Employment Bill [HL]

I have listened to the past few moments with great interest from many different angles. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for putting the case so lucidly. While I appreciate her arguments, I regret that we cannot accept the amendment as drafted, although I hope that in the next few minutes she will constructively receive some of my remarks so that we can take the argument forward from here. Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves who is eligible in this area. Under the current legislation, resident and non-resident seafarers are entitled to the minimum wage while they are in the United Kingdom’s internal waters—and for the satisfaction of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, I shall come back to that definition in a moment. A seafarer on a UK-registered ship anywhere in the world is entitled to the minimum wage unless his employment is wholly outside the United Kingdom or he is not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. The amendment would extend the scope of the minimum wage in a number of ways. It would make all workers on UK-registered ships eligible for the national minimum wage. That would include those who are not presently eligible became they work wholly outside the United Kingdom at all times as long as they are not ordinarily resident in the UK. An important point is that it would also catch all ships from wherever in the world travelling through UK territorial waters, regardless of their flag or origin. If that was the intention of my noble friends in their amendment, I have two things to say in answer. First, the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, knocked the nail straight on the head by saying that that may be laudable for a traditional seafaring nation with fabulous values such as this country. But how we go about policing it, even if we were to spend a fortune of taxpayers’ money, is beyond me—that might be for another debate. Secondly, it was never the intention of minimum wage legislation to extend the rights to employees who have no link with the United Kingdom, or never stay in or even visit the United Kingdom. Extending this legislation to all those working on UK-registered ships or foreign-flagged ships in UK territorial waters may mean that we capture employees who have nothing whatever to do with this country. If the amendment was accepted, it would have damaging consequences for the UK’s own merchant fleet. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, may well have been reading material from one lobbying organisation; I am quite prepared to listen to that in the same way as I, rightly, listen to that type of submission from the TUC or anybody else. Surely that is what this debate is about, and neither side should be criticised for it. When I was at the CBI, people often asked why our merchant fleet had diminished so much. The basic answer was the applicable taxation regime. Various tax concessions were then granted so that we could build up our merchant fleet one more time, which, for a nation of the maritime reputation that we have enjoyed in the world—maritime activity is one way of extending our values around the world—is excellent. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, was right that if companies wish to enjoy a more favourable tax regime from a country with these values, they have to accept the other side as well. In that respect, I can see where noble Lords are going. I ask noble Lords to stop using the word ““slave””. The wages that some companies under other flags pay are derisory and disgraceful but, just as I no longer like to hear words such as ““bosses””, ““workers”” in industry, and all that stuff that comes from another age, so I no longer like to hear ““slave””, which is an emotional word which does nothing to resolve this difficult situation.