As the trial begins of five people charged in connection with the deaths of 23 cockle pickers at Morecambe Bay in 2003, two of the UK's biggest unions, the T&G and GMB warn today (Thursday, September 14th, 2005) that pressure for the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA) to limit pre-licensing inspections to those gangmasters deemed sufficiently "risky" means rogues will avoid detection and will be granted a licence to operate.
The unions - both members of the GLA - represent hundreds of thousands of workers in food processing and agriculture. They are extremely concerned that the GLA is coming under pressure from government to water down its checking procedures and accept "risk-based audits" as the mechanism for determining who is eligible for a licence.
This is despite the GLA Board's agreed position that every applicant must go through rigorous pre-licensing checks. This was unanimously agreed by the Board, which comprises of trade union, retailer, gangmaster and food industry representatives, who believe that strenuous checks are the only way to uncover illegality including fraud, enforced labour, illegal deductions from wages and health and safety breaches. The unions raise their concerns in a joint letter to Paul Whitehouse, chair of the GLA.
According to Chris Kaufman, T&G nominee on the Board of the GLA: "It is accepted by all in the sector - the retailers, farmers and the trade unions - that we need to drive out the criminals who are exploiting workers and forcing good businesses to the wall. That is why we have to resist this pressure to limit which gangmasters are checked for compliance with the law.
"Watered-down checks will throw a lifeline to the rogues. They will then believe that they stand a reasonable chance of obtaining a licence without having to endure a thorough scrutiny process.
"We feel strongly that the GLA's ability to protect workers is being severely compromised by this intervention. This goes to the heart of the GLA's ability and autonomy to determine what is needed to protect workers in this sector. Interference from other quarters is unwarranted and distinctly unhelpful which is why we will be pursuing this issue further with ministers."
In the letter to Whitehouse, the unions write:
"We are particularly concerned that this decision was taken under pressure from the Better Regulation Executive which, while it may be promoting Hampton principles about rationalising regulation, appears to be demonstrating a lack of understanding about the nature of the serious problems we face in locating and tackling rogue labour providers. A risk-based approach, more suited to a sector where activity is known and predictable, is simply inappropriate when it comes to identifying the worst practices among some employers in agriculture and food processing, an industry where labour providers are frequently dispersed and transient.
As Board members our first duty is to ensure that the GLA acts to protect the interest of workers. We are very clear that a risk-based approach is not compatible with protecting workers, many of whom are isolated, vulnerable, poorly paid and working and living in awful conditions that are determined by their employers. They need a system that will reward only good, law-abiding employers with licences, not one that gives the unscrupulous a fair chance at getting through under the radar because of selective auditing - or at the very least a good long period to exploit workers with impunity before the system catches up with them.
Acceptance of these constraints will mean there is a very serious risk that a rogue, law-breaking gangmaster will be given a licence to operate. Were this to be the case, the effectiveness and credibility of the GLA will be doubtless be questioned, not only by the industry stakeholders but by the wider public who are looking to the GLA to demonstrate clearly that law-evading labour providers will be driven out of business. We cannot, in all conscience, accept a system of auditing applicants which gives rogue operators a strong chance of achieving a licence.
The Act establishing the Board was passed at a time when political parties and the public were as one: the tragedy at Morecambe Bay illustrated that when the law retreats workers are placed at risk.. the only way in which we can now ensure that that risks to workers are identified is at the pre-licensing stage.”
No comments yet