One often reads in newspapers about my purported or suggested, and highly erroneous, views on the national minimum wage. It is always said that I was against it when it came in. I was not actually at the CBI when it came in, as I often say. I was not asked for my opinion, and if I had been, I would have said that it is a very good thing, but only if set at the appropriate level.
The dignity of work is what is important, and the right to have a safety net. What damages the economy is if the minimum wage is set too high or if one vested interest gets its way in an unbalanced manner. I have never been against the minimum wage, but I have been against it being set at too high a level. Why do I repeat that? Because to be successful it needs, as with all legislation, to win the respect of those whom it affects. In that respect a successful implementation has to have, on the one side, the proper level and, on the other side, the ability to enforce it. Very few people flout the legislation, but when it is flouted the people who are hurt are the employees. The Committee will notice that I do not use the word ““workers”” as I do not understand why that word should be attached to one group of people who contribute to the economy and not to another. Not only do employees suffer from flouting of the legislation, but so do all the very good employers in the country who behave themselves, but who see others down the road in a competitive environment not behaving themselves. They deserve protection from equality enforcement, as do the employees who are also being ripped off. At the end of the day, a system of regulation or law cannot work if you cannot resort to the enforcement of criminality.
It is important that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has the power to investigate effectively allegations that offences have been committed under the Act, particularly the most serious offence of refusing or wilfully neglecting to pay the national minimum wage.
During the early years of national minimum wage enforcement, non-compliance was dealt with by civil sanctions, such as enforcement notices, rather than by prosecution of the offences under the Act. That worked well but, over time, a tougher line was needed to deal with those—I repeat, there are few—who continue to flout the law. The then DTI agreed a policy on national minimum wage enforcement and prosecutions with HMRC and the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office in May 2006. Additional resources were then allocated so that appropriate cases could be investigated with a view to prosecution.
However, we are concerned that HMRC is being hampered in its ability to obtain evidence of any criminal offence—
Employment Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Jones of Birmingham
(Other (affiliation))
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 13 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Employment Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c262-3GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:25:27 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_454816
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_454816
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_454816