Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
16 MARCH 2004
JIM SHERIDAN
MP, GERALDINE SMITH
MP, MR PETER
ALLENSON AND
MR GARY
BRISLEY
Q20 Ms Atherton: Forgive me my cynicism
regarding the supermarkets. From some of my own involvement around
gangmasters, I am aware that they operate in many other parts
of the country than East Anglia and Morecambe Bay and they certainly
do in Cornwall, a part of which I represent. My feeling very strongly
with supermarkets is that they act when the consumer is putting
the pressure on. The consumer puts the pressure on the price,
as we discussed earlier, but also the consumer will put the pressure
on unfair trade and will say, "We will not drink tea or coffee
that is picked in an unacceptable way in other countries".
Now, I feel very frustrated in the fact that I do not feel that
the British public are actually saying that in our country we
ought to have a fair trade policy for the way in which people
are treated and employed and that the pushing down of prices at
the farm gate has resulted in farmers possibly feeling that they
have to look for the lowest gangmaster price that they can get
and that has implications right along the line. Do you get any
sense from the supermarkets that they are aware of this chain
and that they are actually at the head of that chain and they
have to take action?
Jim Sheridan: I think one of the
things that may come out of this Bill is the fact that we are
looking at setting up an advisory board which will monitor just
exactly how this Bill could operate and its implications. Part
of that board will be the major supermarkets themselves, along
with the farmers and the gangmasters, the trade unions, et cetera,
so I think that will be an ideal forum to remind some of the major
supermarkets if they are being seen to be putting pressure on
anyone else, I think that is an ideal opportunity to remind the
major supermarkets of their ethical, if I can use that word, responsibilities.
Q21 Chairman: Before we move off this
question of the supermarkets, we had some evidence from the British
Retail Consortium against a background where I know you have a
long list of individual supermarkets who claim to be supporters
of your Bill. In their evidence to the Committee, the British
Retail Consortium, whilst reducing its general support, says that
existing enforcement systems and entities should be utilised to
monitor business and that most efforts should be directed on the
enforcement of existing legislation. That seems to be a slightly
sort of hedged position from generally supporting your Bill, but
putting a lot of emphasis on to the enforcement of the existing
legislation. Perhaps you would like to comment on that.
Jim Sheridan: I do not know when
that was published, Chair, but certainly after the Morecambe Bay
situation, I think the supermarkets' and maybe the retailers'
minds have been concentrated on how best to carry out their business,
but I do genuinely think that the price of goods should not be
put on to people being exploited and I think that is a message
to get across to the retailers. Perhaps Gary may want to say some
more.
Mr Brisley: I think on that point,
Chairman, the supermarkets have recognised that there are existing
enforcement mechanisms out there and I think they would like those
to be used more effectively. I think perhaps the principal reason
they are supporting the Bill is that they have always had a great
difficulty in actually identifying who is and who is not a legitimate
gangmaster. They believe that a licence and a public register
will allow them to be sure that they have clean hands in effect,
that the people who are providing them with their products are
actually using legitimate licensed gangmasters, and we do have
a list of, as you say, major supermarkets supporting it and we
have statements from them to that effect, so I think there is
no distinction between the two. They do want more effective enforcement
with existing mechanisms, but they see a licence and a register
as an additional means of giving them a way of identifying who
is legitimate and who is illegitimate.
Q22 Chairman: Earlier in the questioning,
the pressure of supermarkets' price and distribution demands has
been justified as one of the reasons why gangmaster-type labour
is a requirement of modern-day trading. Have you done any analysis
to work out the type of costs they bring to growers and packers
that can result from the use of gangmaster-type labour as opposed
to employing people on a normal and full-time basis?
Mr Brisley: We have not, no. I
think that with many of the costs that are involved in gangmaster
labour, people are saying that it is cheaper to use rogue gangmasters
and I think rogue gangmasters are probably charging the same prices
as legitimate gangmasters, but they are actually skimming off
much larger profits and they are not passing those down to their
workers because they are exploiting them, but we have not done
any background research into whether it would be cheaper for farmers
or pack-houses to employ workers directly rather than use labour-providers,
no.
Q23 Mr Mitchell: I just wonder how you
characterise the attitude of central government to this problem
of illegal gangmasters. Let's divide it into two parts of before
the tragedy and after the tragedy, and just put it first of all
to Geraldine and then to Peter.
Geraldine Smith: Before the tragedy,
to be honest, I would have to say that I think that the Government
must have been aware of the problem, that it was an issue. I told
them and your own Select Committee has produced reports, so they
must have been aware. I think there was a certain amount of turning
a blind eye to the problem, but I think that attitude has certainly
changed. A tragedy does make everyone sit up and think, and I
certainly hope it will mean that the Government will back this
Bill on gangmasters and look at the problems of exploitation of
migrant workers because clearly people are being exploited. Those
people in Morecambe Bay were not just victims of the treacherous
sands and sea, but they were victims of exploitation and that
was quite clear, so the Government does have to tackle these issues.
Let's face it, they are difficult issues and no political party
has all the answers, so what we nee is a bit of honesty in this
debate.
Mr Allenson: I think obviously
prior to the Morecambe Bay disaster the Government had in part
recognised the problem and of course we had Operation Gangmaster
which, with all of its failings, was recognised by this Committee
in its first Report. I think since Morecambe Bay in many ways,
though it is difficult to tell because we are still feeling the
repercussions of that particular situation, but there seems to
be a willingness to work. I think we are very clear in our view
that this Bill is one of a number of measures which need to take
place, some of which this Committee have touched on in previous
hearings. It needs to be properly co-ordinated with a minister
in Defra responsible for that legislation and properly resourced
in the enforcement that needs to take place as a consequence.
Clearly if we start to move in that particular direction, I hope
this Committee will take the opportunity of endorsing the Private
Member's Bill and assist in the process which now is going forward.
Q24 Mr Mitchell: Do you discern any change
in the Government's attitude and approach after our Report in
September and did that actually influence things?
Mr Allenson: I did not detect
any change. However, I have to say that it was one of the reasons
why we, as a trade union, decided that we needed to push this
further and harder at that particular point in time.
Q25 Mr Mitchell: Do you think the Government
is now taking it seriously, genuinely seriously, or is this just
a response to a hot issue, and they have to be doing something
about or be seen to be doing something anyway?
Mr Allenson: In the discussions
we have had with government so far, they seem to be taking the
situation very seriously. I have got to say that that all bodes
well for government support for the Private Member's Bill.
Q26 Mr Mitchell: What can you tell us
about the connection? There seem to me to be two problems here,
one of which is illegal people-smugglers, people bringing people
in, and the other of which is illegal gangmasters. Are they the
same group? Are the people bringing the illegal immigrants in
also employing them in this kind of fashion or are they two separate
groups?
Mr Allenson: Again we have not
had any evidence of that. From the evidence, again I can talk
of East Anglia because that is the area where we have had most
contact, but there was a situation of some Chinese workers being
brought into East Anglia, but then they were separately employed
by gangmasters locally and that is where the abuse actually took
place, so the two were separate in that particular instance.
Mr Brisley: There has been some
evidence from the National Criminal Intelligence Service in one
of their reports about potential security threats to the UK, that
the very worst elements of gangmasters operate sometimes as cartels
and are engaged both in human trafficking and in then supplying
those workers to various sectors of the economy, so there may
be some overlap there in terms of criminal activity.
Jim Sheridan: As it stands just
now, we do not know who the gangmasters are and we do not know
who they are employing. With this Bill hopefully we will recognise
who the gangmasters are and they will have responsibility. If
we look at the situation in Morecambe Bay, in my view, if this
legislation had been in place, then we could have identified who
the gangmaster was and he would have been held responsible for
the deaths of those people, and there would have been a risk assessment
carried out or there should have been a risk assessment carried
out before those people went on to the beach. Therefore, this
Bill is about identifying who the gangmasters are, who they are
employing because we need names and addresses and they will not
be able to hold any documentation from them, so if an inspector
turns up, he can ask exactly who the gangmaster is because he
will have an identification badge, and they will also be able
to supply the names and addresses of the people who have employed
them, so I think that will go a long way to eliminating the practice
if indeed they are bringing people illegally into the country.
Geraldine Smith: Can I say that
one of the points at Morecambe Bay is that I suspect the police
will have great difficulty in identifying an employer/employee
relationship because everyone will turn around and say, "No,
we had nothing to do with the Chinese. We did not buy from them",
and I think that is going to be an issue.. I think in relation
to your earlier point about whether the people-smugglers are linked
to the gangmasters, the Lancashire police have done a fantastic
job, it is a very impressive investigation and I think there will
be some answers at the end of that, I am hopeful that there will
be, and they will establish some sort of chain.
Q27 Mr Mitchell: There was some kind
of boss. There was a report in the paper, and I do not know whether
it is true, of a plaintive phone call made home from a mobile
phone by one of the cockle-pickers, who is quoted as saying, "My
boss made a little mistake", so there is certainly a boss
there, is there not?
Geraldine Smith: The speculation
was that basically someone should have come back for those people
and they were left out in the middle of the bay. I have no way
of knowing if that is true or false, but certainly there is speculation.
Q28 Mr Mitchell: How far is this a question
of illegality of working? Anybody who is not allowed to work,
an asylum-seeker or an illegal immigrant, is very vulnerable,
is he not, to being employed by an illegal gangmaster at an illegal
rate of pay in illegal conditions? How far is this a problem of
whether we can allow people to work as they seem to do in the
States when they cross the border and are able to get a job with
no questions asked? Would the situation be more straightforward
if everybody was allowed to work?
Jim Sheridan: I think you are
absolutely right and, with the EU accession countries coming in
as well, people will be allowed to work and be paid the proper
wage/minimum wage that everyone else in the country enjoys. There
are the health and safety implications as well. So, although people
will be allowed, under the new regulations, to come into the country
and work, the important thing about this Bill is that we will
know exactly who they are, where they are and how they are being
treated and I think that is the main objective. As it works just
now, these people are operating in a twilight world and trying
to get a handle on it is extremely difficult. I have to say that
the Treasury are losing estimates of £100 million per annum
in unpaid taxes, so there is a self-interest from Treasury to
support this Bill.
Mr Allenson: In addition, we have
a number of people who are here as of right, for example Portuguese
workers who are EU citizens anyway, but they are still abused.
We have the indigenous workers who are abused. The language difficulties
and the cultural difficulties are also, as has been mentioned
before, things that have to be taken on board and be dealt with
as something that we have to recognise.
Q29 Mr Drew: Mr Allenson, you said just
a few minutes ago, as we had recommended in our report, that you
felt that a Defra minister should be the lead minister on these
issues. In response to our last report, the Government said that
was inappropriate because the problem exists beyond the agricultural
field of employment and continue to seem to see DWP as the lead
department and a DWP minister as the lead minister. I extend this
question to other witnesses: do you think it is important that
it should be Defra that leads or is that something that is still
open to argument as far as you are concerned?
Mr Allenson: In the context of
this particular Bill of course, it is related to agriculture and
first-stage processing, so Defra would really be the Government
department that we view would be best able to coordinate it. Certainly,
the main point is that it needs to be coordinated and one of the
things that the Committee has found before from evidence is that,
when there are a number of departments involved, things can easily
get shuffled between departments and disasters come out as a consequence.
Geraldine Smith: Defra ministers
lead in on issues with health and safety, their department of
work and pensions. I think it is important that you have a lead
minister. It is absolutely essential that you have one person
to whom you can say, "Right, you are responsible for this",
but that person also has to have some power and influence over
other government departments for matters such as health and safety.
Q30 Alan Simpson: I want to focus on
some of the enforcement issues and can I begin with a quite quick
one on supermarkets because Peter made the point that they have
now come on board, their minds have been focused on this. At the
first set of hearings, they were keen to have a list but not a
licence because that would have rather cost. Now they have come
on board on licensing, but is it still the case that their interest
in licensing is to ensure that someone else has liability and
not them?
Mr Allenson: To cover an earlier
point, obviously the intention is that the coalition that has
come together with the DTI will continue to work and hopefully
will form the main body of any stakeholder advisory group and
they have come together to inform the minister etc if that is
the thinking later on. So, we will continue to be able to work
with the people who are in the coalition including the retailers
and we shall continue to bring to them concerns that we have about
where they need to sharpen up and where they need to be in terms
of making sure that they do not use their strength to cause problems
right at the sharp end for working people. In terms of the other
question—
Q31 Mr Mitchell: In fact, I only asked
one, Peter, and that was not the answer. You answered something
that I had not asked you about. I just want to know, is the supermarkets'
position still that they are happy to have licensing but not for
them to be liable?
Mr Allenson: The Bill will not—
Q32 Alan Simpson: You said that they
are keen on a responsibility and ethical responsibility but that
they want the legal liability somewhere else.
Mr Allenson: Yes.
Q33 Alan Simpson: Geraldine, can I come
back to you because it also ties in with the previous hearings
that we had specifically about the existence of Operation Gangmaster.
We had a fantastic line-up there of all the departments involved
in Operation Gangmaster, but it was almost like an episode
of Bremner, Bird and Fortune. There was this interdepartmental
team that was everyone's specialist yet, when we asked them about
how they worked together and the number of meetings they had had,
it turned out that not only had they never had a meeting but that
the line-up had never met each other and we almost suggested that
it might be nice if, as a committee, we adjourned in order that
they could say "hello". Have you had any contact with
Operation Gangmaster as it is lead by DWP rather than immigration
authorities and the police which seem to start from, how do we
chase the victims of this exploitation?
Geraldine Smith: It appears to
me that Operation Gangmaster was under-resourced and was
just an umbrella term for some operations where people had got
together and decided to work together, but certainly my experience
of the multi-agency approach and the different departments coming
together is that it is very hard to get anyone to accept responsibility
because they always tell you what they cannot do, not what they
can do and what some other department is responsible for and you
can bet that, if you leave one out of your meeting, they will
be the department that gets blamed for everything. So, it is really
difficult getting this joined-up working unless someone gets a
grip of it, unless there is someone ultimately with overall responsibility
to whom you can turn and say, "Right, how are you going to
get this team of people together? How about some enforcement operations?
Who takes the lead?" The first multi-agency meeting that
we had in Morecambe was arranged by the police and myself; the
second one was arranged by North West Sea Fisheries; the third
one again was going to be chaired by myself and arranged by the
Sea Fisheries. So, there was no one who was willing to say, "Right,
I am responsible for sorting this problem out" and working
across different departments. Indeed, it would appear that immigration
were quite often out of the picture altogether.
Q34 Alan Simpson: Would it be fair to
say that the focus of the interests with which you had to deal
was still, how do we do something about these people who effectively
were the victims? How do we pick them up? How do we deal with
overcrowding? In a sense, looking at those who were the most exploited
parts of the process rather than those who were the villains of
the piece and saying, "So, who was it who was doing the exploiting?"
Geraldine Smith: Certainly for
me, the issue of cockling in Morecambe began in November 2002
when a large boat turned up in Morecambe Bay and there were some
vans of people turning up for cockling. At that stage, it was
not an issue of possible illegal workers, it was British workers
and they were probably being exploited as well because the claims
then were, as to whether these people were claiming benefits or
that they were unemployed and working on the side. Since the tragedy,
I have seen young kids/teenagers working down on the shore quite
open to the same health and safety concerns because nothing has
changed. Their lives could be put at risk and I am sure that young
people can quite often be vulnerable to exploitation. I think
the problem with people who are illegal immigrants is that they
have no one to turn to. They cannot come to me—they did
not speak English. They cannot come and say to the local MP, "We
are being exploited." They keep a low profile because they
are outside the law and that makes them so much more vulnerable.
However, I am quite sure that the authorities were aware of what
was going on.
Q35 Alan Simpson: Jim, could you just
connect that into the aims of your Bill. Does it follow from what
Geraldine has described that the issue of licensing and enforcement
is not just going to be a question of who gets licences but what
they are licensed for and the terms and strengths of licences?
It is quite clear that the people who were involved in that tragic
episode on Morecambe Beach were not there because they had a passion
for night bathing. They were there because they were told to get
out there and pick the bloody cockles and to earn the pittance
that they were being paid. So, it is not just whether you have
a licence to do that but the constraints that will be imposed
with any licence.
Jim Sheridan: You are right, we
cannot have people just turning up and saying, "I want a
licence to become a gangmaster", pay whatever the payment
may be and get on with it. What we are asking for is a very strict
criteria and that will be left for the Secretary of State for
Defra. What we also asking for is that the advisory board that
we are hoping to set up will look at the criteria because they
are the people who are working at the sharp end and who know the
difficulties. So, we would hope that the advisory board can put
in recommendations to the Secretary of State for Defra in order
that he or she can build into that a very strict criteria in order
that, when people are applying for a licence, they know what they
have to follow.
Mr Brisley: In Jim's Bill, there
are very basic licence conditions. For example, a requirement
for an employee or agent of a gangmaster to carry photo identification
in order that they can prove to the user that they are legitimate
licensed gangmasters; a requirement for them to keep other documentation;
a requirement for them to abide by minimum standards as to health
and safety; and also to make sure that they do not withhold documents.
We are having lots of reports, particularly from migrant workers,
that passports are being held and basically these people are being
held hostage until such time as the gangmaster no longer needs
their services. Alongside those basic conditions, obviously, as
Jim said, we would like to consult with the experts in the industry,
the key stakeholders, and perhaps take the Ethical Trading Initiative
(ETI) code, for example, and have that as the basis for licensed
conditions as well as having a more robust licence. Alongside
that, when somebody applies for a licence, they should be vetted,
there should be background checks on these people, and then, during
the lifetime of that licence, there would be compliance visits
to make sure that they are keeping to the terms and conditions
of the licence and those orders will also feed into wider enforcement
agencies to identify problems perhaps with tax evasion or with
health and safety.
Q36 Ms Atherton: Jim, have the Government
now given you unequivocal support for your Bill? Well, I think
you have answered the question!
Jim Sheridan: I have very quickly
found out who runs the country! Seriously, during the Second Reading,
the Government shared the objectives of the Bill. They have now
moved on to sharing the principles of the Bill and we have had
some very constructive meetings with Defra ministers and I really
do think that they are now coming on board. They see the merits
of this Bill and I think that we are all looking for a workable
solution that (a) provides the cover that we need in order that
people are not exploited and that (b), what is equally important,
we do not burden businesses with significant costs because that
would endanger the cause. I think that there is a genuine desire
by all parties, the coalition, ourselves and the Government, to
come to some sort of workable solution and I think that we are
almost there.
Q37 Ms Atherton: So, you have been meeting
with Defra ministers but what about DTI and some of the other
ministers and departments that might have different issues and
concerns? Have they been feeding in concerns or have they all
been coming through from Defra?
Jim Sheridan: They have all been
coming through Defra. We took a decision earlier that, rather
than us going round all the various departments, Defra would be
the coordinating body and they would then contact other departments
by letter or whatever seeking their views on the Bill and asking
them to identify any concerns they may have and certainly there
were one or two concerns that were raised in terms of costs, enforcement
etc, but goodwill is now coming through and I think that we are
making good progress and I am extremely confident that we will
get this Bill through the necessary process.
Q38 Ms Atherton: I suppose I am trying
to tease out from you whether you feel that there is resistance
in some government departments that mean you are going to have
to bring amendments or changes than perhaps if you were purely
just dealing with Defra ministers.
Jim Sheridan: You know how the
parliamentary process works. Sometimes things are said to you
at face value and then other things are done behind closed doors.
Certainly at face value, the 15 ministers whom I have met have
been very honest and upfront about the aim of the Bill is and
what their objectives are and principles are. There have been
some other departments that have raised concerns and I think that
we have managed to overcome those concerns and identify the concerns
that they have raised.
Q39 Chairman: Alun Michael said in his
concluding remarks in the Bill that we believe licensing should
target agricultural activities. That does not cover fishing specifically
and it does not cover anything else. Are you happy about that?
Jim Sheridan: I assume that Alun
perhaps has mistakenly called it that but it does cover fisheries
and processes as well.
| 
