HL Deb 15 June 1998 vol 590 cc1376-87

6.44 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, before we move to a resolution on that Motion, there is an important matter which I feel I must raise at this time. It is a matter that I have raised in the past, and especially on the first day of Committee on the Bill. As the Minister will appreciate, we have repeatedly raised the issue of the publication of the report by the Low Pay Commission and the Government's reaction to it. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Miller mentioned it on Second Reading. When he responded to these matters on the first Committee day last Thursday, the Minister indicated (at col. 1199 of Hansard) that the Low Pay Commission would make a report of its findings. We sought to explain to him why we regarded it as important that we at least saw the report, preferably before the end of our time for consideration of the Bill, and also had sight of the Government's reaction to it.

The Minister (at col. 1203 of Hansard), rebuked me for having relied upon a report in the Daily Telegraph last Thursday, and for relying on "titbits of information" based on speculation. That was because there had been a report that Mr. John Monks of the TUC was writing to the Government offering his detailed views on the report. There are repeated references to the report and why we considered it desirable to have sight of it. The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General wondered why we were so concerned to see the report. Again, it was repeated that there was no need for this and that we would be seeing it in due course.

However, early yesterday morning Mr. John Edmonds, who I understand is the General Secretary of the GMB, appeared on GMTV. During the course of an interview in that programme he indicated that not only did he have before him in the studio an executive summary of the report from the Low Pay Commission but also that he had a full copy of it. Clearly he had had it for some time. He indicated that it was large, dense and extensive but that he had, nevertheless, read it in its entirety.

The matter which is of real concern to us is the fact that it would now appear that there is direct evidence to show that senior members of the trade union movement have been given access to the report before Parliament has had any opportunity to consider it. We certainly have not seen the report, despite repeated requests in that respect. I do not blame the Minister personally for this, but he indicated that we would see the report before the end of last month. We are now halfway through June and we have not seen it; but others clearly have and they are not parliamentarians.

It seems to us to be yet another example of this Government's arrogance, their contempt for Parliament and their partiality. We continue to regard it as extremely important that we see the report and, indeed, the Government's reaction to it before we complete consideration of this Bill. I hope that the Minister will not fob me off with some excuse that this must have been a leak. The demeanour of Mr. Edmonds on television and the way that he approached the matter made it perfectly clear that he was not a man in possession of a document which he believed he should not have. Indeed, he was quite open about having considered the report. He offered his detailed comments on it and, as I said, indicated that he had read it in its entirety.

Before we are prepared to make further progress on this Bill, we want to know when we will see this report. We really must see it. It is a matter of considerable concern to us that others should already have seen the report. The fact that Mr. John Monks was in a position to offer detailed comments to the Government on it, as revealed in the Daily Telegraph last Thursday, would indicate that he had seen it and that he had had knowledge of it for some time. Moreover, Mr. John Edmonds quite openly said on television yesterday morning that he had seen it.

Will the Minister tell us whether the report was issued to these senior trade unionists with the approval of the President of the Board of Trade, or with the approval of the Minister of State who has responsibility for the Bill in the Department of Trade and Industry? Who else has been privileged to see this report before anyone in either of the two Houses of Parliament has been permitted to see it? This is becoming an intolerable state of affairs.

A similar thing happened to my noble friend Lady Blatch with regard to the education Bill currently before the House. My noble friend discovered that a large number of reports and papers had been passed to other people, but she is still unable to obtain those publications. We must insist that we see this report immediately. We must also insist that it is disclosed to us who has seen this report and on what basis. What possible justification is there at a time when there is legislation going through Parliament for that report not to be made available to those who need to see it to enable them to consider the Bill? I hope that the Minister will give us a full and open response. We shall certainly not be fobbed off with the notion that this was in some way a simple leak. If the Minister had seen the television programme yesterday, he would know perfectly well that that is not the case. I hope he can offer me the answers that I seek.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving notice that this point would be raised. That is acting within the courtesies of the House. I can say little about Mr. Edmonds. First, I did not see GMTV. I do not think I have ever watched GMTV. Perhaps I should have done so on this occasion. It is said—it is an allegation that I neither corroborate nor refute—that Mr. Edmonds had a report of the executive summary and indeed a full copy of the report. All I can say is that the report has not been published. That, of course, is a matter for Ministers. No one has authorised the disclosure of the report to Mr. Edmonds, as far as I know.

The noble and learned Lord asked who has seen the report. Relevant Ministers have, of course, seen it. As I said, we have not agreed the disclosure of the report to anyone outside, or indeed at this stage, within Parliament. The noble and learned Lord said that this is an act of partiality. He draws an inference therefore that we have given the report to Mr. Edmonds. That is not true. The noble and learned Lord referred to the demeanour of Mr. Edmonds. I know nothing about his demeanour because I did not see the programme. All I can say is that if Mr. Edmonds has received a copy of the report which was not authorised, I believe he would have been ill advised to have said so. But there we are.

The noble and learned Lord asked about the date of publication of the report. I can give him no additional information beyond that which I advised the House of on the previous occasion we met. The report will be published at the earliest opportunity. As regards whether Mr. Monks has seen the report, my remarks apropos Mr. Edmonds and others apply equally in that regard. We have not been partial and we have not disclosed the report officially or authoritatively to anyone. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept my bona fides in that regard. I would not make a statement to the House which attempted to mislead the House in any sense. The noble and learned Lord knows that. That is all I can say about the matter at this stage. I am perturbed that Mr. Edmonds appears—if the noble and learned Lord is right—to have received the report. I can go no further than that.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, I must first make it clear that I do not intend to suggest in any way that the noble Lord has been involved in this matter or that he might have authorised the disclosure of this report to senior trade unionists. That is why in my opening remarks I specifically asked whether the Minister of State, Mr. McCartney, who has the primary responsibility for this Bill and for low pay issues within government, had authorised the disclosure, or whether his senior Minister in Cabinet, the President of the Board of Trade, had authorised it.

I accept the noble Lord's bona fides in this matter. However, I am bound to say that my credulity is stretched when on Thursday in the Daily Telegraph Mr. Monks can offer authoritative comment on the contents of the report, and on Sunday another senior trade unionist can appear on television and offer similarly authoritative comment on the report. He was quite open about having not only an executive summary, but the full report which he had read from cover to cover. I find it extremely difficult to believe that somehow or other a copy of the report of the Low Pay Commission was spirited out of the DTI or some other department and happened to find its way into the hands of individuals such as Mr. Monks or Mr. Edmonds, and that no one knew anything about it.

As I say, I do not attribute any personal blame to the noble Lord or suggest that he authorised the disclosure, but the matter looks extremely suspicious. I do not withdraw my comment that it appears to be hugely partial to allow senior trade unionists access to this report before anyone in Parliament has the opportunity to consider it. We are extremely concerned about the matter. We are prepared to make progress on the Bill but we shall certainly pursue the matter in correspondence and in questions. It simply will not do to have another report being circulated to which Parliament ought to have access. If nothing else, the Minister should indicate to us that he will have an inquiry undertaken to discover how these senior trade unionists have one or more copies of the report, and whether that was authorised by anyone. If it is concluded that there has been a leak, we would expect something to be done about it. At the very least we would hope that the noble Lord would offer an apology to your Lordships' House for the way in which we have been treated in this matter.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, before the Minister responds, I do not think I have ever seen GMTV either. Before I entered the Chamber this evening I was totally unaware that this matter would be raised. Perhaps I might ask that when notice is given of these matters it might be extended to Members on these Benches also. Clearly it is disturbing if a report is released which should come before Parliament. I accept the assurances that have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Furthermore, I think it is slightly disingenuous of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, to indicate that he may be prepared to hold up the business of your Lordships' House in Committee on this point.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie

My Lords, the noble Viscount might have listened to what I had to say. The noble Lord the Government Chief Whip probably noted my remarks with rather keener interest when I said that while I would pursue the matter in correspondence and questions I did not wish to hold up the business at this stage.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that assurance. Having not had notice of what was to be said and the consequences of it I had to listen rather harder to the exchanges. As I said, I am prepared together with, I believe, Members on these Benches, to accept the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I hope that we can now get on with this important piece of legislation.

Baroness O'Cathain

My Lords, before the Minister responds to that point, I make the observation that as there appears to have been not a leak but a general distribution of this report, would it not be in the best interests of the quality of debate within this Committee and the contribution that can be made from all four corners of this Committee to this important issue if the Minister could give us the undertaking that the report could be issued to us as soon as possible, that is, either tonight or tomorrow?

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I certainly cannot respond affirmatively to the noble Baroness in that way. Moreover, I want to say definitively that there has been no general distribution of the report. I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, for saying that he is content to make progress, but before we move on to the Committee stage I want to say that I refute the allegation, on the basis of the information that I have, that any Minister authorised the release of this report to anybody.

I cannot go beyond that. I hope that we can now make progress, and of course a statement will be made at the earliest opportunity. I am not in charge of this Bill within the department. The noble and learned Lord knows perfectly well that it is my honourable friend the Minister of State who is in charge of it. I am here speaking together with my noble friends at the Committee stage and on behalf of the Government during this stage and succeeding stages of the Bill. That being the case, I hope that we can now move on.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House again in Committee accordingly.

7 p.m.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Nicol) in the Chair.]

Clause 9 [Duty of employers to keep records]:

Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 65:

Page 7, line 30, after ("such") insert ("reasonable").

The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 65, 67 and 68, all of which relate to Clause 9. They are intended to improve the working of the Act, as it will be, and its administration. It is entirely right and proper that employers should be required to keep adequate records to enable employees and the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the Act to see whether the minimum wage has been paid. We support that. Our reasons for putting forward Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 are that the clause as drawn at present gives rise to the possibility of an extra, unnecessary and entirely superfluous set of records being required.

Employers are already required to keep substantial and detailed records of pay and benefits for the purposes of PAYE and national insurance. These records adequately provide all the information that an employee will require about the remuneration that he has received. Their accuracy is guaranteed so far as possible under the sanction of severe financial and possible criminal sanctions under the taxation and social security law.

Where the tax and national insurance records do not meet the needs of an employee for the purposes of this Bill is that they do not show the number of hours worked and possibly details of matters which the Low Pay Unit says are to be taken into account in calculating net pay for the special purposes of this Act. This potential deficiency in the records is, I believe, partially covered by the second half of the proposed new subsection (2), starting in Amendment No. 67 with the words, save for details of the number of hours worked and any benefits in kind". In other words, under this clause the employer still has to keep records on the number of hours worked, but even this does not go far enough to assist the employee. So in addition there is the new subsection proposed in Amendment No. 68, which I assume would be numbered (4).

This will allow records which will eventually be required to be kept by the employer in compliance with the European Community Working Time Directive also to satisfy the requirement to keep records under this Bill. I cannot believe that the bureaucratic requirements of the European Community will not be entirely sufficient for the purposes of the DTI.

I turn now to the modest Amendment No. 65 to be made to Clause 9(b). Once again, because of a quirk of the grouping list, I am speaking to it out of its logical sequence. Again, we agree that it is right that in formulating regulations with regard to the keeping of records provision should be made for how long those records should be retained. All the amendment requires is that whatever stipulation the Secretary of State may make in this regard should be reasonable, for, as drawn, the Bill enables her to require such records be kept for 20, 50 or even 100 years. Obviously no such nonsense is intended by the Government.

From the employee's point of view, it would be equally detrimental if an unreasonably short period of retention were to be prescribed. The Acts governing income tax, PAYE, national insurance and VAT all prescribe how long records are to be retained, and there is absolutely no reason why the regime under this Bill should require anything different. Rights under this Bill will essentially be a civil claim for a debt, and there is equally really no reason why the regulations should prescribe anything longer than the basic limitation periods for making civil claims.

However, I am not going to try to second-guess the Secretary of State. She can decide the period, as the Bill at present provides. All that she has to do is to see that the period is reasonable. I asked for the word "reasonable" to be inserted in Clause 1(4) in my Amendment No. 4 which was discussed last Thursday. The Solicitor-General spent a little time trying to justify the proposition that it would be inhibiting to the operation of the Bill if there was a specific requirement to be "reasonable". In effect he said, "Trust us: we are the Government". Well, I am casting no aspersions, but in the case of the present amendment, if the Government's word is as good as their bond, then let them give us their bond. Frankly, I was unable to understand the logic of the argument that if the word "reasonable" was used in the Bill it would generate a flood of litigation. Leaving out the word, however, does not exempt the Secretary of State from being reasonable in any reasonable interpretation of that word.

The Minister is perfectly well aware that there is a right for an aggrieved citizen to have the court's rule on irrational and unreasonable conduct by a Minister. This right was fully defined in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation in 1948. In that case the late and highly distinguished Master of the Rolls, Lord Greene, codified the law into what are called the Wednesbury Rules. The present Lord Chancellor described the Wednesbury Rules as the locus classicus of British administrative law.

In other words, the Government cannot escape from the duty of being reasonable by not including that word in this Bill. They cannot, ostrich-like, hide their heads in the sand and pretend that this elementary and essential obligation on their part does not exist. An aggrieved citizen will still be entitled to take the Government to court if he believes that they are behaving unreasonably. Agreeing to the use of the word is therefore merely a promise by the Government about their future conduct.

Whatever theoretical objections there were to promising to be "reasonable" for the purposes of Clause 1, which we debated ad nauseum last Thursday, there can surely be absolutely none for this clause. There is ample precedent for the periods for which records are required to be retained for taxation and similar purposes. It bears repeating that the burden of this Bill is largely going to fall on the small and medium-sized businesses. Larger concerns will be able to absorb the administration involved into their pay and accounts departments, but in the case of SMEs this will just add to the work to be done, usually by local shops: businesses like hairdressers and small-sized manufacturing operations. There is no reason to add to their administrative costs and red tape and to provide work for even more inspectors when entirely adequate records are already available. Equally, we do not want to see some wretched local shopkeeper being dragged before the magistrates or subjected to an administrative penalty, not because he did not keep perfectly adequate and practical records but because he did not do so on a particular design of form prescribed by the Secretary of State.

The amendments to this clause are tabled in the course of this House carrying out its function as a revising Chamber. I hope the Government will agree that their purposes are purely constructive. I hope they will be willing to accept them.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

There are three amendments in this grouping, Amendments Nos. 65, 67 and 68. As the noble Baroness said, they all relate to record-keeping. I think we all agree on the importance of record-keeping to the success of the Bill. Without adequate records, it will not be possible to enforce the legislation. A worker needs to see what he is being paid, and an employer needs records in order to be able to defend himself in case he is accused of under-paying. It is therefore in the interests of all that adequate records are available. I believe that the noble Baroness accepts that.

Perhaps I may deal with the amendments in the order in which the noble Baroness did. Amendment No. 67 seeks to limit the Secretary of State's flexibility to decide the form and content of records by tying them to the types of records already required for income tax or national insurance purposes. It is drawn on what seems an entirely laudable aim; namely, to avoid undesirable duplication in the records kept by an employer. Underlying it there would also seem to be the desire to place as little a burden as is necessary upon the employer. That is an aim that we unquestionably share. We agree with the motive of avoiding duplication. We have said so clearly on a number of occasions, in particular in the regulatory appraisal for the Bill, where we pointed out that most wage detail will indeed already be kept for tax purposes.

Without being boring, perhaps I may remind the Committee of what we said in that document. We stated: It is in employers' own interests to know how much they are paying their staff. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that employers will already have records for the calculation of total pay that will be sufficient to calculate pay as it relates to the national minimum wage. They will already have such records available for inspection by the Inland Revenue and Contributions Agency". The regulatory appraisal went on to note that there will be differences in the types of records to be kept, not least in relation to the number of hours worked and any non-monetary payments which may be allowed to count towards the hourly minimum wage rate. The amendment acknowledges that. That is why it expressly allows for different requirements to be added.

The noble Baroness has made the case for the clause as it stands within the terms of her own amendment. It is for the very reason that different types of records may be required that we have drafted the power to make record-keeping regulations quite broadly.

I should also remind the Committee of our commitment to consult on the regulations in draft form before bringing them to the House. There will therefore be an opportunity for businesses and individuals to make representations on the record-keeping regulations. I thank the noble Baroness for drawing my attention in the proposed amendment to the various related statutes covering record-keeping for tax and national insurance purposes. The Government will be considering very closely the relationship between those records and any further records to be kept for national minimum wage purposes in the light of the feedback from the forthcoming consultation.

I hope it is clear from my remarks that the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 67 and the Government's purpose in relation to it are very similar. We say that there should not be an amendment because we want to give maximum flexibility with the same aim. However, it goes slightly further. The noble Baroness may know that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee regards the affirmative procedure that we have laid down in the Bill and which is required for these regulations as too high a level of parliamentary control for use of the power in Clause 9 to impose record-keeping requirements on employers. The committee believes that the negative procedure would be adequate. I also note its indication that this is a rather unusual conclusion for it to reach in the context of its security functions.

Far be it from me to want to make life unnecessarily difficult or complicated for the Government. However tempting the committee's proposal might be, I consider it preferable to stick with the affirmative procedure for this measure. It potentially affects all firms; it could add burdens upon firms; and we can expect this measure to attract substantial interest from employers and their organisations, who are always sensitive to the perceived expansion of red tape. It is a measure which could also involve quite complicated issues such as the keeping of records in the case of homeworkers and pieceworkers.

I very much hope that our introduction into the Bill of the affirmative procedure in relation to this matter, and our sticking to it despite the remarks of the delegated powers scrutiny committee, indicate that we are concerned about burdens on employers and want to make sure that they are as limited as possible. For those reasons, I do not believe it appropriate for the Bill to be changed in the way suggested in Amendment No. 67.

I now turn to Amendment No. 68. The noble Baroness made the point that she could not believe that a burden imposed by Europe could be less than a burden to be imposed by the DTI. Amendment No. 68 would limit on the face of the Bill the Secretary of State's flexibility to decide the formal manner of records to be kept in respect of hours worked for minimum wage purposes by tying them to records of hours worked which may be kept for the purposes of showing compliance with the working time directive.

Noble Lords will, I hope, welcome both these initiatives as a sign of the Government's commitment to improving the lot of workers who are obliged to work for too long and/or for too little. These are basic matters of social justice and fairness, as well as matters of sound common sense. It is much to the credit of this Government that we are proceeding apace with making them part of domestic legislation. As I have already said, we do not think it right to prescribe on the face of the Bill the type of records that must be kept. We intend to consult.

I have referred to the affirmative procedure. I should make it clear that the draft working time regulations, on which further consultation has just been completed, contain a general record-keeping requirement on all employers. Employers simply need to show that the limit of 48 hours' working time is being complied with. They are not necessarily obliged to keep records of hours worked as proof. For example, it might be sufficient for an employer to show that his premises are only open for 48 hours a week and that therefore none of his workers could be exceeding the time limit. Therefore there is no general requirement on all employers to keep records of hours worked. On that ground alone, the amendment would be unsuitable.

There is a more specific record-keeping requirement in the draft working time regulations which does require employers to keep records of hours worked. However, that applies only to those employers with employees who have opted to work longer than the 48-hour limit. I therefore have considerable doubts as to the suitability of this amendment in the context of the minimum wage.

However, I take the general point at which the amendment is perhaps aimed; namely, that minimum wage records will almost certainly need to cover hours worked, however that may be defined, and there may be scope for avoiding duplication with other, similar records. All of those sorts of issues will be examined during the consultation, and those particular issues can be examined when the regulations are placed before the House.

Finally, the noble Baroness gave an extremely accurate account of the law in relation to Amendment No. 65—and thereby clearly demonstrated why it was wrong to insert the word "reasonable" in relation to this provision. I am sure that everyone agrees that reasonableness is something that we all desire. When we require an individual to make certain records and to keep them, we would not require him to keep them for an unreasonably long time, or indeed for an unreasonably short time. I cannot tell the Committee at this point exactly what type of records we shall be requiring, or the period of time for which they must be kept, because the detail will be determined by secondary legislation following a process of consultation. We shall draft the regulations and draw up a consultation document as soon as the Bill is enacted, if that be the wish of Parliament.

But let me take this opportunity to reiterate our overall enforcement objective. We will do our utmost to encourage everyone to comply with the national minimum wage. We will ensure that it is effectively enforced, and with the minimum necessary burden on business. Record-keeping is the key to that.

There are plenty of precedents for record-keeping requirements. There are already laws about keeping income tax, national insurance and VAT records, and about keeping sick pay and maternity pay records, to give just a few examples. I can assure the House that we shall look at those precedents, and more, in considering the periods for which records must be kept.

But the word "reasonableness" does not need to be written on to the face of the Bill. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses in Wednesbury means that, in making a decision such as this, the Minister is required to act within the bounds of reasonableness. If he or she acts irrationally, perversely or outside the bounds of reasonableness, then subject to the circumstances of the case, there will be an opportunity for the person affected to go to court and raise the matter. If, however, as the noble Baroness now suggests and as she suggested on a previous occasion, you put in the word "reasonableness", you invite the applicant to bring proceedings to get the court to determine what it believes is the appropriate course, not what the policy Minister thinks. However, the last people in the world who should determine the matter is the courts. It should be the Minister, after consulting the people who will be affected—namely, business.

So despite the beguiling—I use the word again—and reasonable way in which it was put, with the greatest respect, the amendment is misconceived. I ask the noble Baroness to be reasonable and to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

The Minister dealt with my amendment in a slightly more conciliatory way than he dealt with some amendments last Thursday. Although I cannot pretend to agree with everything he said, I thank him for his helpful remarks. I shall read them carefully, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 66:

Page 7, line 30, at end insert— ("( ) In making regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to any practical factors which would render any record-keeping requirements unreasonable.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. It seeks to apply reasonableness in a different way. In his previous argument, the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General left me precious few chinks into which to drive a wedge in order to deal with the matter. The amendment seeks to apply the test of reasonableness to the drafting of the regulations that the Secretary of State may make. More specifically, it seeks to apply the contents of those regulations. In moving the amendment I have in mind the agriculture and horticulture industries, in which there are circumstances in which, for example, a requirement to record times of starting and ceasing work might be inappropriate.

In the agriculture and horticulture industries at harvest time, particular the horticulture industry, for reasons of quality control—of which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who is in his place opposite, will know from the retail end—people work peculiar hours from time to time. Employers may specify a time of day before which employees cannot start work and a time at the end of the day beyond which they may not work. Between those points, people work piece work and will be paid by unit of output. They will often come and go within those hours in quite a random way. They will pop off to take the children to school and again to bring them home. Employees may even pop off—bearing in mind that this is largely in rural communities—to give their husbands lunch. That is not an unusual way of working.

I remind the Committee that all those practices take place under the requirements of the Agricultural Wages Board. The agriculture and horticulture industries are used to working with a statutory minimum wage. Schemes where the practices work and are used on a regular basis are often already monitored by the board and are generally accepted by it.

However, there would be a real problem, in such a situation, if there were to be a requirement to put down start and stop times. Perhaps I may illustrate the problem at its most extreme. The biggest employer in the country in this area might have 500 workers at a peak harvest period working for him on a piece work basis.

I am sorry, I realise that I have been speaking with my hand in my pocket when I am not supposed to. I apologise, it must be because the subject is agricultural.

An employer might have 500 workers coming and going in fields in various locations, all intended to produce the highest quality produce in the shortest possible time. What the individuals will earn may vary enormously, some will earn at a high rate, some at a relatively low rate, depending on their proficiency, experience and concentration. The test that the Agricultural Wages Board has applied in the past to that type of work is that people should have a fair opportunity to earn the minimum wage within the requisite time. That is at a fair hourly rate. Where the board is satisfied that that is the case, it is all right.

I return to the point of the amendment, which is to apply the test of reasonableness to the drafting of the regulations. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will treat this request for reasonableness with slightly more sympathy than he did the previous one. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord did not misunderstand my reaction to the previous amendment. I treat the requirement of reasonableness with immense and genuine sympathy, but I take the view, as do the Government, and as would any reasonable individual, that the court is not the best body to fix the regulations. Excellent though the courts are, the last thing they are good at is—

Lord Dixon-Smith

Perhaps I may intervene to say that I did not wish to imply that there was anything unreasonable in what the noble and learned Lord said.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, indicated candidly that by mistake I answered many of his points beforehand. I sympathise with much of what he said. Many of his points are of real importance in determining the form that the record-keeping regulations should take for the purposes in particular of agricultural workers. As he pointed out, we are keeping the Agricultural Wages Board system and the national minimum wage system going together. We recognise that it should be done while placing the minimum burdens necessary in terms of record-keeping on people employing agricultural workers.

However, for all the reasons I indicated, while we are committed to reasonable regulations on record-keeping, the best way to achieve that is not through an amendment such as this. For all the reasons I gave, conciliatorily I hope, to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply which was helpful. Inevitably, we shall need to study it, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.]

Clause 9 agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.