Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-199)
23 MARCH 2004
LORD WHITTY
AND MR
GEOFF WEBDALE
Q180 Diana Organ: Given then that you
have said that ministers now regard the issue of illegal gangmasters
quite seriously, you had a meeting on 18 March with other ministers.
When do that group of ministers propose to meet again? What is
the timetable for the follow-up meeting?
Lord Whitty: I am not sure we
have another date for that, but I should also point out that what
I also said is we have discussed bilaterally and multilaterally.
We have asked specifically for three ministers in a room together.
I have discussed with others involved in both the legislative
and the enforcement operation prior to that 18 March which is
partly driven by the Sheridan Bill and partly to make sure that
we did understand what actually had happened at Morecambe Bay
but also, for example, to discuss the research project which the
Home Office and ourselves are funding and other follow-ups to
the earlier work.
Q181 Chairman: Could I be clear, when
the tragedy in February of Morecambe occurred, did you have any
meetings, formal or informal, very shortly after that to take
stock of what had happened?
Lord Whitty: It is a fisheries
issue, to put—
Q182 Chairman: No, the question—
Lord Whitty: No. No is the short
answer.
Q183 Chairman: No. So you waited almost
a month.
Lord Whitty: No, no, the minister
directly involved in this in my department is Ben Bradshaw because
he deals with fisheries. He took an immediate interest to see
what had happened in relation to fisheries legislation and talked
to colleagues in the Home Office.
Q184 Chairman: But you said at the beginning
when I asked the first question, that you had identified this
as having aspects of gangmasters involved in it. Right? You have
now just said, "No, no, it was a fisheries issue" and
it was for Ben Bradshaw. Surely, as the minister responsible for
policy in this area, did you not think there was any merit in
calling together all of the ministers simply to take stock of
the evolving information and situation coming out of Morecambe
Bay?
Lord Whitty: I think it would
be very difficult for ministers to gather the information at that
point when it was the subject of detailed police investigation.
I think it would not have been helpful for ministers to be drawn
together. Once we had that information then the appropriate ministers
were deployed.
Q185 Chairman: If this had been a rail
crash, we would have had a statement in the House on the day or
the following day, the Secretary of State would have visited the
site of the tragedy and there would have been an obvious start
of some form of investigation. In this case, it was some weeks
after the event that Mr Bradshaw went north to Morecambe and you
are saying that it was in the "too difficult" column
to get ministers together—
Lord Whitty: No, I am not saying
that, I am saying it would not have been appropriate. If there
is a police investigation—and I also have the experience
of when there is a rail disaster—clearly it is primarily
the responsibility of the railway police and the Health and Safety
Executive.
Q186 Chairman: So that is a police investigation.
Lord Whitty: And the only minister
involved is the Transport Minister when he may or may not set
up an inquiry.
Q187 Chairman: One of the elements that
has come out of this is the question of coordination within government.
Here was an incident which the press were busy walking all over,
making their own assertions as to what was gong on, gangmaster
aspects were being raised and government ministers did not sit
down and say, "Let us take stock. What is happening? Is there
anything that we should be doing in terms of our evolving policy
and investigation?" You have just told us that it was not
until March 18—
Lord Whitty: No, I did not say
that, Mr Chairman. I said we have taken a number of initiatives
bilaterally with other departments in relation to all the information
coming in, including the information on Morecambe. It was not
clear at the beginning of Morecambe and still is not entirely
clear whether the prime responsibility was of somebody who would
normally be called a gangmaster, because they were not providing
labour to somebody else, they were actually gathering up labour
and then selling the produce. The narrow definition of gangmaster
would not include that provision. It is also the case that there
are very specific problems in relation to shellfish harvesting
which have different structures than the rest of agriculture,
so it was not obvious that this was primarily a problem which
was caused by the gangmaster situation.
Chairman: For the benefit of the Committee,
Minister, before I bring Mr Lazarowicz in, it would just be helpful
for us, perhaps since the report has come out, to have a little
diary of events where we could know when ministers have met formally
and informally and what were the principle topics of discussion,
just so that we can know factually what you have all been up to
and what you have been discussing in this context. Mr Lazarowicz.
Alan Simpson: Before Mark comes in, could
I ask, in relation to that diary, can the minister or the Department
answer Diana Organ's question, which was at what point there were
specific discussions in relation to the tragedy on Morecambe Bay.
Because in the date sequence so far it does take some explaining,
the gap between the incident on 5 February and the meeting that
did not take place between the three ministers until 18 March.
It would be helpful, if there had been other meetings that specifically
sought to address that issue about what happened in Morecambe
Bay, if they could be detailed.
Q188 Chairman: I am sure the minister
has taken note of that and he will respond in the way he feels
appropriate.
Lord Whitty: I will do what I
can in that respect. You will appreciate that obviously that was
a fast-moving situation and there will not necessarily be records
of formal meetings, but, nevertheless, we will do what we can
and you can no doubt press my colleague as well.
Q189 Chairman: Minister, your diary secretary
will, I am sure, be an excellent person, and knowing the way that
ministerial diaries and papers are kept for a very long period
of time, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that your private
office will be able to put together a diary of the formal and
informal contexts you have had, because notes will have been taken
at those meetings because that is the way things are done. Mr
Lazarowicz.
Lord Whitty: Could I just reply
to that because a number of those meetings are necessarily informal—I
am protecting my colleague's response to this as well. The records
will not be a clear sequence of meetings in the way that Mr Simpson
is looking for, but we will do what we can. I am not pretending
that you have a complete forensic record of everything that has
been discussed.
Chairman: respect the fact that inter-ministerial
exchanges of certain types are inevitably privileged but the timing
and the date of the event and the general subject area is really
what we are after. As I say, I am quite convinced that your private
office and diary secretary, almost as we speak, could be preparing
the list of information which will be helpful to the Committee.
Q190 Mr Lazarowicz: Could I ask some
questions about the enforcement activity since the Committee published
its report. Looking at the memorandum submitted by your Department
which the Committee received yesterday, I see that in paragraph
12 it says the " . . . regional fora has been extended to
provide coverage for England, Scotland and Wales." But do
I take it from the next sentence that this coverage across the
three countries has only taken place recently. Is that correct?
Lord Whitty: If you are talking
about comprehensive coverage, yes. Some of the forums have existed
for some time. But comprehensive coverage, including the reference
to the North East and the Home Counties is relatively recent,
yes.
Q191 Mr Lazarowicz: When were Wales and
North West England fora inaugurated and what have they done so
far?
Lord Whitty: I could not tell
you that. It may be you will have to pursue that with Chris Pond.
Q192 Mr Lazarowicz: Do you know if the
fora planned for Yorkshire Humberside have now been established?
When are they due to start?
Lord Whitty: The forum for London
as been established. The forum for Yorkshire and Humberside has
also I think just been established. But it is very recent. I could
not confidently tell you there had been a meeting of that. Maybe
you would wish to pursue this with Chris Pond, but we are now
in a situation where we have fora for all of Great Britain, whereas
when we met a few months ago we were talking about four or five
regions.
Q193 Mr Lazarowicz: But Defra is involved
in these fora.
Lord Whitty: Yes. We, as you know,
have a relatively small enforcement function in relation to the
agricultural wages. The big players are clearly DWP in relation
to national insurance, Customs & Excise, Inland Revenue, Immigration
Service and so on.
Q194 Mr Lazarowicz: What are the plans
for the further initiatives in North East England and the Home
Counties? What do these consist of?
Lord Whitty: Ensuring that the
fora there are as comprehensive as they are elsewhere, I think
is the general answer to that, but I cannot give you any more
detailed answer.
Q195 Mr Lazarowicz: Turning to paragraph
13, which talks about the evaluation which Paddy Tipping asked
about, just to be clear, in the evidence presented to the Committee
last year we were told by the Government there had been two complete
operations under Operation Gangmaster: Operation Shark
and Operation Twinstem. According to this memorandum there
have been another two complete operations. Is it fair to say that
there has been a total of four complete operations so far under
Operation Gangmaster?
Lord Whitty: Complete operations—in
the sense of completed if that is a definitional issue as to when
it is complete—there are two that have been completed between
your report and now, and there are ten or 11 active operations
in place now.
Q196 Mr Lazarowicz: There were two before
the report, is that right?
Lord Whitty: Yes, specifically
for Operation Gangmaster.
Q197 Mr Lazarowicz: If we turn to paragraph
15, it is described there that the Inland Revenue was intending
to increase the size and number of specialist teams substantially
over the next few months to provide wider coverage. Can you give
us any information about what is meant by "substantial increase"?
How many teams? How many people?
Lord Whitty: I am not sure I can,
no. The total numbers do exist, but I am not sure I can put my
hand on them immediately.
Q198 Mr Lazarowicz: This is a report
from Defra, so you can presumably find this information?
Lord Whitty: This is a government
report, actually, although submitted by Defra, but it does cover
information from other government departments.
Q199 Mr Lazarowicz: How far has there
been any increase in enforcement activity against illegal gangmasters
since our report in October?
Lord Whitty: I think we can see,
from the fact that there are 11 active operations, there has been
a significant increase. There has also been an increase in other
activities, earlier activities, which have ended up with some
successes in relation to the tax side and the fraudulent document
side which have ended up in court. There has been a fair amount
of activity, whether or not it is branded under Operation Gangmaster.
Operation Gangmaster as such has stepped up from three
or four operations to ten or 11 concurrent.
| 
