Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
23 JUNE 2004
MR DAVID
JAMIESON MP, MS
THERESA CROSSLEY
AND MR
PHILIP DONLAN
Q200 Mr Stringer: And you think it will
all be reported by the end of next year?
Mr Donlan: That has got to be
a reasonable expectation, but one cannot foresee all the future
events.
Q201 Mr Stringer: Are you at this stage
concerned about the cost-effectiveness of the scheme?
Mr Donlan: I have no reason to
be. The costs as reported are in line with what was predicted
before we instituted the regime.
Q202 Mr Stringer: And the effectiveness?
Mr Donlan: That is what we are
reviewing in part.
Mr Jamieson: It is a difficult
area and I think it is largely subjective, the judgment we make.
The objective thing we do know is that we have got people being
trained, as the question early on made the point. Secondly, we
do know that our flag is increasing. I think there is some link
there with companies who are choosing to come into the tonnage
tax and also choosing to come onto the flag as well. This is where
the benefits come in. Those companies will then have a predisposition
generally to buy British, if you like, to be buying the other
services within the United Kingdom, but that is very difficult
to put a yardstick against. The general feeling is that in fact
in cost terms it has been very beneficial.
Q203 Chairman: It is not entirely difficult,
is it, because we know how many people were employed in the industry,
we know cadets went down disastrously, we know that a certain
number have come back because of your scheme. So although we knew
what the approximate demands were, we also know how many were
trained. It is not quite bewildering science, is it, Minister?
Mr Jamieson: Well, you could do
some analyses on that. I think the difficulty is whether in fact
the tonnage tax had occasioned the company to come onto the flag.
It is very difficult to make that judgment and where they are
buying their services. We do not have detailed intimate knowledge
of all the workings of the companies. I suppose somebody could
do a piece of work on that, but we would not have that kind of
detail.
Q204 Chairman: I could make a wild guess
that if they were not on before you gave them a tax incentive
and they came on after you gave them a tax incentive, there might
be a sort of mild connection, might there not?
Mr Jamieson: I am sure there would
be, Mrs Dunwoody.
Q205 Ian Lucas: Do you accept the number
of UK ratings employed on UK shipping using the tonnage tax has
declined since the introduction of the tax?
Mr Jamieson: They have been declining
for a long period of years. I do not think it is necessarily connected
to the tonnage tax but there has been a decline.
Q206 Ian Lucas: There has been a decline.
So the tax is not having a beneficial effect so far as ratings
are concerned, is it?
Mr Jamieson: When the tax came
in one of the intentions of the tax was not to increase directly
the number of ratings but there is the sort of best endeavours
the companies have to show to employ ratings and that is checked
on a regular basis, whether they are taking on those best endeavours.
Q207 Ian Lucas: So what best endeavours
are the companies undertaking?
Mr Jamieson: Well, they have to
show, as I say on a regular basis, that they are making those
best endeavours.
Ian Lucas: Yes, but what are the best
endeavours?
Q208 Chairman: Ms Crossley, are you good
at people's best endeavours?
Ms Crossley: I will do my best,
Madam Chairman. Every year the companies under tonnage tax have
to make a return to provide evidence that they have considered
at least one of four particular things, which are to employ more
British or EEA ratings, to employ more highly trained British
or EEA ratings in some technical posts, to recruit British or
EEA ratings in a planned stream towards officer qualifications
and to assist existing British or EEA ratings to advance towards
officer qualifications and posts, and they are obliged to make
a return to the Department annually to provide some sort of evidence
that they are positively considering those.
Q209 Ian Lucas: That they are positively
considering?
Ms Crossley: Yes.
Q210 Ian Lucas: So they have to provide
evidence that they are thinking about employing British people?
Ms Crossley: They have to provide
evidence that they are considering at senior management level
how best to make those best endeavours and it is true to say that
the Department has actually returned forms that we do not feel
have provided sufficient evidence.
Q211 Ian Lucas: But they are under no
obligation to provide more UK seafarers?
Ms Crossley: No, they are not.
Mr Jamieson: That was part of
the original agreement that was struck at the time with the Chamber
of Shipping and the unions. That was the best endeavours.
Q212 Ian Lucas: Is there any legal barrier
to specifying that these companies should employ UK ratings?
Mr Jamieson: Well, let us take
that in two parts. Firstly, the agreement was there originally
to do what has just been stated, but I think in the review is
where we need to look to see if in fact there is more that can
be done. As I expressed in an answer to an earlier question, my
general feeling on that is that we should be moving in that direction.
The other difficulty is that we would not be in a position to
be able to say that those ratings should be UK. The very least
we could do is to say that EU or EEA—
Q213 Ian Lucas: Why is it okay to consider
employing more UK seafarers but it is not okay to say that you
should employ more UK seafarers?
Mr Jamieson: Sorry, it was to
employ more British or EEA ratings.
Q214 Clive Efford: It was to consider
actually.
Mr Jamieson: Yes, that was the
original agreement.
Q215 Ian Lucas: So is it fair to say
that the Government is considering—no pun intended—looking
at an obligation to employ either EU or EEA seafarers?
Mr Jamieson: Well, that was the
point I was making earlier, yes.
Q216 Ian Lucas: You are thinking about
it now?
Mr Jamieson: Yes, we are. We are
prepared to look at it and—
Q217 Ian Lucas: Because the unions are
not very happy about the present situation, are they?
Mr Jamieson: No. We have had a
submission from NUMAST and from RMT. We are awaiting a submission
from the Chamber of Shipping on the issue and we will look at
it. As I say, I think you can tell by the mode of my answers that
I am very sympathetic to that, but I have to say that we have
to look not just at what we do but at the consequences of what
we do and whether it is going to have the effect that we want.
It cannot be for UK people, it has to be for EEA people.
Q218 Ian Lucas: I understand that, but
the present position is that we are losing jobs in this area even
with the introduction of the tonnage tax?
Mr Jamieson: I think that is correct,
yes.
Q219 Ian Lucas: And that is not acceptable,
is it?
Mr Jamieson: I would prefer it
was otherwise.
| 
