Food Poverty

Debate between David Heath and Chris Evans

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for calling me, Sir Alan; I know that I have only a short time—my voice is going, so I must be quick anyway.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on an absolute tour de force of a speech. She touched on many of the points that I was going to mention in my contribution. Like many hon. Members, I recently visited a food bank; this one was in Risca in my constituency. I went to Tesco and saw people giving up food that they had struggled to pay for. Their generosity moved me and got me thinking about this debate, which is about food poverty in the run-up to Christmas.

The most famous Christmas story is probably “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens, the great social reformer and writer who celebrates his 200th birthday this year. When the Ghost of Christmas Present visits Scrooge, he reveals a boy and a girl. He says:

“This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom.”

As I look around the Chamber today, I see many colleagues on the Labour Benches. I do not see a single Member from the Conservative party. Their absence damns them. It shows what they think of the most vulnerable in society. As they criminalise the unemployed, those who are too sick to work and those who find themselves in the most dire circumstances, they do not realise that those using the food banks and claiming benefits are people in work. Those are the people who are struggling. What would Charles Dickens say if he were to come alive at this point? He would be ashamed that in the 21st century—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the Minister to laugh.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

Don’t be silly.

[Chris Evans]

Yes, he is laughing. But food banks are now a way of life. [Interruption.] The Minister may get angry and annoyed, but when a person is struggling, when they do not have food in their belly and they are sending their children to bed hungry—[Interruption.] He says it is pathetic.

[Mr Heath]

You’re pathetic.

[Chris Evans]

You look into their eyes and you tell them that this Government’s policy is the right one. You tell them. You say that it is pathetic. You talk to those people in my constituency who are struggling and you say it is pathetic. The Minister should be ashamed of himself as he stands here today and defends his Government. Look into those eyes and remember those families.

Agricultural Wages Board

Debate between David Heath and Chris Evans

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Heath]

In that case, I shall not tempt the hon. Gentleman further down that road, but the reason why I raised those other, perhaps flippant cases—I do not think that anyone would seriously suggest that those councils were relevant now—is that other wages councils that were abolished at the time had an effect on industries that would certainly be described as current industries and that are not entirely dissimilar to agriculture. I am thinking of the Licensed Non-residential Establishment Wages Council, the Licensed Residential Establishment and Licensed Restaurant Wages Council and the Hairdressing Undertakings Wages Council. Those were dealing with business that was often carried out by small enterprises, where many of the arguments that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have advanced today would have applied and where I do not think that a disbenefit from the abolition has been apparent in terms of comparative performance with other areas of industry. It is important that we recognise that.

We are now engaging in a consultation that will allow stakeholders and interested parties the opportunity to make their views known on the future of the Agricultural Wages Board before we make a final decision. I want to make it clear—because I genuinely think that this is the case—that the aim of the proposal to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board is to secure the prosperity of the agricultural industry for the future by encouraging growth and employment. I think that it will do that. I think that it will benefit all those who work in the industry, both employers and workers, as well as the wider rural economy.

[Chris Evans]

Will the Minister give a guarantee that this is not a fait accompli and that if the consultation comes back with the view that the Agricultural Wages Board should be saved, the Government will follow that, rather than just proceeding with the plans for abolition anyway?

[Mr Heath]

The job of Ministers when responding to a consultation is to listen to all the voices that are raised, to try to understand the points that are put forward and then to make a decision on whether to introduce appropriate legislation. It is then for the House to decide whether it supports that legislation, so let us be clear about the process. It cannot have come as any great surprise that we were going to go ahead with the consultation. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ogmore chided me gently for not having brought it forward earlier. I say to him that I would have brought it forward slightly earlier if there had not been a recess, but we are now ready to consult and ready to listen.

An impact assessment of the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board has been published as part of the consultation package. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to consider it carefully and to comment on the document and provide their own evidence on the likely impact for both individuals and the industry as a whole. The impact assessment suggests that abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board could lead to increased employment, which would have potential ripple-effect benefits for the wider rural economy.

Let me deal with some of the specific issues that were raised. A lot of hon. Members were understandably concerned that the proposal might mean workers losing their existing rights. Of course, that is not the case. Anyone in permanent employment will be protected by their contract. They will have exactly the same rights after the day on which the legislation is passed as they had before. They do not lose any of their contractual rights and the employer loses none of their contractual obligations simply by the passage of the measure. Of course, it would apply to new entrants and new contracts being negotiated, but it would not apply to anyone who was already in employment. It is very important that people understand that. Let us also recognise that permanent workers constitute about two thirds of agricultural workers, so for the vast majority of workers, there will be no change in terms and conditions as a result of the board’s abolition.

For new contracts, yes, I accept that there may be an impact. That is reflected in the estimates in the impact assessment. However, it is difficult to assess what that impact will be until we see it in action. My feeling is that there is a high level of competition for skilled workers in some sectors of the agricultural industry, and it is important that people attract workers who have both the necessary certification and the necessary skills, given that they are operating, as one hon. Member said, incredibly expensive bits of machinery, let alone dealing with livestock, which requires husbandry skills. It is important that people attract and retain the best workers. Therefore, I am clear that we shall not see a drift towards the national minimum wage in contracts in the agricultural industry. In addition, new entrants to the industry will have exactly the same levels of employment protection as workers in all other sectors of the economy.

In fact, there are potentially some direct benefits from abolition of the rigid structures of the Agricultural Wages Board, let alone the bureaucracy, in terms of what is permitted under contract. One example involves annual salaries. It is extraordinary that at the moment it is difficult to provide an annual salary basis for a contract under the rather rigid systems in place. In today’s employment market and particularly because I am optimistic about agriculture—we have a growing sector and there is huge potential in agriculture—farmers need to offer attractive remuneration packages that are competitive with those in other rural sectors if they want to retain skilled and well-qualified staff. I would be very surprised if employers did not recognise that they had to pay appropriately for skills and experience. That is already reflected, of course, in the banding in the Agricultural Wages Board system. The majority are paid above agricultural minimum wage rates. In 2010, about half of workers were paid more than 10p above the agricultural minimum wage. I do not see any reason why that should change in the absence of the board.

Of course, there are other protections as well. The gangmasters licensing legislation is both relevant and important in this debate. The hon. Member for Copeland talked about the Agricultural Wages Board specifically providing protection for migrant and seasonal workers, but he will find that it is the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 that provide such protection—passed by a Government that he, of course, supported. I recall supporting those regulations too. They will continue to provide protection, and it is important to know that that is the case.