| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
New Clause
Lords amendment: No. 20, after clause 19, to insertthe following new clause--National minimum wage: communities--
Mr. Byers:
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 25.
Mr. Byers:
I hope that the House will support the amendments, which reflect marked common sense on the part of the Government in dealing with these important matters. Amendment No. 20 deals with what are known as intentional communities, which are communities in which people effectively volunteer. They are often religious- based and have shared living accommodation. The people concerned have a common religious or spiritual aim. They are in a unique position.
We received a number of representations from such groups when they saw the details of our provisions in relation to the national minimum wage. We have used the opportunity to consider those representations, and as a result have come to the conclusion, with which I hope this House will agree, that we should exclude intentional communities from the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.
The communities, religious orders and individuals concerned have welcomed the measure. They recognise that the commitment and devotion that goes with such a life style was not intended to be affected by the National Minimum Wage Act. Only about 1,000 people are affected and, in the circumstances, we think that the provision is wholly appropriate.
Lords amendment No. 25 would allow information to be given to Inland Revenue enforcement officers to ensure effective enforcement of the National Minimum Wage Act, but in a way that does not create an undue burden on business. I hope that that will commend it to Opposition Members.
Mr. John Healey (Wentworth):
My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the successful aspects of the implementation of the minimum wage is the use of the hotline by employers to report other employers who may be paying below the minimum wage. Understandably, and rightly, they are keen not to be undercut by cowboys who
Mr. Byers:
The areas covered by Lords amendment No. 25 would allow the Inland Revenue to pass to enforcement officers information that it received during the course of discharging its responsibilities. So, provided that they were the circumstances in which the information was received, it would be passed on. I should explain the practicalities of the operation of the present system. We would expect that the sort of information that we are receiving from employers through the hotline would go to the dedicated enforcement team and not to the normal Inland Revenue personnel. Therefore, the situation that my hon. Friend described is unlikely to arise.
It is worth noting that there have been something like 1,900 references to the telephone hotline because of people who, allegedly, were not paying the national minimum wage, and we have been able to deal with many of them. The number of employers who have been ringing up to inform the enforcement authorities about other employers who are not paying the national minimum wage has surprised many of us. As we said when we took the Bill through the House, there is much resentment among employers who are paying a reasonable wage when they know that they are being undercut by the actions of other employers.
Lords amendment No. 25 is sensible, it would cut bureaucracy for business and would be provide a very effective way of enforcing the national minimum wage legislation. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.
Mrs. Browning:
I do not oppose Lords amendment No. 20 in principle. However, I have recognised an anomaly in its wording, which could lead to the proposed clause affecting a group of people which the Secretary of State had not intended to affect. I shall talk him through such a situation in order to gain his reassurance that such an organisational group of people should not, for reasons that I shall explain, come within the scope of the clause.
Paragraph 2(b) of Lords amendment No. 20 says:
Some environmental charities fund groups of people, sometimes over quite a sustained period, so that the group may become a formalised protest group in a specific location. A group of road protesters might be funded by a charitable organisation, so they would meet the definition in paragraph 2(a) of the new clause, and might be regarded as being of a "religious or similar nature" under paragraph 2(b). They would not necessarily be drawing benefits, but their day-to-day living expenses would be funded by the charity.
I can think of a situation that occurred in my constituency, where such a group of people--
Mrs. Browning:
I did indeed have the great pleasure of Swampy on my roof when some people set up their community--or a group of a "similar nature"--near my home some years ago.
The general public often think--sometimes rightly--that such groupings of people are simply drawing benefit. That is not always the case. Some do, but not all. Those who do not sustain their day-to-day living expenses by benefit are obviously being funded, sometimes by bona fide charity moneys that reach them. None the less they would, in effect, be being paid for their living expenses, and could well be below the minimum wage.
I do not want to give the Secretary of State false hope tonight because I do not want him to think that I am making a case for the minimum wage. I am not. I am simply suggesting to him a scenario in which a group of people might well come within the terms of the new clause simply because of the way that it is worded. The charitable condition would be met, and who is to distinguish between different groups of people who opt to live together in a community? If the full stop is not to be placed after the words
". The following shall be inserted after section 44 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (exclusions: voluntary workers)--
"Religious and other communities: resident workers.
44A.--(1) A residential member of a community to which this section applies does not qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of employment by the community.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), this section applies to a community if--
(a) it is a charity or is established by a charity,
(b) a purpose of the community is to practise or advance a belief of a religious or similar nature, and
(c) all or some of its members live together for that purpose.
(3) This section does not apply to a community which--
(a) is an independent school, or
(b) provides a course of further or higher education.
(4) The residential members of a community are those who live together as mentioned in subsection (2)(c).
(5) In this section--
(a) "charity" has the same meaning as in section 44, and
(b) "independent school" has the same meaning as in section 463 of the Education Act 1996 (in England and Wales), section 135 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (in Scotland) and Article 2 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (in Northern Ireland).
(6) In this section "course of further or higher education" means--
(a) in England and Wales, a course of a description referred to in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 or Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;
(b) in Scotland, a course or programme of a description mentioned in or falling within section 6(1) or 38 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;
(c) in Northern Ireland, a course of a description referred to in Schedule 1 to the Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 or a course providing further education within the meaning of Article 3 of that Order." "
"a purpose of the community is to practise or advance a belief of a religious or similar nature".
It is the words "similar nature" that worry me. The community is either of a religious background or it is not. If it is not, but the wording "similar nature" is to apply in law--bearing in mind the fact that the other condition in the subsection requires the organisation to be an established charity or established by a charity--there is a group of people who might meet the definition in the clause who would give me cause for concern.
"practise or advance a belief of a religious nature",
the words "similar nature" could be interpreted as applying to people who share a common belief, regardless of whether that is of a religious nature.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |