Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I note the noble Lord’s comment. I was not aware of that.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)]

It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I remind the Committee that the Companion says:

“Members of the House who are taking part in a debate are expected to attend the greater part of the debate. It is considered discourteous for Members not to be present for the opening speeches, or at least the speech before and that following their own, and for the winding-up speeches”.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I will move on to the issues that have been raised about the consultation period. Several noble Lords raised this issue, including the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Howarth of Newport and, indeed, Lord Knight of Weymouth.

The policy on the abolition of the AWB and related committees was first announced in July 2010, so there has been plenty of time for stakeholders and interested parties to make their views known. In particular, key stakeholders had the opportunity to do so during meetings of the Agricultural Wages Board and the Agricultural Wages Committees. The department felt that a four-week consultation period was proportionate and realistic, given the length of time that the policy had already been in the public domain. This is also in line with the Government’s new consultation principles.

In this respect I will address a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he expressed concerns about those principles. The new principles allow for a tailored approach to the circumstances and needs of a particular case. Twelve weeks is not necessary in every case. The principles say that the timeframes for consultation should be “proportionate and realistic”. The department considers that the timeframe for this consultation was appropriate, given that the policy had been known for some time, as I explained a little earlier.

As mentioned, we also sent the consultation document to 13,000 bodies and held six meetings throughout the country to enable views to be heard. This very much involved Defra, which was also very much involved in disseminating information to those bodies and to many businesses to make them aware of the launch of the consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I think I should repeat to the noble Lord that the Agricultural Wages Board has been in existence for 65 years. I realise that that is not necessarily a reason for changing but there are still some great anachronisms within the system. Secondly, part of the point is to release farmers from the administrative burden of the two-tier, dual system. So I stick by my view that this is long overdue and it is right that we should take this step.

The key priority for this Government is to encourage economic growth. The Government firmly believe that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board and the agricultural minimum wage regime is in the long-term interests of all those within the industry. It will enable the sector to meet the challenges of increasing domestic food production and help secure its long-term prosperity. The abolition of the related Agricultural Wages Committees and Agriculture Dwelling House Advisory Committees in England will also contribute to the Government’s public body reform programme and will remove a number of redundant bodies, as mentioned earlier. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The Question is that Amendment 28ZK be agreed to. As many are of that opinion will say “Content”.

[Noble Lords]

Content.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

To the contrary, “Not Content”.

[Noble Lords]

Not Content.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, paragraph 8.103 of the Companion states:

“As divisions are not permitted in Grand Committee, decisions to alter the bill may only be made by unanimity. Thus when the Question is put, a single voice against an amendment causes the amendment to be negatived”.

I therefore declare this amendment negatived.

Amendment 28ZK negatived.