Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation |
|
Mr. Paterson: The Minister talks of differentiating between legitimate and illegitimate gangmasters; how often does he envisage activities being audited? An operation could be presented as being legitimate in time for the audit before, sadly, falling away in its operations and then picking itself up in time for the next audit. Alun Michael: That is very much the business of the agency and the industry. That is the strength of having a board that involves people who do the work on the ground and who are involved in the farming industry, the preparation of food and right up the supply chain to the retailers. That is at the heart of our approach. Such people know the day-to-day business and will recognise if people are in breach, as there will be relevant information in the trade union networks and those of farmers and communities. Such a network of information will be tremendously important and supportive to the agency. I shall return to that issue in a moment. Mr. Paterson: And audit? Alun Michael: I just said that that is for the agency to determine. There may also be circumstances in which it is clear that someone is operating a genuine business and is doing so consistently, and they will be audited less frequently than someone running a business that is thought to be a bit dubious, or is new, or perhaps needs support to become legitimate. There will be some businesses on the edge of such activities. Flexibility is the name of the game. I should make it clear that the regulations cannot extend the authority’s functions; those are established in the primary legislation. The way in which the authority discharges its functions, particularly when that relates to the delivery of transient objectives, is best dealt with in the management statement agreed between the authority and the Secretary of State. I emphasise again that we want to improve standards in the industry and promote best practice. That will involve the co-operation of other Departments, but my ministerial colleagues can see the advantage of helping legitimate gangmasters to be even more professional and successful, because that means payment of taxes and the long-term viability of businesses and brings a series of benefits to those who are receiving labour providers and those who are employed in the industry. The hon. Member for North Shropshire asked about the speed of events. He will have detected a wish to move on from the fact that we have a chairman-designate and a chief executive-designate who will be confirmed by the Secretary of State once the regulations are in place. We will then proceed rapidly to appoint the other members of the board. The
The hon. Gentleman said that the board was very large, and asked whether it would be better to make use of liaison groups. The original idea was to use the liaison groups to separate out different activities—facing towards the enforcement people and facing towards the industry. However, from the discussion that took place, it was concluded that it would be better, at least in the first instance, to include everyone on the board. That is clearly the aspiration of the partners, and all the partners involved accept the idea of reviewing the board arrangements after three years. I would be surprised if we did not develop a best-practice model that engaged all parts of industry and in which, perhaps, the liaison groups became the focal point of liaison and the board a much smaller executive board. However, it will be necessary to build up people’s confidence and to encourage the engagement of all parts of the industry in the design stage. It is fair to say that all the players show considerable enthusiasm, and it takes a lot of doing to keep that in play while the agency is designed and established. The hon. Gentleman also asked about confidentiality. The board will not be involved in dealing with confidential information, but in the design, which takes into account the needs of the whole supply chain in the industry. I am sure that with the experience gained in the respective roles of a police authority and the operational responsibilities of a chief constable, we may have less difficulty in getting the design right in relation to those two functions than might be the case if we were reinventing the wheel. The board’s responsibility is to manage the day-to-day operation of the authority; it will not need access to detailed operational intelligence. The question of the number of licences to be issued is significant, not least because there may be change in the industry as a result of the regulations. We may find that more providers appear who are confident about operating in a well-regulated area, or there may be a smaller number of larger organisations—it is impossible to say at this stage. We must make the best assessment we can. The cost will also depend on the complexity of licence conditions. It is for the authority to decide the cost as well as the number of licences issued. Research commissioned by DEFRA suggests a figure of 2,500 to 3,000, to which several Members have referred, in agriculture and associated packaging alone. That research will be published shortly and may lead to further discussion, but we will know for certain only once the agency is in being and we see how it works in practice. Column Number: 23 The hon. Member for St. Ives rightly said that affordable accommodation is important, but I am not sure how far we can discuss it in the context of the regulations. I can say, however, that we want labour provision to be out in the open rather than a secret activity. The amount of discussion that we have on the way in which the business is conducted and accommodation is provided is bound to increase if there is a move away from many activities taking place in secret and governed by fear. The investigation of any extension to catering and building goes beyond what the legislation allows us to do—perhaps I will ask the chairman to sort that out in week two. Seriously, though, it is important for us to ensure that the agency is fully effective in the area for which it has responsibility. Policy makers responsible for other industries in which gangmasters are active may choose to learn from the agency’s experience but, as I said in the Committee that considered the original Bill, let us keep things tight and defined and concentrate on primary concerns while recognising that it is perfectly accurate to say that there is exploitation in other industries. It is worth saying that we should draw the line as widely as possible when we define the scope of the legislation, because it is a lot easier to draw back and create exceptions than it is to expand numbers afterwards. There may be a need for a lot of discussion on the board and to be as comprehensive as possible, and then make changes in the light of experience. Again, that is the advantage of having a wide range of people on the board. I must say again, however, that any change in the scope of the legislation is for the Government and Parliament to decide. We cannot go outside the scope of the Act. The hon. Gentleman asked whether farmer-to-farmer loans required a licence. That is precisely what I was talking about when I asked what exceptions we should create and how we ensure that in creating exceptions for the perfectly legitimate purpose of allowing people to share equipment and to support each other, we do not create a loophole that would create problems. We are taking that into account in drafting the exclusions regulations, which we shall consider in due course and which the Act allows the Secretary of State to make. We will consult on those regulations shortly. That consultation will include a proposal to exempt farmer-to-farmer loans and similar activities, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others who have made a similar point will accept that we need to take care to guard against unintended consequences. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West rightly cited examples of good practice bringing wider benefits. That is the sort of thing that we want to encourage. She also underlined the need for liaison with the Home Office, which I completely accept. Clear lines of communication between Departments and enforcement agencies will be essential in order to make the legislation effective. Column Number: 24 The right hon. Member for Fylde said that the agency—I paraphrase slightly—must operate in the context of the needs of the industry. He is right; it must operate in the context of the need to ensure the supply of labour through robust, legitimate businesses rather than those of another sort. The broad membership of the board will ensure that that point will not be lost. The finances of the agency are, at this point, very much estimates. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs must underwrite the establishment of the agency, and we have undertaken to do that. It will need good liaison over time between the agency and DEFRA as a sponsor Department. It would be wonderful to jump ahead and predict the past, as it were, but clearly we cannot do that. We must manage the process as well as we can. I am not sure that the role of the agency is as heavy as that of the Criminal Records Bureau, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The latter is under a pretty complex requirement involving the attempt to protect the most vulnerable in society. We want to create a virtuous circle around what is legitimate, to minimise bureaucracy. As to whether the authority can shorten the period of a licence, the answer is yes. The Act allows the authority to vary licences—for instance if the licence holder’s business details change or the details of employees require amendment. Licences can be revoked if it appears to the authority that a condition of the licence has not been complied with. Changes must be notified to the licence holder in writing, but transfers can be made with the written consent of the authority—for instance, when a business changes hands. It is such matters that the authority will have to look at carefully, in detail, to ensure that transfers will be regulated in a way that reflects reality on the ground and ensures that the agency is not taken for a ride. Licences can also authorise activities by persons acting on behalf of the licence holder, if they are named or otherwise specified in the licence—that is, by reference to their function. However, again, identification of individuals and their responsibility will be very important. I imagine that that will be a matter for early discussion by the authority. Several hon. Members raised issues about liaison with Operation Gangmaster. I think that I have referred to that in general terms, but the Act provides for a two-way exchange of information, which includes Government enforcement teams such as Operation Gangmaster. Complementarity will be crucial in that context. It will be possible for applicants to be given provisional licences to ensure that there is a capacity to obey the requirements of the licence. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood sang the virtues of Nottingham—and who better to explain why Nottingham is the perfect location for the authority? There was a high level of stakeholder involvement in preparations for the establishment of the agency. In view of that, I believe that the next stage, involving the board, the authority, the chairman and the chief executive working together in the context of the board’s wide representation, together with the
I know that right hon. and hon. Members were as keen as Ministers to create the agency virtually overnight, as soon as the Bill was passed. We all know that things take a little longer, but I assure the Committee that we shall try to get the agency up and
Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
Committee rose at Six o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 1 March 2005 |