| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I mention this only because it was raised by the noble Baroness and because, as those Members of the Committee interested in the history of this will remember, there was an ignominious history of what were called Lascars—Asian seamen—being treated appallingly badly a long time ago, not only in their wages but even in their living conditions. They were kept in tiny boxes on boats and were therefore discriminated against on the basis of race. I would not expect the Minister’s advisers to know the answer now, but I hope that the answer could be given before Report.
3.30 pm
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I have also been searching through the 3,000 pages of the guide to employment law for that point, and I have not found it. However, in the union brief—I have checked it—I found that, during the course of the then Race Relations Bill, the Minister for Shipping stated that it would apply in territorial waters and possibly even beyond, especially on British ships. So a lacuna has been left in the anti-discrimination law as there is authority that sex discrimination will apply beyond territorial waters. I, too, hope that a clear document can be put in the Library by the Minister’s advisers settling the issue of the extent of the anti-discrimination law. Whatever the answer, it will be found that it is way beyond internal waters. It is, as I said, is a nightmare concocted by the DTI.
13 Mar 2008 : Column GC280
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised the point that I have been searching to answer about the precise area of application of the discrimination laws. Whatever it is, it is certainly within the area to which this amendment would make the national minimum wage apply.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The answer to the question could be found in 10 minutes. I am trapped here, but if someone would look at the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, the answer will be there. I cannot go and look it up myself, but if someone else can, they will have answer.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Should not the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, consider what happened many years ago and whether ships should continue under the British flag or go to Belize, Libya, Nigeria or wherever? One has to have a realistic approach to this problem. If that is forgotten, it could be the end of our industry.
Lord Jones of Birmingham: 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
13 Mar 2008 : Column GC281
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.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister said that workers who come from a foreign country and do not work in the UK have no connection with the UK and are not entitled to the floor provided by the national minimum wage. When he says “in the United Kingdom”, does he include ships within territorial waters? Why should a ship that is all the time in our territorial waters and simply goes to Cherbourg for new provisions because they are cheaper there not be part of “in the United Kingdom”? Let the Minister define “in the United Kingdom”. Humpty Dumpty said: “The meaning of the word is what I choose it to mean—no more and no less”. My meaning is “in the UK or in its territorial waters”. Is that the Minister’s?
Lord Jones of Birmingham: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn for asking me a question I was just about to come to. One of the risks of going straight down the path of telling every UK-flagged ship is that we will have flagging out, because they operate outside the United Kingdom. I accept that that is in one way similarly alarmist and we must not submit to that. But there would be an element of it, and we must understand what that would do. For instance, on a UK ship which currently pays more than the flags of others—albeit perhaps not the minimum wage—we would be consigning some of the workers to even lower wages and more disgraceful conditions. That would happen, be the people referred to earlier Portuguese or Filipino.
13 Mar 2008 : Column GC282
We must ensure that, in trying to deal with a difficult problem and enhance the promulgation of our employment values on ships, we do not end up consigning some people to an even worse employed existence. I am not saying for a moment that we should turn around and say that we should do nothing because they might flag out. I am merely saying that I would like a little work done on seeing where the risk lies and what we are talking about in terms of values, numbers and geographical operations. That would be worthy of a little work. That is probably bad news for the people behind me, but probably a good thing to do.
Before concluding, I shall deal with two or three specific points on one or two of the excellent issues raised. I found this debate extremely useful because I have learnt more about it from listening to Members of the Committee. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn asked, and asked again in his intervention, what I call the United Kingdom, what “territorial waters” are and what this amazing phrase “internal waters” is, which he rightly says seemed to arrive out of the ether at some point in drafting. The legislation was drawn in an attempt to capture those working in the United Kingdom. “Internal waters” are covered by the national minimum wage rules. They are all the waters and waterways on the landward side of a baseline from which territorial seas are measured. “Internal waters” means everything on the inside of the baseline of a territorial sea. It includes waterways such as rivers, canals and, sometimes, the waters within small bays.
through the territorial sea under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, or UNCLOS. All foreign vessels have no right of innocent passage within internal waters. The lack of a right to innocent passage is the key difference between internal waters and the territorial sea. UNCLOS sets the limits of the territorial sea. Article 3 says that every state has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles. Article 5 states that the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low water-line along the coast. So the baseline is on the other side of the gap between the low water-line on the coast and perhaps 12 miles out.
Internal waters as defined include, for the United Kingdom, the sea between the Scottish mainland and the Inner and Outer Hebrides, the Firth of Forth, the Humber, the Wash, the Thames Estuary, the Solent and the Bristol Channel. They do not include the waters between the mainland and the Scillies, Lundy, the Smalls, the Pentland Firth, the sea—as my noble friend mentioned—between the Shetlands and Scotland, or the sea between England and the Farne Islands. With slightly greater comprehensibility, nor do they include the sea between the mainland and the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, because they are not part of the United Kingdom.
Speaking personally, if I was employed on a ferry going between the United Kingdom mainland and the Outer Hebrides, I would find it difficult to
13 Mar 2008 : Column GC283
To address the very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, about the Race Relations Act, I should say that I understand that the Department for Transport has consulted on proposed amendments to Section 9 of the Race Relations Act as amended, so it is considering the way forward. The Government are committed to amending Section 9 to bring it into line with European Community law on the freedom of movement of workers. The amendment to the Race Relations Act is different in that it comes within European requirements but it does not deal directly with the function of the minimum levels of pay because the National Minimum Wage Act is not a European issue. It is under consideration but we are not sure whether it affects the NMWA. That is a work in progress. I undertake to get back to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, with a more detailed answer. Perhaps we could meet to discuss it, which would be useful.
3.45 pm
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Will the Minister answer one question? My simple mind is slightly bemused because he said that European law requires a change in the Race Relations Act as amended in 2000. Would he put in the Library the source of that European Union law? I want to know what article of which directive or regulation requires the change. I would like to be instructed and educated by the noble Lord.
Lord Jones of Birmingham: I am sorry but my attention was diverted, so for clarification would the noble Lord repeat to which section of the Race Relations Act 1976 as amended he is referring?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: As I understood the noble Lord, he mentioned Section 2(9) and later he said Section 9, but some parts of those sections that I have just been looking at have to be reconsidered because of binding European Union law. Binding European Union law must be in a directive or a regulation. I want to know which regulation or directive it is and which article it is. He may not have it with him—I am not trying to catch him out—but it could be put in the Library.
Lord Jones of Birmingham: I understand.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I thank the Minister for what he has said. I would welcome the chance to discuss this. There are some things of which one cannot be certain and on which one needs to be silent, so I am about to be silent. I understand the Minister’s answer. Not only is looking at the EU legislation and
13 Mar 2008 : Column GC284
Lord Jones of Birmingham: I assure the noble Lord and my noble friend that I will get back to them both with details of exactly which provision we are talking about. The more difficult issue is that at the moment we considering amending domestic legislation to achieve compatibility with European legislation and, at the same time, confusingly—this might be my ignorant interpretation—we are trying to deal with domestic legislation in the Race Relations Act applying to another piece of domestic legislation, the National Minimum Wage Act, under the umbrella of European law. That is how I see it, but I might be wrong. That consultation is taking place as we speak, and if my noble friend Lord Wedderburn joins in as well, perhaps I shall learn more about it and that can be shared.
Perhaps I can close by bringing the matter together. We have three competing issues. One is that the Government have worked so hard to get this great maritime nation flagged up again—to get a critical mass of UK-flagged shipping—achieved mainly by a more benevolent fiscal environment. It is absolutely right and proper that the values that have pertained in this country for so long now apply so that those benefits can also be shared to ensure fairness for those who work under those flags. That is right and I say to my noble friends who have raised that point on this amendment that there is work to be done to satisfy that wish.
Secondly, we have the issue where the National Minimum Wage Act was never designed to deal with someone who is not and has no intention of being operational in the United Kingdom or in territorial or inland waters, as defined. Within that it is very important to deal with this clear conflict between someone working on a ferry to Orkney and someone working on a ferry to Shetland. I undertake to do some work on that and return to your Lordships.
Thirdly, if this amendment goes through, how on earth will we actually apply this legislation to a foreign-flag ship, employing a completely foreign-flag crew and spending two days in Felixstowe five times a year? Whether that is fair is one issue; whether that is enforceable is debatable; and whether we can actually then get the owner up before the beak to ensure that he pays correctly, frankly, is probably impossible.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The Minister has just put a question and has conceded that in government thinking there is no distinction for this purpose between inland waters and territorial waters, so what is the object of a further esoteric exercise of examination? What would it be to discover?
Lord Jones of Birmingham: I can, I hope, deal with that very quickly and say something that will satisfy my noble friends. The object is fairness. If I were
13 Mar 2008 : Column GC285
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for his response. In some ways I found it very helpful; in other ways I was a bit disappointed. I am prepared to accept that this is a very complex situation. Indeed, I bring to the attention of Members of the Committee what the counsel said when drafting the amendment:
“Plainly the suggested amendments contained within this document are intended to provide an indication of what might be done to address the concerns that arise ... and it may be that some form of standard method of calculation of entitlement would be necessary for non-UK ... ships who go in and out of UK waters”.
However, she says in her opinion that this is “not an insurmountable obstacle”. She just thought it was possible to come to terms with that difficulty, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords who have spoken in the debate.
I am gratified to learn that the position of an individual employed on a ferry travelling between the mainland and the Shetlands, and the difference if he is travelling between Scotland and the Hebrides, is accepted as anomalous and needing some attention. I would be very happy to co-operate in further discussions if that is deemed necessary. I am sure that the RMT would be very happy to enter into discussions over these concerns—I think most people who have spoken in the debate have accepted that there are legitimate concerns—about the anomalies in the payment of the national minimum wage.
I am sorry that the word “slave” gave rise to some objections, but to me and my noble friends some of the rates paid to individuals working on UK-registered ships when they were not resident seemed incredibly low. Even if they come from countries where they are not paid very much normally, their rates seem desperately low when compared with the people receiving the minimum wage for doing exactly the same job. The union has legitimate concerns about that. That is why it wanted the kind of text that we put before the Committee.
A number of the issues raised strike me as too complex for me, but the Minister endeavoured to deal with the race relations issue, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and in one of the papers I had from the union. I am gratified to learn that it is receiving consideration from the Government at the moment. I will look with interest at the text of the
13 Mar 2008 : Column GC286
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 25:
(1) Section 6 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (c. 35) (restrictions on charging persons seeking employment, etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) for “not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale” there is substituted “not less than £10,000 for each separate offence”.
“(3) Any fee charged to a job seeker by a person carrying on an employment agency or an employment business shall be subject to a contract specifying—
The noble Baroness said: My name is attached to Amendment No. 25 but the person who has done the work on it is my noble friend Lord James. He has left his notes with me. When he thought the Committee was going to be on 4 March he made special arrangements to be here. Unfortunately he has to be abroad today and so I shall read out what he would have said. He has had personal experiences that I think the Committee should hear.
Amendment No. 25 deals exclusively with what for many years have been referred to as outplacement agencies. Although these agencies may fall within the jurisdiction of the 1973 Act, they are in fact illegally offering services that are a reversal of the usual process by which employment agencies work to find candidates on behalf of employers seeking introductions. Instead, an outplacement agency sets out to act on behalf of a jobseeker, who will usually be at least in the middle management group or even a quite senior executive, and who, probably unexpectedly, has found himself either redundant or subject to job loss during his mid-career years. Not unnaturally, any such manager or executive finding himself jobless is faced with very serious challenges potentially affecting the continuity of the whole way of life, not only of himself but also of other members of his family. Can he continue his
13 Mar 2008 : Column GC287
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |