Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340-358)
23 MARCH 2004
BEVERLEY HUGHES,
MR BRODIE
CLARK, MR
CHRIS POND
AND MR
RICHARD KITCHEN
Q340 Paddy Tipping: Yes.
Mr Pond: First of all it will
be the evidence base, whether or not we think that a particular
activity is going to yield the results which would be appropriate
given the resources that are invested, and that would be a decision
that is very much based at a regional level but overseen by myself
and by the Fraud Strategy Unit within the DWP.
Q341 Paddy Tipping: Are you telling us
that you want to put more resource towards that?
Mr Pond: In our overall budget—inevitably
there is not a pot of gold there—there is a considerable
amount of resources already going in. Where we find there is a
need for this activity resources will not be an inhibition to
us taking the measures necessary.
Q342 Paddy Tipping: In the memorandum
there is talk about the HSE becoming increasingly involved, and
you mentioned the HSE yourself a few minutes ago, what kind of
work is the HSE doing in relation to Operation Gangmaster?
Mr Pond: Because it has responsibility
for work-related health and safety issues it is becoming involved
increasingly in the gangmaster operations at a regional level.
It has always been invited to take part. It is fair to say that
until the relatively recent past it has been a judgment by the
HSE that where there were not obvious health and safety implications
that it would be inappropriate for it to allocate its resources
in that direction. Earlier when Mrs Organ referred to seeing large
numbers of cockle pickers on the beaches of Morecambe Bay and
raising the question about why action did not take place, many
of those people would have been there, first of all, quite legitimately
and secondly quite safely as far as the Health and Safety Executive
is involved. The tragedy in Morecambe Bay in February really focused
all of our attentions on what can be the implications and the
Health and Safety Executive has been looking at what further measures
it needs to take, particularly guidance to people engaged in that
industry, to make sure that neither the health and safety of the
people employed in that activity or indeed of other third parties,
if you like, will be damaged as a result of that activity going
on.
Paddy Tipping: There has been good working
practice by the HSE in some regions but following the Morecambe
Bay disaster there is more of a policy lead from the centre.
Q343 Ms Atherton: Can you tell us the
attitude of both your Departments to Jim Sheridan's Bill, please?
Mr Pond: We are supportive of
the Bill. Initially, as you know from our response to your report
and indeed your report itself, there is a concern that the Bill
itself is not going to solve all of the problems. Licensing can
make a valuable contribution to dealing with the issue but given
much of the activity we have been discussing it is by its very
definition invisible, illegal and is outside the formal economy
and these are not people who are going to rush forward to licence
themselves as legal operators. We do believe that as one of a
number of measures it will make an important contribution. We
still need to make sure we sort out issues of enforcement and
that we have time to because we have to set up the licensing scheme
first. There will be an issue about effective enforcement and
if the enforcement is not effective then this will be seen as
just another gesture. I have had a number of discussions, I mentioned
this earlier on, with Jim Sheridan himself, with Alun Michael,
who is doing the work within Defra on the Bill, and with other
organisations like the T&G and with some of the other major
players, the retailers' organisations, and so on and so forth,
to give support to the Bill.
Q344 Ms Atherton: Can you tell us when
you met Jim Sheridan?
Mr Pond: I have had two or three
meetings with him, by recollection the last one I had with him
was something like three to four weeks ago. I am happy to give
you a note on that.
Q345 Ms Atherton: Have you met the T&G?
Mr Pond: I have met with them
and I have had lengthy discussions with them round the Bill before
the discussions with Jim himself.
Q346 Ms Atherton: We might pursue that
further at another time. I pleased you think it is an important
contribution. Could I ask you Beverley Hughes for your Department's
view?
Beverley Hughes: We supported
the Bill from the start and we felt that the Government should
support it, I felt so and the Home Secretary also made his views
clear in the process of discussions amongst ministers and views
being expressed as to whether the Government would support it.
We did so from the outset. Once the tragedy in Morecambe Bay took
place we were also concerned that on the face of it it was not
at that point necessarily clear that it would extend to fisheries,
and again the Home Secretary made his views known that he thought
in supporting the Bill we should make sure that it extended to
that sector as well.
Q347 Ms Atherton: You both support it.
Presumably you will be arguing for the Government to make parliamentary
time to secure it going through before we rise for summer recess?
Mr Pond: When Mrs Organ said "when
and not if" the Bill becomes law I have to say that is because
the Government is supporting it. It will become law.
Q348 Ms Atherton: I am delighted to hear
that. Lord Whitty who is leading the policy would not give that
commitment this morning. If there has been a revision in the course
of the morning we are absolutely delighted but I suspect that
is not the case. You two ministers sitting here now are telling
us that you will make sure that Jim Sheridan's Private Member's
Bill becomes law and that time will be made in the Commons and
the Lords to make sure that it goes through.
Beverley Hughes: It is a Private
Member's Bill and it is going through the Private Member's Bill
process and obviously everyone understands what that involves.
As far as the Government can give this Bill a fair wind we are
giving it a fair wind and we want to support it.
Q349 Chairman: Can we just pin you down,
these are all lovely words, giving it a fair wind and supporting
it, it is slightly different from a rather clearer set of words
which says, if the time is available. If the private members process
runs out will the Government take this over as a Government measure?
Have you discussed that?
Beverley Hughes: I cannot give
you that commitment today and that is probably the point at which
Lord Whitty could not give a commitment because that will depend
on business managers and the way parliamentary time is allocated.
What we want to see is this bill will become law through the private
member's bill process. Unless anybody puts any obstacles in the
way I cannot see any reason why that should not happen.
Q350 Chairman: That is still sidestepping
ever so slightly the question because it will have been considered
in the legislative committee as to what the Government's attitude
would be if by any chance it runs into some problems in either
this House or the Upper House.
Beverley Hughes: If everybody,
including the Government, but also including other people, supports
this Bill I cannot see any reason why it will not go through on
the Private Member's Bill process.
Alan Simpson: Having had considerable
experience of trying to get various Private Members' Bills through
the House I know that many of them survive or fail according to
the Forth principle—the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—all
it needs is one Member of Parliament to decide to play silly buggers
with it and the Bill gets talked down. I think it is important
that Committee members press Ministers here about an early statement
about the extent of government support because I think it changes
the nature of the debate which will take place round the Jim Sheridan
Bill. If all Members of the House understand that if the Bill
is frustrated by any individual Member or chicanery the Government
will step in and will pick up that Bill. I think it will change
the nature of the discussions round the Sheridan Bill. It is a
plea for the Ministers to take this away and to be in discussion
with their colleagues such that there is that clear sign put out.
Q351 Chairman: The Ministers are champing
at the bit to give you the answer that you want.
Beverley Hughes: I was simply
going to make the point that the commitment of the Government
and all Government departments for this Bill could not be clearer,
it is absolute, we want to see this on the statute book. There
is also an onus on every political party to make sure that the
process that it has now embarked on through the Private Member's
Bill process is not thwarted by any individual. It seems to me
that individual parties have a responsibility because this is
the best way to get this Bill on the statute book at the earliest
opportunity.
Mr Pond: Given that the Bill has
Government support, given it has support from both sides of industry,
given it clearly has support out there in the country by the public
I think any individual Member that tried to use the tricks and
chicanery of the parliamentary process to block this Bill would
have more than either the Government or the Committee to worry
about in terms of the response they got.
Q352 Chairman: If somebody did do these
dreadful things to which you just referred would you pick it up?
Mr Pond: That is a matter which
will have to be determined by the business managers, it is not
something that either Minister sitting in front of you can give
a commitment to do this morning.
Q353 Chairman: Would your respective
Departments make a recommendation that your secretaries of state
fought for it to be picked up if it trips over?
Beverley Hughes: We have an opportunity
to get this on the statute book now with process that it is in.
It would not be right to give a commitment to say that if somebody
fouls up that process when they do not need to the Government
will give parliamentary time and affect another part of its parliamentary
programme in advance.
Chairman: I think it is clear you have
not or you are not able to make that recommendation.
Q354 Mr Lazarowicz: In our report last
year we were concerned about migrant gang workers knowing their
rights. In the first Government report and the follow up report
the only practical examples given are some leaflets in Portuguese
and some work in a CAB[1]in
South Lincolnshire, what steps are you taking to try and assure
these migrant workers have rights when they are here legally,
for example material in foreign language?
Mr Pond: As you know a number
of voluntary organisations, especially Citizens' Advice have been
taking a very constructive approach with our support to make sure
that people know what their rights are. There was the question
that Ms Atherton asked about what happens before people get here.
Members will recognise this is really quite a significant task
to disseminate the information in the countries of origin to people
who are not yet here. In that respect I think we would have quite
a job on our hands to try to do that. We have to make sure that
through the voluntary organisations already doing this job to
some extent, through our own departmental mechanisms, particularly
the guidance which I mentioned the Health and Safety Executive
is issuing to people working in that industry about the safety
requirements, just to remind them about some of the basic precautions
which they may know about but may have forgotten, those are the
measures that are likely to be most effective.
Q355 Chairman: Could I just ask you,
one of the things which worried me is because there are a lot
of people in the United Kingdom who ought not to be here—some
of them are here for all kinds of reasons we do not know about—when
you arrest people in connection with one of your prosecutions—I
see Minister in Annex A says "54 people interviewed"—do
you do an analysis of their status, first of all, to know for
what reason they are in the United Kingdom?
Mr Pond: I am advised this would
depend on the reason they were arrested in the first place.
Q356 Chairman: I am just interested in
the cases which have come to court to get some idea of the background
as to why those people were here, for example were they overstaying
or were they brought in especially to be illegal immigrants and
therefore vulnerable to exploitation by gangmasters; whether they
were United Kingdom nationals who did not want to be recognised
officially, and so on and so forth, to understand a little more
about the vulnerability that leads those individuals who become
involved in this activity to be vulnerable in the ways that they
are? Would it be possible to have some statistical analysis done
in respect of those cases which have come to court so that we
might get a better idea of the profile of the people who are the
subject of the these illegal forms of employment?
Mr Kitchen: I feel obliged to
talk about Annex A which relates to Operation Christmas
and to explain the process. We have through Operation Gangmaster
an intent to create operations which bring together enforcement
agencies in cases where they would not otherwise be done because
they would not be done by the individual departments under their
own compliance agenda. At the point of which you undertake the
operation the people are interviewed to find out firstly whether
they are able to work in the United Kingdom, secondly whether
they are on benefit, and this is the employees, the two major
issues are unemployment benefit of some form of another or the
right to work. If they are "right to work" cases then
it is usually passed to the Immigration Service to deal with those
issues which properly lie within. The whole point of a gangmaster
operation is to have the right resource, with the right skills,
the right legal background—
Q357 Chairman: The reason I asked that
question, and I am still seeking after the facts, the Minister
of State made it very clear and indeed the Under-Secretary made
it clear that you are about focusing your resources where you
are going to get the most effect. This is a big and a complicated
subject, I was after getting some idea of the background. I do
not mind how the information is shuffled up and down the line
but it would be helpful for the Committee to have some kind of
breakdown in respect of those cases where successful prosecutions
have enabled you to interview the people who were being illegally
employed. I would like to know whether they were, for example,
brought into the United Kingdom to be exploited, arrived here
and fell on hard times and were exploited or whatever? I could
do with some background.
Mr Kitchen: I am sure we can come
up with some analysis of the background of the people who are
dealt with through Operation Gangmaster. I am equally confident
we could do something similar on the wider DWP activity, I do
not know about the other departmental activity.
Q358 Chairman: Perhaps you can use the
Operation Gangmaster mechanism to ensure that between DWP
and the Home Office we might get a comprehensive answer to that
question. Ministers and officials, may I thank you most sincerely
for your patience as we have gone through a lot of questions.
We are grateful to you for coming before us. If after you have
reflected further on what we said there is anything else you would
like to add in addition to that which we have requested we would
be very happy to receive it. Minister of State, I am not certain
we will have time to come and look with the clarity that you wish
at some of the architecture but if there is any wish then we will
communicate directly to the Home Office. Thank you very much.
1 Citizens Advice Bureau. Back
| 
