OFFICERS (Hansard, 15 May 1986)

§ Mr. Tom Pendry (Stalybridge and Hyde)
I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 19, line 29, at end insert 'and he shall appoint an adequate number of inspectors to ensure that the law is complied with in all workplaces covered by Wages Council orders'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 77, in page 21, line 19, at end, insert— '(8) Officers acting for the purposes of this Act shall normally prosecute on the first occasion when an offence is discovered. (9) A report shall be published annually listing the cases where prosecution was not brought and detailing the reasons for non-prosecution'

§ Mr. Pendry
These are very important amendments. If the Minister thought that his amendments were balanced and sensible, these are even more so.
Yesterday, a basic myth, which has been widely held, concerning the Tory party was smashed and is now dead and buried. When the Paymaster General rejected new clause 10, which would have given workers the option either to be paid in cash or by cheque, the party that proudly boasts that it is the party of freedom of choice for 922 the individual lost one of its basic claims. We argued that there should be freedom of choice for the worker, but the Government voted against it.
If the Government reject these amendments they will not be seen to be the party of law and order. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends feel that the Government have already lost that claim, following their disastrous record on crime since 1979. The Government's policy on law enforcement in the industrial sphere is at stake in this debate. We debated at some length in Committee the basic principles that underlie the amendments, but the Minister was at his most unconvincing when he tried to answer the points put to him by me and some of my hon. Friends.
In a BBC Radio 4 interview on 24 April the Under-Secretary of State said that he favoured a firmer line being taken by the wages inspectorate with employers and that he intended to come down like a ton of bricks on recalcitrant employers. That could only mean more prosecutions. The Opposition intend to hold the Minister to that undertaking. However, there are many reasons why the Opposition find it difficult to believe that undertaking. One reason is that, on Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State said that only 8 per cent. of those who are visited are found to have broken the law, and that the Government were concentrating on the worst offenders. I shall demonstrate later what his Department means when the Minister says that it is dealing with the worst offenders.
There is another good reason for our disbelief in the Minister's intentions: the well-known letter to me of 8 April in which the Minister informed me that he intended to cut the wages inspectorate by 85 personnel following the enactment of the Bill. In other words, 85 policemen—for that is what they are—will be taken away from the already inadequate number of people who are responsible for upholding the law. The charge that was levelled at the Minister then, as now, is that he has grossly overstated the simplification of the wages orders. The Bill is unlikely to reduce the inspection resources needed by the Bill. The most complex provision of current wages orders, the piecework rate, is to be retained and will be made even more important, as clause 15 prevents any other rate from being applied to pieceworkers.
Most of the work of the wages inspectorate consists of visiting employers and checking their records. Although the number of records to be checked will be less, there will still be the same number if not more employers covered by the wages councils.
The absence of records for a significant proportion of workers will present new difficulties. As a result of the exclusion of those up to the age of 21, unscrupulous employers could simply not keep the records required by clause 18(1), especially for home workers. At present, many inspections are confined to the records and the underpayment of workers for whom records are, illegally, not kept will go undetected. Inspectors will have a greater need to interview workers to discover their ages which, at present, employers are required to record. Such interviews would be extremely time-consuming. The Minister has not thought that through.
With regard to home workers, the inspectorate will be completely powerless to carry out any check if the employer denies using home workers under the age of 21. Most of the Minister's claims to justify the proposed cuts in the wages inspectorate are bogus. The exclusion of young workers will not mean less work. The workers may be fewer in number, but the number of firms will be 923 greater. In Committee, the Minister said that more firms would register. We argue that the 21-plus rule introduces an additional age check. From today's debate we learn that the Minister has not thought through the effect of increasing the powers of the wages inspectorate as a consequence of clause 22. That is an obvious case of the Minister not thinking through the need for additional wages inspectors.
How many staff have been allocated to the task of checking and how many will be allocated to cope with the additional responsibilities? In Committee, the Minister claimed that it should be possible to increase the number of postal checks. Such checks are ineffectual and allow the potential underpaying employer a self-check. It also gives an advance warning of a possible factory inspector visit. In how many other areas does a law enforcement officer give advance notice of a visit to check whether an offence has been committed? I hope that the Minister will give details of his plans to expand the postal questionnaire.
The Minister has an opportunity to make the wages inspectorate a truly effective policing body, but he intends to cut that body by 40 per cent. At present, an employer in the wages councils sector can expect, on average, to have a visit from an inspector once every 12 or 14 years. Even then, the employer is forewarned. It is no wonder that there are so few prosecutions. [Interruptions.] It is quite clear that the Minister is not following the argument.

§ Mr. Trippier
I disagree with it.

§ Mr. Pendry
If the Minister disagrees, he has every right to intervene.
I do not believe that the Minister can disagree with a great deal of what I have said, as sometimes his own logic would draw similar conclusions. It is no wonder that there are so few prosecutions. Even when there are prosecutions they hardly make a dent in employers' profit margins.
Recent figures from the Department of Employment show just how few prosecutions occur. In 1979, there were 12 investigations which resulted in prosecution and conviction. In 1980 there were eight, in 1981 there were eight, in 1982 there were seven and in 1983 and 1984 there were two.
At constant June 1985 prices, the average amount of fines paid out was £177 in 1979, £246 in 1980, £446 in 1981 and £107 in 1984. There were 8,227 complaints recorded in 1982 and 8,027 in 1983. There were six prosecutions in England in 1982. In 1983 there were two. In 1982 and 1983 there were none in Wales. In Scotland there was one in 1982 and none in 1983. All these figures show the kind of operation which is presently in practice. So much for the Minister's claim that he is concentrating on the worst offenders. Anyone who believes that will believe anything.
A comparison of the number of such prosecutions with the number for television licence evasion makes unlikely reading. In 1984 there were 109,143 prosecutions for television licence evasion. Also in 1984, 27,000 people were prosecuted for not having a licence fixed to their cars. Some 226,000 people were prosecuted for registration offences and some 192,308 people were prosecuted for vehicle test offences.
I could go on, but I do not wish to labour the point. The offences in industry are far worse than some of those offences, but the employers go unpunished. Few of the people prosecuted for the other offences were given a 924 second chance—they were prosecuted on their first offence. Prosecution in industry should be for the first offence. Some employers are punishing the low-paid workers in our community who are sometimes on the poverty line.
There should be an annual listing of prosecutions not brought and detailed reasons for non-prosecution. We could then judge effectively how the Bill is operated and have more meaningful debates on the subject.
The case for amendment No. 75 and amendment No. 77 was made out in Committee when practical illustration after practical illustration was given to the Minister, especially by my hon. Friends the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). They described the sweatshop conditions in the east end of London and in Birmingham, and they may give some more examples tonight. The Minister appeared to be listening in Committee as he appears to be listening now, but he does not often respond in a fair and reasonable manner. In truth, I feel a weeny bit sorry for him because he is not in charge of the Bill and nor is his right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General. The long arm of the Treasury effectively controls the Bill. Nevertheless, the Minister's inconsistencies are considerable. In Committee, he said that he wanted an improvement in the register of firms under the purview of the wages inspectorate. He admitted that a number of employers were illegally evading registration. Surely, the logical conclusion of that must be that, if there are more firms, there must be more factory inspectors. The Minister also said he wanted more prosecutions, and the logical conclusion of that must be that there should be more inspectors.
The Minister does not follow his own logic. If he did, he would support our amendments. The Minister's failure to do so shows that he is not in command of the situation The Government are softer on law and order than anyone thought hitherto. Many unkind people say that the Government are looking after their friends by introducing this legislation. Others would say, more accurately, that the Government's intention is to scrap wages councils. The Bill is a first step in that direction. We will not have to wait too long, however, to have a Government who will reverse that trend. In the meantime, the damage done by legislation such as this must be resisted with all our power.
It is quite possible that following the example of what happened with the Shops Bill, Conservative Members in another place will have a more sensible debate than we have had, and the Bill might be legislated out of sight. If we do not divide the House, it is not because we do not feel strongly about the amendments, but because of lack of time. We await the Minister's reply and expect the other place to hear this debate. It will be able to draw its own conclusions.
All is not lost, however. The Minister might realise that what he said on Radio 4 on 24 April about coming down like a ton of bricks on bad employers can be achieved only by supporting our amendments.

§ Mr. Ken Eastham (Manchester, Blackley)
This is a subject on which we could go on at great length, expressing our disgust. If ever a clause needed attention, this is it. Before the Committee stage, the House raised the 925 shortage of wages inspectors with Ministers during Question Time. We deliberated the matter at great length in Committee.
The Government's desire to cut the protection of workers is now exposed. The Minister is shaking his head in disagreement. I do not believe that he could make a genuine case justifying reducing the number of wages inspectors. I look forward to his speech, knowing that the only case that the Government can make is rotten.
I should like to put the matter in perspective by illustrating what happens in Manchester. There are only six wages inspectors for the whole of the Greater Manchester area in which there are 25,000 workplaces. Each inspector is therefore responsible for more than 4,000 workplaces.

§ Mr. Mikardo
Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to carry the arithmetic a little further. If each of the inspectors inspected five establishments a day, which would be a pretty full day's work, he would get round to each establishment once every 18 years on average.

§ Mr. Eastham
I am obliged to my hon. Friend. They would be extremely fortunate to manage five visits a day as there is paper work to be done, all manner of documentation, and travelling time.
I recall the Minister trying to pacify the Committee by saying that inspectors cope in other ways. They have the magical method, he told us, of going through the Yellow Pages and telephoning factories, presumably asking each, "Are you still operating? Are you abiding by the wages council's guidelines? Could you tell us whether you are breaking the law?" One can just imagine the employers replying. "Yes. Everything is right here. We pay the right rate and conditions are right." That is absurd, but the Government are not satisfied. They have decided to reduce the number of inspectors still further. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) asking about the decline in the number of wages inspectors. The Minister admitted that there would be further reductions.
When some trade unions made inquiries among working groups in wages council establishments, they discovered that two thirds of the workers were unaware of their legal rights. I realise that that slots in nicely with what the Government want. The Minister said earlier that the Government consulted the employers, who wanted this, that and the other. He never talked about consulting the trade unions and asking them about the Bill.

§ Mr. Trippier
The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we consulted the trade unions. We discussed this matter at great length in Committee.

§ Mr. Eastham
rose—

§ Ms. Clare Short
But the Government did not listen to them.

§ Mr. Trippier
The hon. Lady says that we did not listen. The wages councils have not been completely abolished, so we did listen to a certain extent, did we not?

§ Mr. Eastham
That is marvellous. What a revelation. The Minister claims that the fact that we still have wages councils proves that the Government listened to the trade unions. Never mind the Bill, he argues, we have a sop in that we still have wages councils. So that is the Minister's 926 consultation. I bet that he want into far more detail with the employers. I bet that he went through the Bill clause by clause establishing what they wanted. The Committee stage lasted nearly three months, but very little has been given to worker groups and the trade unions.
We are faced with sheer hypocrisy. The Government are turning a blind eye to any malpractice and any breach of the law. Anything that employers can get away with goes. The Government applaud this new type of management, which is a form of legal gangsterism. The workshops that are covered by wages inspectors enjoy the worst working conditions.

§ Mr. Donald Thompson (Calder Valley)
Name one.

§ Mr. Eastham
Never mind about "Name one"; we would be here for about two years giving a list if we were given a little time.

§ Ms. Short
In a minute I hope to make a speech, and I shall tell the Minister of at least 25 firms in my constituency which are breaking the law—information for which he asked in Committee.

Mr. Eastha
m: If the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) took the trouble even to visit his back yard, never mind the rest of Greater Manchester, the midlands and London, he would probably find scores of such companies. I should be pleased if the media investigated the matter and inquired whether some factories fit within that category. Perhaps we could arrange for inquiries to be made, in view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Workshops are usually unorganised and, unfortunately, without trade unions. Often the majority of workers are women, who are often traditionally timid. That gives rise to gross abuse, and advantage being taken of the workers.
On many occasions the Minister admitted that he recognised there were cases of underpayment. That is one of the biggest and most important issues to which wages inspectors apply themselves. The Minister admitted that an underpayment of £11.9 million over five years had been discovered. Obviously, he immediately said that the wages inspectors intervened and managed to recoup 80 per cent. of that sum. But the fewer inspectors, the greater the sums that will be stolen from workers because of reduced policing action. The truth is that neither the Minister nor the Government want to know because this is a pay-off to employers. With an election approaching. the Government promise this, that and the other, and this time the pay-off is that employers will be allowed to introduce rotten conditions.
I shall conclude by reinforcing some points which my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) eloquently put on the record. Home workers are the most exploited worker group. Usually they are married women who cannot go out to work, perhaps because they have young children or sick parents to look after. Consequently, they are not in a position of strength, and are isolated. Their only hope is for support in legislation and from wages inspectors.
This is a blatant example of the Government encouraging sweatshops. The Minister may argue that this new Bill is better than the last Bill, but there is no reason to make it a rotten Bill because the previous one had some inadequacies. Today, we should be introducing a good Bill with clauses which benefit both sides, but this Bill is extremely one-sided. It is loaded on the side of employers.

§ Ms. Clare Short
Amendment No. 75 requires the Government to appoint an adequate number of inspectors to enforce the law in all workplaces covered by wages councils orders. We are amazed that the Government will resist the amendment. If they resist it, they will be telling us that they do not intend the law to be enforced in all workplaces where wages councils orders should apply?
Amendment No. 76 says that there should be a change in prosecution policy. That is extremely important because the law has been widely breached and employers know that they will not be prosecuted. We want a change in the declared policy of not prosecuting on a first offence to normally prosecuting on a first offence. We do not mean on all occasions. On some occasions it may be reasonable not to prosecute, but we do not accept that the present policy is right. It is a blank cheque to employers to break the law, and they know it.
In Committee the Minister gave us an undertaking—he has been honourable in complying with most of his undertakings—that he would review the prosecution policy. We are looking forward to that review. It is an extremely important undertaking because the need for a change in prosecution policy is urgent.
The problem is that the old law has been widely broken and the inspectorate does not ensure that it is enforced. We now have a weaker law and a weakening of the inspectorate, so we can expect that law to be widely broken and that there will be virtually no standards. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) may get what he wants because, in practice, we will not have wages council and the law will not matter in most sectors of industry. There is a real danger of that.
In Committee, the Minister undertook to make a special examination of the new textile industry in my constituency. I am not asking for any special favours for my constituency, but I would like the law to be applied there. That seems to be a reasonable request.

§ Mr. Holt
The hon. Lady referred to her constituency. May I remind her that in Committee she also talked about her constituency and said: Tuberculosis has reappeared in my area. People who do not have proper housing or clothing and are not eating properly are vulnerable to such diseases".—[Official Report, Standing Committee K, 10 April 1986; c. 508.] That is exaggerated language. I took the trouble to find out the facts. From 1974 to 1984 the number of cases of tuberculosis in Birmingham fell from 477 to 293.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am finding it difficult to relate these remarks to the amendment.

§ Ms. Short
The hon. Gentleman's information may be right, but I recently visited a youth training scheme workshop from which two young men had left with TB. That was the case to which I was referring, and I can give chapter and verse to the hon. Gentleman, if that is what he wants. TB has reappeared among young males whom one would not normally expect to have TB. Both the people who run the workshop and I find that shocking, and it is worthy of comment.
The Minister undertook to look into the problems in my constituency, and asked me to provide him with whatever information I could find about them. The experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) of the textile industry in his constituency is 928 noteworthy. My constituency is not a traditional textile area. The new textile industry in the west midlands developed in the late 1970s and accompanied the great rise in unemployment. I have gone to some trouble to answer the Minister's request.
A project called Aekta is based in my constituency and seeks to work, particularly with Asian workers, in the largely Asian new textile industry so that their legal rights are enforced. It produced a report, which was published yesterday, on how the law is widely breached—I hope that the Minister is listening.

§ Mr. Trippier
I am listening.

§ Ms. Short
—the Minister is not listening—and how the inspectorate does not assist individuals who approach it for help. The report gives chapter and verse. It is shocking, and I should like to give a copy to the Minister, together with a list of employers, compiled by the project, who are known to have broken the law. I ask the Minister to look at them, and not merely to put the matter right in Ladywood, but to draw lessons about what is going on elsewhere.
The law is being widely flouted. If the Minister proceeds with his present proposals to cut the wages inspectorate and to continue with a no prosecutions policy on a first offence, the law will continue to be flouted. The Government are almost encouraging employers to turn a blind eye to the law. It is outrageous.
In my area, there is an association of the owners of those firms. They advise each other on how to get round the law, and the inspectorate is probably convinced that they do not know the law. It is no excuse for someone to say that he does not know the criminal law. It is time that we prosecuted employers who break the law; then they would all start complying with it. I ask the Minister seriously to comply with the undertaking which he gave in Committee to review prosecution policy. If he reviews it, he will have to concede our other amendment, whether tonight or later, and appoint more wages inspectors because the law cannot be enforced by the present inadequate number or the number after the threatened cut in inspectors.

§ Mr. Trippier
I am happy to confirm that I am anxious to review the prosecution policy. I am also anxious to study in detail the information which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has brought to my attention. In Committee, the hon. Lady sought to draw the attention of all hon. Members to the problem in her constituency. As the Minister responsible for this area, I must consider carefully the position there. No Minister of any Government would condone the breaking of the law.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) made an uncharacteristic, unfriendly and unkind speech. I have come to know and respect the hon. Gentleman over many years, but he broke with tradition today. I could not believe what heard. Although the hon. Gentleman was right in quoting accurately from the first part of the letter that I sent to him—I stand by the figures I gave—he did not mention the second page of the letter, which I shall strengthen and develop in my reply to the debate. Indeed, it will form the substantive part of my reply to him and to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham)—

§ Mr. Eastham
It was a very weak second page.

§ Mr. Trippier
No. I spent a long time putting it together. It was not a case of speaking off the top of my head. It was well prepared, well thought out and researched.
I wish to go a little further than the hon. Member for Blackley was prepared to go in his speech. He quoted what I said on the "Today" programme on Radio 4. It is true that I said that I wanted to take a firmer line, but I also said that we should not come down like a ton of bricks. I also said that it was important to recognise that, as a result of our simplifying the wages council orders, there would be less likelihood of an employer praying in aid the fact that he could not understand the wages council order and that that was why he was underpaying his worker by mistake. All members of the Standing Committee agreed on that point.
Let me try to develop the argument that I put in the letter to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, which still bears close examination. First, I said that, as a result of the legislation, wages orders will not have any of the present complexities and it will be simpler and quicker to check compliance: there will be much less likelihood of underpayment due to employers being unable to understand the intentions of councils; workers will be clear about their legal entitlement; the number of workers whose pay has to be checked will be about 20 per cent. less because those under 21 years of age are to be excluded; and it should be possible to increase the proportion of initial checks carried out by postal questionnaire.

§ Mr. Eastham
The Minister's remarks show that it does not matter about those below the age of 21. It reduces the numbers.

§ Mr. Trippier
That is not the point and the hon. Gentleman knows it. We are talking about two different things. We are talking about taking those aged under 21 out of the purview of the wages councils. What joins the Opposition and the Government is that we are determined to ensure that the law is observed. By any standards, the figures given by the Opposition on Second Reading and in Committee are wildly exaggerated. During the past three years, 5 per cent. of the workers whose pay was checked by inspectors were found to be underpaid. We are worried about the percentage of workers; at least, that is what I thought we were discussing in Committee.

§ Mr. Eastham
rose—

§ Mr. Trippier
May I finish this exposition of my letter to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde? The sixth point was that a significant reduction in the inquiries received by wages inspectorate officers is expected. On compliance with wages council legislation, I said that figures were not available yet for Greater Manchester. How the hon. Member for Blackley can say that he has the figure when we have not made a decision on it stretches credulity to breaking point.

§ Mr. Eastham
It is no great state secret. I got the information from the Low Pay Unit.

§ Mr. Trippier
I could have put money on its being the Low Pay Unit.

§ Ms. Clare Short
It is usually right.

§ Mr. Trippier
We have had some disputes about what the Low Pay Unit says, and we discussed it at some length in Committee. I assure the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and his hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), who is 930 worried about it, that I am anxious, where possible, to ensure that there is compliance. It cannot be in the interests of any Government to be seen to encourage people to break the law. It cannot be good for the industries in the wages council sector.
The worst signal that could go to employers is going out from this debate. The Opposition are signalling the fact that employers can get away with it. That is the exact point that I was anxious to make on the "Today" programme. I make it clear again on the Floor of the House that the people who assume that they will get away with it can forget it.

§ Mr. Mikardo
Does the Minister believe that the employers in the sweatshop industries did not know before today's debate that they could get away with breaking the law? I listened to him with care, but I must tell him that I gave up believing in fairy tales at the age of seven.
I shall detain the House for only a minute to make a simple point. I often understand a Minister's rejection of an amendment even when I do not agree with it, but I am bound to say that the Minister's rejection of amendment No. 75 is incomprehensible. It beggars belief. Here is the Minister with his big talk about our all wanting the law to be enforced, but he refuses to accept the obligation to appoint an adequate number of inspectors to ensure that the law is complied with. The Minister is saying, "I want the law to be complied with, but I will not take the one measure without which we cannot ensure that the law will be complied with."

§ Mr. Trippier
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Mikardo
I shall give way later, because I wish to ask the Minister a question.
I am trying to persuade one of my noble Friends in the other place to table an amendment, because I want to suss out the sincerity of the Department of Employment. I want him to table an amendment saying: The Minister shall appoint a number of inspectors inadequate to ensure that the law is complied with". This would create a situation in which the employer can break the law with impunity. Will the Government spokesman accept that with avidity, because that is the only logical consequence? I remind the Minister that he is speaking for the party that claims to be the party of law and order. This representative of the party of law and order is now saying, "I am going to give encouragement to employers to break the law with impunity, as I refuse to set up the machinery that prevents them from doing it."

§ Mr. Trippier
But I am not going to say that.
Amendment 75, as worded, if strictly interpreted would present the Government, any Government, with an impractical task, a mandatory requirement to provide an adequate number of inspectors to ensure that the law is complied with in all workplaces". That is truly unrealistic, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

§ Mr. Trippier
I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 19, line 32, at end insert ', and if it appears to any such officer that any person with whom he has dealings while so acting does not know that he is an officer acting for the purposes of this Part he shall identify himself as such to that person. '. There was a full debate in Committee on whether wages inspectors should as a matter of course automatically 931 produce their authenticated documents on every occasion on which they had dealings with any person in connection with enforcing part II of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) argued forcefully that this was essential on the grounds of courtesy and common sense and because officials generally had too many powers of entry. The Government took the view that the act of producing the warrant, as the inspector's document is called, tends to create a barrier of officialdom between employer and inspector and can prevent the inspection from being carried out in a helpful and constructive manner.
I indicated to the Committee that in practice the inspector initially identifies himself by means of a printed visiting card that shows his name, office address and telephone number which the employer or worker can retain for future reference. This arrangement, readily acceptable to the employer, has worked well for many years. He always produces his warrant when asked to do so.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), like my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, put a fairly compelling case. Although the amendment was lost in Committee, none the less I thought it fair, in view of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar, to return with this amendment, which I think meets in part, if not totally, the points raised in Committee.

§ Mr. Fallon
I thank my hon. Friend for going even further than his original undertaking. As I recall, he undertook to look at the matter again if I withdrew the amendment.
The dispute in Committee arose from the distinction between the officer identifying himself—none of us wants bogus people on the premises or people falsely claiming to be officers of various departments—and establishing the rights given to him under the schedule and his ability to exercise them on the premises. I think that this is a rather confused area, although in the main my hon. Friend has gone further than he did originally when several times he attempted to dissuade us from dividing the Committee.
I hope that the amendment will be satisfactory to the inspectors. I know that my hon. Friend was concerned that their task should be made no more difficult. I am sure that it will be satisfactory to those business men for whom the first visit from the inspectors can be a traumatic experience.
I am delighted to welcome the amendment.