Agricultural Wages Board
Debate between Tom Blenkinsop and Neil Carmichael(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The backdrop to this terrible and petty Government measure is the fact that real wages have fallen by £1,700 since this Government were elected. This is a Government who preach about making work pay, yet raise the national minimum wage by only 1.9% while consumer prices index inflation is at 2.8%. This is a living standards debate. Instead of raising standards for farm workers, the Government are engaging in a race to the bottom on pay and fair treatment.
The first early-day motion I ever tabled in this House —early-day motion 754, on 6 September 2010—was a motion opposing the Government’s then proposals to eradicate the AWB. I did it with the full support of the Labour party, because we on the Opposition Benches know that the AWB protects pay and conditions for 152,000 farm workers in England and Wales and is used as a benchmark for others employed in food manufacturing. Some 3,360 of those workers live in the north-east of England and 170 of them are in my constituency. Once the AWB is gone, 42,000 casual workers could see a drop in wages as soon as they finish their next job. The remaining 110,000 could see their wages eroded over time.
Let me ask the Minister straight out: why are the Government taking £260 million out of the rural economy in disposable income? That is how much will be lost in sick pay and holiday entitlement over a 10-year period. How do we know that? We know because the Department’s impact assessment tells us so. The loss to local businesses is not the only part of that cost, which also includes estimates for new HR costs and litigation for farming businesses that will no longer have the collective negotiating umbrella under which the whole labour market is regulated. Indeed, the last time an attempt was made to get rid of the AWB, even Baroness Thatcher had to U-turn. Not only did she U-turn, but the gravity of the deprivation that could have hurt hard-working people did not make economic or moral sense then, and it does not make economic or moral sense now. We believe that those people—often they do not own even 1 square foot of soil on the land—should at the very least be able to afford the food they grow on that land. The Government should be helping families across this nation to deal with rising living costs, not actively participating in driving down hard-working people’s pay—and all this from a Government who are doubling the nation’s debt in a five-year period, with accrual of debt outstripping any allegations of debt accrual against us over the 13 years of Labour governance.
That is the perverse backdrop against which the demolition of the AWB is juxtaposed—a demolition that saves virtually nothing in Treasury terms, but which will ultimately bestow a huge tragedy upon rural communities. I repeat: it is a policy that saves virtually nothing, while the Government are also, as we know, cavalierly forgoing more than £1 billion in revenue that could be used for investment or to pay off the debt they are accruing. Instead, that money is being sacrificed to give millionaires a cut in the top rate of tax. Those millionaires could use that tax rebate, stick it with the Government’s spare home subsidy and buy up the surplus housing stock in some rural communities. The Government have just shafted people on AWB pay and terms and conditions.
Farm workers work in all elements. They do tough, hard-working jobs, much like those in the steel industry that I know—hard labour, shifts and working outdoors. Those jobs lead to a far greater incidence of ill health. Farm workers on the lowest grade will lose between £150 and £264 in sick pay once the AWB is abolished. The Secretary of State disagreed and said it would continue, but that is as long as TUPE regulations exist, and that is worth about 90 days in the current currency. A new employee in that sector will not be grandfathered like previous workers but put on statutory minimums, and the Secretary of State knows that.
A quarter of the current work force covered by the AWB are over 55, and the change to sick pay damns those workers to the self-fulfilling perpetuation of grinding poverty that those on the Government Benches simply choose to ignore. Another point is just how exposed an individual is under the new terms. They will be negotiating their pay, terms and conditions while the AWB is being abolished. For example, if an individual is tied into accommodation, how will they be able or confident enough to raise the issue of sick pay or holidays without collective bargaining when their home is at stake? We are talking about real living standards. This is not some sort of arithmetical debate; these are real people who are going to suffer.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but does he recognise that 41% of farm workers currently earn considerably more than the national minimum wage, as prescribed by the Agricultural Wages Board? That is a substantial difference. [Interruption.]
Tom Blenkinsop
As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said from a sedentary position, that means that 59% of workers do not earn that. Therefore, 41% have enhanced terms because a statutory minimum is in place—the same principle as for the national minimum wage. It is a different sector, but 59% of people do not earn that and there is no guarantee about what direction their pay, terms and conditions will go in. In economic terms, for the agricultural sector, that is mad.
It is totally and utterly crazy to say that by undermining a statutory minimum at the bottom, pay will go up. That is just not the case, as the past 13 years of the Labour Government proved. The national minimum wage was put in place, but collective bargaining allowed enhancements to be brought in. If the floor is taken away, the floor goes through the floor—it goes lower and lower.
Neil Carmichael
If the hon. Gentleman is so determined on the matter of the Agricultural Wages Board, why did the previous Labour Government not renew all other wages boards that were abolished under the Major Government?
Tom Blenkinsop
I would take those on the Government Benches more seriously if—pardon my slight diversion, Madam Deputy Speaker—the Government were not giving the full pay reward to the Army. Armed forces were awarded a 1.5% pay increase. The Chancellor announced the increase in the Budget at the Dispatch Box, yet delayed the start of those payments until 1 May. That is unique in the private or public sector. I have never heard of that in the steel industry, or any other manufacturing industry in the private sector, yet the Government are doing that to the armed forces—I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Tied accommodation affects 30,300 farm workers and their families. Will Ministers at least guarantee that those properties will not be taken from under the noses of those workers, and potentially opened up to the new spare homes subsidy market so that millionaires can increase their property portfolios? This is a piece of despicable legislation, outdone only by the sheer cowardice of a Government who wish to pass this measure without attempting to justify one scintilla of it to the House in open debate.
Postal Services Bill
Debate between Tom Blenkinsop and Neil Carmichael(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tom Blenkinsop
It certainly is an alternative and I take it on board as an option. However, in and of itself, the post bank would not necessarily be in conflict with the credit union. Other Government policies have undermined and withdrawn funds from credit unions. That happened recently with the north-east moneylending team, which was within the Minister’s remit.
Many postmasters fear the worst—that the Bill will be passed—and have made a plea to Government to consider at least extending the contract to 10 years. That request has been knocked back by the Government on the basis that it would not be compatible with EU regulations. However, I am assured by postmasters who investigated the matter that that is merely an excuse. The Government’s position regarding BSkyB and the fact that the potential buyer of the Royal Mail could own 90% of the company leads us to ask what the difference is between a state-owned monopoly and a private monopoly.
Postmasters have also referred me to the rail franchise contract as an example of how such things can be and, indeed, have been done. I cannot think of any reason why the Government are willing to grant 10-year rail franchises, but will not do something similar for the Royal Mail. A 10-year agreement would be advantageous for a number of reasons. First, in the German and Dutch models, which have been referred to as examples of best practice by Ministers in Committee and today, legislation stipulates the number of national access points. It appears that the Minister has more of a problem with German geography than with the potential German ownership of the Royal Mail. Without such a clause, a minimum 10-year deal is necessary to reassure those running existing post offices, which are mainly independently owned.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Having seen several post offices close in my constituency before the general election, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to end the closure programmes. The key point is that post offices should be given the flexibility to get in extra services and respond to new developments, and that is the fundamental point of this aspect of the Bill. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Tom Blenkinsop
No, I do not. The point of the IBA is to allow for an established foundation so that post offices can exploit further services, but we have not seen, to date, what those services will be. We have had promises about potential services, but as in the case of the press stories about PayPoint bidding for benefits contracts, for example, we hear one thing and then there is evidence of something else occurring.
Post offices are, in the main, independently owned, and the mutualised scheme assumes that the vast majority will opt into the mutual model, without providing any details of what that will mean in practice for a particular post office, which mutual model will be adopted, or whether Government will sit on the board of a mutual or a workers’ co-operative or customer-workers’ co-operative. Nor does it say what would happen to a sub-postmaster if they decided not to opt into the model. In any case, a mutual model offers no safety without a long-term guaranteed IBA for business. Royal Mail could, and probably will, seek cheaper access points after the IBA has expired.
How can the Government guarantee fair commercial negotiations between a privatised, large and powerful Royal Mail and a mutualised, smaller Post Office Ltd? Perhaps the two coalition partners, with one obviously being large and the other smaller, can give us some information on how such negotiations go ahead and how such agreements are reached. However, looking at this from the outside, it does not look particularly helpful for any form of Post Office Ltd taking forward any sort of commercial negotiations. If the position cannot be guaranteed, what message does that give to business and to the general public at large, and what chance is there of having an independent Post Office that opts out of a mutualisation scheme and goes into commercial dealings with a larger Royal Mail?
The Government’s proposed pilots have yet to start and to prove how new services in post offices will have worked. That is not to say that they will not, but there is no evidence as yet for us, as legislators, to see that evidence before we carry on.
Postal Services Bill
Debate between Tom Blenkinsop and Neil Carmichael(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I want to pose questions to the Government and to make some points, several of which have already been made, based not only on the general public’s fear of what postal privatisation might mean for Royal Mail, but on why previous privatisations show that this privatisation and its minimum of 10% shares offered to current employees are not great enough or dynamic enough an offer to revolutionise how such a business could go forward in restoring, as Lord Young puts it, a “sense of ownership” for public sector workers. I want to ask why mutualisation of the Post Office has not been offered to Royal Mail, too, and to draw on the broader point that the Post Office and Royal Mail are inextricably and obviously linked and that their division weakens the service. I also want to show how the mutualisation of the one and the privatisation of the other will only ensure that both fail.
Historically, if we consider examples of previous privatisations of companies in the UK with fewer than 50,000 employees, we recall that none had a percentage of shares going to employees above 10% of all shares. That precedent of 10% shares sales to workers was set in 1987 by Rolls-Royce. Today, in 2010, the Royal Mail has 150,000 employees, more than three times that amount, yet the share sale proposed for staff is 10%. Why?
Why cannot the Royal Mail be mutualised alongside its Post Office sister? Why has that option not been considered to allow evidence-led policy? That proposition would allow better interdependent models of co-operation between Royal Mail and the Post Office. I remind the House that the Post Office depends on Royal Mail to provide it with one third of its revenue.
The National Federation of SubPostmasters is seeking a 10-year deal with Royal Mail, a deal that the Con-Dem Government will not guarantee as they have still not clarified whether Deutsche Post or the Dutch-run TNT will take over, rather than have a proper stock market share float. Also, the findings of a recent UNI Post & Logistics study into postal services liberalisation throughout the world are not encouraging and should be considered to inform evidence-led policy.
Postal privatisation has already occurred in a number of countries. Normally, the national operator is transformed into a corporation and split into several companies. Privatisation then follows.
Tom Blenkinsop
I would normally, but I am pressed for time.
Liberalisation is often introduced piecemeal, with the private sector being handed a slice of the pie at each stage. The report found that competition was often based on price-related targeting, as a result of which many new companies home in on niche targets and cherry-pick, concentrating on business-to-business, business-to-consumer, dense urban markets or bulk mail. Previously, Royal Mail was able to use profitable bulk mail business to cross-subsidise unprofitable but socially necessary deliveries to remote areas, but private competitors have snatched 40% of bulk mail in downstream contracts. As a result, Royal Mail’s £233 million profit in 2006-07 was transformed into a loss of £279 million the following year. Privatisation and liberalisation have resulted in huge job losses and exerted pressure on wages and conditions.