| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, the noble Baroness is not correct in her history. Policy within the TUC and the Labour Party to introduce a national minimum wage was in 1986. Certainly the question of Clause 4 did not come about within the Labour Party until 1994.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, it may well be that the noble Lord has more knowledge of these matters than I have. If I have said something that is incorrect, of course I apologise for that.
All other countries which have a minimum wage also have exemptions of various sorts to cover various local circumstances. The Government have consistently claimed one essential reason for refusing various amendments. They said that the Bill was sufficiently flexible as it was. This clause gave the Secretary of State the greatest degree of flexibility possible. The Government's refusal of my constructive amendment shows a degree of obstinacy and inflexibility that defies description.
On the occasion of Second Reading I said:
- "we ... fully respect and honour by virtue of the Salisbury convention, the Government have a mandate for introducing ... a minimum wage, however misconceived we believe the idea to be. We are, however, entitled to invite the Government to think again on some of the details".--[Official Report, 23/3/98; col. 1035.]
Well, we have invited the Government to think again on just one detail and they have adamantly refused to do so. Only yesterday I appealed to the new Secretary of State to think again, but I have received only a stony silence.
Your Lordships have the power to refuse to accept the Commons' rejection of our amendment, which would considerably delay the passage of this Bill. But I will certainly not invite you to do so. I would not do so over this particular issue; an issue where the Government, I believe, are making a grave mistake which I have no doubt they will come to regret at a later date. Certainly, I hope that I am wrong. I hope that young people in certain occupations or in certain parts of the country do not suffer and do not feel the pinch as the recession,
which is undoubtedly coming, starts to hit home. I believe that is a mistake which will eventually force the Government to come back to Parliament with fresh primary legislation wasting valuable parliamentary time.No, this is a case where most definitely we should allow an intransigent Government to stew in their own juice. I therefore advise your Lordships that we should, with every degree of reluctance, accept the decision of the other place.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, from these Benches we have taken a completely different approach to this Bill from the approach that has been taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We have consistently argued in support of the Government's position that the era of sweatshop wage rates should be over for ever. We support completely the principle of the minimum wage. It was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto in the same way as it was in the Labour Party manifesto at the last election.
The only area where we have parted company with the Government has been the area touched on by this amendment. We believe that the Government should enshrine permanently into the legislative structure the permanent status of the Low Pay Commission. We believe that the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission should in future years be virtually automatically accepted by the Government and that the Secretary of State should have the power by way of regulation to bring in its recommendations without having to go back to primary legislation.
That is where we have parted company with the Government. The Government's position has consistently been that they are in favour of one national minimum wage rate; that should apply to the whole country and if at any future stage there should be any variation of that, a government should need to come back to Parliament with primary legislation to change it.
We have argued consistently in the other place and here that the Government should have the power to look in the future at regional variation. We accept that the first rate will be on a consistent basis throughout the country. We accept that the report of the Low Pay Commission, when it touched on regional variation, did not make the case for regional variation. However, we think that when we get to future years, into the millennium, it may well be that the changing economic circumstances of this country, in particular following our entry into European monetary union, may require the Government to look again at that issue.
However, I am somewhat surprised by the arguments that were used yesterday in the other place against the Liberal Democrats. I have no knowledge of whether I am the descendant of a thief or a robber baron, as was suggested by the Minister in the other place. Whether I am or not, I know that it is not the basis of my attendance in your Lordships' House. I certainly did not arrive in a Ferrari or a Mercedes in order to vote on the amendment and I have never been regarded as naive.
However, the fundamental point made by the Minister in the other place, and which I find difficult to cope with, is that the substantive reason why the Government
are not prepared to accept the amendment--which, after all, only empowers a Secretary of State to take action and is not prescriptive--is that there appears to be a naive belief on the part of the Government that at some future stage we shall have another Conservative government. They do not trust a future Secretary of State in a Conservative government not to emasculate the national minimum wage by the operation of this clause. That is where I part company with the Government. It is beyond my credibility that in my lifetime there will be another Conservative government. Therefore, I find naive the Government's reluctance to agree the clause because of the fear of the power they might put into the hands of the noble Baroness when she becomes Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, having shared that view I shall not press the matter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind words of congratulations. Perhaps I may pay a genuinely felt personal tribute to my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Haskel for their considerable part in piloting the Bill through this House. I thank them for the great personal kindness that they have shown to me in guiding me on this complicated issue. The Bill owes its passage through this House much more to them than to me.
I shall not reiterate the arguments that have been put forward on many occasions as to why we object to this amendment. I say simply that we have made it clear that, save in relation to the limited circumstances put forward by the Government in their Bill, we do not believe in anything other than a national minimum wage. This amendment would permit such a principle to be breached and breached repeatedly. Moreover, it would give any other government a power to destroy the national minimum wage by a thousand cuts. We therefore believe that it is not right as a matter of principle and it goes against what we set out in our manifesto. I ask the House not to insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5
Clause 2, page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (7).
Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Clause 3, page 3, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Clause 4, page 3, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 5A, 6A, and 7A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 5A, 6A and 7A.--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
5A
6
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
6A
7
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
7A
25
Clause 42, page 26, leave out line 18.
The Commons agreed to this amendment and proposed the following consequential amendment to the Bill--
25A
Clause 42, page 26, line 30, leave out ("or paragraph (a) above").
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25A. It is a consequential amendment to the Bill.
The amendment to Clause 42, which the Government tabled on Third Reading in this place, left a drafting anomaly which needs to be corrected. It is minor, but I shall take this opportunity to explain why it is necessary. Without the amendment, there would be an erroneous cross-reference to "paragraph (a) above" in Clause 43 which would not make sense. It refers to the previous paragraph (a) which the Government amendment removed. This is an error which we ask the House to support us in putting right. We do not wish the Bill to contain cross-references which do not make sense and will lead to confusion.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25A.--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page