Tipping the balance

The National Minimum Wage (NMW) was the flagship policy of the first term New Labour Government. It directly benefited around two million workers and in every year since, until this year, was raised above the level of inflation.

The NMW has been criticised for being too low, and consecutive London mayors have backed a higher London living wage. However two loopholes remain for unscrupulous bosses: the lower youth rates and the ability to use tips to make up the pay to the level of the NMW.

It is this latter loophole that the Government is considering closing in a consultation. In the foreword Peter Mandelson, Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), states "our view is that tips should be paid to the worker on top of their pay" instead of being used to make up the NMW.

Despite this apparent clarity the consultation document is peppered with phrases such as the "cost to the sector", "administrative burdens", "flexibility to employers", the importance of "protecting jobs", especially given the "adverse market conditions". Trade unionists will therefore be arguing that the Government does not delay implementation because of the recession.

The agreement to end this practice was announced following the 'Warwick II' talks in July, yet it has taken the Government over four months to open a consultation, which does not close until February – with legislation unlikely to come into force until a full year after the agreement.

Trade unions and socialists in Parliament will need to ensure the timetable does not slip further. Last year 95 MPs (over three-quarters of them Labour) signed an EDM supporting the Unite Fair Tips Charter Campaign, and calling for the abolition of this loophole. As far back as 2003, Labour MP Michael Connarty introduced a bill to remove this practice, which the Government then blocked.

The exclusion of tips is also supported by the Scottish TUC, whose Deputy General Secretary Dave Moxham stated, "very few people realise that some unscrupulous employers are lining their pockets with the tips which customers leave to thank the staff who serve them."

However, when people do realise they are outraged – as they were when it was exposed earlier this year that the Carluccio's chain of restaurants pay their waiting staff just £3.75 per hour as a basic wage – which seemed generous compared with the Hard Rock Café chain which paid some staff as little as £2.06 per hour before tips.

The consultation document can be downloaded from the BERR website, and the deadline for responses is 16th February 2009. Ensure that you or your trade union branch responds.

Driving down road deaths

Over the last forty years there has been a steady and continuous decline in fatalities on Britain's roads. Last year was the first year for over 80 years in which less than 3,000 people died. Nevertheless, 2,946 fatalities or just over 8 deaths per day is still a high toll, and that's without factoring in the additional 28,000 who were seriously injured last year.

The Government has just unveiled its 'Road Safety Compliance' consultation to target "the reckless minority who flout the laws of the road" – particularly targeting those who drive while under the influence of drink or drugs and those who speed.

Speeding was recorded as a contributory factor in 727 road deaths last year, and the Government is proposing tougher penalties for those who exceed speed limits "by a very large margin" who could receive six points on their licence for driving at over 20mph above the limit. This move has not been welcomed by the road safety charity Brake, which points out that "all speeding is unlawful and at 35mph you are twice as likely to kill a pedestrian you hit as at 30mph".

On drink driving, which costs 460 deaths per year, the Government appears resistant to lower the current blood alcohol level of 80mg/100ml as their research suggests that "almost all fatalities over the present limit had a blood alcohol concentration over 100mg/100ml". This is disputed by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) which advocates a 50mg/100ml limit. This lower limit, says PACTS, means "around 60 lives a year could be saved".

The Government admits that a lower limit "has been adopted in many other countries" – a fact that Brake highlights in its support for the lowering the UK limit – "one of the highest drink drive limits in Europe". However the Government is proposing to remove the right to a blood or urine test for those who test positive in breath tests – as this is "rendered unnecessary by the proven reliability of the breath test."

Driving under the influence of drugs presents some complex issues – as there is neither a simple roadside test nor any estimate of what levels of intoxication makes a driver unsafe. Therefore there should be caution about Government implications that any presence of any illegal drug should be a driving offence – after all there is little evidence that many illegal drugs would be any more damaging to drivers than excessive caffeine or other legal drugs. However that should not minimise the danger of driving under the influence of any drug – legal or illegal.

Road safety is also an issue about child safety - and particularly an issue for children from poor backgrounds: children from social class V are five times more likely to be killed on Britain's roads than those from social class I. As the Child Accident Prevention Trust points out, "children whose families have fewer resources tend to live near more dangerous road environments, have fewer provisions for safe places to play, and tend to go out as pedestrians more often than children from wealthier homes".

The consultation document can be downloaded from the Department for Transport website and the deadline for responses is 27th February 2009.