§ Mrs. RocheI beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 8, line 41, at end insert
'(as in force when the award is made)'.
§ Mrs. RocheThe amendments remove a number of possible ambiguities from the clauses dealing with enforcement and the right to appeal. I shall deal with the most straightforward first. Amendments Nos. 13 and 17 ensure that it is absolutely clear which national minimum wage rate is to be used for calculating the amount of the penalty. Amendment No. 13, which amends clause 11, refers to the award for failure to allow access to records. Amendment No. 17, which amends clause 19, refers to the financial penalty for non-compliance with an enforcement notice.
In both cases, we want to make it clear that the relevant national minimum wage rate is the rate in force when the award is made. That avoids any difficulties that could arise if the national minimum wage rate were changed while a complaint was being pursued. It is a small, technical change, but one which we believe is necessary to avoid ambiguity.
Amendment No. 14 deals with enforcement notices relating to groups of workers. It ensures that enforcement notices can be framed so that they apply to a whole group of workers by description.
220 Amendments Nos. 15 and 18 and the consequential amendments address an issue that was raised in Committee. We had an important debate on whether the enforcement officer's opinion or objective facts should be considered when establishing grounds for a successful appeal in clauses 17 and 20. As currently drafted, there is a possibility, however small, that the clauses could be interpreted as equating the enforcement officer's opinion—we had extensive debate on this—that there were grounds for serving the notice with the factual state of affairs. That is, of course, not the Government's intention.
I clearly pointed out in Committee that an officer, like any public servant, will act reasonably by definition. The officer's opinion must therefore be based on fact. The hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and—if my memory serves me right—for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will be particularly pleased to note that the amendments remove any possibility of doubt on that score. It is the facts which count. I hope that this is a good example of the Government listening to the debate in Committee.
Amendment No. 15 also clarifies the position in relation to an appeal against a notice involving more than one worker. Paragraph (a) deals with a situation where a notice is wholly wrong, and paragraph (b) deals with a situation where a notice rightly relates to some workers, but wrongly relates to others. In conjunction with subsection (8), as amended, that allows a tribunal to rectify such a notice by eliminating all references to the wrongly included workers.
The group of amendments is very much in the nature of good housekeeping. They are in order to remove any possible ambiguity, however small. They are a very good illustration of how, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State says, the Government are determined to get the Bill right. I commend them to the House.
§ Amendment agreed to.