PARLIAMENTARY COLUMN

Parliamentary column RMT helpline 0800 3763706 :: november/december 2010 :: RMTnews 9 As RMT members will have noticed, the coalition government is using this post- election period to implement controversial legislation which will have deep impacts on our public services and our country's constitution. Members of the RMT Parliamentary Group are challenging this and fighting a rearguard action to protect services for workers and their families, who remain vulnerable to the cuts being imposed. John McDonnell’s Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill received its Second Reading debate on Friday October 22. I was proud to be a sponsor of this Bill designed to level the playing field somewhat in industrial relations, and prevent employers from using the courts to rule out the results of strike ballots for minor errors which have no material affect on the outcome. There was the usual filibustering by several backbench Tory MPs during the debate but when the closure motion came we were just 13 votes short of the 100 needed for the motion that would have overridden the filibuster and allowed the Bill to move to the next stage. This was a hugely important piece of legislation and many of us were disappointed that despite many weeks notice we could not muster enough Labour MPs to be there – even just for the vote. Despite a substantial number of them having been supported by trade unions financially during the election they failed to deliver their support on the day. The Parliamentary Labour Party and trade unions must learn that we do need to strengthen resolve within our own ranks for the task ahead. We must build alliances where we can in our campaigning and this was demonstrated when later on the same day Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes MP put pressure on the government during a Commons debate on marine training and employment on the River Thames. This gave RMT group members, myself and the tireless John McDonnell, the opportunity to raise with the government the precarious position Thames Boat masters have been placed in by the Marine and Coastguard Agency’s excessive new tests for workers on the Thames. Boat masters on the Thames are a vital resource to the capital and maintain the river’s position as the major commercial and cultural inland waterway in the country. This is why the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s decision to demand a formal re- test of boat masters’ skills is so perplexing and worrying. Thousands of boat masters will face losing their skilled and specialist jobs for no more reason than the regulatory zeal of the MCA. No group of workers on any other inland waterway are required to take this test, and the test is not a part of the MCA’s statutory duties. The change will impact on the Thames’ status as a safe and secure waterway for the public, tourists, local authorities and businesses to navigate. Indeed, the MCA has form in this area. The early proposals for the Boatmasters Licence, introduced in the aftermath of the Marchioness tragedy, were wholly unacceptable and were only revised after a concerted campaign by RMT and those of us in parliament who could see that this was an excessive response to a necessary requirement. I have tabled Early Day Motion 837 on this issue and was encouraged by Simon Hughes’ commitment in the debate to take this matter up with colleagues in government. John and I will be following this up. On behalf of the members of the RMT group may I wish all of you a Happy Christmas and a New Year that sees us ready to face the challenges that lie ahead in a united way. Kate Hoey MP for Vauxhall THAMES BOATMASTERS EDM 837 That this House recognises the valuable work of skilled and experienced Thames boatmasters in ensuring safe travel on the Thames; acknowledges the crucial support they provide the economy, particularly the tourism industry, and transport in London; is concerned that this service to the capital and the livelihoods of boatmasters could be threatened by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's proposal to hold compulsory re-tests of experienced boatmasters for operation of vessels between Margaretness and Putney; notes that no such testing or revalidation appears to be required in other inland waterways of the UK and is not a legal requirement; regards the proposal for re-tests as an overzealous interpretation of the law which risks penalising unfairly experienced boatmasters who do not have experience of formal, classroom-based examinations; supports both the highest possible safety standards and an experienced workforce on the Thames; and calls on the Government and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to engage constructively with the Thames boatmasters to reach a solution which preserves the existing skills and experience of boatmasters Kate Hoey MP DEFENDING THAMES BOAT MASTERS