Employment Bill [HL]

Clearly, the amendment raises an important issue and the Government need to consider the representations that have been made. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, when I first read this I found some difficulty with the concept of how it would operate. However, a good case has been made in one respect: if employers register their ships in the United Kingdom, with all the advantages that come from that, I find it difficult to argue why they should not have to observe the obligations that come with it. I have difficulty with the second aspect of the amendment. I have listened carefully to the tour de force of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, through the opinions of the members of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, but I find it difficult to understand the practicalities. When a ship registered in Belize, let us say, takes on employees, mariners, and negotiations take place in regard to their salary for the year, month, two months or for however long they are taken on, is it suggested that when that ship arrives at Liverpool to take on or deposit containers and spends two days in port, inspectors from the appropriate government body will come on board and say, ““What are you paying your staff? You are here for two days; therefore two-365ths of the income of your staff has to move up to the minimum wage””. Is that what is suggested? If so, have the proponents of the amendment carried out an estimate of the cost of enforcement? I take the point that we should not give in to threats from the owners of ships registered in Belize—I do not know why I picked Belize—of strike action or withdrawing their services from UK ports, but I worry about the practicalities. When the Government consider this between the Committee stage and Report—clearly a number of the Minister’s noble friends are not going to leave this alone and will come back to it on Report—the practicalities of that second aspect need to be looked at.