Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative)

This is an important clause, on which I have one or two questions for the Minister. As the relevant sections of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 stand, restrictions apply to the use and supply of information obtained by enforcement officers. We are talking about the Inland Revenue, which will be enforcing minimum wage legislation in all cases apart from in the farming and agricultural sector. I was not in the House at the time, and I am not clear why the original legislation was framed in a way whereby the employer cannot receive information that the employee has given to the enforcement agency or vice versa. May I ask the Minister why that mistake, as it seems to have been, was made? Perhaps it was not a mistake, and at the time the Government felt, and the legal advice was, that it would be inappropriate for such information to be made available either to the employer or the employee. I would have thought it perfectly obvious that if a case goes to a tribunal or county court—I understand that that is the choice—such information should as a matter of course be made available. I am pleased that the Bill corrects the situation. That makes a lot of sense.

Yesterday, I looked up the Department of Trade and Industry website. The Minister will be delighted to learn that I follow his every move—that is what shadows are all about. At 15.45—perhaps the Minister was visiting some factory or involved in a high-powered meeting—he issued a press release saying ''Better pay for home workers''. I can see you are looking at me askance, Mr. Stevenson, but this is relevant because we are talking about the enforcement of the minimum wage. The press release was about enforcing the minimum wage for home workers. The Minister pointed out that 170,000 home workers will get more money under minimum wage regulations because the minimum wage will be brought in line to help them. I do not have any difficulty with that, because it is anomalous that they have been excluded.

The press release was excellent, as one would expect, but it did not focus on the way in which, although some companies—a lot of companies source work out to home workers—are reputable and doing a good job for their customers, others, which I would describe as the roguish element, advertise to potential home workers that they will get x amount per item, which attracts many people to the idea of working at home, but then start charging the home worker per item. The proposition may seem attractive, but the workers will be paid 40p per Christmas cracker or 4p per packet of greeting cards and so on, but they then have to pay the company for the raw materials, or other charges are made. Endless abuses take place. Bringing the minimum wage in to cover such people is a move in the right direction, but will the Minister focus on the attitude of such companies and some of the practices that are in place at present? Such matters are among the worst elements of those companies that source work out to home workers. Will he let me know why the 1998 Act, the original legislation, required the correction that is in the clause?

Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers), Department of Trade and Industry; Bradford South, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to explain clause 32. I shall try to answer his questions. The basis of the Bill is about the performance of previous Acts, how they work in reality and the need to update them. I do not have to hand the historical facts, but I shall ensure that he receives a letter about them—unless the information arrives mysteriously today. I am not aware of a mistake. I think that the clause is an update based on previous experiences of enforcement officers.

Sections 15 and 16 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 deal with the use and supply of information obtained by enforcement officers. No specific power permits officers to disclose information that they have obtained from an employer to his workers or information obtained from the workers to their employer. That means that officers cannot cross-check the different versions of events given by the worker and employer. It makes it more difficult for them to decide whether the employer is complying with the legislation.

The clause amends those sections to make it clear that some disclosure is allowed. It allows information obtained from an employer relating to a particular worker to be shown to that worker and information obtained from a worker relating to an employer to be shown to that employer. It would be helpful, for example, to enable the enforcement officer to ask the employer about the existence of particular work patterns, working times and so on and ask the worker whether the employer's answers were correct and what that means for his case. I stress that the Inland Revenue will take great care not to pass information on to employers in a way that allows them to deduce the identity of the complainants unless they have given their consent for that to be done.

As for home workers, I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman shadows me so closely and congratulates me when I get things right, although I am sure that he will hit me when I get things wrong. That is his role. I was pleased to announce yesterday fair rates for home workers. It has been a long-standing issue in connection with the national minimum wage. I am aware of some of the practices to which he referred, and I shall study them in more detail.

I am not making an attempt to lose home workers their jobs or affect their incomes. We want to achieve a level of fairness and regulations will come before the House for further discussion in due course. We will be in a position whereby employers agree with their employees rates on work study programmes, so people achieve the aims of the minimum wage. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports that process. Given his party's worries about the inception of the national minimum wage five years ago, it has come a long way since then and now supports it. We have worked closely with the National Group on Homeworking, which has been assisting us to reach our decision about home workers' rates. The original provisions were drafted too narrowly for the reasons that I have expressed. That is why we have drafted clause 32, which I commend to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.