire and rehire, whether
followed by consultation or not, is reasonable. It must end, and
now.
Where I am disappointed is with the tools available to tribunals
and courts to enforce the new code. A 25% uplift in compensation
is, as P&O has demonstrated, merely a cost to be factored in
for unscrupulous employers with deep pockets, and it does not hit
employers that simply do not pay their tribunal-mandated
compensation. Can we instead see some real teeth to allow
tribunals to deploy the full range of outcomes towards employers,
including recommending reinstatement where possible? That would
be a major deterrent to others considering fire and rehire.
The Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Bexhill
and Battle (), and the Chair of the Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North
West () wrote jointly to the
Secretary of State earlier this week. Among other things, they
called for the prosecution of P&O, the removal of its licence
to operate in the UK and a review of DP World’s involvement in
the freeports project. We have heard, sadly, that the DP World
review is complete, but what consideration is he giving to the
remaining conclusions of the two Chairs?
I welcome the beefed-up role for the Maritime and Coastguard
Agency in enforcing some of these new measures. However, the last
financial year saw the MCA receive a real-terms cut in central
Government funding. Will the Secretary of State make extra funds
available to the MCA so that what he has announced today will
actually happen on the ground, rather than it being great in
principle but undeliverable in practice?
Briefly, I thank the hon. Gentleman. I mentioned that I will be
working with the International Labour Organisation, but I will
also be working with the International Maritime Organisation,
which is headquartered globally in London, on making this a
global move. Some of what he said will not apply, because once we
have changed the Harbours Act 1964, it will outlaw the need to
end up going to a tribunal on the 25% uplift and the rest of it.
I will leave it there for brevity.
(Dover) (Con)
I warmly welcome the strong package of measures announced today.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the behaviour of the
directors of P&O is disgraceful, and they must be held to
account? The Dover-Calais route must be operated to the highest
safety standards, with decent pay and conditions and on a level
playing field. Will he continue to work with me, as he has done
since this disgraceful act occurred, to do everything possible to
support the Dover-Calais sea corridor and the Dover
community?
I thank my hon. Friend for her incredible input into this. In
Dover, she is right at the frontline of any impacts when ferries
are not running. Her contribution, assistance and guidance have
been absolutely invaluable. I will absolutely step up to her asks
on this. I stress, probably on behalf of the whole House, that in
this House we find it unacceptable that someone would
deliberately, knowingly and wantonly go out of their way to break
the law in sacking staff. We will not take that lying down. The
law will be changed and I am afraid that P&O Ferries,
although as of last night it did not realise it, will have to
U-turn.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call Ben Bradley—I mean . I am so sorry.
(Exeter) (Lab)
Don’t worry, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a common and
embarrassing mistake—for the other one!
Will the Secretary of State explain in a bit more detail why he
thinks he does not have the powers to seek an injunction to
prevent this company from behaving deliberately, disgracefully
and, as he just described, illegally?
I have taken a lot of legal advice in the last 10 days to two
weeks, and we simply have not found the power to exist in the
form that the right hon. Gentleman describes. Maritime law is
complex and international in nature. We have looked through every
possible solution, and the Harbours Act 1964 is the way to
deliver this. In the meantime, we will have the Maritime and
Coastguard Agency making sure that we can bring these benefits
much sooner than through laws passed through this place.
(South Basildon and East
Thurrock) (Con)
It is clear that Peter Hebblethwaite has no intention of acting
with honour, but I hope that this package of measures will at
least give him pause for thought. I hear the calls for further
action against the parent company, DP World. I gently point out
to those saying so that it is not without consequence—my
constituency is home to London Gateway, and hundreds of people
are employed there as well—and I want them to act cautiously.
However, I call on DP World, the parent company, to look closely
at the actions of Peter Hebblethwaite, because he is damaging its
reputation, its relationship with the Government and its
relationship with me. Get him to do the right thing.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the reputation of
P&O Ferries being ripped to shreds in 14 days in a way that I
cannot think of with any company in corporate history. It is
important that its owners understand that they are welcome to
invest in this country and create employment, but that we take
employment law seriously. They need to understand that and deal
with this P&O situation, otherwise that will not be
smooth.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today. It
is one of the most substantial and significant statements I have
heard in almost 21 years as a Member who has taken a close
interest in matters of the merchant marine. I hope that this is
the start of a very different practice from what we have seen in
recent decades. One of the problems we have had over the years is
that when successive Governments were introducing the tonnage tax
and refining it, there was a link to training, but not enough of
a link to post-training employment. That is the sort of thing
that has to change. Protection has to be given not just to
officers, but to ratings. When the Secretary of State is
constructing the next round of the tonnage tax, will he listen
first to the unions representing the ratings and the officers,
and not just the shipping companies?
Needless to say, I am very grateful for the right hon.
Gentleman’s comments on this statement. It is a serious attempt
to sort out something that internationally has not been
satisfactory for a very long time, because of the global nature
of shipping. He is absolutely right to zero in on the tonnage
tax. As he knows, there will be an opening for the tonnage
tax—from 4 April, I think—for the first time in many years. If we
can get this right, we can use the tonnage tax not only to
improve the industry, but to drive the right kind of behaviour.
With more ships flagged under the British flag, we can lead—as we
do as a maritime nation—with the IMO here, and use the tonnage
tax to pull those ships along.
(Ashford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the package of measures he
has announced, and I very much hope they are effective. One of
the immediate effects of P&O’s disgraceful action has been
massively to reduce the capacity of freight to go across the
channel, and that has had the predictable knock-on effect of
emergency measures being needed on the Kent motorway network,
causing disturbance and some misery to my constituents and others
across Kent. As well as these measures, does the Department have
any proposals to mitigate the problems with cross-channel freight
and therefore to mitigate the effects on the M20 and other roads
in Kent?
I apologise to my right hon. Friend and other Kent MPs, because I
appreciate that the situation with P&O has caused
considerable disruption. We have put the moveable barrier in
place. I spoke to the lead of the Kent Resilience Forum
yesterday, and they have been reporting to me on its level of
usage, because I do not want it to be there for no reason. It is
being regularly used. A benefit from having put in that moveable
barrier is that it no longer takes weeks to deploy and take away,
but I am cognisant of the disturbance it creates for Members in
the Kent area. I will ensure that we meet regularly with my right
hon. Friend and other Members to provide updates on what we
expect to happen next.
(Islington North) (Ind)
I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State today, and
in particular his reference to international seafarers. I
recognise that he spoke about minimum wage conditions on ferries,
but he then went on to talk about international seafarers, who
often face disgraceful, almost slave-like conditions of work on
international transport. Will he commit to working with the
International Transport Workers Federation of transport trade
unions, as well as the ILO, to try to get rid of this scandal on
a global scale? Obviously Britain can only play one part in that,
but we can have a very big influence on changing the whole mood
internationally.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that this is an
international issue. It is worth saying that during the pandemic,
we got a UN resolution through to recognise seafarers as key
workers. We repatriated 22,000 seafarers. I sent the MCA in to
raid a ship that was in Tilbury docks, where I suspected
international seafarers were being held at work, essentially
against their will. That was successful and there were
prosecutions. We have gone further today with the measures I have
outlined, which I hope he will approve of, considering that they
include working with the International Labour Organisation.
(Folkestone and Hythe)
(Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s robust statement in response
to P&O’s appalling behaviour. I also welcome the work that he
and his Department are doing with the Kent Resilience Forum to
ensure that we keep motorway traffic moving through the county.
Does he agree that it is important that the Maritime and
Coastguard Agency continues to be robust and does not allow ships
that are poorly crewed with unqualified crew members on board to
cross the world’s busiest shipping lane?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The second item that I
announced backs up what has already been happening with the MCA
looking at those ships carefully, and that will continue. We will
not compromise safety in the sea lanes. We have seen what happens
when compromises are made, and we do not want to see that
repeated.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State’s work on this important
issue and the urgency with which he has acted. I very much doubt,
however, that when he writes to P&O, it will abide by his
instruction not to allow ships to dock in Larne or Cairnryan
where it owns the port and the boats and where it is acting
illegally by giving workers less than the minimum wage.
The monopoly issue is important for Northern Ireland, however,
because one of the ships is impounded and there is an absence of
service. The port represents a strategic asset for Northern
Ireland because nearly 50% of our trade comes through it, so
businesses that operate in that port are not getting any revenue,
workers are not getting any work and Northern Ireland’s supply
issues are being affected. What action can the Secretary of State
take with the company to try to restore the situation?
The right hon. Gentleman raises many important points. As he
rightly points out, one of the ships has already been detained in
Northern Ireland. Stena Line has been doing a great job to fill
in some of the gap and I will ask other companies to assist where
possible. If he does not mind, I ask him to meet again—I know he
has already—with my hon. Friend the maritime Minister, because
the specific issues relating to Northern Ireland will need a lot
of care and attention over the coming days.
(Ynys Môn) (Con)
Although I welcome the new measures that my right hon. Friend has
brought to the House, what reassurance can he give that they will
support companies such as Stena Line to grow jobs, particularly
local jobs and local labour, so that the news is good for UK
seafarers and for the UK flag?
The simple fact is that this package will finally ensure that the
whole seafaring community is on a level playing field—or a level
sea—when it comes to channel crossings and that there will be no
advantage to Irish Ferries running a cut-price route or P&O
Ferries trying to do the same. For Stena Line, DFDS and others,
it will ensure that they can all operate and compete on a fair
platform.
(Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that P&O should reinstate every
worker on their original terms and conditions, with which I
completely agree, but he needs to take every action available to
him to support the group of workers who have just been sacked, as
what he announced today is largely about the future. Will he
suspend or cancel P&O and DP World contracts, including the
lucrative freeport contracts? That is how he will show them that
the Government are really serious and how he will have the
greatest chance of putting the pressure on them that will lead to
the reinstatement of those workers.
I should point out that the workers involved, many of whom I have
been speaking to, frankly do not want to go back and work for
P&O Ferries and/or have already accepted jobs elsewhere. I
think they will be looking for a change in that company before
they rush back.
On the P&O contracts, we have not found any that exist. On
the DP World issue that the hon. Gentleman refers to, I have seen
figures quoted for the amount of money in a contract, but that is
actually money that, by and large, goes to the local authority—I
think that is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South
Basildon and East Thurrock () was making. It is for the
local authority to then set out how the freeport operates. The
hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt, however, that we will be
keeping a close eye on that and increasing the pressure to ensure
that the right thing happens with P&O.
(Elmet and Rothwell)
(Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which has
clarified many technical points. It will be important to analyse
how the cruise ship industry accesses British waters and to
ensure that the critical infrastructure of freight transport is
not allowed to be held hostage again, which is what P&O tried
to do on its own terms.
On the point of ensuring that seafarers are being paid at least
the minimum wage in our waters, how will that technically be done
if they are not registered through HMRC in this country?
I should point out again that P&O Cruises is not in any way,
shape or form related to what has happened here. It is the people
at P&O Ferries who are very much in the dock. With the
ferries, we will ensure that that policing takes place through
HMRC and the work of the ports themselves.
(Lewisham West and Penge)
(Lab)
Awards for compensation in employment tribunals are notoriously
low, with average awards for unfair dismissal at just £10,800.
The Secretary of State has announced an uplift of 25%, but an
extra £2,700 will not deter unscrupulous employers such as
P&O. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (), the shadow Transport
Secretary, has called for unlimited punitive damages in
circumstances such as these. Will he back those calls?
The simple answer, in this case, is that we want to stop it ever
getting that far and we will do that by forcing such employers to
pay the minimum wage in the first place. I should clarify that we
are not against the idea that sometimes, unfortunately,
redundancies occur. We know that and we saw it in the pandemic.
We are pleased that, after the pandemic, unemployment is as low
or lower than before. We understand that business has to change,
but it is unacceptable to deliberately set out to break the law
when it comes to consultations, and that is what we are focusing
on. These nine measures will ensure that we do not get there in
the first place and that more punitive measures are in place.
(Newbury) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his excellent work and,
particularly, the creative and robust approach that he has taken
to closing the national minimum wage loophole, which makes this
whole thing a complete waste of money for P&O. Can I press
him further on what he said about future injunctive relief? Will
he consider enlarging the powers of the High Court to order a
mandatory 90-day consultation where there has been no
consultation? It was apparent from Hebblethwaite’s appearance
before the Select Committee that he saw that as a tick-box
exercise rather than a meaningful engagement with the unions to
try to minimise redundancies and mitigate the consequences that
can—and often does—work.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I place on record that
she, as a former employment lawyer, has been incredibly helpful
throughout this process, as have many other hon. Members. I see
the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East () in his place, who has also
been extraordinarily helpful. The answer to her question is yes.
I will work with my colleagues in BEIS to look at how we can make
further improvements to those injunctive procedures. I thank her
for her work.
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
I, too, thank the Transport Secretary for his statement and for
the seriousness that he has given the issue, because it has been
appalling for those P&O Ferries workers. He talks about
amending the Harbours Act 1964, which I wholeheartedly welcome,
and he has urged ports to do that now, irrespective of the
legislation not yet being changed. As futile as legal action may
be from P&O Ferries, what assurances is he giving to British
ports to do the right thing, notwithstanding that not yet being
the law?
It may be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and the whole House if I
place in the Library the letters that will go out immediately
with this statement to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, in
which I request that it carries out this action and a response,
which I believe is already forthcoming.
(Meriden) (Con)
As with many Conservative Members, I have often advocated for
business being a force for good, which means celebrating
businesses that are positive contributors to society and calling
out bad actors such as P&O, which has treated its workers
callously. Does my right hon. Friend agree that today’s plan
sends a clear signal to any business thinking of going down that
route that the Government will penalise any company that treats
workers as disposable, as P&O did?
Yes.
(Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and his action plan,
but if the only legislative changes are to give new statutory
powers to ports, the issue of fire and rehire will not go away.
What conversations has he had with the Business Secretary about
legislation so that the outrage that there rightly is in the
Chamber is not brought back again next month and the month
after?
I think what really set this case apart was the way in which the
boss of P&O brazenly wanted to break the law, admits to
breaking the law and says he will do it again, so the changes, in
this case to the Harbours Act 1964, will deal with that. In
addition, the hon. Member asked what conversations I have been
having with the Secretary of State for BEIS, and the answer is
very full ones. We have been looking across the piece at how
employment law operates and we will continue to do so,
notwithstanding the fact that we want there to be flexibilities
in employment law, which is one of the things that leads to this
country having consistently lower unemployment than the rest of
the EU, for example.
(Brent North) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is considering
injunctive procedures where consultation has been ignored and not
respected by the employer. It is just a shame that his party
failed to vote for it in October. Will the Secretary of State say
if the statutory code he is introducing will create any new
criminal offence? If so, what is it, who can enforce it and what
is the penalty? Alternatively, does it, like previous codes of
conduct, simply issue a set of recommendations that bad companies
can ignore?
I should say to the hon. Gentleman that the detail on that was
set out by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and
Cheam (), yesterday in this House. I
will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets a full note detailing
the answers to his questions.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State, but the
reality is that P&O could adjust its measures and continue to
operate—and, of course, operate with different staff, with 800
staff losing their jobs. What consideration has the Secretary of
State given to a 10th option of an operator of last resort, such
as operates in the rail industry, so that he could immediately
take such routes back into public ownership?
The hon. Lady will be interested to hear that I have considered
an operator of last resort model. What happens at sea is somewhat
different from what happens on the railways by the very nature of
the fact that there is an open sea but there are specific rail
lines. In this case, of course, we have the beauty of
competition. We have Stena, DFDS and some others in that market,
and they are plugging the gaps so that, from a capacity point of
view, we are okay at this time.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
For the grand finale, I call .
(Kingston upon Hull East)
(Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for accommodating me.
I want to thank the Secretary of State. This campaign has gone on
not just for the 12 years I have been in this House; this
campaign has existed since the 1966 seamen’s strike. I
congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of
State for Transport, the hon. Member for Witney (), on getting over all the
hurdles that must have been appearing in front of them, and I
want to work with my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State to
ensure that what the Secretary of State proposes will work and
ensure that the minimum wage applies.
My concern is that these companies employ terribly bad practice,
and I fear that they will find other ways to exploit seafarers.
Safety is my big concern, so if conditions change or if rotas
change—if seafarers are required to work five months on and a
month off, for example—we will not be very far from disasters
such as the Herald of Free Enterprise, in which passengers lost
their lives due to crew fatigue. Can the Secretary of State
assure the House that he is looking at ensuring that cannot
happen in this case?
As I prefaced, I am hugely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has
provided contacts, knowledge, expertise and experience through
the last week and a half, as we have been discussing this issue,
and I am incredibly grateful for his historical knowledge of the
industry as well.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is precisely what we
are doing. In my comments, I said that we will be
“pursuing worldwide agreements at the International Labour
Organisation.”
We will also
“push for a common set of principles to support maritime workers,
including an international minimum wage, a global framework for
maritime training and skills and tools to support seafarer mental
health.”
I know these are issues for which he has been fighting for a very
long time, and his time has come.
|
