| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Feb 2003 : Column 791—continued
Mr. Tynan: If the employee could produce documentary proof such as a wage slip that showed that he had been paid below the minimum wage, would the hon. Gentleman still consider having a limit of three years instead of allowing it to remain at six?
Mr. Bellingham: We should certainly discuss this point in detail in Committee. I think that I am right in saying—the Minister might clarify this—that the Government amendment tabled in the House of Lords does not restrict the right of the individual employee to go back as far as he likes for cases going to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The six-year limit applies to Government enforcement officers. I merely flag that up as an anomaly that may lead to conflict, particularly in the small firms sector. We must keep an eye on that—the Opposition are very concerned indeed that we should not overregulate that sector. However, we obviously support the Bill and the minimum wage.
Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend accept that our wise support for the Bill will necessarily entail a future rise in employers' costs, for the simple reason that the logic of a minimum wage is that it will be periodically and affordably increased?
Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. We have made it clear that we support the minimum wage in principle, and shall go into the next election campaigning in favour of it. If we return to power, we will look carefully at the levels recommended by the Low Pay Commission and, above all, at the burdens on business. My hon. Friend is right, as our priority in government will be to look at the many other burdens that the present Government have put on business which need to be removed quickly.
Mr. Connarty: Could the hon. Gentleman turn his fine mind to the point about records that I made to the Minister? There is a dispute in the service sector about whether someone should give a tip to the person serving them or to the management. How do we reconcile the enforcement process with the constant barrage of complaints that money given to people who are serving ends up as part of their minimum wage, and does not go directly into their pocket?
Mr. Bellingham: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. When we give a tip to someone, whether a taxi driver or a helpful waiter in a restaurant, we expect it to go to the employee. Even if it does not go straight into that person's pocket, we expect it be pooled and given to them later, with no consequences whatever for the
minimum wage. If employers are abusing that practice, the Inland Revenue or other enforcement officers may like to look into that. Perhaps the Minister could comment on the problem when he makes his winding-up speech at the end of this short debate.Baroness Miller moved, then withdrew, an amendment in the other place that would have brought the Bill into effect immediately, not in two months' time. Lord McIntosh, like the Minister, confirmed that the Inland Revenue believes that well over 250 cases involving former employees are currently on hold. It is only fair that those cases are dealt with as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. Two months may not seem long to wait, and Lord McIntosh made it clear that the two-month delay will not affect entitlement, but many low-paid employees have been deprived of their rightful wages. Their cases are outstanding, mainly in the county courts, but some in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Surely, those cases should be heard immediately, not after a two-month wait.
We have had a look at what has happened to other measures. The Minister may or may not be aware that quite a few Bills are enforced immediately. The Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 was enforced immediately, as was the Education Act 2002, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Armed Forces Act 2000, and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Furthermore, an investigation was carried out in 1979—I know that that is some time ago and that Government practice has changed—by a working party from the Statute Law Society which looked at 105 Acts passed between 1 January 1978 and April 1979, a period of 14 months, to ascertain when they came into force. It found that 41 Acts came into effect on the exact date on which they were passed; 12 Acts came into force on a date specified in the Act; and 14 came into force on the expiry of a two-month period.
As I pointed out, that investigation was conducted a fair while ago, but I do not believe that there has been a recent appraisal of enforcement. I cannot understand the argument by the Department of Trade and Industry that there must be pressing reasons for a Bill to be passed and enforced immediately. The Attorney-General has apparently advised that there are no pressing reasons for the Bill to be enforced immediately, so two months can elapse. We are going to a lot of effort to pass this small Bill, and a lot of people are waiting for their due entitlement in wages. We should therefore get rid of that two-month delay—as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, those cases should be dealt with. The less time that is lost, the better.
In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made a point about underpayment. People have been underpaid and deprived of something that is their legal right. I agree with my hon. Friend—there is a strong case on the payment of interest, which the Government could consider. The Minister seemed to show approval when the suggestion was made. Surprisingly, at no stage in the debate on the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was there any amendment about or discussion of interest being paid.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend's sense of equity and fairness never deserts him. On a point of fact, may I emphasise that such an amendment was tabled. I spoke to it shortly after 5 o'clock one morning.
Mr. Bellingham: I humbly accept my hon. Friend's correction. I read in detail the debate on the 1998 Act, but I must have missed that amendment. I apologise to my hon. Friend, who has just made a bid to serve as a Committee member. He will have ample opportunity in Committee to table another amendment, which I very much hope will succeed. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the payment of interest when he winds up.
The Government made an appeal against the Bebb decision. The Bill has been introduced to obviate the effect of the tribunal's decision, but will the Government pursue their appeal in any event? If so, what is the logic behind that? There was mention of such a course of action in another place, but no satisfactory explanation was given. The Bill will obviously cost a certain amount of public money. We hope that the Bebb case is a unique one-off. The parliamentary draftsman may have examined the 1998 Act with enormous expertise and in great deal, and the relevant parts of the measure were debated here and in another place. However, debate in the Commons was sometimes curtailed, although not as much as debate on Bills is now curtailed, by a timetable motion. I very much hope that the drafting mistake was not the result of lack of scrutiny.
The 1998 Act was controversial when it was first introduced, but far too often the Government impose a timetable motion on Bills that are not necessarily controversial. In the previous Session, I served on the Committee that considered the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which contains about 120 sections, the overwhelming majority of which are non-controversial. However, a timetable motion was imposed, so about 50 sections were not debated in the House. Much of the measure went to the other place undebated.That is an intolerable and wretched state of affairs. Perhaps a small lesson can be learned. Although the Bebb decision may not have been the result of poor scrutiny in either House but of unfortunate drafting, if more time had been spent going through the 1998 Act section by section and looking at every detail, perhaps such an omission would have come to light.
Perhaps we should examine the drafting in this and other Bills. For example, the Minister and I know what clause 2(4) means, and he has tried to explain it, but there may be other hon. Members who do not know what it means. It states:
- "But, notwithstanding section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) (construction of references to other enactments), the reference in section 1 to section 19 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39) shall be taken not to include a reference to that section as applied by section 3A of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949 (c. 30)."
Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that such drafting recalls the wisdom of Churchill's legendary and memorable statement:
- "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put"?
In conclusion, we support the mini-Bill. We hope that Bebb was a one-off error, but if any Government have to introduce a Bill to correct a drafting error, that means, by definition, that there has been a failure. Such a Bill is not inexpensive. It costs public money, and any unnecessary expenditure of public money is painful, so let us hope that lessons have been learned. I hope that the Minister will respond to the few questions that I put to him.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |