Water Bill

Debate between Lord Whitty and Earl Cathcart

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Earl Cathcart (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lady Parminter on tabling Amendment 155, as it has given us a good chance to debate flood insurance for businesses, whether in Flood Re or in another mutual set up specifically. We are all under pressure to include small businesses under the Flood Re scheme. That is quite understandable. If I had a business in a flood risk area, I would want to insure it under the Flood Re scheme. I know that the Association of British Insurers and the Government looked at whether businesses could be included within the Flood Re scheme, but found that it threw up more problems than it solved. This is best illustrated with an example.

I am a free range egg producer on my farm in Norfolk, and when it came to buying insurance for the business, I was presented with a long shopping list of types of cover relevant to my business: property; business interruption; loss of profits; contractors “all risks”; terrorism and malicious attack; livestock, including theft, worrying, death after straying, accidental or malicious death; deterioration of stock, in my case probably due to bad feed or electrical failure; perils and fatal injury; livestock in transit; disease, in my case probably something like bird flu or salmonella; goods in transit; motor, for lorries, trucks, vans or cars; employers’ liability; public liability; product liability or environmental liability; legal and professional expenses.

The list goes on, but I hope that gives your Lordships a flavour of the range of commercial insurance on offer. I, of course, had to cherry pick the cover that was most relevant to me. For instance, I did not buy livestock or goods in transit cover, because this is the responsibility of third parties with whom I have a contract. Also, I have no vehicles in that business, so motor insurance was not an issue. However, salmonella is an issue for my business, but because the insurance is so costly I chose not buy it. I hope that I got that one right. I have to choose not only the type of cover that I think is appropriate to my business but how much cover to buy for each category, the cost and the level of excess necessary to reduce that cost. The excess across my shopping list varies from £100 to £20,000.

Although there are hundreds of egg producers up and down the country with identical businesses to mine, I very much doubt that there is another that has commercial insurance exactly the same as mine. They will all be different, and that is the problem: all businesses, whether a corner shop, a pub, a guest house, a property investment company, a hotel or guest house, a manufacturing company or an engineering firm, will buy commercial insurance to suit their particular circumstances. The whole point of a mutual, whether Flood Re or one geared specifically to small businesses, is that the conditions are common to all. The price, the excess, the cover and the conditions must be standardised. This can be done for homeowner insurance—it is pretty bog-standard—but sadly, as I have tried to illustrate, not for commercial insurance. You just cannot standardise it. If it were standardised, virtually all commercial members of that mutual would end up with a policy that did not give them the cover that they wanted.

It would be good if everything could be included in Flood Re, whether owner-occupied houses, rented homes or small businesses, but the line must be drawn somewhere. It has been agreed that those with homeowner insurance, buildings and contents, will be included and that commercial insurance will not be. If I had a property in a flood-risk zone that was deemed to have commercial insurance with it and was therefore excluded from the mutual, I would ask my broker to split my insurance cover into two separate policies: one for the bog-standard homeowner cover, buildings and contents, to ensure inclusion within the Flood Re scheme, and the other to include all elements that made my cover commercial, such as owner’s liability or public liability cover. That might be a way forward for many of those finding themselves excluded from the Flood Re scheme because of the commercial element of their policy.

Flood Re will help up to 500,000 homeowners who cannot currently buy flood cover, but I am sure that with a little bit of inventiveness, many, although I am afraid not all, small businesses, including buy-to-let and leasehold properties, can buy their insurance in such a way as to be included in the scheme.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, my noble friend and I have two amendments in this rather complicated group. The group as a whole is beginning to get us into the area of who should be in and who is out of Flood Re, and we have some groups of amendments later that touch on the same issue. Before the Bill leaves this House, we must be clear who is in, who is out, and why.

My Amendment 160 would require the Secretary of State to report on the numbers of properties in flood-risk areas that were eligible, and those that were not, for inclusion in Flood Re. It would include looking at the specific exclusion as it stands of council tax band H and post-2009 new build. The report would look at how much it would cost to bring them in and who would bear the cost if they were brought into Flood Re, in terms of both premiums and the effect on the non-risky properties’ cross-subsidy.

We all have some sympathy with those groups that are excluded. However, we must be careful, as this is a delicate arithmetic deal between the Government and the ABI. I understand that negotiations were hard and long. As far as businesses are concerned, it is obvious that this must be addressed somehow. We have all seen the effects of flooding in recent weeks and the past few years, on small businesses and farms, on the Cockermouth high street a year ago and on the seafronts at Dawlish and Aberystwyth in recent weeks. We also know that the businesses that are hit—the shops, boarding houses and small businesses—are key to the prosperity of those local economies. It must be frustrating for small businesses, and those advocating their case, like the federation, because they were covered in some way under the statement of principles under the old scheme. However, the old scheme was a different sort of scheme. It was a deal struck by the ABI, agreeing that it would continue to cover—even then, it was not offering new cover—small businesses as well as households if the Government committed themselves to a certain level of expenditure on flood defence.

This is a different sort of deal; it is actuarially based. While we have all received representations on behalf of businesses, the approach now has a different basis. Even so, it is complicated. Some micro-businesses operated out of the owner’s house could be covered because they pay council tax rather than business tax. However, others will not. There are good reasons for this. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, described the bespoke way in which businesses negotiate their insurance as distinct from the more generalised way in which households are covered. It is difficult to see how businesses could be included in Flood Re as it stands without serious reconfiguration of the whole arithmetic. Therefore, while I have sympathy, I would not go so far as to press the Government on this front. However, I am in favour of knowing more about this. Therefore I support the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we look at this and report on it and see whether that might lead us to some other form of provision in parallel with Flood Re.

Some of the other boundary issues are even more complicated, particularly in relation to leasehold properties and the issue of whether landlords and tenants are included. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has dealt with one element of this and others are dealt with later on. Some of the government literature refers to leasehold properties. However, in general, the ABI and the Government do not think that leasehold properties are included. The situation with single landlords and tenants is not clear, although commercial providers of leasehold property are not included. The differentiation here is more the nature of the insurance than the nature of the property. While the property may be defined as being in risk or not, in a landlord/tenant situation, the tenant probably takes out the contents insurance, which is covered, whereas building insurance, which is the landlord’s responsibility, is not covered. That is quite a complex position, and it would also be true for multiple leasehold property. A future mortgage on such property is dependent to some extent, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, on there being ongoing insurance on the property. Leaseholders and the owners of the property may be faced with a double whammy if they are not careful.

As I said, I am not in favour of widening the group at this time because of the delicate arithmetic involved. We must address some of these issues in the Bill but for the moment I cannot support the amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, nor the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, on mixed hereditaments. I am not sure whether Amendment 160A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, which would effectively delete the exclusion of post-2009 properties, is in this group. That is in a rather different category because people have been building in high-risk areas when they have known that they were going to be excluded under the old agreement, let alone the new one. I therefore have less sympathy for that group than I might have for the others.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Whitty and Earl Cathcart

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. We almost missed this amendment as well so I quite understand the hurry. This indicates the rigidity of our procedures because my original intention at Third Reading, given that we got a printed copy of the Bill that had the Agricultural Wages Board in it only yesterday, was to insist that an equivalent procedure be written into this Bill for dealing with the implementation of the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board in the same way as that applied to every single other public body.

That is not in order for Third Reading and, obviously, I accept the advice of the clerks in these matters. I have therefore concentrated on a very narrow area which was not fully debated last time, although we touched on it in some detail. However, there was no amendment before us then that required a further economic assessment from the Government of the impact of the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board.

The fact of the matter is that there was considerable confusion at the previous stage as to what the economic assessment was. The Government have not produced the kind of Explanatory Memorandum that is required under the Public Bodies Act, but there was a document called the “economic assessment”, which went with the rather curtailed consultation and clearly indicated that the main effect of this Bill would be a significant reduction in the aggregate income of agricultural workers by nearly £0.25 billion over the next 10 years. Those were the figures provided by Defra via the Minister and the impact assessment.

On the day that we last debated this matter, and having queried whether that was still the Government’s position, I received a letter from the Minister which said, “No, no, these figures were all got up”—I paraphrase slightly—“by the consultants”, and that the department did not believe a word of it. He said that the consultants had advised at the top end of the range, whereas the Government thought that the outcome would be at the bottom end of the range. That is not a very satisfactory position in any circumstances and it is certainly not satisfactory when we are abolishing a body which has existed for many years and is the only one in this cull of the quangos which specifically tries to protect the living standards of a group of rural workers.

In the debate that followed, all sorts of interpretations came on to the agenda. I tended to agree, because I am conventional sort of person, that what the department had told us was probably right. Therefore, I agreed with the statisticians who were advising Defra. The Minister had already indicated that he did not really agree with them; others of his supporters said various different things. Some, whom one might characterise, perhaps unfairly, as being of the landowning tendency, said that it would be all right because they already treated their chaps decently, which is fair enough; other people said that the international competitiveness of English agriculture—because the other parts of Britain do something different—was dependent on being able to cut wages. Some of those people were the very same people who argue rather the opposite when it comes to banking, but let us let that pass. Others—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, was among them—argued that agricultural wages were excessive already and were greater than those of hotel workers. That seemed rather to prove my point, because the wages councils in the hotel and catering industries were abolished some years ago.

However, it was clear that there was no compatibility between the various interpretations of the best estimate of the outcome as compared with the Government’s own figures and as compared with the Minister’s position and my position. There are four or five different interpretations. That is not good enough.

I am therefore proposing a very modest amendment: the Government should come up with a new economic assessment before they trigger the commencement proceedings on this Bill. Surely everybody who spoke in that debate and everybody who has an interest in this area should be in favour of that, because we want a robust economic assessment. Whatever we may think about the abolition of the board and whatever opinion we may have about the need to raise, reduce or protect wages, we should get a better economic assessment before we do it. That is really all my amendment proposes.

It would have one other benefit for the Government: it would take a bit of time and it would be interesting to know what timetable the Government have in mind for the implementation of abolition. After all, discussions on this year’s round of wages have already started and would normally be for implementation in October. In effect, if the Government let that round go, the Agricultural Wages Board’s underpinning of wages would run until October 2014 at least.

The Government need a bit of time because there are a number of issues which do not relate to wages but are covered by the agricultural system. One of them is the situation relating to Wales, which wants a different outcome. The position on Wales is not resolved by the Government’s clauses as they now stand in the Bill, so they need a bit of time to sort out the Welsh situation. They also need to deal with the non-wage aspects of the agricultural wages order, in particular those aspects that deal with tied cottages for permanent workers and those that deal with adequate accommodation for migrant and seasonal workers. It is only the Agricultural Wages Board which provides that migrant seasonal workers are required to have one bed each rather than 20 of them sharing a six-berth caravan, as was the situation prior to it being regulated by the wages board. So those matters need sorting out. Some protection is needed in law or in regulation once the board goes.

I am doing the Government a favour by putting forward this amendment. The Minister has had a rough day so far, but I am offering him a way out here. So that we no longer argue about this—and subject to what the Commons say, because they have not seen this amendment yet—we need, before the Government implement this clause, a clear economic assessment which the House and another place can debate if necessary. That will also give the Government the time to sort out the other loose ends. I therefore assume that the Government will accept my amendment and that we can then move on and complete this Bill. I beg to move.

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I farm in Norfolk. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, argues his case well, as he always does. He calls for yet another impact assessment of the effect of the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board on the agricultural economy and on the wages and conditions of those who work in the sector. I am afraid that I do not agree with his arguments, as I do not see the point of yet another impact assessment for three reasons.

First, average earnings in 2010 for full-time farm workers were 41% above the industry minimums set by the board. More recent data from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, the ASHE, showed that more than 90% of workers employed in agricultural trades received gross pay above the agricultural wages order grade minimums. It is reasonable to conclude that the vast majority of farm workers are paid well above the agricultural wages order minimums already.

Secondly, current contracts will remain the same—that is, 41% above the wages board rates—so we are talking just about new contracts. The latest impact assessment states that if demand remains strong relative to supply, as evidence suggests is likely to be the case, wages are unlikely to be eroded as farmers will need to attract workers. The important point here is that if farmers want to attract workers, they will have to continue to pay at least what the worker might expect from comparable work outside farming, which is several thousand pounds more than the agricultural workers’ rate.

Thirdly, to assist farmers and employers, the National Farmers’ Union has agreed to publish a regular series of comparative indicators to help inform employers undertaking periodic pay reviews. These comparative indicators will take account of factors such as cost-of-living changes, the labour market, comparable industries and farm business conditions. They will also provide an opportunity to focus on regional differences rather than national, one-size-fits-all data, which is in keeping with the flexibility that we need in our industry.

The National Farmers’ Union has agreed to publish regularly all the data that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, calls for in this amendment. Let us not duplicate the work. I do not see the need for yet another impact assessment.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Whitty and Earl Cathcart

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Earl Cathcart]

I am not absolutely sure why—I can only give you my case—I would want to reduce their pay at all. As far as I am concerned, the system is working perfectly well. I am happy with their pay, and so are they. I do not know where those figures come from. My view is that it is highly likely that all existing employment terms and conditions will remain exactly the same, as the Minister has just confirmed.

[Lord Whitty]

I am sorry to pursue this point. The noble Earl may well be right in relation to his estate, but the department, which is supposed to know about the totality of the industry, estimates that there will be a significant cut in wages. Indeed, it is the major effect of this amendment in terms of the impact assessment. If the noble Earl is describing that argument as rubbish, it is not we on this side or United who made the argument, but the department, which got it seriously wrong. If that is what he is saying, it is another argument for the Government to look at what their information is based on.

[Earl Cathcart]

I am sure that the noble Lord will be interested to hear what the Minister says when he winds up.

I am happy to say that since employing new workers, my business has prospered. It may not be the norm, but the decision I have to make is not by how much I should reduce my employees’ salaries, but rather whether I should give them a bonus, a pay rise or a combination of both. It is a decision I shall make in spite of, not because of, the Agricultural Wages Board and contrary to the scare tactics that I suggest are being used by Unite.

If I wanted to expand my business beyond packing and selling my own farm produce by taking in produce from other farmers for packing and resale, any new workers for that expansion would not be classed as farm workers and would not come under the Agricultural Wages Board’s umbrella, so we would have the absurd situation of two people who are doing exactly the same job being paid at different rates—and all for 2 pence, which is a ridiculous complication. It is further complicated because I am told that if my expanded business had a busy period, say, before Christmas, under the Agricultural Wages Board’s rules I would have to pay time and a half to the agricultural workers packing my farm produce if they work more than eight hours a day or 39 hours a week. The workers packing my neighbouring farmers’ produce would be subject to the national minimum wage and paid the minimum rate regardless of the number of hours they work. What a dog’s dinner. I believe that the board is irrelevant in today’s employment market and an unnecessary cost to the taxpayer. It is outdated because it works on hourly wage rates, not salaries. Those who need an hourly rate are protected by the national minimum wage, and if the Agricultural Wages Board—