Commons Debate

Wednesday April 24

Mary Creagh moved

That this House notes that the Agricultural Wages Board (AWB) was set up in 1948 to provide a fair wage and skills structure for agricultural workers; recognises that it is used as a benchmark for other employment in the food industry and that it was the only wages council not to be scrapped in the 1980s; further notes that around a quarter of agricultural workers live in tied accommodation and that casual seasonal workers may move around the country; regrets that the Welsh Government’s wish to retain the AWB has been ignored by the Government; condemns the Government for its abolition of the AWB, which took place after just four weeks consultation and will take £260 million out of the rural economy over the next 10 years, lead to a race to the bottom on wages in rural areas, reduce living standards and impoverish rural workers, exacerbating social deprivation and harming social inclusion; further regrets that hon. Members could not debate that issue as part of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill; and calls on the Government to drop its plans to abolish the AWB.

AWB - Ayes (pro-AWB) 215 vs Nos (anti-AWB) 283. This is the Hansard link. Cornish Lib Dem Andrew George voted with but looks like he is the only Lib Dem to do so. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130424/debtext/130424-0002.htm#ordayhd_10

In preparation for Wednesday's Commons Debate..

1. Steve's letter to his MP Tory minister who is the MP for constituency after receiving his Central Office Briefing note on the AWB.

Dear Mr Vaizey,

Thank you for your response to my email regarding the AWB, I have to say that your response reads rather like others I have received and seen and smacks of Central Office briefing papers.

You will no doubt receive further letters that I have written to your Lib Dem colleagues in Government on the issue in my role as Chair of the Rural and Agricultural Sector of Unite the Union. They seem to be hiding behind Parliamentary protocol on this issue and despite my letter being addressed on behalf of the exact numbers of agricultural workers in their constituency choose to pass the query on to yourself.

I have just learnt that today your Government chose to guillotine the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill resulting in no debate or vote on the amendment abolishing the AWB. I find this astonishing and a complete contempt for Parliament and farm workers, an amendment introduced at the very last minute in the House of Lords has been nodded through without even being considered in the Commons, what a disgrace.

I suppose I should have anticipated this as your Government had already ignored the "consultation " process where 61% were in favour of retention and had blatantly described the AWB as archaic and bureaucratic during the consultation. Additionally your Central Office briefing makes no attempt to justify the loss of £258 million in pay and conditions that workers will face over the next 10 years. The lose of a grading structure which gave a career path in the industry and all of the other protection which had been agreed by negotiation over years.

I look forward to MPs and Ministers abolishing your pay review body and allowing us as your employees to set your wages, or is it a case of do as I say not as I do?

Even in the terms of the recent debate on Welfare Reform which I personally deplore, your Government has talked about shirkers and strivers, what reward is there for striving farm workers working 50+ hours per week to be rewarded with NMW pay rates and no overtime rate. You may argue that some skilled workers will command more but the majority of farm workers who are on present Grades 1 and 2 will find themselves relying on in work benefits in the future. Why should taxpayers subsidise farming through Single Farm Payments (SFP) and also through benefits paid in lieu of poverty pay? This whole policy is incoherent and makes a mockery of the Living Wage which no 10 is half heartedly promoting.

You can be assured that I will continue to challenge this along with other regressive policies which your Government have pursued at a time when a Government of millionaires has seen fit to cut tax rates for themselves and the wealthiest in society.

2. 'How disgusting and unethical. Let's hope the 'committee' for Human Rights finds that this has been an unlawful decision and urges the government to reinstate the AWB forthwith. Not that I have any great hopes of that you understand - but merely wishful thinking. Interesting to see that some people with tied accommodation could lose it after October lst - bet I know one that won't! When Labour get back in (probably not the next election but the one after) let's hope they redress the situation and fight for the rights of the underpaid and undervalued manual labourers without whom, let's face it, those in power wouldn't have the comfortable existence they lead at present.'

3. Lord Whitty when moving the debate in the Lords said that the main beneficiaries are going to be - not the farmers, but there retailers. He said that as soon as they find the farmers - particularly the plantation owners, are paying thier workers less, they will pay the farmers less. That after all is the logic of 'cheap food'.

4. Two MPs - Tim Farron and Pendle Tory MP Andrew Stephenson have both said: 'But, we haven't had any direct complaints from any constituency farmworkers.' To which I have said something like ' well it is difficult to get to, and even more difficult to get anything from, farmworkers - as they have a lot of other things to do.' Another repost is that I bet they haven heard from farmers in these 'hilly areas either as they are not pushing fro the abolition.

5 The other thing is this about AWB being an 'antiquated' body and not flexible for future needs. And then I look at parliament itself!. Talk about an old boys club - still. Do they not have mobile phones to make votes, instead of wasting 15 minutes to go and vote breaking up any meetings the MPs are at. Most of our members now have mobile phones when they are out.

6 Can we have something on Tied cottages?

7 David's comments..

Is this our best chance to ignite the issue? It could be if we do a spot of ground work. I don't think the BBC and media in general will pick up on the debate unless they understand the issue in advance. But because it is an opposition motion the media will be obliged in one way or another to report it. So are we contacting all media outlets in advance to explain our story one more time? Of course we need to make contact with the BBC news/political teams nationally but we should also target local bbc outlets and radio stations, news papers and magazines. Could we consider linking it to the Countryfile piece on horticulture last week. I would think bbc journos would find it easier to understand if they are pointed in the direction of something they or their colleagues have already produced. I think we need to broaden our base beyond one of fairness and rural poverty but explain the need to provide a sustainable future for both agriculture and horticulture. With such a chronic skills deficit in both sides of the industry the Tory/NFU/HTA axis are on the wrong side of the argument. They are looking for short term fixes to a long term issue which is around the need to value the products we all growing/produce realistically to ensure sustainability. As always the Tories and NFU/HTA see the answer to the bigger problem as being a wage bill that they consider is too large. Their answer is to seek to employ ever greater numbers of migrants workers through initiatives such as SAWS. The more progressive growers and farmers already realise that there is a massive skills gap and the RHS is seeking to stir the pot in producing a report for government about the chronic lack of skilled younger people in our industry. We should use their report as further evidence in favour of our argument and paint the Tories/Lib Dems and NFU/HTA as the ones bereft of any fresh ideas on how to deliver a sustainable rural economy which isn't based around subsidies and welfare. Why enter an industry on that basis? Why would younger people enter our industry on the promise of hard work low pay and nothing more than SSP. As ever I've gone on a bit but I do think we should prepare the ground for Weds debate and have people prepared to be interviewed and quoted in the event that any of the media outlets pick up on our briefing/debate. I would be happy to be one such person