Employment Bill [HL]

If anybody is to shout ““Shame”” for that, it would be me, but I move on. I was going to say that my noble friend Lord Wedderburn does not speak for the Government. He knows that, and I know that. As far as I am concerned, there is sufficient resource for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to enforce the new regime. BERR, HMRC and the RCPO are working through the details to ensure that the penalty regime will be a success. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has already recruited an additional 20 people this year, and we are working with it to establish the best process to allow it to work effectively operationally. HMRC has been hampered by its inability to investigate some alleged national minimum wage offences to a criminal standard of proof—that is why we need these two distinctions—as it does not have the necessary coercive powers. The issue is not that it does not have the people or the resources, but that it does not have the power to take a case to a criminal court. It has therefore been difficult to prosecute an employer unless employees are willing to testify. That has been problematic because of the vulnerability of some of those employees, and HMRC has been forced to abandon some potential prosecutions as a result. The situation has led to the problem, not a lack of resource. I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is certain that I am speaking for the Government. Clause 11 agreed to. Clause 12 [Powers to investigate criminal offences]: On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?