P&O Cruises- short-changing Indian crew?

P&O Cruise's decision to withhold passenger tips unless 'performance targets' are met has not gone down well with their mainly Asian crew. The majority of these are Indians working as stewards and in restaurants, according to British newspaper reports. Unsurprisingly, P&O rubbishes the criticism, claiming instead that the new regime is aimed to "make crew more responsive" and offer protection to them since passengers- often paying thousands of dollars for the cruise- are not tipping as much as they used to. 

David Dingle - CEO of Carnival UK that is in charge of P&O Cruises- has rolled out a programme that may severely affect the take home pay of most of its Indian and Filipino crew, many of whom are working 11 hours a day for as little as 75p an hour. In addition to making tips electronic, P&O will not pay bonuses if passenger feedback does not exceed internal targets, "some of which stand at 96%". Stewards getting an approval rating of below 92% will lose their bonuses- 15% of their basic salary. P&O has also reportedly told the crew that the scheme "is dependent on the passengers paying their auto gratuities".

The Guardian reports that passengers on the P&O Oriana ship said members of the mainly Indian crew "seemed upset by the deal".  Passenger Rob Bygrave added that it was an "absolute scandal" and that one crewmember told him "grown men were in tears at a meeting where they were notified of the new arrangements".

Dingle contradicted this, saying that the crew is "much happier" since they have some protection now. "You've got staff from eastern Europe in restaurants in Britain – why? Because it's great money. Yes, the minimum wage is more than we pay, but this is a global industry, our businesses have to remain competitive. Let's not forget the level of take-home pay for our staff, the vast majority of whom come from India. Look at hotels in Goa. The earning ability is greater on our ships".

"We have a manning office in Mumbai. There are queues out on to the street. It clearly is of value to these people."

Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the British Trades Union Congress- that has 58 affiliated unions representing over 6 million workers- has condemned the P&O move. He said, "Holidaymakers will be horrified to learn that some of the seafarers on their cruise ships are paid so little. It is high time the disgraceful practice of allowing the shipping industry to pay poverty wages to workers who don't live in the UK was stopped. Exploitative rates of pay for those working on British ships have no place in a modern society."

Not that the cruise industry is without other public relations issues. P&O is part of the Carnival Corporation of the Costa Concordia fame. As if that were not enough, a subsidiary of Carnival- Princess Cruises- has been under fire recently for allegedly leaving two fishermen to die.

Mahindra and Mahindra to roll out unmanned Sea Surveillance Vessels

                                Rafael's 'Protector 2'

Indian auto major Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. is entering the coastal surveillance craft business. The country's biggest SUV manufacturer will collaborate with an Israeli company Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. to set up a facility in Pune towards this end.  

Although details have only recently been made public, the initial announcement of the Joint Venture was made at Delhi's DefExpo exhibition at the end of March. Rafael currently manufactures the 'Protector', a 9 metre long stealthy, fast (50 knots) and highly manoeuvrable remotely controlled USV (unmanned surveillance vessel) with surveillance, identification and interception capabilities; the company says that its new version will be longer with wider weaponry.  It is equipped with a Mini-Typhoon stabilised weapons system, an electro optic day or night surveillance and targeting system, laser rangefinders, GPS, Radar, inertial navigation and a public address system. Remotely controlled from ashore or another ship, it is meant to act as a country's first line of defence.  

The Mini Typhoon is the remote-controlled weapon station aboard the Protector. It can be fitted with a .50 calibre machine gun or a grenade launcher and is highly accurate- it will keep the weapon aimed to within 500 mm at a target 1000 metres away. 

Rafael, established as a part of the Israeli Ministry of Defence, has manufactured high tech defence systems for air, land, sea and space applications. The company will now invest in Mahindra's existing Naval Systems division in Pune, holding a 26 percent stake in the outfit. Anand Mahindra, Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. says, "Our Joint venture with Rafael signals our strategic entry into a wide range of high tech-defence solutions which will enable the Mahindra Group to become a leading defence systems integrator in India." 

Brig (Retd) KA Hai, Chief Executive, Mahindra Defence Systems, said, "This JV will enable Mahindra Defence Systems to further leverage its innovative solutions in the maritime domain, enhance its product offerings, and present it with new avenues for growth. We intend to further expand into air, land, and aerospace defence solutions." The unit has been a longstanding supplier of armoured Mahindra vehicles to the Indian Ministry of Defence.

Mahindra hopes that the JV will further reduce the nation's dependence on foreign suppliers for critical equipment needed for India's security. The country is the world's largest arms importer, with about 40 percent of its equipment made indigenously- up from 30 percent. It will spend almost 2 trillion rupees a year on defence this year. Besides Mahindra, the Tatas and Ashok Leyland are also expanding their defence equipment businesses.

India's push to boost maritime security after the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks is no secret. Although unmanned patrol vessels are new to the country, experts agree that they will prove very useful in patrolling India's 7500 km long coastline. Brig Hai told Bloomberg, “Unmanned patrol vessels will be needed in large numbers to protect from infiltration by terrorists, protect our offshore assets and patrol vital coastal assets such as nuclear plants.”

Supreme Court bans former "Exxon Valdez" from entering Indian breaker's yards

                                              Exxon Valdez spill , 1989

India's apex Supreme Court has banned the 'Oriental Nicety'- the Exxon Valdez in a previous notorious avatar- from entering the country's ports, saying the ship should have been decontaminated first. The ship was in Indian waters headed for Alang, Gujarat to be scrapped when the Court asked that its voyage be stopped 'midway.' The Exxon Valdez was involved in the second biggest US oil spill in history back in 1989. Authorities in Gujarat, including the pollution control department, have now "withdrawn permission" for the vessel to be anchored at Alang for dismantling.   

The Supreme Court asked the Government to take action after an environmentalist group filed a Public Interest Litigation against the ship being allowed to be broken up in India. Activists have long alleged that ship breakers in India ignore safety, exposing workers and the environment to toxic materials. The Research and Science Foundation (RSF) claimed that the Oriental Nicety had changed names many times to distance it from the 1989 disaster- the Exxon Valdez, Exxon Mediterranean, Sea River Mediterranean, S/R Mediterranean, Mediterranean, and Dong Fang Ocean.- before been bought by a subsidiary of Priya Blue Industries based in Gujarat for dismantling.. 

The Supreme Court has now issued notices to the Shipping Ministry to inform it about the steps it has taken to cut short the "Oriental Nicety's" voyage. RSF lawyer Sanjay Parikh told reporters that the vessel was a "trespasser as she doesn’t have the sanction to berth” at any breaker's facilities. 

RSF alleges that the Indian government is slack in applying the Basel Convention laws to ship breaking. India is a signatory to that convention, which lays down norms for the minimisation of generation of hazardous wastes, and calls that toxic wastes be disposed “as close to the source of generation as possible”. The Supreme Court had said in 2007 that the authorities should ensure that a vessel arriving for dismantling be free of any hazardous material, including radioactive material, and that the pollution control boards should confirm she is "properly decontaminated". Mercury, arsenic, asbestos and residual oil are common contaminants found aboard ships.

RCF's Parikh claims that the Court's 2007 directive has been largely ignored, including in this case. “Though it has not yet been allowed to berth in any of the ports, the ship, which is alleged to be contaminated, has entered Indian waters without taking proper steps for decontamination in the port of export,” he said.

The Gujarat company that hoped to dismantle the former Exxon Valdez will appeal the Supreme Court ruling. "We will abide with the Supreme Court order. We are studying the order, and will appeal," said Harshadbhai Padia, a partner in the company.

.

 

Piracy Bill 2012 introduced in Indian Lower House

Minister of State for External Affairs E Ahmed tabled the Piracy Bill 2012 in the Lower House of the Indian Parliament- the Lok Sabha a week ago. The Bill aims to plug the large loopholes in the criminal justice system in the country that has made it very difficult to prosecute captured pirates so far. It recognises the crime of piracy and details standards for prosecution of pirates, who now can face life terms- and even death in some cases- for their crimes. India does not have any laws governing piracy at the moment, since that has not been included as a crime in the antiquated Indian Penal Code, 1860 or the later Criminal Procedure Code. 

Ahmed said that the introduced Piracy Bill would provide “certainty and clarity in the law as well as a sound basis for effective prosecution” of pirates apprehended, regardless of their nationality. It would also make “special provisions for suppression of piracy” and provide for “punishment for the offence of piracy,” he added, besides promoting Indian maritime security. 

The Indian Bill, if passed, will bring the definition of ‘piracy’ in the country in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and will apply throughout the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone. Analysts say that this would bring much needed clarity in law and help in effective prosecution of pirates suspects, who can then be prosecuted for an act of piracy, an attempt to commit piracy or even as an accomplice to piracy; the Bill also has provisions for extradition of pirate suspects. 

Any gazetted officer of the Central or a State government will be able to instigate arrest, investigation and prosecution of apprehended suspects under the Code of Criminal Procedure under the Piracy Bill, and designated fast track courts will be set up for speedy trials for the crime if falling under their jurisdiction.

An act of piracy will then be punished with imprisonment for life. When the accused has caused death in committing the act of piracy- or even attempted it- he may be punished with death. In addition, the accused, if convicted, may be subjected to restitution and forfeiture of "property involved in the commission of the offence". A convicted accomplice to piracy will be fined and can spend up to fourteen years in jail.

 “Given the increasing incidence of piracy, including within India's Exclusive Economic Zone and the increasing number of pirates apprehended by the Indian Naval forces, a need was felt for a domestic legislation on piracy which could provide the necessary legal framework within the country for prosecution of persons for piracy-related crimes,” says the "objects and reasons" statement of the Bill.

Seafarers' Rights International survey underlines seafarer distrust and fear

Even as the MLC 2006 show hits the road, a press release from London based research firm Seafarers' Rights International says that a survey of almost three and a half thousand seafarers- conducted over a year in eight languages with 68 nationalities surveyed- shows once again that the vast majority of the world's mariners suffer the consequences of lack of legal representation, unfair treatment, absence of interpreters and intimidation when they face legal charges during the performance of their duties.

Questions were asked from seafarers who had faced criminal charges across the world. About 44% of respondents who had faced charges said they were bodily searched. 87% said that they did not have legal representation; 91% who needed interpretation services said that they were not provided with any and 89% who had faced criminal charges said that they did not have their rights explained to them. Almost a quarter of the Masters surveyed had faced criminal charges.

Four fifths of mariners felt threatened and intimidated. A similar number said they did not receive fair treatment. Close to half feared incriminating themselves in an enquiry after a casualty. “The information that I would provide might be used against me” and “Anything you say can be used as evidence against you” were typical refrains. 

“The voices of seafarers are expressing real fears and concerns over criminal charges and it must be in the interests of the whole maritime industry that these are addressed and seafarers adequately protected.  The prospect of criminal charges is daunting for any human being, whether in your own country, or even more so in a foreign country, and so for seafarers entering foreign ports on a daily basis, the risks are high and the consequences can be dire if fair and due process is not followed,” said Deirdre Fitzpatrick, SRI Executive Director.

As part of the extensive survey, SRI says it looked at all the incidents reported in the maritime press over the last twelve years and has concluded- after examining 415 incidents involving 1580 seafarers- that the numbers of detained mariners is rising.

A senior Master spoke to us on the condition of anonymity. "Managers and owners are only interested in making a scapegoat out of the Master, officers and crew after an incident. They will do anything, including pressuring the Master to falsify records and then throwing him to the wolves, to save a buck. People external to the company all have their own agendas. Fair treatment and justice for a seafarer is the last thing anybody is interested in. This is a big reason why we have so many reluctant sailors and have a hard time convincing youngsters that this is a 'career of choice.'"

Besides raising awareness of seafarer rights, promoting maritime legal expertise and providing institutional legal support towards justice for seafarers, SRI intends to "promote research, education and training in the legal rights and remedies applicable to seafarers for the purpose of improving the effective protection of seafarers and the safeguarding of their interests." 

Fitzpatrick says, “We hope that the results of this survey will provide momentum for increased efforts to ensure fair treatment of seafarers, whether innocent or guilty of a criminal charge, and that from this survey, the faces and the voices of the seafarers will be seen clearly and heard loudly”.