Coalition plays dirty to abolish Agricultural Minimum Wage
17 January 2013 Angry peers criticise government for springing the proposed abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board on them instead of following the correct procedures.
17 January 2013
Angry peers criticise government for springing the proposed abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board on them instead of following the correct procedures.
Near the end of last year, the government proposed the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board and, with it, the Agricultural National Minimum Wage. The policy was added to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (ERR Bill) after a short consultation and is now being debated in the Lords. But some peers argued the government had not followed the correct procedure to make the legislation.
“I am afraid that the Government
are on somewhat dodgy
procedural and legal grounds”
Lord Whitty noted that the amendments to the ERR Bill to include the abolition of all Agricultural Wages Boards in England Wales, all Agricultural Wages Committees in England and Agricultural Dwelling-House Advisory Committees in England, were made just two days before Christmas. Furthermore, the issue has already been debated extensively over a year ago as part of the Public Bodies Act and Lord Whitty argued everybody involved considered the matter to have been dealt with at a primary-legislation level at that time. If the government wished to introduce secondary legislation, it would need to follow the procedures laid out in Section 11 of the Public Bodies Act, which states that a three-month consultation would need to be undertaken, alternatives would need to be considered, a full explanation would be required to be given to both House of Parliament and a special memorandum would need to be laid before the House before the change to law is considered.
Instead, Defra launched a four-week consultation on the proposals late last year and, for those policies that will affect Wales, only one week was given for the consultation.
“I can think of a couple of procedural reasons why the Government are in a bit of bother on this one. One of them is the Delegated Legislation Committee and the other one can be summarised by saying ‘Wales’,” Lord Whitty stated.
Indeed, Wales is in opposition to the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board and the peer also suggested this might be way the proposals have been added to the ERR Bill as employment legislation, as had they been put forward as agricultural legislation – as such matters always have been previously – then the Welsh Assembly would have equal rights as the Westminster Government and would have to agree the Bill before it could go further.
“I am afraid that the Government are on somewhat dodgy procedural and legal grounds,” Lord Whitty said.
“The way the Minister’s department
has acted is, frankly,
a disgrace”
He was supported by Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, who said: “We have lost the super-affirmative procedure, which would have allowed for extensive engagement and consultation with stakeholders. It would have allowed noble Lords who had an interest to have taken part in extensive debate. Instead, we have had this remarkably truncated consultation … when many people are engaged in other activities during the winter period.”
“We now have a remarkable situation now where, instead of having a well ordered process to consultation, it is entirely up to Ministers to decide how long it should be. I should have thought that there will be the inverse rule of ministerial law which says that the more contentious the issue the shorter the consultation will be. Here we sit: one week in Wales on the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board when we know there is absolutely no support whatever for its abolition in Wales. No wonder it is a week. People should be grateful, should they not? Why not a day? Christmas Eve would no doubt have produced the result the Government wanted. The way the Minister’s department has acted is, frankly, a disgrace,” Lord Hunt added.
Support the IER and receive free employment law publications and reduced entrance fees to our employment law seminars and conferences by subscribing to the IER.
Related articles
- SLSC recommends review into consultation process following IER campaign
- Response to the government’s new approach to consultation
- Govt gives opposition just two weeks to respond to consultations
- Does the noise from ice cream vans really affect more people than cutting employment rights, Oliver Letwin?
- Francis Maude plays down consultation cuts and attacks on trade unions
