Proceeding contribution from John Pugh (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 21 February 2012. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Gangmasters Licensing Authority.
Gangmasters Licensing Authority
The hon. Gentleman has slightly anticipated me. There is a prima facie case in the construction industry, and there has long been a history of gangmaster behaviour, which used to be called the lump. Building firms sometimes employ people as a gang instead of employing them individually to avoid some of the penalties that might be incurred because work on a building site is intrinsically risky. A construction firm might incur liabilities, but sometimes, by arrangement, they fall on the gangmasters, who accept no ultimate liability whatever. There is a decent case for including the construction and agriculture industries, but it becomes more difficult in the catering industry, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh South mentioned. We seem to be moving into territory where we may be imposing on an industry regulation that, strictly speaking, is unnecessary.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 540 c224-5WH
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Conditions of employment Enforcement Human trafficking Gangmasters Powers Public bodies Migrant workers Temporary employment Seasonal workers Gangmasters Licensing Authority
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 22:13:47 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_810877
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_810877
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_810877