My Lords, this third group of amendments is broadly concerned with the relationship of this Bill to the domestic national minimum wage. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has already decided that Amendment 3 is not necessary; I agree with him so, if noble Lords agree, I shall just move on.
Amendment 13, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, relates to the calculation of the national minimum wage equivalence and deductions. We have been clear that this will be covered by regulation and is not for the Bill. This also allows us a little more flexibility decades hence, should changes need to be made. Nevertheless, Section 2(5)(c) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 does not prohibit deductions from pay of costs for providing seafarers’ accommodation, food or water, but simply provides for regulations on the matter. We will very much be matching up.
Regulations under the Bill will need to be consistent with the provisions within the Maritime Labour Convention, or MLC, whereby requiring seafarers to meet the cost of food and water is expressly forbidden. We therefore do not need to amend the Bill to account for this. Perhaps the noble Lord might remind the RMT about that, if it feels that seafarers out there are being charged for those things. That is clearly and expressly forbidden.
Regarding deductions for accommodation, under the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, employers on domestic services are permitted to apply a reduction of up to £8.70 per day in respect of the provision of living accommodation, without that affecting the assessment of the worker’s pay for national minimum wage purposes. The MLC does not make express provision for reduction for accommodation, and shipping industry practice is not to charge seafarers for accommodation. It is not our intention that operators should be encouraged to make such reductions for accommodation to reduce their overall wage fee, so we will be considering this in the regulations in due course.
5.45 pm
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for his well-explained Amendment 14, relating to the insertion of “at least” the minimum wage. Of course, it is not our intention that the wages should be limited to the national minimum wage. I commit to him that we will consider further whether the wording is clear, making sure that any improvements to the wording indicate that it is the national minimum wage or above, but recalling that we have this strange situation because of the way that the Bill works, with this thing called the national minimum wage equivalence. I do not want, by putting in “at least” the national minimum wage, to end up inadvertently dropping the link to equivalence. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from; we will look at it again and make sure that we are not constraining the ability of operators to pay fair wages and over the national minimum wage.
Amendment 25, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, seeks to assess the impact of the Bill within 90 days. The anticipated impact of the Bill is already set out in the impact assessment. The Government’s view is that 90 days is far too early to see the real impacts of this legislation on these issues. More time will be needed to draw realistic conclusions on how the legislation has influenced employer behaviour and potentially influenced how services have adjusted, or not—one would hope. As a matter of course, we will conduct a post-implementation review of the Act, but I am afraid that I am not entirely sure that we would learn anything useful from a review within 90 days.
The noble Lord mentioned the impact on rostering. The Bill is necessarily narrow in scope; it is very much focused on the national minimum wage. I accept that there is potentially a link between rostering and pay, but we are not seeking to influence roster patterns. In due course, I am sure that the unions that he is in contact with will be able to provide evidence of changes to rostering, and the Government will be pleased to see it when it appears.
Amendment 26, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, would require the publication of an engagement strategy with trade unions. The Government have engaged extensively with trade unions on the Bill and the other elements of the nine-point plan, and we will continue to do so across all manner of issues impacting their members. The Government’s view is that it is beyond the scope of the Bill to legislate for union engagement, and indeed that might be counterproductive if any strategy is drawn too tightly or is not able to consider matters which could not be foreseen at the time when the strategy was drawn up.
We are very keen to continue to work with the unions. They provide a good source of evidence surrounding what is happening on wages, but legislating to publish a strategy may not be the best way to ensure that that engagement happens. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will be on my case if he feels that we are not engaging properly with the unions. It is not in the Government’s interest not to do so: good consultation and engagement are critical to good law.
Lastly, I will address the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, once again on international law. I do not have any further comments to make on international law as regards the way that he framed it, but of course I will look back through Hansard and will consider it in due course.