Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George]

I notice that amendment 32 tabled by the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues proposes to delete the reference to the Agricultural Wages Board from schedule 1. The reason that I proposed a compromise position in new clause 7 is that I agree with the principle underlying the Bill. It is important for Governments continually to review the justification for the existence of non-departmental public bodies and for us to reflect on the amount of public money expended by a wide variety of quangos.

Where we can amalgamate responsibilities or find ways in which protective regulations, such as those for agricultural workers, can be incorporated in another statutory body rather than abolishing the body altogether, as the Government propose, it is important that we explore that option. That is what I seek to do in new clause 7. The intention and the benefit of my proposal is that the regulations are kept and enforced, but the overhead cost of maintaining an organisation is reduced as a result of that amalgamation.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House whether he is speaking on his own behalf or whether that is formal Liberal Democrat policy? Will he tell the House how he expects members of his party to vote tonight?

[Andrew George]

I was going to remind the House that the proposal to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board was in the Conservative party manifesto, not in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, and the proposal to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board was not in the coalition agreement. The issue should be subject to discussions between the two parties, as well as parliamentary debate and scrutiny.

It has always been my view that one of the great benefits of a coalition is that it puts Parliament on the front foot, whether the Opposition like it or not, and it strengthens Parliament. It means that issues such as this, which cannot be resolved between the two parties through whatever usual channels are now established within the coalition, are subject to quite proper parliamentary scrutiny, and Back-Bench Members of the two parties in the coalition are able to hold those on the coalition Front Bench to account.

--- Later in debate ---

I say to the hon. Member for St Ives that he and his colleagues were utterly right then, and they are utterly wrong tonight. I say to him, “Pull the duvet back and show who is in charge. Your rural working class are watching.”

[Mr Anderson]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that the hon. Gentleman was correct when he was quoted on 11 November last year in the Farmers Guardian as saying:

“If I thought that by following this policy farm workers would be better paid or have better conditions then I’d support it. But, I think we all know that the opposite is the most likely consequence”?

He was right then, and he is wrong tonight.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I also agree with the hon. Gentleman, as his peroration was, in fact, an argument in favour of our amendment, not his new clause. I therefore say to him that he should by all means press his new clause to a Division, as if he does so the Government Front-Bench team will have to consider whether it supports him. However, if he is not minded to do so, I urge him to support our amendment, as it will do exactly what he has previously argued is right for poor rural farm workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

I was referring to the wages order, not the wages themselves. The Agricultural Wages Board structure is gold-plated. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the reality is that a lot of agricultural wages order measures go way beyond what is laid down in statute for any other walk of life or sector of employment.

[Mr Anderson]

rose—

[Gavin Shuker]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

For once, I agree with whoever is shouting from a sedentary position. Of course no Minister can guarantee such things and it would be crazy for anybody to do that, but it is our firm belief that the overall employment situation in agriculture and in the fresh food sector will be enhanced by the abolition of the wages board.

The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives to transfer the powers and duties of the Agricultural Wages Board to the Low Pay Commission would mean the continuation of a dual regime, with consequent duplication of effort for employers. A transfer of the wages board functions to the Low Pay Commission would mean that there was still a separate employment regime for agricultural workers. There would be no removal of the regulatory burden on businesses and we would not achieve the simplification of legislation that we believe is necessary.

Moreover, if the Low Pay Commission were to be given powers to set an agricultural minimum wage rate, it would be difficult to argue why the commission should not extend those powers to set rates in other sectors—in other words, to return to the position before 1993. As it is, the Low Pay Commission does not have any statutory powers to set a minimum wage in any sector. It is an advisory body which makes recommendations to Government. The establishment of another advisory body to advise the Low Pay Commission, which the new clause would create, would introduce more bureaucracy, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid.

If the Agricultural Wages Board and agricultural minimum wage regime were abolished, the Low Pay Commission would be asked to consider evidence in the agricultural sector, as it does in other sectors. That evidence would be taken into account when the commission made its recommendations to Government on the rates for the national minimum wage. The national minimum wage rate would thus reflect the situation for agricultural workers. I have emphasised the point about retention of existing contractual rights.

The current evidence shows that for permanent workers aged over 21, well over half were paid well above the hourly minimum wage for the relevant grades in both 2009 and 2010. As in all other industries, agricultural workers with the right qualifications and aptitudes would continue to be able to command a premium. Lower skilled workers who were paid at or around the grade 1 agricultural minimum wage rate would be protected by the national minimum wage requirements. As has been mentioned, the lowest agricultural wage rate is just 2p per hour above the national minimum wage.

The Government would encourage industry representatives to work together to provide benchmarks for agricultural wage rates. As Members know, a non-statutory approach to wage setting works in many other industries, such as the construction sector, and although there are differences between the sectors, there is no reason why a similar approach should not work in agriculture.

I have discussed the matter with the National Farmers Union and urged it to introduce advisory levels of pay annually, in conjunction with the revisions to the minimum wage and annual levels of premium. The current premiums paid for grades above grade 1 are certain percentages above the basic grade. There is no reason why any employer who wants to employ somebody who they classify as a craftsman, a foreman or whatever grade they wish, cannot continue to use the minimum wage as the base for adding whatever premium they consider appropriate. The annual uprating of the minimum wage would be the opportunity for annual changes to agricultural wages.

In Committee and again tonight, there was considerable debate about the position of the Agricultural Wages Board in Wales. I accept that the Welsh Government take a different view. We are continuing to engage with them on the arrangements that should apply to agricultural workers in Wales.

Finally, the future of the board will be subject to public consultation, as required by the provisions of the Bill. We hope to consult before the end of the year. That will ensure that the consultation is widely advertised to meet the requirements of the Bill. Equally important and relevant to points that have been made tonight, an impact assessment and equality impact assessment will be published as part of the consultation.

That brings me to the issue of £9 million being taken out of the economy, which the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said—well, it was broadcast this morning, but I suspect that, like me, she did not actually say it this morning—was per year. The figure of £9 million was one of a number of possible scenarios, but I will not take it back. It did originate from DEFRA, but it was not an official impact assessment. I do not dispute its origin, but the figure was £9 million over 10 years—less than £1 million a year.

[Mr Anderson]

Is the Minister telling the House that the measure will cost workers £9 million, when the AWB cost only £270,000, to quote the figures read out at the other end of the Chamber?

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Gentleman is mixing his figures. Nobody is disputing £270,000-odd as the annual cost of running the board. That is not the reason for abolishing it. The purpose of abolition, as we have tried to say, is to release the industry and free it up to increase employment opportunities.