---

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: That is not allowed in this place.

Lord Rooker: No, I am not striking on this. The Committee will agree, however, that flexibility should not be provided at the expense of the workers. That is the point. Licensing will oblige gangmasters to operate their business in an ethical and legal manner. It will also create a clear distinction between legal and illegal operators. These arrangements provide the ability to ensure that those gangmasters who try to operate without a licence can indeed be prevented from doing so, so that there is no place for unlicensed gangmasters in the future. We have come a long way from the kick-off of the Bill in 2004 and since Richard Body's debate—I have not reread it—in which he gave some horrifying examples of abuses by gangmasters.

At the latest date for which I have figures, 81 licences have been issued and there have been 295 applications. The licensing authority is to be congratulated on working from a standing start. Concerns have been expressed about the late start for shellfishing. I am certain that they are genuine, and that Members of the Committee are not seeking to criticise the licensing arrangements. I hope that I have given a satisfactory explanation of that delay.

I will address some of the detailed points raised. Does the word "business" cover sole traders? Yes. I do not need to say more than that. On the resources available to ensure adequate publicity, Defra is funding the licensing authority's set-up costs, and has made provision for publicity in the budget. On the appointed person hearing, the regulations prescribe a timetable for appeals. An expedited procedure applies when a decision has immediate effect, and an appeal must be lodged within 20 working days. The aim is to determine an appeal within 35 days, where the decision has immediate effect.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked why records must be kept for one year under paragraph 22. It is a requirement of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003. The relevant part of these regulations is contained in the schedule to the Gangmasters (Licensing Conditions) Rules as they apply to gangmasters. So that already operates elsewhere.

Accommodation for workers is covered in the licensing standards, and checks are made to ensure that workers are not overcharged. That is the greatest rip-off in some other sectors.
 
16 May 2006 : Column GC68
 

The chair of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority is Mr Paul Whitehouse, and there are 29 board members. Paul Whitehouse was a police chief constable and is a man of considerable experience, and we wish him and his colleagues well.

What does the application inspection charge cover, and how is it calculated? The application inspection fee covers the cost of a visit to the labour provider's business and interviews of the workers supplied, which is normally estimated to take two days.

The noble Baroness asked why the age specified was 22 rather than 21, and I wondered about that myself; but 22 is used because that is the age at which the national minimum wage applies.

The licensing scheme applies both to UK-based labour providers and to labour providers based overseas, so no distinction is made on the basis of a worker's nationality—I will get confirmation on that. That was among the noble Baroness's opening points—it was only that that reminded me that I had done it, indeed for Concordia. Paragraph 13 of the schedule to the Gangmasters Licensing (Exclusions) Regulations applies to the first day when the worker is employed and does not restrict the agency from supplying a second worker on the next day.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful for that response, but does that mean that that is the only occasion—that it is a first and a one-off? I know that employers can take on other workers on subsequent days, but do they have to do it every day for the same worker?

Lord Rooker: It is for one worker per day, but if clarification is needed I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Byford: I would be grateful.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: May I have some clarification on what the Minister has said in the past couple of minutes? Does it apply to EU citizens alone, or to citizens outside the EU as well?

Lord Rooker: It applies to everybody; no distinction is made, otherwise there would be a loophole for massive exploitation. Obviously, gangmasters must be licensed anyway, so we hope that there will only be good gangmasters and that they will not exploit people. But the regulations must cover everybody; you cannot send people out to work under different conditions just because they are of different nationalities. They have to work as a team, as well.

I was asked why we did not do the shellfish regulations first. It was hoped that one set of licensing regulation conditions could fit both farming and shellfish gathering, but on consultation that proved not to be the case. We pushed ahead with farming so that we avoided delaying licensing any more than was necessary. I shall come back to any points that I have not covered—especially the point about paragraph 13 of the schedule that the noble Baroness asked me about.
 
16 May 2006 : Column GC69
 

Baroness Byford: I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will be very pleased that he does not find himself in difficulty. I am grateful, too, to the Minister for his response. I am still quite perplexed that the legislation has taken as long as it has to get to this stage. All of us who have followed this process carefully are very disappointed about that, but we are where we are.

The Minister referred to the delay in the shellfish regulations. I presume that there were already regulations about employing people coming from the Home Office. I do not expect him to comment on that; it is just an aside, because I know that he has served in the Home Office. Presumably there was some protection for workers under that set-up.

Lord Rooker: The seasonal workers scheme was operating, so in that sense the Home Office set rules on numbers, and I dealt with that when I was there. But there were no conditions or benefits of employment for those people at that time. This legislation is new for the industry.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful for that clarification. However, I ask the Minister to speed it up as much as possible because we need this regulation. I welcome it and I know that the industry welcomes it. We want to see good gangmasters who operate fair systems, and we want to make sure that rogue gangmasters who exploit workers, wherever they come from, should be taken to task.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gangmasters (Appeals) Regulations 2006

Baroness Byford: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Gangmasters (Appeals) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/662) [30th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Byford.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gangmasters (Licensing Conditions) Rules 2006

Baroness Byford: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Gangmasters (Licensing Conditions) Rules 2006 (S.I. 2006/660) [30th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Byford.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
 
16 May 2006 : Column GC70
 

Housing (Interim Management Orders) (Prescribed Circumstances) (England) Order 2006

Baroness Hanham rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Housing (Interim Management Orders) (Prescribed Circumstances) (England) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/369) [26th Report from the Merits Committee].

The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to all the housing orders together. They are the second tranche of orders that were introduced by secondary legislation on 6 April and arise from the Housing Act 2004. I do not have an enormous amount to say on the orders, but I have some questions, which is why I have prayed against them. It would be helpful to those who are involved in private housing management to have answers to the questions that they have put to me. I fully understand the imperatives that have brought these regulations about, and I believe that much will be achieved if they are handled with a reasonably light touch within the parameters laid down.

There are two elements in the orders before us. The first is intervention by the local authority when there are concerns about the antisocial behaviour of an occupier or the occupiers of a privately managed property. That is the Housing (Interim Management Orders) (Prescribed Circumstances) (England) Order 2006. This order applies when the landlord is deemed not to take sufficient action to deal with antisocial behaviour. In principle, as I indicated during the passage of the Housing Act 2004, we understand that concerns can arise from the actions of "neighbours from hell". But it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the parameters that define antisocial behaviour and when it might be deemed appropriate for a local authority to make an interim management order. Different grades of problems arise from neighbours and I wonder what would be required for a local authority to intervene. Would it be an enormous number of complaints from nearby residents or the destruction of property? It would be helpful to know.

The other area covered in the orders is the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. Those trying to implement the orders have considerable anxieties. I have been briefed by the British Property Federation and the National Landlords Association. The first problem relates to the amount of time that has been allowed—or not allowed—between the publication of the regulations and their implementation. As part of the Government's regulation rules, there is a minimum period of three months between a regulation being published and coming into force. In the case of the three orders today, they came into effect on 6 April, with local authorities gaining their enforcement powers on 6 July.

As the Minister will know, the three-month delay is meant to help small businesses—in this case,
 
16 May 2006 : Column GC71
 
landlords—have a full three months in which to familiarise themselves with the new law and submit their license applications. However, because all the regulations were published very late landlords are not getting the full benefit of the implementation period, as most local authorities have yet to provide the specifics for implementation at local level. It is clear from information that has been obtained that few local authorities are, in fact, ready for the implementation of the scheme and the issue of licenses. How does the Minister believe implementation is to take place against a constrained timescale such as this? Further, there is the question of the costs of licences, which have been left to individual local authorities to assess, but which anecdotal evidence suggests could be as much as £500 for a three-storey, five-bedroom property, which is not large in the context of houses in multiple occupancy. Does the Minister believe that there is a level that is becoming apparent as a licence charge?

Many landlords are also concerned with what they see as excessive requirements in relation to amenity standards, in particular the number of bathrooms that have to be provided, and the requirements for wash hand basins in bedrooms in shared houses. In many instances it is impractical to provide them, in terms of plumbing and reasonable cost. The Government's table for the interpretation of these standards, which had to be issued to clarify the somewhat ill-drafted miscellaneous provisions regulations seems to indicate that the provision required is significantly beyond that required in normal private accommodation. Will the Minister comment on that, and on the requirements for the testing of electrical supply, which appear to be far more onerous than under previous circumstances when the testing of gas and water was introduced?

However, the main problem is a statutory instrument that does not appear to have appeared, relating to Section 257 of the Act. Regulations were due to have been published in draft at the end of January, but have still not appeared, and they are now not due until mid-June, but will still be coming into force on 6 July. That is quite unsatisfactory as it breaches two of the Government's own regulatory rules: the 12-week implementation period for new regulations and the obligation, which was to be implemented from the beginning of this year, to introduce regulations on only one of two common commencement dates, in April and October, except in exceptional circumstances, which clearly these are not. The Minister may not be in a position to make any commitment on this today, but it would be helpful if the commencement date for the regulations that are yet to be published could be moved to October, with a subsequent delay in local authorities being given their enforcement powers to that date also. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Housing (Interim Management Orders) (Prescribed Circumstances) (England) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/369) [26th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Hanham.)
 
16 May 2006 : Column GC72
 

4.45 pm

---