Abolition of the Agriculture Wages Board

Speech by David Ford on Mon 22nd Oct 2007

I restate my support for the Ulster Farmers' Union campaign against red tape and, specifically, the five-point plan. If my constituency colleague Dr McCrea had not done so, some of his researchers would have checked what I said during the Transitional Assembly's debates on this matter. Therefore, earlier today, I read my speech and found that, although I supported that plan at that stage, I made no mention of the Agricultural Wages Board. For the majority of farmers, I considered it to be the least important aspect of the five-point plan. Now, for the majority of farmers, there is no question of having employees. As P J Bradley said, the question now is whether there is an option to make a living off the farm for a single family.

Many other aspects of red tape have been highlighted; those bear greater consideration and are more important to the lives of the majority of farming families in Northern Ireland. If Members cannot ensure that individual family farms make a living for a family, there is little point in worrying too much about the minority agriculture employees. That is how the situation has dramatically changed since the establishment of the Agricultural Wages Board.

When the board was established, there was a significant number of employees; many small family farms would have employed one or more people. In those circum­stances, individuals would have had few negotiating rights if they were the sole employees of small farm businesses in areas of high unemployment.

It is understandable why the AWB was established; it was necessary, and it served a valuable purpose. However, not only has agriculture changed, but other circumstances in society changed with the introduction of the minimum wage legislation. Members have established that the minimum wage legislation parallels the AWB. It is completely unnecessary to have a separate layer of bureaucracy to deal with a matter that is dealt with elsewhere in a way that meets the needs of workers in every part of the UK and in every sector of the economy. That is clearly far beyond the remit of the existing operation of the AWB.

I fully support the motion, but I repeat the point that the Minister has more work to do to address the other four points in the UFU's five-point plan. I hope that the Minister, if she is not here to enthusiastically support the motion, will deal with some of the other aspects. People should not have nightmares because of a minor miscalculation, or misplaced decimal point, in field sizes or numbers on their single farm payment claim forms. Such matters cause many problems for people, and the Minister must deal with that. The Agricultural Wages Board is an important issue, but it is not the most important one.

On that basis, I find myself in almost total agreement - possibly unusually - with everything that Mr Elliott, Dr McCrea and Mr PJ Bradley said. I was somewhat amused by Mr Clarke's Marxist analysis of the exploit­ation of the working classes by the wicked capitalists, because I certainly did not recognise that portrait of farmers in Northern Ireland.

There is undoubtedly a problem in Northern Ireland, as in other parts of these islands, with the exploitation of migrant workers. However, that is not an issue that the Agricultural Wages Board can address effectively, because the problem is that the minimum wage laws are not enforced. The unfair treatment of migrant workers, a minority of whom might be forced to pay ridiculous rents, for example, must be addressed. However, the Agricultural Wages Board is not the place to address such problems. It has not addressed them, so it fulfils no useful function, and it should go.

Related Link:

Hansard.