Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 28 April 2004.

Standing Committee C

Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution connected with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, if proceedings on the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill are not completed at this day's sitting, the Committee do meet on Thursday 29th April at 9.30 am—[Jim Sheridan.]

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Although my point is not directly related to the sittings motion, it might ease the work of Members and therefore be helpful if I make it now. I have asked my officials to provide a draft of the Bill as it would read were all the amendments made. If I have your permission, Mr. Illsley, and that of the Committee, I can make that available to Committee members now. As many of the amendments are quite complex, doing so might ease the pressures on the Committee.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I am sure that the Committee will be grateful for that provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 - Interpretation

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 3—Work to which this Act applies.

New clause 5—Territorial scope of application.

New clause 26—Meaning of ''worker''.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. You may be as anxious as I am, given that this is my first opportunity to present a private Member's Bill. I hope that people will be tender with me.

I am deleting clauses and making amendments to clause 6 following extensive discussions with the Government on what detailed provisions would be required. I have tabled new clauses to replace the deleted ones. My intention has always been to ensure that any law on the licensing of gangmasters is effective and robust. I believe that the amendments I propose will deliver just such a law.

I thank the Government for the help and support that they have given me in redrafting the Bill, and all the coalition partners within the group who are worked hard alongside us. That group encompasses organisations such as the National Farmers Union to the Transport and General Workers Union, so most people will recognise that that is a strange coalition partnership. All the partners have helped to inform my thinking about how the legislation should operate. The

coalition for progress spans workers, employers, industry, unions and the wider community. Its breadth and depth powerfully reflect the seriousness of the issue and the merits of and the need for the Bill.

I also thank my parliamentary colleagues, many of whom are here today. They have been very supportive of what I am trying to achieve, and they have given wise advice on how best to reach our shared goal.

On Second Reading I said that the tragic loss of life at Morecambe bay was a terrible reminder that it is time for legislation, not exploitation. It is fortuitous that the Committee is sitting today, on what is regarded as the workers memorial day. That is a fitting tribute to workers not only throughout Britain, but those poor souls who lost their lives on Morecambe bay. We have a duty to ensure that those who lost their lives on that terrible day have a fitting memorial.

Today, with the Bill, we have an opportunity to build that memorial and to do what we are elected to do as Members of Parliament—to make a difference to people's lives.

Gavin Strang (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I have a question about a definition in new clause 3, but before I ask it, let me congratulate my hon. Friend on getting us to this point, which is a great achievement. Foremost among his supporters is the TGWU, but he has support from other organisations and stakeholders in the business community. As someone who has been around a long time, I know that the Country Land and Business Association, the NFU and the TGWU do come together from time to time. Other organisations from the food industry have joined in as well.

My question relates to the definition of forestry. Before I raise it, I wish to explain my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. It has been in there for at least two years, and this is my first chance to explain it.

As most people know, I have a farming background. The Strangs moved from Strathaven in the west to Perthshire in 1906. My grandfather moved and my father took over the farm, and he should have got the chance to buy it but it did not work out that way when it was transferred from the private landlord to the insurance company. Eventually, my brother got the chance to buy it, and I helped him out by buying a couple of fields in a woodland area, so, I have a small wood. I do not get any income from the woodland. One earns income from forestry, but I would have to spend money on thinning trees. When one buys a forest, one has to spend money; it is only when one harvests it that one gets any income.

The critical point I wish to make relates to the position of forestry workers. Some people will recall a very bad case in Scotland. I think that the worker involved was Portuguese—he was certainly from the Iberian peninsula—and the agent or gangmaster was also from the continent. He was working in a productive forest, not woodland—it is very important to distinguish between a productive forest and recreational woodland—when he broke his back. The TGWU and Alex Smith, the local Member of the

European Parliament, helped him out at the hospital because he did not speak any English. At the time, there was quite a reaction in the Scottish papers.

That is a classic case of what can happen when gangmasters exploit workers on the scale that they have been doing in many sectors of the British economy. The Bill deals only with agriculture, forestry and related sectors. The definition of agricultural work refers to the use of land as an

''orchard or osier land or woodland''.

It is critical to make sure that the term ''woodland'' applies to all woods, not just hardwoods, softwoods, and those that are important to the farming industry in providing shelter. It must include the large productive forests, so that every worker in the forestry industry who works with trees is covered..

Mark Simmonds (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)

It is a delight to serve under the auspices of your chairmanship yet again, Mr. Illsley. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on his hard work in getting this important Bill to Committee stage. It has been a tremendous achievement to hold together such a disparate group of supporters, and he has done an excellent job. I also thank the Minister, who has taken a lot of time and trouble to make sure that the Government co-operate with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his Bill gets on to the statute book as fast as possible.

Many Members will know of my personal support for the Bill. I introduced a ten-minute Bill along similar lines last September. However, I have a number of questions to ask as we go through the new clauses, and I hope that the Committee will bear with me. I am keen to make sure that the perspective of the Lincolnshire agricultural sector is expressed, so that there are no unnecessary regulations and burdens on it or on legitimate gangmasters and labour providers, who must not be deterred from providing much-needed labour, much of it migrant labour, in future. We must make sure that the British agricultural sector is not harmed by this legislation in any way.

Despite what the hon. Gentleman said, unfortunately three Conservative Members who have taken a keen interest in the Bill cannot be here this afternoon because of immovable prior engagements. They are my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who made a detailed and well-researched speech on Second Reading; my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), who was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the Conservative Government and strongly supports the Bill; and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who has taken an active and supportive role in turning the Bill into an Act.

There are some broader points relating to the group of new clauses that I think the Minister needs to address, either when he winds up this stand part debate, or later. First, the seeming duplication that will exist between this Bill, when it is enacted, and the Employment Agencies Act 1973, requires clarification. We do not want to make legitimate labour providers go through two sets of regulations to meet the

legislative criteria, nor do we want to allow the 1973 Act to be route whereby rogue or illegitimate gangmasters circumvent the Bill's provisions.

I shall deal with other regulations later, as well as certain impacts of the Bill, particularly the costs that are set out in the draft cost analysis, which I fear may deter some legitimate labour providers.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

On the point about overlap with earlier legislation, does my hon. Friend agree that a crucial, related issue, which the NFU raised, is enforcement? It is arguable that earlier problems arose from a lack of enforcement, and the NFU's point that that there must be effective enforcement must be seen alongside the issue of duplication of legislation.

Mark Simmonds (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. I suggest that we get into the details of enforcement and the related issues and problems when we debate new clause 15 and the associated amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide clarification today, or that he or his advisers will be able to set out the details more clearly either in future regulations as adjuncts to the Bill, or by writing to hon. Members.

I broadly welcome new clause 3. I am aware that the most serious problems with rogue gangmasters exist in the agriculture and horticulture sectors, but there is a danger that illegal operators will be able to circumvent the legislation if other key sectors in which they are involved are not included. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) gave a good example. In my experience, the more prevalent examples are in office cleaning and catering. Some gangmasters in Lincolnshire and elsewhere in the UK provide casual labour to various sectors, and we must ensure either in the Bill or in regulations that it will not be possible for a gangmaster to change the remit of his practices, or to pretend that he provides gang labour only to the office cleaning or catering sectors when in fact he is subcontracting his business to the agriculture and horticulture sectors, and thereby getting around many of the excellent clauses and the penalties in the Bill.

The NFU has clearly said that it is wrong in principle for employers in the agriculture and horticulture sectors to be singled out for new regulations and costs, whereas those operating in other sectors are not. That defeats our attempts to create a level playing field for legitimate providers. As we all know, illegitimate providers undercut legitimate providers in the marketplace.

My other concern about new clause 3 is the ambiguity around the terms ''consumable produce'' and ''agriculture''. How far up the food chain will the licensing scheme apply? For example, is a gangmaster who provides labour for sandwich packing to be covered by the legislation? It would be wrong if a supermarket or someone between the supermarket and the producer or grower were caught by the legislation if that is not what is intended, or if someone broke the law unknowingly, because they did not think that the law applied to them.

I welcome new clause 5, which would bring gangmasters acting outside the United Kingdom under the legislation. There are serious problems with Portuguese gangmasters in my constituency and elsewhere in Lincolnshire and Norfolk, and Chinese gangmasters have significant operations in the constituency of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), where a terrible tragedy happened. In practice, how will we enforce the legislation against gangmasters who operate from outside the UK and who may never have set foot in this country?

I raised the issue on Second Reading. Some Lincolnshire packhouse owners and producers operate with Portuguese gangmasters who fly workers in or bring them in by other means, sometimes legally, sometimes illegally. The Minister is aware of that practice. Only yesterday, I discussed with the relevant Foreign Office Minister the fact that many Latin Americans are now coming up through the Iberian peninsula with forged documents. They pretend to be Portuguese or Spanish when in fact they are Brazilian or Bolivian. All those issues must be considered. Is the intention to seize the assets of foreign gangmasters as well as those of rogue UK gangmasters? How will that operate, and how will the former be prosecuted?

New clause 26 seems sensible. It states clearly that ''worker'' includes illegal workers who have no right to be in this country. In my experience, it is those workers who are exploited, mainly because they have no recourse through the trade unions, the law courts or the police. That is the hole that we need to plug.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) in respect of the pleasure of serving under you, Mr. Illsley, and in congratulating the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire on his promotion of the Bill. I know that the hon. Gentleman and the Government have done a tremendous amount of productive work.

The Government must understand that there will be a strong sense of regret in the agricultural and shell fishing communities that the Bill is restricted to them. The illegitimate and appalling misuse of labour is not restricted to those sectors. Although under new clause 3(5)

''The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision''

to extend the requirements of the Bill to other activities, I should prefer it not to be restricted in that way. It is a disappointment, and I imagine that some people in the agricultural sector will express regret. The Bill appears to focus on their sector as if it were the cause of the problem. That is not the message that we want to send out.

My second point relates to clarification. In my constituency, some gang labourers who work in the fields are subsequently engaged by packhouses. At present, the packaging and processing of foodstuffs is relatively rudimentary, but there is no knowing how far the packaging, processing, cooking and

development of foodstuffs and consumables will go. It would be helpful to have further clarification from the Minister in that respect.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

It might be appropriate if I explain the thinking behind the new clauses.

New clause 3 is a key element of the revised Bill. It defines the types of work to which the Bill will apply. The Bill is intended not to regulate each and every industry, but to regulate gangmasters in the sectors where they are most common and where the abuses by rogue gangmasters are the most extreme. Therefore, as amended, the Bill will cover all agricultural work and the gathering of shellfish. It also includes the processing or packaging of produce derived from those activities and the processing or packaging of fish.

As I understand it, the definition of agriculture is based on the definition in the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, with which many of us are familiar. New clause 3(4) defines shellfish in wide terms, and subsection (5) gives the Secretary of State the power to include or exclude work from the prescribed limits. Perhaps I should give my right hon. Friend the Minister the opportunity to elaborate, if he wishes to do so, on the way in which he might use that power and on the activities that he intends to include in the regulations.

New clause 5 is a straightforward provision that defines the territorial scope of the Bill. It will apply to the whole of the UK and to UK coastal waters, which extend six international nautical miles out to sea. The new clause is designed close any loopholes through which rogue gangmasters might try to escape by ensuring that the Bill applies to the supply of gang labour in the UK, even if the gangmaster is based outside it.

New clause 26 defines worker in the widest sense, because we must ensure that the Bill applies to all workers engaged by gangmasters. A worker is a worker is a worker, and no worker, indigenous or migrant, should be exploited. The clause will also extend the protection from exploitation to people who may be working illegally. The provision will be the key to ensuring that workers feel able to alert the authorities to any malpractice or breaches of the law on the part of their employers. That is crucial.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I welcome the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. I am sure that having shared a room with you at the beginning of our parliamentary careers will not bring me any advantage, but I hope that such shared experience brings no disadvantages.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire on introducing the Bill and on the considerable amount of time and effort that he has invested in working with myself, my officials and the consortium of supporting organisations to produce an extremely effective Bill.

Hon. Members who have spoken have raised several issues. They want to ensure that we understand exactly what the legislation will do. I welcome the amount of engagement there has been from Committee members and from others prior to today's sitting. In recent weeks, I have had many

meetings with the TGWU, including with its deputy general secretary, Jack Dromey, and with the NFU, including its president, Tim Bennett. The fact that people at that level as well as people from the engine rooms of both organisations—to refer to those present today—have been involved demonstrates how seriously the matter is being taken.

During the course of our consideration, my hon. Friend and I have also met the wider group of stakeholders, which gave us an opportunity to talk through some of the issues, and we have had two meetings with Committee members. I appreciate that not all Committee members were able to attend, but the issues that have been raised in the debate are ones that we spent some time on during those meetings. Such engagement is very unusual. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk attended both meetings and drew on her experience, as did the former Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and other colleagues. We also benefited from the experience of a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown). Even before today's debate, we have had considerable, knowledgeable and well-informed input from MPs. I believe that that process will have helped us to bring a well formed measure before the Committee.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh asked about the definition of agriculture and the impact on forestry. The definition of agriculture that has been used is a wide one that reflects previous use in agricultural wages legislation. That means that the Bill will cover gangmaster activity in forestry. Work in recreational woodlands or in sawmills, for example, might be different matters. However, one of the points that I would make to those who might want to expand the Bill's scope reinforces a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire. The Bill's scope is very clear. It is targeted at agricultural and related activities—including the gathering of cockles, for the obvious reason that the tragic events in Morecambe bay brought that activity to the attention of everyone in the House and the wider public.

Our aim has been to draft the measure as widely as possible and to make sure that we do not create unintended loopholes. We want to stay in the scope of the Bill as originally tabled, for the reasons of priority that my hon. Friend explained and for the reasons of procedure that I have outlined. We will have the capacity to exclude activities from the operation of the Bill. It is better to act that way around, because it ensures that we do not miss something out and thereby create a loophole, and it enables us to avoid excessive bureaucracy. That is why the Bill is designed as it is.

Gavin Strang (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Although I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend expounds at length on this narrow point this afternoon, there has been a great increase in recreational woodland. Local authorities and all sorts of private sector people rightly prize it, because people like walking in woodlands. Many people therefore

work in woods, not only those who cut down trees or maintain them, but park keepers and other workers. It is important that a wood that is defined as recreational woodland is dealt with, but I defy anybody here to tell the difference between such woods by looking at them. They include both hardwoods and softwoods. That is an interesting point, but I am not asking my right hon. Friend to go into it now.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am happy to write to my right hon. Friend on that point. I think that parklands—parks in cities—will not be covered, even though they have woods in them, because their purpose is clearly recreational rather than agricultural. He raises an interesting point. We will have to define the interesting points that can be dealt with in the Bill and those that lie outside its scope and will have to be explored elsewhere.

I have covered several points raised by the hon. Members for Boston and Skegness and for St. Ives (Andrew George) in general terms by referring to the drafting being wide in order to narrow down. Now that the Bill has reached a point from which we hope it will be able to make progress, we intend to get on with the drafting of the secondary legislation that will be required and to share that with members of the Committee. That can be done on an informal basis as the Bill proceeds and goes to another place. In our previous discussions, I said that I would share that information with interested Members, primarily those who are members of this Committee as soon as possible. That may assist Members in another place in their consideration of the Bill and help them to be sure of its intentions.

Mark Simmonds (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)

To clarify, is the Minister guaranteeing that the regulations will be ready for examine when the Bill is discussed in another place? If not, when will they be ready? Will they be ready by the time that the Bill comes back to the House of Commons for consideration on Report?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

This is a private Member's Bill, so consideration after a Bill has gone to the other place and returned to the Commons is dangerous territory. It is possible for a piece of legislation that has general support to fall owing to lack of time. That is why we are so keen to get it right from the start. I am saying that we are able to go so far. I explained our intentions in the meetings that we held, and we are responding to comments that have been made. It is an iterative and engaging process. I hope to have at least a draft of the secondary legislation before the Bill goes to another place and to listen to the views of Members on it. I hope that that will be helpful.

Committee suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I shall respond in general terms to one or two of the issues of concern, but if members of the Committee wish me to, I shall be happy to go into greater detail outside the Committee, for their convenience. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said that the Bill should not be a deterrent

to legitimate labour providers. It is important that the Bill be lean in terms of administration but adequately cover licensing and its enforcement. It does not deal with issues outside its scope that are the responsibility of other Departments. Members of the Committee have expressed concerns about the adequacy of enforcement. Again, I appreciate that those concerns go way beyond the licensing system.

We are trying to create an antisocial behaviour order for gangmasters that encourages legitimate activity, makes that easy—fees will be involved, but they should be the minimum needed to do the job properly—and makes it unprofitable to operate outside the legitimate sector. That is why increased penalties for repeat offenders come into the frame. I make the comparison with the antisocial behaviour order because that is fairly simple to obtain but, if it is breached, the walls come tumbling down on the offender. The same is intended here. The focus will be on dealing immediately and quickly with those outside the licensing system, the real villains of the piece, the exploitative people who take part in all sorts of illegal activities—usually, a mixture of several.

Reference was again made to the overlap with other legislation, in particular employment agencies legislation. We considered that issue with some care. We could draw a careful line, so that neither piece of legislation overlapped the other but, as many hon. Members have said, there would be a danger that a gangmaster who wanted to operate without meeting the requirements of the Bill could register under the employment agencies legislation and thereby be exempted from the Bill. That is why we have made it clear that gangmaster activities by anyone, including those who have registered under the 1973 Act, will be caught by the Bill. Again, we want to allow legitimate activities, keeping administration to a minimum and drawing helpful lines, but to avoid the possibility that people will evade the intentions of the legislation because we have gone into too much detail, thereby creating unintended loopholes.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The Minister said earlier that we should avoid unintended loopholes, and that is right, but in his definition of agriculture he may be creating a loophole in relation to flower and bulb growers and packers. The closest we get to a definition that covers that is in new clause 3(3)(e), which refers to

''the use of land for market gardens or nursery grounds.''

I am sure that those who wanted to find a loophole could say that that definition does not apply to large plantations of bulbs and flowers.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point in the way that he did, and I can reassure him on it. One advantage of using a definition that is used in other legislation is that we know how it applies. I can assure him that the activities that he spoke about are covered in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire made the point that the Bill applies to all agricultural work, including work in horticultural sector-associated packhouses, where many gangworkers are

employed. The gathering of shellfish has also been covered in the light of the tragic events at Morecambe bay. I can confirm that our intention is to introduce regulations to exclude some downstream processing activities, which partly addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. That will cover, for instance, cheese or butter making, bottling milk after pasteurisation, curing meats, smoking fish, making pâtés, canning produce, brewing, making ready meals, soup and sandwiches, to take a specific example that the hon. Gentleman raised.

If we tried to come up with a definition to cover all that, we would end up with complicated legislation, which is why we have gone for the wider definition. It will be helpful to assure the Committee of our intention to draft the secondary legislation and make it available to hon. Members and those in another place. We are clear about what we are doing: keeping the flexibility so that we can close any unintended loopholes quickly, while being specific in our actions and trying to avoid creating new burdens for business and farmers. We are trying to develop a system that is as simple as possible but is effective. In the drafting and definitions, we are trying to ensure that we can do that precisely.

I can also confirm that it will be our intention to exclude processing and packaging undertaken after the process has entered the retail distribution chain. That goes back to the issue of sandwiches. We have to discuss further the use of such regulations, and I am happy to undertake to do that with Committee members and the main stakeholders. We will continue the dialogue that has brought us to this point. At this stage, we do not intend to bring any more work within the scope of the legislation; the power to do that exists on a contingency basis.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire covered most of the points on new clauses 5 and 26. I agree that all workers, whoever they are, are entitled to protection from the exploitative activities of gangmasters. We have a duty to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation. I repeat my offer to provide greater detail on specific points, as I promised to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh in relation to woodland, should there be issues on which Members want more information.

Mark Simmonds (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)

The Minister is making a constructive response to some of the points that other Committee members and I have made. However, he has not addressed my points about gangmasters based abroad or using foreign bases to manipulate or exploit workers in the United Kingdom. I would be grateful if he could either make some general comments now or give a commitment to do so later in writing when he has a chance to consider the detail.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am sorry—the hon. Gentleman is correct. The intention is that gangmasters operating from abroad will come under the legislation. Enforcement will obviously be more difficult in those circumstances, but we do not intend that someone residing outside the UK should be able to escape the Bill's impact. In so far as one can enforce the law on

someone outside the country, the provisions on enforcement, like those on confiscation, will apply. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman, but I am happy to confirm that to him in writing with more detail.

Unless Committee members have any more specific points, I am happy to say that I strongly support the recommended changes.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Before I put the question on this clause, I will, in the words of the Clerk, break with parliamentary tradition and tell hon. Members exactly what is going on. We are dealing with this Bill in a slightly different way from most other Bills. The first five clauses will all be debated under clause stand part. No amendments to them will be moved. The new clauses will be dealt with towards the end of proceedings after we have dealt with clause 6.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1 disagreed to.Clause 2Requirement to hold a licence

Clause 2 - Requirement to hold a licence

Clause 3 - Administration and enforcement

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

New clause 1—The Gangmasters Licensing Authority.

New clause 2—Directions etc. by the Secretary of State.

New clause 7—Grant of licence.

New clause 8—General power of Authority to make rules.

New clause 9—Modification, revocation or transfer of licence.

New clause 10—Appeals.

New clause 11—Register of licences.

New clause 14—Offences: supplementary provisions.

New clause 15—Enforcement and compliance officers.

New clause 16—Powers of officers.

New clause 17—Entry by warrant.

New clause 18—Obstruction of officers.

New clause 19—Information relating to gangmasters.

New clause 20—Application of Act to bodies corporate.

New clause 21—Application of Act to unincorporated associations.

New clause 22—Application of Act to partnerships.

New clause 23—Annual report.

New schedule 1—The Authority: consequential amendments of enactments.

Mark Simmonds (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)

I shall not go into great detail about the establishment of the gangmaster licensing authority, except to note, first, that it will be separate from DEFRA—it would be useful if the Minister explained why it was concluded that it should be separate from rather than an extension of a Department—and, secondly, that the authority will not be responsible for enforcement of the legislation. I understand that the Secretary of State will have powers to appoint enforcement officers from other Government bodies and agencies.

I know that we are engaged in constructive debate today, and I do not want to be critical of past events, but I am deeply concerned about Operation Gangmaster and the lack of co-ordination between Departments in attempts to stop the exploitation of vulnerable workers, both legal and illegal. To date, those attempts have not been successful, and I want to ensure that the gangmaster licensing authority and whatever body is responsible for the enforcement of the licensing and regulation scheme will work together extremely closely, and that there will be sufficient resources to enforce the measures that are to be on the statute book.

New clause 8 deals with the power of the authority to make rules. I should like the Minister to clarify why the word ''rules'' is used, rather than ''conditions''.

What, if any, is the difference between the two? It might be my suspicious nature that makes me ask.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The simple answer is that ''rules'' looked reasonable in that sentence. I do not believe that there is any great distinction between the two terms, although I shall check that for the hon. Gentleman.

Mark Simmonds (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)

I am grateful for that response.

I have great sympathy with a couple of sentences on this subject from the National Farmers Union. I hope that the Minister and his civil servants will take note of them. The NFU states:

''It is important that the right balance is achieved with the rules, and that the rules relate directly to existing legislation. If the GLA introduced too many, too complex rules than was reasonably required for the purpose then the grant of licences could become cumbersome and bureaucratic''—

we covered some of that argument before—

''and of course increase the overall costs of the scheme and pitch licence fees upwards to excessive levels'',

which might deter the legitimate supply of labour, as I pointed out.

That brings me neatly to the regulatory impact assessment, which suggests that the cost of an audit of a legitimate gangmaster who is meeting the legal obligations could be as much as £1,500. That is in addition to the administrative costs of processing and issuing the licence and maintaining the register, which could be a further £750. I understand that those figures are based on a two or three-year licence. I should like to understand why those costs are so high, particularly in comparison to those that apply under the Private Security Industry Act 2001, which total only £190. The disparity between the two figures is large. I, my constituents, businesses in the horticultural and agricultural sectors and legitimate gangmasters all wish to avoid penalising the latter with provisions that are over-burdensome—not only in terms of bureaucracy, but in terms of unnecessary cost.

New clause 8(2)(f) would allow the authority to grant provisional licences before it had been determined whether the requirements for the granting of a licence had been met. That unnerves me and some legitimate gangmaster operators who believe that some rogue operators may obtain licences, however temporary, and operate without meeting the relevant criteria. It would be wrong to allow that to happen, even if only for a limited time. Why cannot we have beginners criteria, which might be linked to the sending of tax and VAT returns to the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise?

New clause 15 deals with enforcement. From reading the Bill, it is not clear to me who the enforcement officers will be. Will they be from Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise or the new merged body? Will they be immigration officers? Where will they come from, and who will fund their operations? Which Government Minister will be responsible for them and, ultimately, answerable to this House and the other place? How will the officers liaise with local police? I have consulted the police in Lincolnshire and they are enthusiastic about the Bill, provided that it is correct, but they want to make sure

that there is an understanding about how police will link with the enforcement operators.

I appreciate that that will become apparent in secondary legislation, but I am concerned that, at this stage, there seem to be no defined mechanisms or structures in place. Will the Minister provide assurances regarding the likely number of enforcement and compliance offices that will be required? Will the resources necessary to fund them be forthcoming? Where will that funding come from? I do not mean to be difficult, but, at the moment, there is a lack of co-ordination. Insufficient resources have been put in place to enforce the existing legislation. We need to make sure that that gap does not continue.

As the Minister said, we must catch those who continue to ignore the rules. That is far harder than penalising licensed operators for minor compliance issues, and it may involve considerable resources and manpower. Where will those resources and manpower emanate from?

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Mr. Illsley, I am happy to be able to say without any doubt that your chairing was the most helpful piece of chairing that I have come across in nearly 25 years in the House. I also cannot help but observe the appropriateness of Room 9 being renamed the Wellington Room. Someone obviously had a sense of humour, as we are discussing the gathering of shellfish, agriculture and horticulture in a place named after the appropriate clothing.

I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that those to have powers of arrest will include not only the enforcement officers, but the usual people—the police—under the Bill or under general legislation.

I want to raise two other points. As I understand it, powers of arrest will apply only to someone who has not got a licence or who has a dodgy licence. There is no proposal that a power of arrest should be applied to someone who is wildly in breach of a licence, which might appropriately be an arrestable offence. Might someone who is obstructing enforcement and compliance officers in the exercise of their duties be arrested? Some of the minority of evil people involved in gangmaster activities are precisely the sort of people who would destroy important information in the period between the enforcement officer trying to get in and anybody laying hands on the information.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

In new clause 7(2), which relates to the period of grant, there is no mention of renewals. The clause talks about revocation, alterations and the like and the subsection says that the licence

''shall be granted for such period as the authority thinks fit.''

However, because there is no mention of renewals, it suggests that one might be able to issue a licence for 25 or 30 years, or for life. Many of us would prefer a general presumption in favour of a maximum period of five years, so that renewals take place. It might be shorter than that for people who have to prove themselves or are brand new to the business, but those who have been operating for a while should have

to undergo a renewal or reappraisal, not least because they can provide more money through the renewal.

New clause 9(3) states that the licence

''may be transferred with the written consent of the Authority''.

Our experience of the transferability of licences has not been good. Some have acquired financial value and become transferable and marketable. I cannot understand why we are prepared to allow the transfer of a licence when all that is needed is a new licence. Any person, corporate body, organisation or partnership should apply for a new licence when they want one. I have become opposed to transferring licences, because licences and other rights that have for various reasons been transferred have caused us concern in many different spheres. Why do we need to worry about transferring licences when people could simply apply for a new licence? There is no need to provide for transferability.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

A lot of ground has been covered in a short time and I shall seek to do the same. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness asked about the nature of the authority. We envisage a body in which the chair will be appointed by the Secretary of State through the normal appointments system and in which other members of the board—approximately 17 representatives—will be chosen for specific aspects of expertise. That would mean representation from the industry—farmers, growers and trade unions—and from Government. That would ensure that people on the board are involved in those bodies that enforce legislation relevant to the activities of gangmasters. We envisage a board that has practical experience to inform the decisions that it makes. The appointment of the chairman by the Secretary of State would be in line with the recognised procedures laid down by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

In terms of enforcement, the licensing body must, most importantly, create an environment for the licence and ensure that licence requirements are complied with. Another aspect of enforcement covers the activities of those who are not licensed—the villains outside the licensing system. We are considering the way in which enforcement will be exercised; a degree of enforcement from DEFRA might be required.

The power of arrest included in the Bill could be useful for organisations other than the licensing authority and DEFRA, because it establishes a clear line. It may be suspected, but not immediately apparent, that a variety of offences are being committed—for example, one may not know whether offences under health and safety legislation are taking place. However, one would immediately know whether the person has a licence to be a gangmaster; if they do not, there is the power to arrest them straight away. That creates a means of taking hold of the situation in, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras described them, the 5 o'clock mists of the countryside.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Like those who have already spoken in the debate, I strongly support for the Bill.

On the information that may be obtained through the activities of the new authority, is the Minister satisfied that if the authority's officers come across information that points not to a breach of this legislation, but to possible breaches of other legislation, that information could be passed to the appropriate authorities?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend might be aware that I have taken a great interest in the exchange of information, which, for instance, resulted in a specific clause in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I have carefully explored that point with officials and legal advisors to ensure that the licensing body will be able to undertake exchanges of information, particularly in relation to breaches of the law.

The engagement of every aspect of the industry in the body that will oversee the activity, and the engagement of Government in that body, is the way to ensure that there is a genuine partnership and that the licensing organisation is fit for its purpose. That goes back to the general purposes of ensuring that appropriate provisions are in place and that a code of good practice and existing legislation are pursued effectively, but at minimum cost and with a minimum of regulatory burden.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Some of us suspect that we are in a ''may'' situation when we would rather be in a ''shall'' situation, so that if information was discovered, the new organisation would be obliged to pass it on and it would not be at its discretion.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am delighted to say that I am entirely at one with my right hon. Friend. I am happy to put it clearly on the record that the provisions as drafted include the power of direction in the event of any doubt. It is our intention that ''shall'' rather than ''may'' is the way in which the organisation will operate.

The regulatory impact assessment is based on the best available knowledge, gained, for example, from examining the operation of the Ethical Trading Initiative, which is a voluntary initiative undertaken by legitimate gangmasters and the business. If, in time, it becomes possible to slim down the requirements and therefore the burden on business, we would be happy to see that happen. We have the sort of partnership of organisations and individuals that points in that direction, but we have to base RIA figures on the best available knowledge now.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness referred to temporary licences or beginners arrangements, which are entirely possible under the legislation. The reason for putting enforcement in the hands of the Secretary of State is that she would be able to authorise the agency and others to use such powers. That means that the usefulness of the legislation extends beyond the enforcement of the licence. That is something that we will discuss with enforcement organisations—for example, we are planning a discussion with the police. The arrangements for enforcement liaison are in the Bill, so that there is a mechanism for ensuring that there is complementary

enforcement of the provisions in this Bill and other legislation.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras asked about the powers of arrest in relation to someone who was wildly in breach of the provisions. I rather suspect that in those circumstances the individual concerned would be committing one of the many offences of exploitation, to which we have already referred, and would therefore be breaching other legislation. As far as the licences are concerned, an individual could commit the offences once, but breaching the licence would mean that they would be acting illegally if they undertook any activity, even if they ensured that the activity was within the ambit of the law. The repeat offences and the increased penalties would then kick in. I assure my right hon. Friend that we are creating a powerful instrument, provided that what I have described is understood. The individuals concerned may, of course, be committing arrestable offences under existing legislation and it is right that they should be arrested if that is the case.

The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) referred to the period of a licence and to renewal. That is not the sort of thing that needs to be in the Bill. Our initial thinking is that the licence might run for three years, but, again, that is open to discussion with the industry and I am happy to hear the views of colleagues as well. As far as the transfer of licences is concerned, we can look at pub licences or transfers of a business, from father to son or to a new proprietor. We do not want to create a new burden for the business by making people submit a new application and thereby pay the full licensing fee. That would add to the cost. I am certain that the issues about which the hon. Gentleman expressed concern can be managed through the regulations.

If hon. Members would like further detail on any of the points that I have covered fairly briefly, I shall be happy to provide it.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

I would like to return to the question whether obstructing the enforcement officers would be an arrestable offence.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

My understanding is that obstruction of enforcement would fall under existing legislation. However, I am not absolutely certain about that, so I shall look into it and write to my right hon. Friend.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. The Committee will now stand suspended until 10 minutes to 5. If there is a Division in the House at the end of that period, the Committee will be suspended for a further 15 minutes, until 5 minutes past 5.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Mark Simmonds (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)

I am aware that the Committee wants to rattle through the remaining new clauses and I hope that the Minister will forgive me for coming back on some points that has not addressed to my satisfaction. Will he now, or in writing, tell me why the

assessment of regulatory costs for the implementation of the licensing scheme are so much higher than those that the security industry had to bear under the security legislation, which I understand was £190? That may be a function of the different industries that are being regulated. If so, I would like more information on why the disparity is so great.

There are other Bills and other immigration legislation in which powers such as those proposed exist, but they are not being enforced properly, which is why there is a loophole. The Minister did not answer to my satisfaction two key points on the enforcement of the Bill, which will be essential to its success: first, how many enforcement officers will be put in place and, secondly, who will fund them and how will they link with other authorities such as the police? Will the funding be from DEFRA or from the cost of the licence? I assume that it will not be from the latter, because of the desire to keep the cost of the licence to a minimum.

My final point, which I would like the Minister to address now or in writing, is about the forging of IDs and licences. As he knows, there is a huge market in forgery. Last week, I was at Boston police station, which has enormous numbers of forged passports and ID cards. Sophisticated criminal gangs, which have the ability to carry out very good forgeries, are involved in these rackets. I want to ensure that that does not happen in the case of these licences. To ensure that they cannot be forged, it may be possible to use technology that has been discussed in connection with ID cards.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I shall try to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot respond to his point on the comparison with the licensing charges for the security industry scheme, because I do not know the details of it. I was responsible for that area of policy when my party was in opposition, but that was some time ago and my knowledge of it is a little out of date. However, I am happy to consider the arrangements under the legislation that he mentioned and to write to him to deal with the comparison.

The hon. Gentleman also raised several issues relating to enforcement—issues of the sort where the question is simple, but the answer tends to be complex. The Bill's purpose is to set in place licensing arrangements and to make provision for enforcement and prosecuting those who breach the licence requirements or operate without a licence. We want to ensure that the costs that fall on the industry are those that relate to the licensing activity. We do not want the industry to be asked to bear the costs of other enforcement in respect of those who are not legitimate gangmasters. That is why the answer is slightly complicated. The licensing authority needs the powers to do its job, but DEFRA might undertake, or provide finance for, additional related enforcement activities. The offences in the Bill may be useful to those seeking to enforce other parts of the law and to the police in general.

That is why we have drafted the provisions in wide terms and said that the Secretary of State can

authorise the power to prosecute. We are thereby providing flexibility to ensure that we get the best out of the legislation by putting the least burden on the licensing operation and therefore on the industry. That relates directly to the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman and the opinions expressed by the NFU and others. The trade union side is equally keen that there should not be an excessive burden that almost penalises a licensed gangmaster. We want this to be easy and as simple as possible to operate within the law. We also want to make things as difficult as possible for anyone who thinks of operating outside the law, whether outside the licensing system or in the variety of other ways that have caused this issue to become so important to hon. Members.

Responsibility for financing falls to DEFRA, so clearly we will have to bear the cost of establishing the agency. We will seek cost recovery from the licensing system once it is up and running, but we cannot achieve that on the first day. The obligation rests with DEFRA. As with all other non-departmental public bodies and agencies, there is an annual arrangement with the body to provide the resources. It can advise the Secretary of State on its experience of operating within the legislation and so on. I cannot peer into a crystal ball and give the hon. Gentleman figures, but that is not how we are approaching the issue—we are not considering it top-down. This is about working with industry and enforcement agencies to ensure that we create a system that is fit for purpose.

Mark Simmonds (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)

The Minister is being extremely helpful and constructive yet again. Am I right in thinking that enforcement will be the responsibility of DEFRA and that therefore the Secretary of State will be responsible for enforcement as well as the other matters, such as the GLA?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

If I interpret the question correctly, yes, because the responsibility for the legislation, its use and the establishment of the agency is DEFRA's. We are setting up a Government agency, but we seek to share the development of the policy and the mechanisms with an industry that knows its own business. That is where we are trying to be intelligent in squaring the circle. We want to ensure that the agency and all that it does both have Government underpinning and authority, and that the licensing system is a legal requirement and is underpinned by the legislation. DEFRA takes responsibility for that.

What sometimes confuses people, for instance, is the fact that there will be a relationship between the licensing system, which creates a dividing line between the legitimate and the non-legitimate, and the work of Operation Gangmaster. The hon. Gentleman was a little dismissive of that work, but if he checks the newspaper cuttings from recent weeks he will see that there have been several serious successes and prosecutions. The activities involved in such operations go on throughout the country but remain invisible until people are arrested. Even then, there tends to be a bit of a delay until the cases come to court, so there is a tailback in terms of effectiveness. Nevertheless, I can assure him of Ministers' enthusiasm for such activities. Indeed, the support

and encouragement that I have received from Ministers in other Departments in relation to the Bill shows the will to make enforcement effective.

Nick Brown (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend)

I understand that the licensing scheme and the policy surrounding it are, quite properly, matters for DEFRA, but how will the enforcement responsibilities that DEFRA is accepting sit alongside those of the Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions who is taking a co-ordinating role on such matters and on Operation Gangmaster in particular?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

It is fair to say that the purpose of Operation Gangmaster is to deal with the villains of the piece, and different Departments clearly have an interest in different aspects of enforcement. For instance, my Department has an interest in the agricultural wages requirements, while the Department for Work and Pensions has an interest in relation to the minimum wage and employment issues generally. The Inland Revenue has more than a passing interest in people paying their taxes. We are all concerned about health and safety at work, although the Health and Safety Executive has responsibility for that.

The point is that legitimate businesses sometimes breach one or other of the relevant pieces of legislation, while the villains of the piece have no regard for any of them. There needs to be co-ordination across government so that we can use whichever instrument is appropriate, or indeed all of them, to get a grip on things. Operation Gangmaster draws together a team of people from across government to tackle a particular investigation and the ensuing prosecution.

The existence of a licensing system, as well as the ability both to revoke the licences of organisations that play fast and loose and to prosecute gangmasters who operate without a licence, give us a new opportunity to target such people. The licensing authority targets people to ensure that they operate as legitimate gangmasters, but the power to prosecute is useful beyond simply enforcing the licensing system. We should consider not only the licensing authority but others having the opportunity to prosecute.

Nick Brown (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend)

Which Minister will take the lead in enforcing the Act?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The Secretary of State at DEFRA will have responsibility for that. The provisions will complement existing opportunities and create new ones for those who enforce other legislation. The relationship between the enforcement of these and other provisions will lead us to look for experience on the board to promote the usefulness of the licensing system. The connection with other breaches of the law, particularly where the villains are concerned, has resulted in the proposition of an enforcement liaison group to ensure that things are pulled together. As my right hon. Friend suggested, responsibility for leading the co-ordination of Operation Gangmaster activities clearly lies with the DWP. That will not only add significantly to the armoury of offences for which

prosecution can take place, but change the geography of enforcement by making it much easier to get a grip.

Geraldine Smith (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)

Let me describe a hypothetical situation. As an MP, I might be alerted to the operations of gangmasters who are, perhaps, in breach of health and safety requirements, exploiting illegal immigrants, involved in tax evasion or engaging in any of a range of activities. If I have difficulty in getting local agencies to work together, which Minister should I approach to kick off the operation to check the licences and to liaise with health and safety officials and other agencies, thereby ensuring that something happens?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

In the first instance, the question appears simple. We want to make it as easy as possible for people to get things done, whether they are Members of Parliament or members of the public. A member of the public will not ask under which piece of legislation he is making an inquiry; he will have a problem that he wants to draw to somebody's attention and will want to know how to do it. At a recent meeting, in response to a question from my hon. Friend, I undertook to consider how we can ensure that there is one point to which people can go for information on licensing and other gangmaster issues. I repeat that undertaking.

If there is a bit of a problem with the way in which a licence is working, my hon. Friend should come to me or to another DEFRA Minister. However, when it comes to enforcement issues and trying to catch villains, we shall ensure that the way the Bill is stitched in allows people to get to the right place without having to make half a dozen inquiries.

It is also important that agencies with good reasons for wanting answers should be able to find out pretty quickly whether somebody is a legitimate gangmaster, just as the police can now check a car registration number immediately, rather than having to send off a form and wait three weeks. We shall consider how to deal with that, too.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness raised the matter of the ability of individuals to prove their identity. That is very relevant if there is a question about which individuals are authorised to work in this country. Work is under way in a number of Departments, under a Home Office lead, to establish a simple system to deal with authorisation to work. That ties in with proof of identity and proof of authority, which will be necessary if the system is to work. I am going beyond the detail that needs to be in the Bill, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is on the agenda and being addressed.

Finally, there are matters on which the detail in the Bill should not pre-empt decisions that might be made by the agency's board—or the shadow board, which we want to establish as soon as possible—as we want to use the knowledge of the industry. We are doing that by consulting with the consortium and with the Association of Labour Providers. Much of that has to be an iterative process. I do not think that there is any disagreement over the practicalities that need to be dealt with.

I hope that with those assurances, and the offer to go into any further detail that hon. Members wish, the Committee will agree to the measures proposed.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 3 disagreed to.Clause 4Obligations of principals

Clause 4 - Obligations of principals

Clause 6 - Short title, commencement and extent

New clause 1 - The Gangmasters Licensing Authority

New clause 2 - Directions etc. by the Secretary of State

New clause 3 - Work to which this Act applies

New clause 4 - Acting as a gangmaster

New clause 5 - Territorial scope of application

New clause 6 - Prohibition of unlicensed activities

New clause 7 - Grant of licence

New clause 8 - General power of Authority to make rules

New clause 9 - Modification, revocation or transfer of licence

New clause 10 - Appeals

New clause 11 - Register of licences

New clause 12 - Offences: acting as a gangmaster, being in possession of false documents etc.

New clause 13 - Offences: entering into arrangements with gangmasters

New clause 14 - Offences: supplementary provisions

New clause 15 - Enforcement and compliance officers

New clause 16 - Powers of officers

New clause 17 - Entry by warrant

New clause 18 - Obstruction of officers

New clause 19 - Information relating to gangmasters

New clause 20 - Application of Act to bodies corporate

New clause 21 - Application of Act to unincorporated associations

New clause 22 - Application of Act to partnerships

New clause 23 - Annual report

New clause 24 - Financial provision

New clause 25 - Regulations, rules and orders

New clause 26 - Meaning of ''worker''

New clause 27 - Exclusion of provisions relating to employment agencies and businesses

New clause 28 - Application of Act to Northern Ireland

New clause 29 - Commencement and transitional provision

New schedule 1 - 'The Authority: consequential amendments of enactments

New schedule 2 - 'Application of Act to Northern Ireland

Title

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley, I think that this is the appropriate stage to thank you for the enormous good humour and efficiency with which you have dispatched the business of this Committee. I am sure that it required all your undoubted talents to achieve that outcome.

We could not have reached this point without the willingness of my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire to engage with such a wide range of

interested parties outside this place and with hon. Members across the House. The time spent preparing for today's proceedings has been well spent. It has involved the Transport and General Workers Union, the National Farmers Union, a wide range of other organisations and hon. Members from each of the three main parties. It has also involved my officials in discussions that were slightly innovative, even for DEFRA, which is used to talking to all sorts of people in all sorts of places. I place on record my thanks to them for their willingness to be open in those discussions. That is what has made it so fruitful. As an exercise in co-operation, we can all congratulate ourselves.

The issues that have been raised by Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members have been entirely legitimate. They are complex issues and we will not seek to brush them aside. They will be in our minds as we design the secondary legislation and establish the agency. I wanted to put that on record because it has been a unique process, not only because you were able to dispatch so much business in a few seconds, Mr. Illsley. I pass our thanks, as ever, to the Clerk, Hansard and the security officials, who have managed to keep order in this Committee Room while we have worked our way through these issues.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that all members of the Committee appreciate what he has said. I would like to echo his comments about the police, Hansard and the Clerk to the Committee, who has prepared a very accurate, if not entirely clear brief for the Chairman. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire on bringing the Bill forward.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock.