Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I could ask one specific question which follows on from the points made by my noble friend Lord Razzall. It is in relation to areas. He chose the example of shops at each end of a street in Surrey. However, if my memory is correct, and perhaps he can confirm this, the Scotland Bill makes the national minimum wage a reserved matter. Consequently, in future, on a larger scale, as between England and Scotland, if Scotland wish to have a different rate or a different application of the Bill--and if I were lucky enough to be elected to the Scottish parliament it might be a higher rate than the one proposed but it might equally be a lower rate--would Scotland have to return, under those circumstances, to England, to primary legislation, to achieve its objective? In that circumstance, would it not be possible for some exception to be available to the Secretary of State so that she might at least be able to act by order for Scotland?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I believe that primary legislation would be required. But this would not be the only situation of that kind. We are dealing with the Low Pay Commission report; and with the text of this Bill as drafted at present. The philosophy underlying that is as I have indicated.
I do not believe that there is reason to deal with the matter on the regional basis that the noble Lord implies he supports. However, we shall come to that on a later amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I was disappointed with the Minister's remarks on two counts. First, it is a pity that between Committee and Report stages the compliments I received from the other side of the Chamber about the eloquent way in which I presented the amendments have now become references to a ramshackle Second Reading speech. I found that disappointing.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it was the case presented, not the speech.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, clearly it was not effective, as the noble Lord described my speeches in Committee. However, that is a mild comment which caused me disappointment.
My second disappointment is that the Minister's mind is closed to what I have been saying. It is true--I accept it--that we do not like the national minimum wage but we accept that we shall have it. My amendment attempted to save the Government from trouble in the years to come if parts of the legislation for the national minimum wage do not work properly. The Minister's first few words indicated that the Government had not got everything right. I know that politicians do not like to have their words quoted to them but that was said only a moment or two ago.
The fact is that other countries have a minimum wage, and they have exceptions. I do not suggest, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, may have thought, that we require all the exemptions provided in the amendment. The President of the Board of Trade may find that she needs certain exemptions. If so, she should be able to deal with the matter by statutory instrument and not have to come back to the House for primary legislation when there clearly would not be time for it. She does not have to exercise that power; it does not wreck the Bill. The Minster referred to a wrecking amendment. It is not a wrecking provision. It need never be used.
The President of the Board of Trade may agree with the statement from the Sunday Times that the provision might be more harmful in certain parts of the country. The Minister referred to a hairdresser in Surrey and somewhere else that I cannot recall. There are certain deprived areas in the country. She may well need the power. I believe that that was the intention of the amendments brought forward by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. They agree with the national minimum wage but understand that there may be a need for exemptions.
The Minister states that they may not have got everything right. While countries such as the United States of America and in Europe have exemptions, I cannot understand why the Government nevertheless believe that this country does not need them. I believe that that is totally inappropriate. I was trying to save the Government, not the employers, from making a horrendous mistake. I am not satisfied with the reply and feel it only right to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 161; Not-Contents, 103.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Determination of hourly rate of remuneration]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page