The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Brazier,
Mr. Julian
(Canterbury)
(Con)
Carmichael,
Mr. Alistair
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Crausby,
Mr. David
(Bolton, North-East)
(Lab)
Donohoe,
Mr. Brian H.
(Central Ayrshire)
(Lab)
Fitzpatrick,
Jim
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Transport)Greenway,
Mr. John
(Ryedale)
(Con)
Hepburn,
Mr. Stephen
(Jarrow)
(Lab)
Howarth,
Mr. George
(Knowsley, North and Sefton, East)
(Lab)
Leech,
Mr. John
(Manchester, Withington)
(LD)
McGuire,
Mrs. Anne
(Stirling)
(Lab)
Tami,
Mark
(Alyn and Deeside)
(Lab)
Touhig,
Mr. Don
(Islwyn)
(Lab/Co-op)
Viggers,
Sir Peter
(Gosport)
(Con)
Walter,
Mr. Robert
(North Dorset)
(Con)
Watson,
Mr. Tom
(West Bromwich, East)
(Lab)
Wilson,
Mr. Rob
(Reading, East)
(Con)
Annette Toft, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
First
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday
8 June
2009
[Bob
Russell in the
Chair]
Draft
European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Maritime Labour
Convention) Order
2009
4.30
pm
The
Chairman: Before I call the Minister to move the motion, I
thank him for being here to make a last appearance in his old role
before he moves to pastures new. I also congratulate him on his new
appointment to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jim
Fitzpatrick): I beg to move,
That the
Committee has considered the Draft European Communities (Definition of
Treaties) (Maritime Labour Convention) Order
2009.
It
is a pleasure to see you presiding this afternoon, Mr.
Russell. Thank you very much for your kind remarks.
The draft
European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Maritime Labour
Convention) Order 2009 will declare that the maritime labour convention
2006 is to be regarded as a Community treaty, as defined in section
1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The order does not deal with
the detailed provisions of the convention, but is effectively an
enabling measure, providing a power to enable detailed secondary
legislation implementing all aspects of the convention to be introduced
in due course. By this declaration, the provisions of the European
Communities Act 1972, which provides for the general implementation of
Community treaties, would apply in relation to the maritime labour
convention 2006. The powers in section 2(2) could then be used towards
the implementation of that convention, enabling necessary changes to
primary and secondary legislation to be made.
At its 94th
maritime session, which was held in Geneva in February 2006, the
International Labour Organisation adopted the maritime labour
convention 2006. The new convention, often described as a
super- convention, consolidates and updates
more than 60 maritime labour instruments adopted by the ILO
since 1920. Many of those individual instruments have become outdated
and were not observed by much of the international maritime community.
That rendered them ineffective a means of international regulation. The
Government are proud of the leading role played by the United Kingdom
in that collective international achievement and we are committed to
ratification as soon as domestic law and practice are fully in line
with the conventions requirements.
First, I
stress the importance of the convention, which will not only have a
beneficial effect on the living and working conditions of seafarers on
UK ships, but contribute to a much wider improvement in conditions
throughout the European Union and further afield,
because we expect the convention to be implemented widely by other
nations. The Government have long recognised the importance of the
human element in maritime activity. Furthermore, we believe that the
convention will not only improve seafaring life, but have a beneficial
effect on maritime safety and the prevention of maritime
pollution.
The
UKs social partners played a leading role in the development of
the convention within the ILOs tripartite structure, which
requires agreement between Governments, employers and employees. Those
social partners support the early ratification of the convention by the
UK and the earliest implementation of the convention worldwide. The
Governments commitment to ratification is shared by all our
partners in the European Union and is reflected in the Council decision
of 7 June 2007, authorising EU member states to ratify the convention
for those parts of it that fall within Community competence and
exhorting member states to ratify the convention in full. At this
point, I should emphasise that there is neither a surrender of
sovereignty, which I know is an issue that is very close to the heart
of the hon. Member for Canterbury, as it is for all of us; nor is an
extension of EU competence implied by the legislative path that we have
chosen.
It may assist
the Committee if I talk briefly about the structure and content of the
convention. The maritime labour convention comprises articles that set
out the broad principles and obligations; regulations that set out the
main mandatory requirements; and a code that comprises both more
detailed mandatory standards and non-mandatory guidelines. The
convention applies to all persons working on ships covered by the
convention, which includes all ships ordinarily engaged in seagoing
commercial activities. As is the case with many other conventions
applying to international shipping, the convention does not apply to
ships navigating exclusively close to the shore, fishing vessels, ships
of traditional build, warships and naval auxiliaries.
The convention
will come into force 12 months after ratification by at least 30
states, with a total share in the world gross tonnage of 33 per cent.
At present, it has been ratified by five states and the tonnage
threshold has been reached. However, it is important that the UK is
ready to ratify before the convention comes into force
internationally.
For the
purposes of compliance and enforcement, a maritime labour certificate,
together with associated documentation, will be introduced. Those
documents will provide prima facie evidence that ships over
500 gross tonnes trading internationally comply with the
convention. The convention also introduces a new simplified amendment
procedure that will make it easier to keep it up to date.
I will now
turn to domestic implementation and the need for the draft Order in
Council before the
Committee.
Mr.
George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab): I
add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his new ministerial
responsibilities. Could he enlighten me on how the provisions will work
in the case of ship of a flag state not covered by the convention that
might, in the course of its trade, attend an EU port that is covered by
the convention? Would there be any impact in a flag state that might
not be trading to the same standards?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I am not entirely sure whether the legal
implications can be enforced, but my understanding is that simply
creating the convention will raise standards by exposing those not
complying, and because of the number of states required to ratify it.
In the event of a risk assessment of which ships should be inspected by
the relevant authorities, it may be decided that those ships that are
not complying with one convention are not complying with others, so
they are more likely to be inspected by the states they visit. If they
are not looking after the seafarers onboard, they might not be looking
after safety requirements and regimes, so I would imagine that no other
ships are more likely to be detained, and therefore to be not as
profitable, because of some attempt at exploitation of the crew by
rogue owners or rogue states. I will try to come back to the actual
legal definition later in my
remarks.
As
I was saying, the UK prides itself on the high standards applied to its
fleet, so it is not surprising that the UK is already fully compliant
with parts of the new convention. Nevertheless, we have identified a
total of 14 new or amending regulations necessary to align UK merchant
shipping legislation and other legislation with the convention. We have
already started preliminary consultations on the regulations with
stakeholders, but we will hold full public consultations and complete
individual impact assessments for each.
The nature of
the maritime labour convention means that it cannot be ratified in a
piecemeal way, but must be ratified as a whole. In some case where UK
legislative provisions need some realignment to fit with the
convention, the necessary powers to make appropriate amendments already
exist in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. However, some provisions of
the new convention cannot be implemented under the 1995 Act. That is
why the order is needed: so that the powers contained in the European
Communities Act 1972 can be used to make appropriate changes to primary
or secondary legislation to give effect to those provisions of the
convention.
I would like
to make clear the thinking behind the decision to use an Order in
Council, rather than new primary legislation. The convention is
ancillary to the existing Community treatiesancillary because
it contains some matters that lie within the competence of the European
Community, although the Community is not itself able to be a party to
the convention. Those parts that do not fall within Community
competence are ancillary to the transport and employment provisions of
the Community treaties, particularly where they deal with the promotion
of social protection and the raising of the standard of living and
employment of seafarers. Although the convention could be implemented
through a Bill, the fact that an EU Council decision was passed
authorising ratification by EU member states for those parts of the
convention falling within Community competencetogether with the
fact that it is not possible to ratify the convention for only those
parts that fall within Community competence because its provisions
state that it must be ratified as a wholesuggests that it is
appropriate that the convention is deemed to be ancillary to the
treaty.
Section 1(3)
of the 1972 Act provides that treaties entered into by the UK after 22
January 1972 shall not be regarded as Community treaties as defined in
the Act unless they are specified as such in an Order in Council. It
further provides that no treaty shall be specified
unless a draft Order in Council has been approved by resolution of both
Houses of Parliament. I propose, therefore, that the draft order be
made under section 1(3) of the 1972 Act in order to use the
vires in section 2(2) to facilitate the implementation of those
provisions of the maritime labour convention that are not either
implemented in UK law or capable of being implemented using existing
powers, thus facilitating the ability of the United Kingdom to meet its
international commitments and obligations in this important
regard.
In
response to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for
Knowsley, North and Sefton, East, ships from non-ratifying states could
face delays and additional costs, because convention requirements will
be applied by ratifying states to vessels from non-ratifying states, on
the basis of no more favourable treatment. They will therefore have to
meet the convention requirements, even though their flag states have
not ratified it. I am sorry that I could not answer his question
immediately, but I am sure that that will reassure
him.
Mr.
Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con): I am slightly
confused, because the Minister is talking about raising standards and
so on, which implies extra costs, but the explanatory notes state that
no impact assessment has been made because there are no extra costs for
business. Will he explain
that?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I asked that question myself when I read the
explanatory note. The answer is straightforward: the draft order is the
enabling provision. Fourteen statutory instruments will be introduced
in due course, each of which will have an impact assessment and detail
whether there is a positive or a negative impact on business. As I
explained, much will be positive, but some measures will entail a cost.
However, the streamlining and the simplification, and the ability to
update regulations, will make things much simpler for businesses. Those
details will come out in due course; this order simply lays the
framework. That is why it is of less consequence to business, which
expects us to ratify the convention and has agreed internationally that
we should ratify it. The details, which will come forward in the months
ahead, will contain the important
provisions.
4.42
pm
Mr.
Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): Mr. Russell,
it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first
time. I congratulate the Minister on his promotion. A truthful remark
that I made previouslythat he is a very good Minister in a very
poor Governmentfailed to wreck his career. However, I am sorry
to see a round peg move from a round hole. I had no idea that Poplar
had so much rolling farmland.
Jim
Fitzpatrick: Poplar and Canning Town is home to Mudchute
farm, which is the biggest open space in east London. It is a very
efficient and effective farm enjoyed by thousands of east
Londoners.
Mr.
Brazier: Indeed. Having served in a Territorial Army unit
in the east end, I am aware that the area is home to several show
farms, of which that is the largest. Such farms provide a really good
service.
The measures in
the order before us are strongly supported by Nautilus, as one would
expect, and by the Chamber of Shipping, which believes that, if
adopted, it will help to expedite the necessary changes to UK
legislation, which in turn will help the UK to ratify the MLC. The
Minister set out the way in which we and he, I believe, like business
to be done in the shipping world: us and the EU co-operating and
working hand in glove with the International Maritime Organisation,
instead of trying to supplant it in a number of areas, which is what
happened only a few years ago. As he rightly says, this is enabling
legislation and the 14-odd forthcoming statutory instruments will cover
the
detail.
My
first question echoes the one asked by my hon. Friend the Member for
North Dorset. In some cases, the UK is already compliant with the
convention, but, as paragraph 4.2 of the explanatory memorandum
states,
while existing
UK legislation is not exactly in line, there are powers in the Merchant
Shipping Act 1995 which provide the necessary vires to make the
necessary amending
legislation.
My
hon. Friend made a good point about possible costs. I am not asking for
a comprehensive listthat might take a whilebut it would
be helpful if the Minister set out the major areas in which we are not
currently in line.
Paragraph 7.5
of the explanatory memorandum, which sets out what is being done and
why,
states:
Reflecting
the broad range of subjects covered, a significant number of UK
legislative changes will be required to implement the
Convention.
My
second question is: what changes might we expect and what is the
Governments timetable for
them?
Paragraph
7.7
states:
the
Council adopted a decision authorizing member states to ratify the MLC
for those parts falling within Community competence and exhorting
member states to ratify the whole convention by no later than the end
of
2010.
In
a speech to the Mission to Seafarers at St. Michael Paternoster Royal
church on 17 October 2006, the Ministers predecessor, and my
next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman),
said:
realistically,
I think it will be four to five years before we can fully ratify the
Convention.
Five
years would take us to the end of next year, which would put the
Government beyond the target date. So, my third question is: does the
Minister concur with that view and are penalties likely if we do not
complete the process by the end of next
year?
In
that same speech, the Ministers predecessor stated that some
other member states had serious problems implementing the convention.
The Minister mentioned that some countries have already ratified it.
Will he give us a list? If he does not have a full list, perhaps his
successor will write to me. More specifically, which of our major
European partners are yet to ratify the
convention?
Looking
at the issues in the round, any measure involving standards and
conditions has to be monitored and, ultimately, policed. So, to pull
the Ministers leg one last time, it might help to have a
specific example of different interpretations of international
agreements on labour and safety. The Minister is familiar with the case
because I wrote to him about it, but I shall give an explanation for
the benefit of the Committee.
The case was
brought to my attention by Peter Millatt, managing director of
Scotline, which has a terminal in Kent, and relates to the termination
of a contract between the Scotland-based J&A Gardner and the
Ministry of Defence. The contract was a long-standing one for the
charter of the M.V. Saint Brandan supply vessel, stationed in the
Falkland Islands. What worried me was that the Maritime and Coastguard
Agency, which the Minister supervises, required the British competitors
for the tender to have at least seven crew members on their vessels. It
cited the international conventions that the new convention will
replace as its reason for imposing that requirement. However, the Dutch
equivalent of the MCA said that only five people were required. Not
surprisingly, the Dutch company was able to present a much lower tender
and now has the contract in the Falkland Islands for a long
period.
My
final question is, therefore: which organisations will be responsible
for policing the convention and standards, and how will we ensure an
even application of the standards across Community countriesin
the context of this statutory instrumentand indeed
internationally?
4.48
pm
Mr.
John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Russell. I echo the
words of other Members in wishing the Minister the best of luck in his
promotion.
I
shall not detain the Committee too long. The matter is straightforward,
and I am more than happy to support the order. As the Minister has
said, this is simply an enabling order. It has just one effect, which
is to ensure that the maritime labour convention is regarded as a
European treaty under the European Communities Act 1972. The
regulations set out in the convention are perfectly sensible; I do not
think that anyone will oppose having a minimum age for seafarers and
ensuring that they are medically fit and have decent conditions on
board. However, I have a couple of brief
questions.
The
explanatory memorandum suggests that the UK is already fully compliant
with many of the maritime labour conventions provisions, but
with which of those provisions are we not currently compliant? The
Minister also mentioned the potential need for primary and secondary
legislation. Does he see any need for primary legislation, or does he
expect that all of the legislation will be
secondary?
My
second question relates to the time scale, which was supposed to be in
place by the end of last year. Does the Minister expect us to be able
to comply with that time scale, or will the issue be resolved
sooner?
4.50
pm
Jim
Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for the support in principle
expressed by the Opposition spokesmen, and I will try to address the
questions that they have raised. Both of them asked for a description
of some of the key changes applicable to seafarers in UK ships. The
changes are: individual seafarer employment agreements more akin to
land-based contracts of employment, instead of the old crew agreements
that collectively covered every member of the crew and were very basic
in their provisions; clear lines of responsibility to the ship owner
named on the maritime labour certificate, as well as seafarer
employment agreements to ensure that there is a clear line of
responsibility; clearer provisions covering entitlement to
repatriation; increased entitlement to paid leave; improved
accommodation provisions and complaints procedure; and stronger
enforcement. Those are all basic things that most of us expect as a
matter of course in employment law, and they are therefore extended to
the maritime
community.
The
hon. Member for Canterbury asked to what extent existing UK law is in
line with the MLC. I regret to say that it is difficult to be specific
about that for a number of reasons. First, the Department has not yet
completed the exercise, in co-operation with the working groups, of
examining closely the changes to legislation that we wish to propose,
nor have we had public consultation on all of our proposals. It would
therefore be premature to give an estimate of the percentage of
legislation that needs to be changed, because that will obviously be a
matter for consultation. Secondly, it is not obvious how such
percentages could sensibly be calculated. There may be situations in
which we need to make a lot of changes to the text of UK legislation,
but the substantive position would not change significantly. Equally,
there may be situations in which the text may not change a great deal,
but the substantive position could be altered far more.
In a number of
areas covered by the convention, we need to change UK law in
significant ways, but the situation is not the same in all areas. For
example, we anticipate that few, if any, changes will be required in
relation to training and qualifications. However, it is important to
remember that the detailed proposals for implementing the convention
are not in the draft Order in Council that we are debating today; they
will be introduced in due course through our work in partnership with
the working groups with appropriate public consultation, which will
give the hon. Gentleman some
reassurance.
The
hon. Gentleman also asked about when the convention will come into
force. There are two criteria governing the implementation of the MLC.
First, flag states representing 33 per cent. of the world
tonnageLiberia, Bahamas, Marshall Islands, Panama and
Norwayhave already ratified the convention.
Secondly, the MLC will come into force 12 months after 30
International Labour Organisation members ratify it, which is expected
to happen by late 2010 or 2011. We are therefore not concerned about
our timetable. We think that we will be well within it, that we will
not have any difficulties, and that we will not be in breach of
legislation.
The hon.
Member for Manchester, Withington asked whether primary legislation
will be needed. Our assessment is that there will be no need for it,
because we will be able to do everything through secondary legislation
if
the draft order is implemented, by using the powers in the European
Communities Act. That will make life a lot
easier.
As
I said, the convention has been described as a
super-convention, which is as appropriate a description
as any for a convention that consolidates and updates more than 60
disparate instruments dating back almost 90 years into a single set of
standards, and sets a modern benchmark that can henceforth be amended
relatively easily to ensure that the standards are kept up to date and
relevant. The Government are proud of the leading role played by the
United Kingdom in this collective international
achievement.
Mr.
Brazier: I am grateful to the Minister for once again
giving way: he has done so on many occasions while we have been
opposite each other. Before he completes his peroration, could he reply
on the point about the Falklands contract? What steps are we taking to
make certain that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency does not force
standards on British vessels that are out of line with those that the
equivalent authorities of other reputable seafaring European countries
enforce?
Jim
Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman raises a very fair point
and I know that he has written to me about the example given. The
response is still outstanding, but I will make sure that it is
expedited. Obviously we want to protect British shipping and we have
been doing so relatively successfully in the past 12 years. We have the
largest red ensign fleet that we have had for decades, and we have good
training standards and good cadet officers coming through. We do not
want to see that record jeopardised by other countries undercutting us
by not observing the conventions in the way we believe they should be
observed. We want to ensure that we have safe, but practical manning,
which is essential to mitigate human error. The judgment of one flag
state against another must be balanced, but I owe the hon. Gentleman a
response to that correspondence and I will ensure that it is
expedited.
We
do not want to undermine British shipping in any way. We want to
protect it and promote it because we believe that it promotes higher
standards in all regards, and in that instance it helps world shipping
to be safer and more efficient, as well as promoting UK business and
industry. My concluding remark as a Transport Minister is that I
commend the draft order, which will enable the United Kingdom to embody
its stated commitment to the convention in the appropriate implementing
measures.
Question
put and agreed
to.
4.57
pm
Committee
rose.