UK Parliament / Open data

Agriculture

Proceeding contribution from Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 18 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on Agriculture.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, for enabling this opportunity, congratulate—if that is the right word—the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on his new appointment and commiserate with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for the reasons that other noble Lords have stated. How we relate to agriculture as a society in a national and international context in a truly global world is rightly the subject of intense and continuing debate. If, like me, you are a townie whose knowledge of agriculture is limited to a bit of vegetable growing in the garden, and probably too influenced by my addiction to that daily dose of rural life as portrayed in ““The Archers””, you enter this debate with a suitable amount of caution. With my trade union background it is hardly surprising that I should pose the almost eternal question: what about the workers? But it is surely appropriate given the role of the Tolpuddle Martyrs, those Dorsetshire farm labourers who were transported to Australia in 1834 for the heinous crime of trying to form a trade union. Next year, 2007, we will rightly celebrate the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery, but I put it to noble Lords that the task is not yet finished. In the 21st century, people can arrive in the UK from the EU or as immigrants or illegal immigrants and be subjected to conditions akin to slavery. Some, having paid for their transportation in appalling conditions and paid again for the prospect of a job, will have incurred debt which will take them possibly years to repay. Effectively, they are in bondage. Passports will be confiscated or forged papers provided at a price. Those people will be herded together in housing conditions that are both unsafe and unsanitary, and forced to work long hours in unsafe conditions. They will be transported to work in vehicles that are overcrowded and unsafe, sometimes resulting in fatal accidents, and denied basic employment rights such as health and safety, holidays and the minimum wage. I am, of course, referring to temporary or migrant agricultural workers in the UK, which, at a rough estimate based on government and union figures, amounts to 600,000 people, who are now covered by the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act. Some 22,500 businesses use temporary labour and there are about 1,000 labour providers in the agricultural sector. By any standards this is big business which, given the criminal elements involved in the appalling abuses of workers, was in dire need of reform. I put this in context. Not all gangmasters are criminals and most farmers, suppliers and retailers were trying to ensure fair conditions for temporary labour, but it was an appalling situation, ripe for exploitation and well overdue for reform. I must declare an interest in this issue as the vice-chairman of the Ethical Trading Initiative, an alliance of companies, NGOs and trade unions which exists to identify and promote the implementation of good codes of practice in company supply chains, taking the ILO conventions as the basic reference. This organisation, ably led by its director Dan Rees, played a key role in the creation of the gangmaster legislation. The Government have come in for a lot of criticism in this debate, but in that area they deserve praise. They reacted quickly to Jim Sheridan’s Private Member’s Bill. As a result, one of the most complex Private Member’s Bills was steered through Parliament inside six months. That was some achievement. Defra and the Department for Work and Pensions have been working closely with the Ethical Trading Initiative since 2002—which led to the creation of the Temporary Labour Working Group—to design a code of practice for labour providers and methods to assess compliance with the code. That code of practice was the forerunner to the licensing conditions that the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act subsequently adopted. It recognised the Temporary Labour Working Group method of auditing gangmasters for compliance with the code. It has adapted its audit method and even intends to use its auditors in some of the inspections. Very good progress has been made in that area. It is a very good example of all parts of an industry working together. The Temporary Labour Working Group was a feat in itself. The Ethical Trading Initiative co-ordinated the efforts of six supermarket competitors, the National Farmers Union, the Transport and General Workers Union, the Association of Labour Providers and trade associations representing packers and importers as well as food manufacturers. To get a group as diverse as that to co-operate in producing, dare I say, more regulation is a major miracle, but in that case regulation was very much needed. In 2004, the Temporary Labour Working Group audit programme was established; previously it had been a trial. The intention was to prepare as many labour providers as possible for regulation and to improve standards in the industry in the mean time. It has been successful; 800 labour providers have been identified, and 450 audits have been carried out in 2005-06. We welcome the announcement by the Government on 13 March of the new gangmasters licensing regime. The Gangmasters (Licensing) Act will apply to the provision of labour across the entire food sector and urges industry to act now to prepare for licensing. From October this year, labour providers will need a licence if they supply labour to any farm, packhouse, or food processing and manufacturing facility. The Government announcement is exactly what the food industry wanted; a level playing field across the entire sector with the licensing applying to businesses, which supply an estimated 600,000 workers to the sector. The licensing imposes new checks on employers to verify that workers are employed legally, are paid the minimum wage, work reasonable hours and work in safe conditions. The legislation is a wake-up call to all labour providers in the food industry and those that use their services. The DTI has encouraged labour providers to put their houses in order so that they can rectify any issues before licensing comes into force. We hope that the legislation will help to prevent tragedies such as the Morecambe Bay disaster on 5 February 2004, where 23 Chinese migrant workers drowned picking cockles just to supply food for our table and for the export market. It was a terrible indictment for that to happen in this century, and that is not the only tragedy that has taken place. There has been much progress. I quote the Minister when he was replying to debate in Grand Committee:"““At the latest date for which I have figures, 81 licences have been issued and there have been 295 applications. The licensing authority is to be congratulated on working from a standing start””.—[Official Report, 16/5/06; col. GC 67.]" I agree. There has been a bit of delay in the shellfish industry because of the complexity of that industry, and we hope that the Minister will do all he can to ensure that regulation comes in as quickly as possible. Finally, I congratulate all those concerned. A lot was achieved with a voluntary code by responsible producers, suppliers and retailers, but as we can see from the cross-party consensus on this issue it was not enough, given the level of exploitation and criminal elements involved. If we are to prevent further exploitation and more tragedies such as Morecambe Bay, I hope that the Minister will ensure that the Act is rigorously enforced and that those who try to evade the regulations are brought to justice. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, once again.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
682 c443-5 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top