|
Clause 3
Administration and enforcement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 017
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
New clause 1—The Gangmasters Licensing Authority.
New clause 2—Directions etc. by the Secretary of State.
New clause 7—Grant of licence.
New clause 8—General power of Authority to make rules.
New clause 9—Modification, revocation or transfer of licence.
New clause 10—Appeals.
New clause 11—Register of licences.
New clause 14—Offences: supplementary provisions.
New clause 15—Enforcement and compliance officers.
New clause 16—Powers of officers.
New clause 17—Entry by warrant.
New clause 18—Obstruction of officers.
New clause 19—Information relating to gangmasters.
New clause 20—Application of Act to bodies corporate.
New clause 21—Application of Act to unincorporated associations.
New clause 22—Application of Act to partnerships.
New clause 23—Annual report.
New schedule 1—The Authority: consequential amendments of enactments.
3.45 pm
Mr. Simmonds: I shall not go into great detail about the establishment of the gangmaster licensing authority, except to note, first, that it will be separate from DEFRA—it would be useful if the Minister explained why it was concluded that it should be separate from rather than an extension of a Department—and, secondly, that the authority will not be responsible for enforcement of the legislation. I understand that the Secretary of State will have powers to appoint enforcement officers from other Government bodies and agencies.
I know that we are engaged in constructive debate today, and I do not want to be critical of past events, but I am deeply concerned about Operation Gangmaster and the lack of co-ordination between Departments in attempts to stop the exploitation of vulnerable workers, both legal and illegal. To date, those attempts have not been successful, and I want to ensure that the gangmaster licensing authority and whatever body is responsible for the enforcement of the licensing and regulation scheme will work together extremely closely, and that there will be sufficient resources to enforce the measures that are to be on the statute book.
New clause 8 deals with the power of the authority to make rules. I should like the Minister to clarify why the word ''rules'' is used, rather than ''conditions''.
Column Number: 018
What, if any, is the difference between the two? It might be my suspicious nature that makes me ask.
Alun Michael: The simple answer is that ''rules'' looked reasonable in that sentence. I do not believe that there is any great distinction between the two terms, although I shall check that for the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Simmonds: I am grateful for that response.
I have great sympathy with a couple of sentences on this subject from the National Farmers Union. I hope that the Minister and his civil servants will take note of them. The NFU states:
''It is important that the right balance is achieved with the rules, and that the rules relate directly to existing legislation. If the GLA introduced too many, too complex rules than was reasonably required for the purpose then the grant of licences could become cumbersome and bureaucratic''—
we covered some of that argument before—
''and of course increase the overall costs of the scheme and pitch licence fees upwards to excessive levels'',
which might deter the legitimate supply of labour, as I pointed out.
That brings me neatly to the regulatory impact assessment, which suggests that the cost of an audit of a legitimate gangmaster who is meeting the legal obligations could be as much as £1,500. That is in addition to the administrative costs of processing and issuing the licence and maintaining the register, which could be a further £750. I understand that those figures are based on a two or three-year licence. I should like to understand why those costs are so high, particularly in comparison to those that apply under the Private Security Industry Act 2001, which total only £190. The disparity between the two figures is large. I, my constituents, businesses in the horticultural and agricultural sectors and legitimate gangmasters all wish to avoid penalising the latter with provisions that are over-burdensome—not only in terms of bureaucracy, but in terms of unnecessary cost.
New clause 8(2)(f) would allow the authority to grant provisional licences before it had been determined whether the requirements for the granting of a licence had been met. That unnerves me and some legitimate gangmaster operators who believe that some rogue operators may obtain licences, however temporary, and operate without meeting the relevant criteria. It would be wrong to allow that to happen, even if only for a limited time. Why cannot we have beginners criteria, which might be linked to the sending of tax and VAT returns to the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise?
New clause 15 deals with enforcement. From reading the Bill, it is not clear to me who the enforcement officers will be. Will they be from Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise or the new merged body? Will they be immigration officers? Where will they come from, and who will fund their operations? Which Government Minister will be responsible for them and, ultimately, answerable to this House and the other place? How will the officers liaise with local police? I have consulted the police in Lincolnshire and they are enthusiastic about the Bill, provided that it is correct, but they want to make sure
Column Number: 019
that there is an understanding about how police will link with the enforcement operators.
I appreciate that that will become apparent in secondary legislation, but I am concerned that, at this stage, there seem to be no defined mechanisms or structures in place. Will the Minister provide assurances regarding the likely number of enforcement and compliance offices that will be required? Will the resources necessary to fund them be forthcoming? Where will that funding come from? I do not mean to be difficult, but, at the moment, there is a lack of co-ordination. Insufficient resources have been put in place to enforce the existing legislation. We need to make sure that that gap does not continue.
As the Minister said, we must catch those who continue to ignore the rules. That is far harder than penalising licensed operators for minor compliance issues, and it may involve considerable resources and manpower. Where will those resources and manpower emanate from?
Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras) (Lab): Mr. Illsley, I am happy to be able to say without any doubt that your chairing was the most helpful piece of chairing that I have come across in nearly 25 years in the House. I also cannot help but observe the appropriateness of Room 9 being renamed the Wellington Room. Someone obviously had a sense of humour, as we are discussing the gathering of shellfish, agriculture and horticulture in a place named after the appropriate clothing.
I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that those to have powers of arrest will include not only the enforcement officers, but the usual people—the police—under the Bill or under general legislation.
I want to raise two other points. As I understand it, powers of arrest will apply only to someone who has not got a licence or who has a dodgy licence. There is no proposal that a power of arrest should be applied to someone who is wildly in breach of a licence, which might appropriately be an arrestable offence. Might someone who is obstructing enforcement and compliance officers in the exercise of their duties be arrested? Some of the minority of evil people involved in gangmaster activities are precisely the sort of people who would destroy important information in the period between the enforcement officer trying to get in and anybody laying hands on the information.
Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall) (LD): In new clause 7(2), which relates to the period of grant, there is no mention of renewals. The clause talks about revocation, alterations and the like and the subsection says that the licence
''shall be granted for such period as the authority thinks fit.''
However, because there is no mention of renewals, it suggests that one might be able to issue a licence for 25 or 30 years, or for life. Many of us would prefer a general presumption in favour of a maximum period of five years, so that renewals take place. It might be shorter than that for people who have to prove themselves or are brand new to the business, but those who have been operating for a while should have
Column Number: 020
to undergo a renewal or reappraisal, not least because they can provide more money through the renewal.
New clause 9(3) states that the licence
''may be transferred with the written consent of the Authority''.
Our experience of the transferability of licences has not been good. Some have acquired financial value and become transferable and marketable. I cannot understand why we are prepared to allow the transfer of a licence when all that is needed is a new licence. Any person, corporate body, organisation or partnership should apply for a new licence when they want one. I have become opposed to transferring licences, because licences and other rights that have for various reasons been transferred have caused us concern in many different spheres. Why do we need to worry about transferring licences when people could simply apply for a new licence? There is no need to provide for transferability.
Alun Michael: A lot of ground has been covered in a short time and I shall seek to do the same. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness asked about the nature of the authority. We envisage a body in which the chair will be appointed by the Secretary of State through the normal appointments system and in which other members of the board—approximately 17 representatives—will be chosen for specific aspects of expertise. That would mean representation from the industry—farmers, growers and trade unions—and from Government. That would ensure that people on the board are involved in those bodies that enforce legislation relevant to the activities of gangmasters. We envisage a board that has practical experience to inform the decisions that it makes. The appointment of the chairman by the Secretary of State would be in line with the recognised procedures laid down by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
In terms of enforcement, the licensing body must, most importantly, create an environment for the licence and ensure that licence requirements are complied with. Another aspect of enforcement covers the activities of those who are not licensed—the villains outside the licensing system. We are considering the way in which enforcement will be exercised; a degree of enforcement from DEFRA might be required.
The power of arrest included in the Bill could be useful for organisations other than the licensing authority and DEFRA, because it establishes a clear line. It may be suspected, but not immediately apparent, that a variety of offences are being committed—for example, one may not know whether offences under health and safety legislation are taking place. However, one would immediately know whether the person has a licence to be a gangmaster; if they do not, there is the power to arrest them straight away. That creates a means of taking hold of the situation in, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras described them, the 5 o'clock mists of the countryside.
| 
