My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

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

commons amendments

[The page and line references are to Bill 117 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS Amendment No. 1

Page 4, line 3, after "Society)" insert—

"Regulation 17 of the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1660) (breach of regulations)"

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This is a consequential technical amendment to Clause 3. Clause 3 allows employment tribunals to increase or decrease an award by up to 25 per cent for unreasonable failure to comply with any relevant code of practice relating to workplace dispute resolution. Tribunals will be able to adjust awards under the jurisdictions set out in new Schedule A2. This schedule replicates the jurisdictions that are already listed in Schedule 3 to the Employment Act 2002. It covers the vast majority of the jurisdictions of claims accepted by employment tribunals.

Following the Third Reading of the Bill in this House, the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008 came into force on 27 July. These regulations transpose a European directive on working conditions for railway workers on cross-border railway services and replace conditions previously covered by the working time directive.

Regulation 17 allows a worker to complain to an employment tribunal if his employer has refused to permit him to exercise rights under the regulations relating to rest or break periods. The regulations insert Regulation 17 into Schedule 3 to the Employment Act 2002 as a jurisdiction to which the adjustment of awards for non-completion of statutory procedure applies. Amendment No. 2 therefore makes a consequential amendment to add Regulation 17 to new Schedule A2 as a jurisdiction to which the new adjustment provisions will also apply after repeal of the existing provisions.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Brett.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS Amendment No. 2

Insert the following new Clause—

"Employment agencies and national minimum wage legislation: information-sharing

(1) In the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39), in section 15 (information obtained by officers), after subsection (5) there is inserted—

"(5A) Information to which this section applies—

(a) may be supplied by, or with the authorisation of, the Secretary of State to an officer acting for the purposes of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 for any purpose relating to that Act; and(b) may be used by an officer acting for the purposes of that Act for any purpose relating to that Act."

(2) In the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (c. 35), in section 9 (inspection), subsection (4) is amended as follows—

(a) after "this section" there is inserted "(or pursuant to section 15(5A) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998)";(b) after paragraph (iv) there is inserted "or (v) to an officer acting for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 for any purpose relating to that Act;"."

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 4.

Amendment No. 2 addresses an issue raised in the Vulnerable Worker Enforcement Forum's report, which was published together with the Government's response in August. Once the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate has started an inspection, it is currently a criminal offence to disclose information obtained during that inspection. Inspectors therefore cannot inform Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which enforces the national minimum wage, if they come across indicators of non-compliance with the minimum wage. This legal restriction on minimum wage officers being able to share information also means that they are not able to inform employment agency inspectors of details of non-compliant employers in order for inspectors to follow up possible non-compliance issues with the employment agency legislation.

Amendment No. 2 would remove these barriers to information sharing between those who enforce the national minimum wage and those who enforce employment agency legislation. Amendment No. 4 provides for Amendment No. 2 to be commenced by order.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Carter of Barnes.)

My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to refer to the national minimum wage, an issue covered by Amendment No. 2 and also by the Employment Bill. For my sins, I participated in the National Minimum Wage Bill in the other place, where we had one of the longest Committee sittings ever—over 24 hours—to discuss it at great length. It is good that the issue has been addressed again in the Employment Bill, and vital that compliance is achieved, as many of us will know from our contact with small businesses and those working in them. Usually we would be concerned about information being passed from one hand to the other, but on this occasion, in view of the great need to ensure that we tighten up on all the possible avenues for things to go wrong, we on these Benches support what has been put forward.

I wonder whether this could not be classified as a way of tracking down people. In that connection, were we in a different place, we might be wishing to track down Joe the Plumber, a case which has recently received a lot of publicity. I am not sure whether Joe was a mythical figure, but I welcome the fact that we will be able, through these means, to contact those not implementing the regulations as required. I urge the Government to pursue this matter and to continue to keep their eye on the implementation of the national minimum wage.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support of the national minimum wage. If I understood the gentle subtext of his point, he had an understandable nervousness, justifiable in my view, about extending data sharing from one place to another. As he rightly pointed out, however, the objective is worthy, and he should be reassured that the safeguards are appropriate.

As the noble Lord will know, I am but a novice in this House, as the saying goes; but I do not believe that our jurisdiction extends yet to the United States of America, which is where I believe Joe the Plumber was last spotted. But the noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that the purpose of this legislation is to ensure greater compliance with the national minimum wage and to make the enforcement of compliance easier to achieve. I welcome his support.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS Amendment No. 3

: Page 18, line 16, leave out from beginning to second "on" in line 17.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. This is a purely technical amendment. Under the commencement provisions in Clause 21, the provisions in Clauses 15 to 17 relating to employment agencies come into force either on 1 October 2008 or, if the Act obtains Royal Assent after that date, on 6 April 2009. As we are now discussing the Bill on 13 November 2008, the option to commence these clauses on 1 October can no longer be exercised. Amendment No. 3 therefore removes the option from the Bill.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS Amendment No. 4

I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4, to which I have spoken with Amendment No. 2.

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

COMMONS Amendment No. 5

: Page 18, line 27, leave out subsection (2)

I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. This is the privilege amendment; noble Lords will forgive me if I rehearse the standard phrase. This amendment will remove the privilege amendment that was made when the Bill moved to another place. As noble Lords will be aware, the financial powers are restricted by the rights and privileges of the other place. As the Bill originated here and contains financial provisions, a privilege amendment was added to the Bill before its introduction into the other place to ensure that the financial privilege was not infringed. The amendment is purely technical and is necessary to remove the privilege amendment, which provided that nothing in the Bill should impose or vary any charge on the people or public funds.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for five minutes.

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

[The Sitting was suspended from 12.28 to 12.33 pm.]