Employment Bill [HL]

I am not sure that I like the word ““slave””. I come from Plymouth—a seafaring city—so perhaps I know as much about seafarers as many in this Room. Foreign seafarers working on UK-registered ships are, as noble Lords know, already protected by the Race Relations Act. This ensures that they are paid a fair wage related to the cost of living in their home country. Under this Act, foreign sailors frequently earn wages which, although below the national minimum wage in the UK, are on a par with highly trained professionals at home. Of course, while on board ship, they enjoy exactly the same standards as UK sailors, subject to all the protections of UK employment law. Proposed new paragraph (a) in the amendment would not only provide much meaningful benefit for foreign sailors but would inflict a terrible cost on the UK shipping industry. The Chamber of Shipping estimates that as many as 300 UK-registered ships would be put at risk by having to pay these above-market wages. Proposed new paragraph (b) goes even further. Every ship, no matter where it is registered or what crew it is manned with, is to recalculate its wages for the time spent within UK territorial waters. Such a provision is simply not lawful. Each ship is subject to the employment law of its flag state. How could it be otherwise? How does the noble Lord suggest the UK would ensure that foreign companies pay their foreign sailors what he thinks they should? Debate on the development of maritime policy is of course ongoing and is being participated in at many levels, both nationally and in Europe. All are agreed that any future steps need to be both considered and responsible, weighing any benefits against the possible impact on UK employment and competitiveness; and of course they must be feasible. I am afraid that the amendment is none of these.