Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme

Jim Dobbin Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

I intend to begin the wind-ups at 20 minutes to 11 at the latest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Time will tell if we abolish the board. However, not only has the Farmers Union of Wales welcomed its retention in Wales—and discussions are ongoing to see how that can take effect if the AWB is abolished in England; it has said it welcomes the clarity that the board gives on a range of conditions for agricultural workers. That is particularly true for small farmers who do not want to get into endless discussions about individual contracts, with different people on different wages for essentially the same job, and consequent disputes. The AWB provides a very good service for an industry that is often fragmented and disparate. The point that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) makes about modern technology and food processing is valid for many parts of the industry, but things are not uniformly like that. That is why the Labour party sees the AWB as providing a safety blanket, to ensure that all workers’ terms and conditions are properly protected.

DEFRA’s own figures suggest that the abolition of the AWB will take £9 million a year out of the rural high street through holiday and sick pay alone—that will be £9 million coming out of the rural economy, because it is not going into people’s pockets in one way or another. That is not an insignificant figure, and it is worthy of further consideration. In the 18 months or so since the Government announced their intention to abolish the AWB, a lot has changed. The economy has gone into a double dip recession. The cost of living has risen dramatically. Food and fuel prices have risen well above inflation. Overall unemployment is up, and youth unemployment is chillingly high at more than 1 million. As we watch developments on the continent unfold day by day, it appears there will be no improvement in people’s circumstances for some time yet. A study commissioned by The Guardian and published this week showed that almost 7 million working-age adults are living in extreme financial stress, from pay cheque to pay cheque, one push from penury, despite being in employment and largely independent of state support. Many of those will be agricultural workers in rural communities.

I ask the Minister to think again. Why, against that backdrop, do the Government insist on pressing ahead with the policy, taking money out of the rural economy and the pockets of rural agricultural workers, and making things harder for people, many of whose wages will fall as a result? Those in rural areas already face significant challenges in housing, transport and access to schools. The abolition of the AWB may prove another difficult hurdle to overcome. However, if the Minister is determined to press ahead, I want to ask some additional questions. We are all awaiting an announcement on when the AWB will be abolished, but we have not had that clarity yet. Yesterday evening, I met with the farmers unions—and some farmers unions, of course, support the abolition. They were asking when there would be clarity and a timetable: when will it happen? When does the Minister intend to lay an order before the House abolishing the AWB? Farmers’ patience is being stretched. In the mean time, can he confirm that negotiations with the AWB for the year ahead have been concluded? Will the pending abolition affect those? Has he asked his Department to reassess the proposals in the light of current economic circumstances? If not, why not?

I recently submitted a freedom of information request to the Minister’s Department for the impact assessment of the abolition of the AWB. It was rejected. No doubt he will explain why, and give the normal Whitehall reasons, but his response implied that the assessment would be published soon, so when will we see it? We want to get behind the detail, to see what the effect will be on rural communities. In the absence of the impact assessment, will the Minister guarantee that, on the abolition of the AWB, children will not be paid below the minimum wage, that the wages of workers in AWB pay bands will not be depressed, that rents on farm cottages will not rapidly escalate to full market value, or tenants be turfed out because they cannot afford them, and that when new recruits are taken on it will not be on inferior terms, creating a two-tier work force for the same jobs?

If the Minister doubts that that might happen, and thinks it is only I who say it, I refer him to the Incomes Data Services report for the Low Pay Commission, “The implications for the National Minimum Wage of the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board in England and Wales”. What does the change mean for the national minimum wage, where the Government’s defence lies— “Don’t worry, the NMW will take care of this”? The report states:

“Once abolished, many of the provisions of the Order will either be only partially covered by other statutory employment legislation, or not at all. Employment legislation does not make any provision for specific rates of pay linked to skills, specific rates of pay for overtime, a minimum rate of pay for workers of compulsory school age, rights to paid training, standby duty and night allowances, entitlement to paid bereavement leave, a birth or adoption grant”

and so on. It also states that

“abolition removes protection for young workers of compulsory school age”

and that

“the statutory minimum rates for both workers aged 16 to 20 and apprentices will be significantly less under the NMW than they currently are under the Agricultural Wages Order.”

Hon. Members have spoken passionately about the need to enhance skills and training in the agricultural sector, but the report states clearly that the wages of apprentices and those learning their skills will be depressed.

The report states:

“There may also be issues around the accommodation offset, whereby in some cases agricultural workers may be worse off under the NMW rules”,

and it explains why:

“There is no such threshold under the NMW”

for workers’ accommodation. It also states:

“The NMW rules on accommodation offset allow deductions to be made even if the worker could have lived elsewhere. This could mean that agricultural workers who are not currently subject to the accommodation offset…could be subject to it in future.”

It continues:

“On piece work, agricultural piece workers are currently guaranteed to get at least the minimum rate appropriate to their grade.”

That is more favourable than the national minimum wage approach,

“where slower workers can earn less than NMW if a properly assessed ‘fair’ piece rate is applied.”

It is not true to say that the abolition of the AWB is not a problem because the national minimum wage will deal with the issues. There is far more to the AWB’s terms and conditions than that, which is why I am asking the Minister to think again.

I thank the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey for raising this important debate, and thank all hon. Members for some very good contributions. We want to see a rural economy that works for all working people. It should be fair across the board, as these are tough times for all those who work in agriculture. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, let me say that I did my fair share of potato picking when I was a mere lad in the wonderfully beautiful scenic centre of the agricultural world, the kingdom of Fife.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Gentleman pushes and pushes, which is remarkable given that I have already taken nearly half an hour to respond to the debate. I cannot give him a timetable. I fully appreciate the concern about the industry. I have had my—I had better be more precise: I have had representations made to me by the industry, by my constituents, and obviously by Members this morning. I fully accept that the industry needs to know where its future work force will come from. We are working with other Departments to try to ensure that, but I am not in a position to make an affirmative statement at this moment.

I hope that I have picked up the majority of the points raised. I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey on securing the debate. I should have also joined in the congratulations to Mr James Chapman, who I know, as the shadow Minster said. He has been a marvellous example of how people can use their own tragedies to help others.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Shadow Minister, I assume that you are waiting for the next debate. I have to explain to you that Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople cannot intervene in a half-hour debate.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Indeed. Thank you very much for that clarification, Mr Dobbin. That is why I raised the matter of gangmasters earlier.

Gangmasters Licensing Authority

Jim Dobbin Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

When the hon. Gentleman intervenes, will he clarify what capacity he is speaking in?

[Jack Dromey]

I am speaking not on behalf of the Opposition, but as someone who chaired the coalition that established the Gangmasters Licensing Authority in the first place.

Gangmasters Licensing Authority

Jim Dobbin Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. I remember a meeting in the House during the passage of the Bill that he addressed. I chaired the meeting. Sitting to my left was Gillian Shephard. Sitting to my right was the president of the National Farmers Union. Sitting to his right were two senior chief executives of two of the major supermarkets. Sitting to Gillian Shephard’s left were two gangmasters. It was a remarkable meeting. All of them were saying the same thing—the time had come to tackle what was a jungle, characterised by serious exploitation, because it shamed our society, and together we were determined to act to end that modern-day slavery.

The debate should be about considering how we make an outstanding organisation yet more effective, tackling exploitation wherever there is evidence of it, including in other sectors, and following the evidence into those sectors—the case in relation to construction is particularly powerful.

I will conclude by saying—this is not aimed at the Minister here today—that I have sometimes been involved in debates with Ministers who, when the word “regulation” is mentioned, hold up a clove of garlic in one hand and a cross in the other. Unashamedly, this debate is about regulation, but this regulation is right. It is effective. It tackles extreme exploitation. Ultimately, the debate is about what kind of society we want to live in. If what happened at Morecambe bay shamed Britain, there should be an utter determination to say, “Never, ever again.”

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

I intend to start the winding-up speeches at 12.10 pm

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Sheridan]

We have been exceptionally lucky not to have had a Morecambe bay disaster on the Olympic site, but we cannot forget the fact that the number of deaths in the construction industry is rising. We must keep that at the forefront of our minds.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Mr Hamilton has one minute left.

[Mr Hamilton]

I will just add this, Mr Dobbin. The other side of the coin is that every serious accident is one step away from a death. It should be recognised that the number of deaths could increase quite dramatically. I am an ex-miner. I recognise that disasters happen because of a sequence of events. I do not want such a sequence of events to happen in the construction industry, and one way of ensuring that it does not is by telling bad employers, “You’re not welcome.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I am conscious of the time, and I want to get on to the point about the construction industry, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

The issue I have just outlined is one of those that we want to look at in more detail as part of the ongoing red tape challenge process. We want to come forward with proposals on it in due course. Building on the successes it has already had in improving its operations, the GLA is running its own pilot project in the forestry sector, designed to apply a light-touch enforcement approach. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), the forestry regulation taskforce will report shortly, and make some recommendations, which will no doubt be of great interest to him.

There was some talk in the debate about the construction industry, which is obviously not an area covered by my Department. However, the industry has made significant improvements in the past 10 years in the number of serious accidents and fatalities. I cannot say that about agriculture, which is the industry I come from. I am not proud of that. I am happy to debate the issue when we have more time, but the Government are considering the issue of enforcement as a whole, across Government. No doubt the statistics will be part of that. We are not talking just about safety in the sense of health and the number of fatalities in an industry, but about exploitation, which is more complex and requires a more nuanced approach. There is a lack of hard evidence about employment abuses in construction. It does not feature in the Low Pay Commission’s top 12 low pay sectors. According to data from the annual survey of hours and earnings, only 0.7% of construction workers were paid at the national minimum wage rate in April 2009. Pay is sometimes below union-negotiated rates but above the minimum and not illegal. The issue then is not about extending the scope of the GLA—

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Order.

Incinerators

Jim Dobbin Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am a fellow Cheshire Member, and, as we all know, Cheshire is God’s own county.

Four proposed incinerators surround my constituency. They are at Weston Point, Ince Marshes, Lostock and Middlewich. I wonder how we are going to feed them. At the height of production, the Weston Point incinerator will produce only 20% of the power required by INEOS Chlor, and that waste will come from Manchester. For some reason, although that incinerator is located on Merseyside, most of the Merseyside waste will not go to that incinerator but will have to go over the water to Ince Marshes in Cheshire. I am concerned about the logistics of that. I am also worried about viability. If Merseyside’s and Manchester’s waste are accounted for, where will the other incinerators get their waste from?

I have met with campaign groups such as the Cheshire Anti Incinerator Network and the Halton Action Group Against the Incinerator, as well as the applicants, Brunner Mond and INEOS Chlor, which are excellent local employers and part of the rich industrial heritage of the area. I have also met officials from the Environment Agency. From those discussions, it is clear that the most significant impact on the local communities will be the increase in traffic as the plants draw in waste from Cheshire and beyond.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Order. This is a half-hour debate, and interventions should be short.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend makes my points for me. If the four planned incinerators in Cheshire go ahead, there will be over-provision. There is no need for a further facility at Middlewich. That was confirmed in the original planning refusal, which stated that there would be an over-provision of waste facilities. It undermines the sustainability principle, which is that waste should be disposed of at an appropriate nearby location and should not be transported long distances.

My constituents are also concerned about the environmental and health implications of multiple incinerators in relatively close proximity to one another. Until a better scientific understanding is gained and the public can be reassured about such implications, my constituents feel that the precautionary principle should be applied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that this is a short debate, so please keep contributions brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)]

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said about what happens after a waste site is built. I experienced such problems when I was a parliamentary candidate for Lancashire before the boundary changes. The Farington waste site was built in my constituency, which is now the Ribble Valley constituency. The cross-party South Ribble council unanimously voted the application down, but the Lancashire county council voted it through. The aftermath has been horrific. This is a massive waste site, which in some cases runs 18 metres from the ends of people’s gardens. It has devastated the local wildlife and their habitats, and it has added one extra lorry movement every two minutes past long-established residential areas. It is taking rubbish from all over Lancashire, and is in danger of making South Ribble the dustbin of Lancashire. Simply put, this waste site has devastated people’s lives. Those who voted for it to be built next to residential properties should hang their heads in shame.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

For the second time today, I call the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.