Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2011.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. It is not particularly warm, but if hon. Members want to remove any articles of clothing, that is perfectly acceptable. Please will all hon. Members ensure that mobile phones and pagers are turned off. I will not be pompous and draw attention to it, but I can hear phones when they go off, and our proceedings are being broadcast. Devices should be placed on silent mode during the proceedings.

I inform hon. Members that as a general rule, I and my fellow Chairman do not intend to call starred amendments that have not been tabled with adequate notice. We are blessed with a wise Clerk, who will help hon. Members if they do not understand proceedings, and I am sure that if that can all be done privately, we will proceed efficiently. The required notice period in Public Bill Committees is three working days. Therefore, amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on a Monday for consideration on a Thursday and by the rise of the House on a Thursday for consideration on a Tuesday.

I realise that although it is 16 months since the election, not everyone has served on a Public Bill Committee before. We are here to help. They may not be familiar with the procedure in Public Bill Committees, so I will briefly outline the way in which we proceed. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, on which debate is limited to half an hour. Then we will proceed to a motion to report written evidence, much of which is arriving. Then we will begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I first call the Minister to move the programme motion agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.00 am on Thursday 8 September) meet—

(a) at 1.00 pm on Thursday 8 September;

(b) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 13 September;

(c) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 15 September;

(d) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 11 October;

(e) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 13 October;

(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; Schedule 1; Clause 2; Schedule 2; Clause 3; Schedule 3; Clause 4; Schedule 4; Clause 5; Schedule 5; Clauses 6 to 32; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 13 October.

It is an enormous pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I am sure that the rest of the Committee will have noticed your broadsides against the BBC this morning. We can assure you that we will conduct our affairs with high levels of seriousness and low levels of Botox.

The programme motion was agreed at the meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee. It allows for 10 sittings of the Committee over five days and proposes that the Bill be taken in clause order, with the schedules being taken after the clauses that introduce them.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

Like the Minister, I welcome the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. This is the first time that I have done so. Your reputation runs well before you. You are a fair but firm Chairman. I have made this comment before: I hope that you will be fair with us but firm with the people on the other side of the room. I am sure that that will be the case and that your wisdom but also your wit will keep us in order and at least slightly amused as well.

It is good to see the rest of the Committee assembled here. I see many bright eyes and bushy tails, so we can look forward to an interesting set of debates. The matter at hand is the programme motion. The House is aware, because we raised the issue on Second Reading, that we are uncomfortable—I will seek a ruling from you on this in due course, Mr Amess—with the fact that members of the public were able to make representations on the Bill only prior to its appearance in the House of Lords. After having made that point in the House, I was told that it is the convention with a House of Lords Bill, which this is, for evidence to be taken from witnesses at the time at which the Bill appears in the other place. Of course that is true, but it seems to me that although conventions are there to take heed of and to pay careful attention to, they should be flexible enough to allow for some variation from time to time.

This Bill changed very substantially between the point at which it was tabled in the other place and when it was put in front of us. It is now such a different Bill. Moreover, large numbers of people believe that we should have had the opportunity to hear from interested members of the public. I wonder whether any other Member has had the pleasure of receiving several hundred e-mails per hour in favour of S4C. Perhaps it happened only to myself and one or two others. I must say that my knowledge of written Welsh is not as strong as it should be. I was helped by the fact that there was a translation at the bottom of the page.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in our proceedings. I can confirm to the Committee that I too have received several hundred e-mails. I just wanted to say that the translation into English is fully equivalent, and I hope that hon. Members scrolled down the page and spotted that particular facility.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

We did scroll down, although after doing so several hundred times we decided that all of them were quite similar in character. The point I wanted to make was that it is unusual to receive that number of e-mails. Given that the Government’s ideas on S4C and other serious matters have evolved, it might have been a reasonable idea for us to have had the opportunity to hear from interested members of the public before we decided how to proceed.

S4C is a serious matter. We know that it is a major national issue in Wales. Equally important, though—or perhaps even more important—is the chief coroner issue, which is a serious matter. I totally accept that the Government have a point of view, and we will hear it argued later. The truth is that many people in our country, including the relatives of people in the armed forces who have fallen, are deeply concerned about the decision to press ahead with changes to the manner in which we deal with the coronial service. The British Legion has been to see me—and probably other Members, too—and said that this is not the right decision. It would have liked the opportunity to say a few words here, so that we could understand its point of view. We do not necessarily have to accept what the British Legion has to say about the coronial service, but the organisation does represent our heroes and there is no difference between the various sides represented here about the esteem in which we hold it.

It would have been good—and it still may be—for us to have found time to listen to witnesses. There are other people, too. I noticed that the safety in sports ground issue, which I will refer to later, is also up for abolition. Tens of thousands of people went on the website that No. 10 created, which is a good innovation, to talk about what happened at Hillsborough. There will be relatives of people who died at Hillsborough who have a view about how safety at sports grounds can be guaranteed. They might well have wanted an opportunity to make their points. I raise these matters not in a partisan way—we will be partisan from time to time—but to say that the wisdom of the House is that if we are to bridge the gulf between ourselves as politicians and the wider public, we have to open up our procedures and processes. No. 10 has set up this site, which is a good innovation, and said that if 100,000 people sign a petition it can be debated and voted on in the House.

Another good innovation is allowing people who have a passionate interest in a matter being discussed by us to come here to make a point or two to us. On the question of how we are to conduct ourselves over the next few weeks, I seek your advice, Mr Amess, on whether it is still possible for the Committee to find a little time, if the Government are prepared to do so, to listen to some key witnesses. That would perhaps help the people in S4C; at least they would know that their voice was being heard—if only briefly—by this Committee. Others may have points to make on the matter.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

I also look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Mr Amess, and that of your colleague Mr Robertson. I am glad to be on the Committee for this wide-ranging Bill.

As a Welsh Member, my particular interest is in Sianel Pedwar Cymru, or S4C. I am glad to see here a substantial contingent from Wales, and of people who have a Welsh interest. I am sure we will contribute to the debate in general, as well as on that particular issue.

I want to support the points about evidence made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth. With other colleagues, I have met people from Wales who now see they have missed their opportunity to make their points in evidence. That would have been useful. We will obviously have a debate on S4C a little later, and I look forward to that.

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess, and to follow the hon. Member for Arfon. On the matter of organisation, the Opposition would be happy for a number of the sittings currently scheduled within the programme motion to be devoted to evidence. We made that fairly clear at the Programming Sub-Committee. There would be an opportunity within the current programme motion for the Government, if they chose, to come back and say they are willing to break and take evidence. Alternatively, the Opposition are happy to add sittings to the programme motion in order to invite people in to give evidence. I place that before the Committee because the Opposition are keen to ensure full scrutiny of the Bill.

I understand that the Committee has, under Standing Orders, the authority and power to break and take evidence at any time it chooses. I look to you, Mr Amess, with your long-standing experience in these matters. I place on record the Opposition’s view that we would be happy to look again at the programme motion and break at any point to take evidence, or to add sittings. To be fair to the Government, I think there is sufficient time within the programme motion to consider the Bill in some detail. We do not have a particular axe to grind on the out-date of the Bill, but we think it would be good to have additional scrutiny and the opportunity for witnesses to attend the Committee.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Mrs Vaz.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

Thank you. It is Ms Vaz.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I apologise. Ms Vaz.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

My husband, Mr Townsend, would be most upset about that. It is a great pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Mr Amess, and to be in your company and that of other hon. Members.

I add to the call for witnesses to this Committee. As a lawyer, I am concerned about some of the powers in the Bill. I have never read any Harry Potter books. I got to the first page and thought it was not for me; it was not my level. However, reading the Bill, indeed the first clause, is like waving a magic wand and saying, “Expelliarmus! You are out.” That causes me, as a lawyer, great concern. I have had to write to some of the bodies affected by the Bill because I am not clear what consultation has taken place. I would like to ask the Minister: what consultation has taken place with these bodies? We are talking about huge, important serious bodies such as the Human Tissue Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. They all have brand names. They are going to be shoved into an organisation. I have sat on the Health Committee, so I have seen and heard the way the Care Quality Commission operates and I have serious concerns about that.

I would like to know what consultation has taken place, and whether we can look at the possibility of hearing evidence from some of these serious bodies, because the powers in the Bill are huge. The Minister might happen to be in a good mood on one day, and decide to absorb and get rid of some of the bodies, but he might be in another mood on another day and decide that he does not want to do so. As someone who did constitutional law, that rankles. I plead with the Minister to allow those bodies to come forward; whether they do so in Welsh or English, I do not mind.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I would like to express my view that it is imperative that witnesses are called to the Committee, simply to broaden and deepen our knowledge of certain issues. I, too, have received many e-mails about S4C, which reflects in no small part how important this issue is across Wales. If one goes back into the history of the Welsh-language channel, when Welsh-language broadcasting was first mentioned in this House—I think it was in the 1930s, although obviously I do not remember that—the speaker was laughed at. Things have changed so much, however, and one might argue that the reason why S4C exists is because listening took place at a very senior level. The opportunity to call witnesses is important. Many Members of Parliament have said that they were unaware of the strength of feeling until receiving such e-mails, and it would be even better if we heard from witnesses in person as well as via e-mail.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. Unless anyone else wants to contribute—we have until 9.30 am for the Minister to respond—I thought that this would be an appropriate moment to return to what the hon. Member for Hemsworth has said.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

I apologise for interrupting you, Mr Amess. I am, like others, grateful for the opportunity to endorse the comments that the hon. Member for Clwyd South, in particular, has made about S4C and the need to broaden the information base of members of the Committee. She and I both have the luxury of serving on the Welsh Affairs Committee and of having undertaken a detailed inquiry, and, of course, there was also an extensive debate in the House of Lords on the matter. The debate has moved on sufficiently in Wales for many of us who have a Welsh interest to take evidence from S4C and from other interested parties such as Cymdeithas, but I suspect that there is a slight bafflement or bemusement among other members of the Committee. The opportunity to call witnesses, not least because the Opposition have said that that could happen within the existing time frame, would be immensely helpful.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I apologise to Mr Williams; I had not realised that he wanted to speak. I would still like to respond before the Minister speaks. I thank the hon. Member for Hemsworth for his kind words; I am very susceptible to flattery. I say to the Minister that I have not had botox, although I am sure that I need it. I will now respond to the hon. Member for Hemsworth, who kindly gave me advance warning on what he intended to say.

I wanted to say to Members at the outset that this whole procedure of taking evidence before the Committee stages of Bills is quite new; indeed, I chaired the first evidence session. The procedure is only just over two years old. We are in new territory here. If we want to break precedent—I am looking at the two Whips—I know that things are normally done through the usual channels, and there could be a discussion when we break at 10.25 am. It is, however, a matter for the Committee ordinarily in consideration of the resolution of its Programming Sub-Committee, to determine whether it wants to take evidence. Of course, I chaired that committee. Hon. Members should know that it has not been the practice for Committees on Bills starting in the Lords to take oral evidence, but there is no prohibition in the Standing Orders on their doing so. This is the first time that I, whether as a Chairman or ordinary Member, have had all these e-mails. I am not even computer literate and I do not quite understand, although I am now told there is an English translation. This is a new phenomenon and it is entirely up to the Committee to decide.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

Thank you for that, Mr Amess. I am sure that the Committee will have noted your remarks about your susceptibility to flattery. You can expect to bathe in the stuff over the next few sittings. In a way, we have had this debate before. The Government take great pride in our commitment to transparency and genuine consultation. But the programme motion was agreed at the meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee and we will not change our mind. You made it clear what is considered precedent and process here. I think the Committee needs to be reminded that evidence sessions were never programmed for Bills starting in the Lords under the previous Administration. So the current passion for doing so seems to be a conversion on the road to Committee Room 9.

We know full well that the Bill contains substantial powers, as the hon. Member for Walsall South said. Some of the issues underlying the proposed reforms are extremely emotive, such as the Coroners Bill and S4C. We understand that completely. The debate so far has missed an important point in terms of the Bill’s objectives. It is an enabling Bill, which allows Departments and Ministers to come to the House with secondary legislation on proposed reforms. Clause 10 makes it quite clear that in each of those cases there is to be appropriate and adequate consultation on the specific proposed reforms. Therefore the public will have an opportunity at that secondary stage to make their views known. As you made clear right at the start, Mr Amess, there is nothing to stop the public making written submissions to the Committee at this early stage. So I must make it clear that the Government are not prepared to change their mind.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

We do not want to put the Minister or other members of the governing parties in a difficult position by forcing a Division, which will look as though they are attempting to prevent the British Legion or S4C from making their views known. I do not want to force a Division, but I am prepared to do so. When the orders are placed before the House, will there be an opportunity for the British Legion or S4C to appear before the House to give their opinions? I believe that is not the case, but can the Minister confirm that?

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

I would be very surprised if all the parties that feel passionately about the issues that are being debated feel that they are short of opportunities to make their case known to Ministers. As the hon. Member for Hemsworth said earlier, both the emotive issues mentioned so far have been extensively debated in the House of Lords. As we speak, the Departments responsible for those reforms are in consultation with the bodies. There is a very active process of engagement on these issues. But there is no precedent for evidence sessions for Bills that start in the Lords. It is a duplication of scrutiny as far as we are concerned and we are not prepared to change our mind.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Copies of memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. If anyone has a problem not getting the papers, perhaps they will kindly let us know.

Clause 1 - Power to Abolish

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert ‘as set out in Regulations,’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 31, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, after ‘trustees’, insert ‘as set out in Regulations.’.

Amendment 34, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out ‘or other unincorporated body of persons.’.

Amendment 32, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(f) a registered charity.’.

Amendment 35, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(f) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965.’.

Amendment 39, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(f) a community benefit society.’.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

If all the votes are as close as that, we could be in for an interesting sitting. I dare say we will all be hanging on the edge of our seats as the votes are counted. Nonetheless, one would hope that there will not be too many Divisions, as, in principle, there should not be a great gap between the parties. The truth is that the non-departmental public bodies, which are more popularly called quangos, have grown exponentially over the years and that is not something that anyone can view with great pride. All parties, when in government, have seen quangos being created. To an extent, they are unaccountable bodies because they stand independent of the state. They stand independent from the normal agencies of the state, which report through Parliament and via Ministers. They also stand aloof from the general community.

A few moments ago, I referred to the gap that appears to be opening up between the governed and those who govern. The idea of an unaccountable state and of bureaucracies that are frequently enormous and remote is one that no one can view with equanimity. In principle, we are all agreed that there should be a careful review. It is good that the Government have agreed on an ongoing basis, as was said in the House yesterday, to review the agencies that have been created. We want to agree with the general principle of the Bill. Moreover, we want to deal expeditiously with the Bill. We will not be indulging in any delaying tactics.

At the same time, Parliament itself determined that the exercising of a particular public function, whether it is S4C, the coronial service or whatever, should be done in an independent way. Ministers must have had their reasons for saying that this would be better dealt with at arm’s length from the normal systems of accountability. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to look carefully at the changes that are being made. As the Opposition party, it is our duty to ask searching questions both about the powers that the Minister is giving to himself and his successors and about the agencies that he intends to abolish, change, merge, adjust or reform. Our purpose is to address the meat of the Bill—the schedules—in some detail, but also to ask questions about the powers that the Minister has given himself.

Clause 1 is one of the five clauses that deal with ministerial powers to change the structure of these non-departmental bodies, and it has two parts to it. The first part gives the power to a Minister to abolish, by order, bodies or offices specified in schedule 1. The Committee will gather that we have no problem with a Minister holding that power, provided that it is exercised in a reasonable way. Later in the Bill, we will see that other powers might be exercised in a way that is not reasonable, but for the moment we have no quarrel with Ministers having the power to abolish such bodies, provided that that is done appropriately.

However, the second part of clause 1 worries me. When we reflect on the quango state, we recall that those institutions were created because Parliament decided that their functions were necessary to the community—they were in the public interest—but that they should not be exercised by Ministers directly.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

Is my hon. Friend aware of any other legislation enacted before now that does what the Bill does?

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

From time to time, all Governments of whatever party have attempted to take what might be described as Henry VIII powers. Henry VIII himself certainly took those powers. Whether he used an Act of Parliament to do that, I am not sure. Perhaps he just took administrative measures. However, the truth is that all Ministers are tempted to do that. Generally, the two Houses will look with some dismay at such powers. Many Members on the other side of the Committee believe themselves to be, and no doubt are, libertarians and do not want to see an enhanced power for the centralised state. The Minister is a reasonable man. He would not wish to create an over-mighty Executive who were not properly accountable to Parliament. When we get to the relevant clauses, we will want to ask searching questions, as Members in the other place did—and the Bill is very different as a consequence.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall that in the previous Parliament, there was a great deal of controversy and some consternation among Conservative Members about the legislative competence order mechanism that was used to confer powers on the Welsh Assembly Government. Some very good points were made. I cannot at the moment spot any hon. Members who might have made those points, but that was a controversy then and the argument seemed to be going the other way at that time.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will look with interest at Hansard and particularly at those comments made by members of the Committee who were here in the previous Parliament, although there are not many of them. Perhaps we can use some of those phrases to help our thinking—to clarify what is in our own minds.

The point that I was attempting to reach relates to clause 1(3). To follow the thread of the argument that I was making, at the time when each of the bodies was created, Parliament had established to its own satisfaction that there was a social need or a public function that needed to be met or exercised. At that stage, it decided that that function should be exercised by an independent body albeit a state body. The Government propose that that power should either cease or—this is more likely—be exercised in another way, in another institutional form.

What does clause 1(3)(a) to (e) do? In effect, it says, “We acknowledge that, when we abolish a particular body”—let us take safety at sports grounds as an example—“it may contain functions or residual functions that we would like to see continue, but we don’t want them to be exercised by a quango.” That is the core of the Bill. The Ministers and his advisers have clearly gone away and thought, “Hang on a minute, this is a great idea—let’s abolish quangos.” We all applaud that. We do not want to see more quangos than necessary. However, if we stop and think for a minute, what happens to the function or residual functions carried out by a quango?

That leaves the Minister with a problem. His solution is to create some other bodies to carry out the functions with which the quangos are currently charged. They will not, however, be called quangos, but something different. They will be some other kind of institution. That is the problem that all Governments have faced. How do we deal with this? These are sometimes delicate functions that, frankly, Ministers ought not to get involved in. On human embryology, for example, it is clear that the most difficult ethical, scientific and technical problems are connected with it. On S4C, politicians ought not to get involved in how a television station is organised. They definitely ought not to be engaged in the process of human embryology. We can provide guidance, but at the end of the day some of the questions are very difficult. Therefore, it will be necessary for those functions to continue to be exercised, but the Minister says that we will not exercise them via a quango.

What does the Minister say he will do in clause 1(3)? He says that he will set up an “eligible person” who will be required to exercise the functions. That essentially explains what clause 1 does. Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 include references to eligible persons, because in some cases quangos will not be abolished but merged and their functions will be handed on to a successor body. That is the core of the whole Bill and it is the knotty problem with which the Minister must have wrestled with his advisers.

I would suggest that the Minister has had problems. None of the solutions are totally satisfactory and our amendments are intended to help. I imagine that the problem has been difficult for the Minister. He suggests five eligible persons. I am not a lawyer, but “eligible person” is a legal expression. Clearly, a person can have a corporeal form, like most members of the Committee—as far as I know, we are all persons—

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Highly debatable.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

It is a debatable point. An institution can also be a legal person, as in law, non-human beings can also be persons. Therefore, the term “eligible person” refers not to you and me, Mr Amess, but to bodies corporate. The problem is that, if we look at clause 1(3)(e)—I will do this in more detail shortly—we will see that it contains an extraordinary two separate bodies corporate. One is “a body of trustees”—I will come to that in a moment—but what is alarming is the “unincorporated body of persons.” As I have said, I am not a lawyer, so I went to Google—perhaps even you do this, Mr Amess—and typed “unincorporated body of persons.” The first thing that appeared was that an unincorporated body of persons is a legal nonentity. So my mate Bill and his two friends who go down to the Brown Cow in our village could, if they had a committee meeting, be argued to be an unincorporated body of persons. They would have no legal reality—

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

Brown Cow Incorporated.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

Or the Brown Cow (Exercise of State Functions) Committee. That is quite a disturbing proposal. We will talk more about it in a moment, but that is not a legal entity. It is not an eligible person and frankly, it should not be in the Bill. It is extraordinary to think we could hand over a state function to an unincorporated body of persons.

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

I am interested in the argument my hon. Friend is developing. One of the key challenges for the Government here is that a number of these bodies have fairly large consultative groups related to them. Even though the powers of the body that are to be transferred may rest with an individual or a group of individuals, many of these organisations have large consultative structures that debate with the public about their strategic priorities. The case could be made that the consultative approach of such an organisation would be narrowed by its transfer to an individual or perhaps one or two individuals as he is outlining.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

That is a very important point. That is why after much discussion we have tabled amendments that call on the Minister to produce regulations that we can then scrutinise. The regulations must indicate precisely how all those structures are going to be incorporated into the instrument that the Minister is creating.

Let us take safety at sports grounds as an example. I referred to Hillsborough a few moments ago. There is clearly a problem from time to time with large crowds in sporting venues, who are sometimes difficult to control. We have seen that throughout the world. We saw the most devastating series of personal tragedies at Hillsborough, and elsewhere. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South has two sports grounds in his constituency. He will be concerned that the quango that deals with this is to be abolished. He will want some assurance that that function will continue and that it will be handed over to a proper body.

The proposal that it can be handed over to Charlie and his mates at the Brown Cow or a similar group in a pub in Leicester is extraordinary. The people of Leicester want to know that the lives of the people who go to matches at those rugby and football grounds are properly protected. Later we will want to know how the bodies that will be abolished were chosen, but for the moment we want to know which bodies will be handed over to which types or class of eligible person. After all, it is odd to imagine that a private company, even one that is not profit making and is limited by guarantee could manage the safety of the people of Leicester. That cannot be right. There is no indication in the Bill exactly which legal vehicle will be used for which body that will be abolished. Yet the power of abolition and the concept of eligible person are in the same clause.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend knows, but I was at a football match at the time of the Hillsborough disaster and then we had the Taylor report. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Taylor report made a number of recommendations, and that the purpose of the Football Licensing Authority is to implement those recommendations?

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

I did not know that my hon. Friend had been there, but I thank her for her comment. The truth is that, following the disaster, everyone in the country was alarmed at what had happened. The Government at the time, with the support of every party, agreed a way forward: the standards that should be expected from grounds of a certain size and calibre, and a way in which they could be financed; and a way in which safety at football grounds could be secured and monitored. As part of that, as the Committee is aware, it was recommended that a separate authority should be established.

We all have friends or relatives who go, or we ourselves go, to football matches, rugby matches, or whatever sport we follow. If the Minister decides to proceed with the abolition, how will he decide how the Football Licensing Authority will be administered and how will he decide the type of eligible person? None of the independent bodies listed in subsection (3)(c), (d) and (e) would work. They would not work very well for S4C, and for things such as embryology and safety at sports grounds they simply would not work. We will try to help by suggesting other bodies.

That leaves the Minister with renationalising the function. Centralisation and enhancing the power of the state is at the core of the Bill. I will demonstrate that by addressing the proposal in detail and explaining our amendments. Subsection (3)(a) and (b)—

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

I am sorry to intervene on the hon. Gentleman while he is in mid-flow, but I refer him to amendment 35, which is in the names of the hon. Members for Dover and for Esher and Walton. That amendment proposes a system that works—co-ops—but it is not mentioned in subsection (3) and is obvious by its exclusion.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

It is odd that a Government who aspire to create the big society seem to be narrowing it down. I do not claim that quangos are part of the big society—they are part of the bureaucratic state and ought to be accountable—and I am not convinced that the answer is simply to renationalise those functions. Yet subsection (3)(a) and (b) effectively states that the residual functions that we have just discussed should be repatriated into the state. The Government say that they are a libertarian operation and that they want to see the diminution of the state and the expansion of the civil society, the good society, or whatever expression we agree on. It is extraordinary that the Conservative party, supported perhaps—I do not know, we will see—by the Lib Dems, is saying, “We want to renationalise a whole series of functions.” The Labour party, in our modesty, as the true agency of the good society, wants to say, “Hang on a minute. Do you really want to renationalise things like embryology research, safety at sports grounds, S4C, or any of the other functions?” I do not think so.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the powers the Government will enact for themselves are truly extraordinary? Does he agree with the Public Administration Committee’s report that states that the review represents a missed opportunity for the Government, because, instead of bringing all of those powers unto themselves, they could transfer them to charities and mutuals, which seem amazingly absent from the list?

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

My hon. Friend reinforces the point in a very succinct way. There may be some Divisions, but I hope that is not the case. The Minister is a reasonable person and we hope to convince him. The Government have already voted to exclude witnesses. Frankly, I would be amazed, looking at the manifestos and personal political credos of Government members of the Committee, if any one of them had ever said that they believed in the renationalisation of state functions. Clearly, that is what the clause will achieve. Clause 1(3)(a) clearly states that the Minister regards—this is the core agenda—an “eligible person”, who will be the recipient of these residual functions, to be a Minister, a Scottish Minister or a Minister of one of the other devolved Administrations. There is no other way of putting it: there is a democratic deficit in how it works at the moment. Is it beyond the wit of Parliament to come up with other ways of increasing democratic accountability without repatriating functions back to the central state?

Lisa Nandy (Labour, Wigan)

This relates back to the points that were made by many of my hon. Friends earlier about the wide-ranging powers in the Bill and the failure of the Committee to take evidence. The problem is that the independence of many of these bodies is crucial. I notice that, after consultation, Ministers changed their minds about the original decision to include the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. Having worked very closely with the Children’s Commissioner over many years, I know that the independence of that body is essential. Because of the wide-ranging powers in the clause, we have no guarantee about where those bodies will be placed—not just those in the Bill, but for any body that the Minister chooses to pick on in the future. That is why, though it is very entertaining, my hon. Friend’s speech and the point that he is making is very important.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

I am glad that my hon. Friend underlined the points that I am trying to make. It is important to communicate my concern about this issue properly. It is good to do so in a reasonably light-hearted way, but there are some serious problems in the way that this will operate.

We have no idea whatever about which body, or class of bodies, will be used for each of the organisations that are in schedule 1. We have do not have a clue. Clause 1(3) indicates the only kind of eligible person that the Minister envisages to be fit to be a recipient of the residual functions. It may be that some residual functions could be appropriated back into the civil service. We are not opposed to that in principle, but we want assurance, either in this debate or in the debate on schedule 1, that none of the more sensitive functions—most of them are sensitive—will be exercised by politicians directly. For example, control of a TV station ought to be nowhere near a Minister. That is currently the case.

There is a secondary problem with the eligible person issue. Once the Minister decides what class of eligible person is appropriate for which residual function, the next job is for the Minister to then decide, and no doubt submit it to the House in due course, which company or other vehicle within that class will be used to carry out that function. Let us take, for example, a company limited by guarantee. Let us say, for example, that the Minister thinks that S4C being administered by a company limited by guarantee is a good idea. First, he would have to explain why he wanted such a company. Secondly, there is a possibly more important question of which company should exercise that function.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

My hon. Friend well makes the points about ministerial control over a television channel. Does he agree that it is extraordinary? I am reluctant to put any more ideas into Ministers’ heads about future projects for the next five-year plan of what they want to repatriate, but is there is an inconsistency here? They want to have control over S4C, but not over Channel 4. I am not suggesting that they bring Channel 4 into the Bill, but what does the Minister have against S4C that he does not have against Channel 4?

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

Of course, we have no idea whether the Minister wants Ministers to be in charge of S4C. If they do, let us hope that they can speak Welsh, because that seems to be a primary consideration. He will not suggest that S4C should be nationalised, rather I think that he will look at options (c), (d) or (e) in clause 1. Once he has decided the class, the problem for the Minister is deciding which instrument will administer the television channel. That is a major problem, and I will explain why in a second.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

As a point of clarification, the Government sensibly saw the light during the House of Lords proceedings and actually did take Channel 4 out of the remit of the Bill, which is something that some of us aspire to in this Committee as well.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to the Committee’s attention. It is an important point, which brings out an inconsistency between the way in which the Government want to administer the United Kingdom as a whole and the different rules that seem to apply to Wales. If that message is being given, it is unfortunate. I do not want to get too much into S4C, as I am using it to exemplify the argument, but the points are interesting.

Let us imagine that we are further down the track, and we have an agency that will be abolished, but it has core functions that we want to continue. Let us imagine further that we have decided that it should not be repatriated into the state and that it should be part of wider society. Three options are available:

“(c) a company limited by guarantee,

(d) a community interest company, or

(e) a body of trustees”.

I was wrong. There are actually four, because there is the daft “unincorporated body” option, which the Minister must withdraw. Let us say that he decides on (c), the problem is which company limited by guarantee—there are thousands in the country—will then be asked to administer that particular function. How will that be decided?

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

The hon. Gentleman described me as reasonable, which obviously alarmed me, but I will ask this question reasonably: is he missing or deliberately skirting round this absolutely fundamental point? Exactly the definition of certainty that he and other colleagues are seeking will be forthcoming at the appropriate point when Ministers, who are responsible for the reforms in their Departments, have concluded the consultation that is required by this enabling Bill. Draft statutory instruments will then be laid for consideration by Parliament at the secondary stage, at which point the full parliamentary scrutiny process drills down on that particular reform and that specific proposal of a transfer to a specific organisation. Not having the detail at this stage may be frustrating for the Committee, but can he not see that further down the track—to use his words—exactly that clarity will be available?

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

That was a helpful intervention. The Minister is a reasonable man, but he is doing some unreasonable things. I want to help him with his own side a bit, so some things that he does can be unreasonable from time to time. Let us be clear that we disagree on some things.

Jon Ashworth (Labour, Leicester South)

I concur with my hon. Friend; the Minister is entirely reasonable. We had exchanges in the House yesterday and he gave me a reasonable response. He rightly talks about the consultation process, but, as someone who has worked in Government, I know that it is inconceivable that officials and Ministers are not having discussions about such bodies—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Everyone knows that they are.

Jon Ashworth (Labour, Leicester South)

They are having discussions about these bodies, so we can have more detail about where they are going to end up.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

That is a very helpful point. My hon. Friend has a distinguished record of service in Government. He knows how Government work, and how sometimes Government do not work, but we will not discuss that because that has been the subject of various books to which we do not want to refer here. He is right that the Minister is clearly quite advanced in some of his considerations, but my point is a different one. If the Committee bears with me, I want to come on to the general principle behind the types of “eligible person” on which he has latched—none of which work for one reason or another. We have tabled amendments which, in the cases of (c) (d) and parts of (e), ask the Minister to bring forward regulations, because we want to know how this will work before we can agree on the kind of powers that he is arrogating to himself. If he cannot convince us how this will work, we have to question whether the Committee should give him the powers that he seeks.

Once the Minister has decided on the class of vehicle to use, how will he choose the appropriate instrument to carry out those residual functions? There are thousands and thousands of bodies corporate that come under the title of “company limited by guarantee”. He has two ways in which to proceed. He can go out to tender, which is clean, but there may be no single body corporate within that class that is fit to tender. We need to know how he will decide into which class the particular residual function will go and how he will make such decisions, so I want a generic discussion rather than one that deals with each specific item. Secondly, once he has decided the class of instrument, how will he decide which corporate body will give that residual function? If we think about it, if we decide to go out to tender for S4C or for any of the other bodies, we invite all companies limited by guarantee in the country to make a submission. Think of the complexity of the tender document and the tender judgments that will then have to be made.

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, because of the cost and complexity of the tendering process, a Minister may be tempted to decide that it is best to keep the powers of that organisation themselves? We all accept, I think, that we would like to see some of these bodies and their functions transferred out to community-based organisations or co-operatives, but the cost of doing so may well drive a Minister to decide that it is far cheaper and easier to keep the power themselves.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

That is precisely the point that I was coming to. It is difficult to imagine that the tendering process is the right way in which to do it. My hon. Friend is right; the temptation will be to go for what I will provocatively describe as nationalisation—to take the powers back in house—and we will want to resist that.

The tendering process is complex and extremely expensive. We have asked the Minister to publish regulations, telling us how he intends to proceed. He does not necessarily have to do it now, but he can agree to our amendment and produce the regulations. Then we could debate how a tendering process would work. I think something other than tendering will be used: the Minister will set up made-for-purpose bodies. I think they will say, “It is too complicated, too expensive and too difficult to tender. How do we secure the right levels of technical expertise and independence from the existing sector?” Civil servants will say to the Minister, “We have had a good idea, Minister. Set up a company limited by guarantee.” I imagine that is what is currently being whispered in the Minister’s ear.

The problem with that is cronyism. The Minister would never be tempted into cronyism, but there has been a debate in the press about the Secretary of State for Education, who has handed over large sums to the New Schools Network to deal with free schools. Whether or not we agree with free schools is a separate issue. They may be a new set of quangos, but we will leave that debate to another day. The point is that the New Schools Network is managed by a possibly very able young person who was known to the Secretary of State while he was an Opposition Member, and she is now the recipient of very large amounts of money. It may be that she is the only person in the country who is capable of carrying out the function. However, the Secretary of State left himself open to the charge of cronyism.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I have been listening carefully to how the debate is being pursued. I have been very lenient in not interrupting, as many of these issues are down to be debated later. I have already decided that there will not be a clause stand part debate on clause 1. I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to the specific amendments he is addressing.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Amess. I said you would be firm but fair. I am surprised to find the firmness applied to me, but no doubt that is fair.

I return to the amendment to clause 1(3)(c), which calls for regulations to be published by the Minister. I want regulations published because I want to know how the Minister will decide which company within that class is to be the one that administers the residual function. I will keep to that point, which is the one I thought I was making, though perhaps I had strayed. The regulations should indicate how the Minister is to do that, and whether he will be minded to set up purpose-built bodies outside the public sector. Those regulations should indicate the considerations he will bear in mind at that point. Otherwise, if he sets up purpose-built companies to handle public functions using public money, he will leave himself open, if he is not careful, to the charge of cronyism. That was the point I was trying to make, and I hope I have made it more relevant to the amendment. We want to hear how he intends to do that.

I want to deal in detail with the kind of instruments or eligible persons the Minister is proposing and explain, given the context I have just provided, why we have tabled the amendment. I have already asked him to indicate how he will decide, if the Committee and the House proceed with the idea that the five bodies should be the eligible persons. How will he decide which eligible person, or category of eligible person, is the most appropriate for each function? That is why we have tabled the amendment calling for regulations. Having done that, will he then indicate precisely how he intends to decide which instrument to use within that class?

I also want the Minister to address the point exemplified in the amendments. Will he table regulations, as in my amendments, which indicate how ministerial or democratic control will be exercised over eligible persons (c), (d) and (e), if it has been decided that the residual function will reside with one of those three bodies? That is the reason why we tabled amendments asking for detail in regulations. We would like the regulations to address three issues in particular. I hope to convince you, Mr Amess, that the questions the regulations need to address indicate that the instruments the Minister proposes are not the appropriate eligible persons. With that in mind, I proceed to the main part of what I want to say.

The regulations should address three issues, which we will seek absolute assurance on. I am particularly addressing paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), because it is clear that eligible persons covered by paragraphs (a) and (b) will be under direct ministerial and civil service control. Paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) cover independent bodies of one kind or another—we could say that they reinvent the quango in a different corporate form. First, how will we ensure that the assets transferred as part of the exercise of the residual function are retained for public use? We want to know how we will secure an asset lock, which should be part of the regulations. Secondly, we want certainty about how the budgets of the bodies will be managed. Again, that is to secure the public interest and should also be in the regulations. Finally, how will the personnel issues of eligible persons (c), (d) and (e) be dealt with in the regulations to ensure that the kinds of salaries paid to chief executives do not continue? If we read the newspapers, we will be well aware that some quango chief executives are being paid totally ridiculous sums. I accept that quite a bit of that happened on our watch. I am not making a partisan point. The regulations should indicate how we will control all three kinds of body.

My general point about paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) goes to the heart of the argument. In any independent or private corporate body, there will normally be conflict between the interests of its members and the wider community interest. It is most clear in a plc that the duty is to both the shareholders and the customers. There is always that conflict and I worry that unless the regulations are specific and precise, the budgets, assets or personnel functions of eligible persons (c), (d) and (e) might be used to benefit the members of the company rather than the wider community interest—the residual function I described earlier.

There would be outrage with the Administration, and with us if we voted in favour, if, for example, administration of youth justice fell under a body under paragraph (c) —a company limited by guarantee—that used its obligations to its members to reimburse them with exorbitant amounts at public expense or by disposing of assets. The lack of an asset lock worries me. Regulations should indicate exactly how the Minister will deal with those problems. To be fair to him, he has totally excluded plcs from being eligible persons, and I congratulate him on that. It is the right decision and we support it, but vehicles (c), (d) and (e), which he wants to specify as eligible persons, raise problems for us. Without the regulations being published, it is difficult to see how he intends to deal with the problems.

Our amendments would help the Minister by removing the legal nonentity of “unincorporated body of persons” under paragraph (e), by asking him to make regulations indicating how he intends to deal with the points that I have raised and by suggesting two other forms of corporate vehicle that would do both the things that I want, first by guaranteeing an asset lock, so that the assets are not used for the private interests of the members of the company and, secondly, by ensuring that the company works only in the interests of the community and not in the interests of its members.

I do not want to bore the Committee, because I found it incredibly tedious, but we can look in some detail at the kind of institutions that the Minister is recommending—I assume that they were recommended to him by his civil servants—and none of them quite works. The Government have produced an organogram that looks at all the various institutional forms that are not-for-profit companies and clearly illustrates my point: none of the three institutions that he is talking about, companies limited by guarantee, community interest companies or trusts, has an asset lock that prevents the assets from being used for the private interests of the company’s members. Nor is there a guarantee in any of those institutions that they will operate purely in the community interest.

To some extent, that might be locked up with a contractual arrangement, but the truth is that it is difficult to imagine how a contractual arrangement can be so structured as to prevent the members of the company saying, “We will meet the community objectives, but in doing so, we are going to harness ourselves by using the profit motive and reimbursing ourselves.” Remember, we already have a quango with its chief executive on £700,000 a year. Some of these people might be tempted to give themselves pay rises if we put them into the private not-for profit sector. There is a distinction between paying dividends to shareholders and reimbursing executives.

I want to see all those things addressed in the regulations or I shall remain totally unconvinced. I am prepared to produce the evidence, but I will not, because other people wish to speak, that paragraphs (c), (d) or (e) have neither an asset lock nor a singular commitment to the community interest.

We tabled two further amendments. Those suggested other corporate vehicles that would achieve what the Minister wants, but which would have both an asset lock and a commitment to the community interest. I have had to table a third amendment on co-ops. I mention that because I know that the hon. Members for Dover and for Esher and Walton have tabled an amendment on co-ops. We are very much in favour of co-ops. It may be a late conversion, but the Government share that commitment nowadays. That is good and welcome.

Generally speaking, co-ops have to operate in the interest of their members, whether it is the workers or those who own the shares. That is a duty on most co-ops. We want institutions that serve the public. The hon. Member for Dover has to convince the Committee that a co-op can work in the interests of the community, and not in the interests of its members. Otherwise, the public will say, “What has happened? They’ve abolished a quango and replaced it with a co-op, and the co-op is operating on behalf of its members and not on behalf of the residual function that was left behind after the quango was abolished.”

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman therefore has a problem with foundation trusts in hospitals?

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

It depends on how the institution is structured. That is why we are asking for regulations to be published so we can see how this will work. We are not opposed to this. We will not vote against it. If we are expected to vote for something, it is not unreasonable for us know what it implies. We do not want to be trapped into a situation a year down the line where we have agreed, without having seen the regulations as we want to, to something that in effect creates a private institution that begins to reimburse itself. That is the problem with co-ops sui generis. I also tabled an amendment about co-ops, although I have withdrawn it, because they present a knotty problem. How will a co-op, which is obliged to operate in the interests of its members, at the same time operate in the wider community interest?

To go back to sports grounds, for example, the community interest is that the sports ground is properly constructed and managed. If the sports ground’s residual body becomes a co-op, if we are not careful the primary duty of the co-op will be to its members rather than to ensuring the safety of the sports ground. The objective of the co-op is to protect the sports grounds, but its primary duty in law is to its members. That is the problem with all the proposed instruments, and the way around it is for the Minister to make regulations, as our amendments would require him to do, that clearly indicate how he intends to deal with this problem of dual accountability. The central problem in clause 1 is that a private institution, whether a co-op or a company limited by guarantee, is obliged to look after its members, but the rest of society expects it to carry out its objectives with no reference to the private interests of its members.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Is not the point about regulations that they will set out some of the detail about the selection processes and the safeguards that could be put in place? It is the lack of detail about how the new powers in the Bill will be exercised that is giving the Opposition such a problem with clause 1.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

My hon. Friend has given me a lesson in brevity. Perhaps I could have said all that I have said over the past hour in three minutes. You have got the wrong guy, I am afraid, Mr Amess.

Let me come to the point. We spoke to the Library and got a Library note, and we spoke to various lawyers who specialise in this area. Of course, in opposition we have no support from the civil service. We believe that including a registered charity and a community interest society as eligible persons in clause 1 would achieve what the Minister wants and provide the reassurances that we and the wider public need. Neither of those bodies can operate purely in the interests of its members, and a registered charity has to operate according to charitable objectives. It is extraordinary that a Government committed to the big society have not included registered charities. Why have they not done so? We included registered charities in our amendments as a solution to the problem.

Community interest societies are similar. They have an asset lock and they are obliged to work in the interests of the wider community rather than in the interests of their members. Even charities do not have an asset lock, so if the Minister agrees that they might be a useful instrument, we would require him to explain, either in regulations or in his response, how he intends to secure that. After all, part of the Bill concerns the transfer of assets, and we may hand over buildings or large amounts of land. What if a company decides to flog them off and use part of the assets to reimburse itself? We need an asset lock. That is established in charity law; almost all big society organisations and literature describe the need for an asset lock. I make these points not to delay the Committee—I promised speed and expedition—but because they are serious matters that we want the Minister to address before we decide whether to press the amendment to a vote.

Clause 1 - Power to abolish

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 31, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, after ‘trustees’, insert

‘as set out in Regulations.’.

Amendment 34, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out

‘or other unincorporated body of persons.’.

Amendment 32, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(f) a registered charity.’.

Amendment 35, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(f) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965.’.

Amendment 39, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(f) a community benefit society.’.

Before we begin, I have a few announcements. If hon. Members want to take their jackets off, that will not be a problem. There will be no stand part debate on clause 1, although I do intend to allow a stand part debate on schedule 1.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time in a Public Bill Committee, Mr Robertson. I am simply going to explain amendment 35. I hasten to add that it is strictly a probing amendment. It would simply ensure that

“a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965”

was included in the list. As the hon. Member for Hemsworth described, the intention was to draw attention to the possibility of co-operatives and mutual societies taking over particular matters referred to in the schedules to the Bill. It is only a probing amendment because it is very easy to structure these things as having a subsidiary that is a company limited by guarantee, which then takes on the transfer in question. We simply wanted to make this point: do not forget about co-ops and mutuals. They were incorporated in the Localism Bill as bodies that might take over services from local councils. I will be interested to hear my hon. Friend the Minister’s comments as to why that should not be the case here.

It has been said previously that one cannot necessarily quite trust co-operatives and mutuals. Who knows what their members might be up to and what interests their members might represent? That was the thrust of the argument. I take issue with that and remind the Committee that housing associations are organised as mutual and provident societies in many cases. Trade unions are organised on such a basis. Many Members of Parliament are representatives of the Labour and Co-operative party, and I would not question its members’ belief that they serve the community. As is well known, the previous Government established foundation hospital trusts, which also organise in effect as mutuals, albeit heavily regulated ones. The idea is to have a membership base that fosters engagement.

Why do we like co-ops? Why have the House of Commons and Parliament previously supported co-ops and mutuals and had a place for them? This is an issue of engagement and accountability that goes to the heart of all the issues in the Bill. Much of it is about restoring accountability, be that back to central Government or to another body to carry on the functions. Accountability lies at the heart of the Bill, which is why I, for one, so strongly support much of the thrust of what it seeks to achieve. I believe that co-ops and mutual societies should be seen as part of the toolkit to establish the Government’s purpose in restoring accountability, which I think hon. Members on both sides of the House agree has been weaker in recent years than it might be. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments in due course.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

I want to speak briefly in support of the hon. Member for Dover. As we saw this morning, one of the fundamental questions about mutuals and co-ops might be, who benefits? To put it rather more coarsely: follow the money. I can see that on a very large scale that might be problematic.

I will draw the Committee’s attention to a few Welsh examples on a much smaller scale. I am not offering this as a way forward, but in the village that my family come from, Llithfaen, the community own the pub. They used to own the shop as well, but they had to sell that off when it no longer remained viable. There is a shared community of interest there, which it is possible to manage in a small community of 400 or 500 people.

Equally, in the nearby village of Llanfrothen, the community have bought the shop, rebuilt it and reopened it not only as a shop but as a post office. They have also introduced some community facilities there. There are those two small examples, but there is the much larger one of Glas Cymru and Dwr Cymru, which is the water provider in Wales and the undertaker for sewerage and all that sort of work. Let me entertain the Committee with a story that occurred to me when the hon. Member for Hemsworth was talking about the Brown Cow and the possibility of its taking something over. An association with which I am familiar is the Henvic Society for the Promotion of the Importation of Scottish Non Dairy Products. The problem with having it taking over food from Britain is that it is a risky club—and that it is located in Brittany. [Laughter.] I thought that hon. Members might like that.

Let me return to the serious points about Glas Cymru and Dwr Cymru. The previous provider, Hyder, was widely criticised by many commentators for investing in everything but water. It diversified in every direction, and it came to grief in the end and had to fold. Its undertaking was taken over by Glas Cymru, which is a group of publicly spirited people who have set up first-issue bonds. It has given the business to Dwr Cymru, which now runs it as a separate company. As for what the hon. Member for Dover said, one of the virtues of the water market is that it is stable. It is a bit like undertaking—people will always die, drink water and pipe water away. Dover has a stable market as well. It is the leading port for import/export. I think that some £80 billion goes through Dover.

The other point about Glas Cymru is its ability to reinvest any surplus. The water market in Wales has quietened down tremendously since Glas Cymru and Dwr Cymru have taken over. All they do is work in the water business. Unlike the previous undertaker, they do not buy hotels, public relations companies or anything else. They have a defined provision which they manage well, and when any surplus comes along they reinvest it. As a result, the water business in Wales has prospered tremendously.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, as did the hon. Member for Dover. He is describing an organisation that is providing the community with a benefit. It is not disposing of its assets or using its pockets for anything other that further to develop the service it is there to provide. Is that guaranteed in statute or is it a choice the board has made? How is that being secured so that the concerns I was expressing earlier are avoided?

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

To be honest, I am not a lawyer and not on its board. I have no link with it. I understand that the trust is set up in such a way that the only way in which the surplus can be used is to be reinvested in the business.

The question really is one of accountability. If the people of Dover collectively feel that such an organisation would be accountable, then that would be the ideal. As far as Glas Cymru is concerned, it consults and reports to the people of Wales. Most people, however, do not even know that it exists because it just gets on with it. That might be the case in respect of Dover as well. It is a way of cracking this particular nut that has much to commend it. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s reply.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

Mr Robertson, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. You share a reputation for firmness and fairness with your co-Chairman. Time will tell whether you share his confessed susceptibility to flattery. I am sure that that will be tested by the Committee over the days to come. We have had a good debate around these amendments. The hon. Member for Hemsworth described me as reasonable. That was bad enough but when he then described his amendment as “designed to be helpful” the alarm bells really began to ring. In truth though, having listened to him carefully, his amendments are helpful, both in the general and in the specific. His speech was helpful in clarifying that the Opposition agree with the general principle of the Bill and with the need to reform and reduce the size of what he described as the overly bureaucratic state. He talked about a democratic deficit, which we all know is real. It was therefore useful to have on the record the cross-party support for the principle underlying the Bill. I say that because, frankly, the Labour party’s walk was less impressive than its talk when in power, and in opposition the messages have been foggy. It was good to have that placed on the record.

The group of amendments concerns the definition of an “eligible person” to whom the functions of a body or office can be transferred via an order made under clauses 1, 2 or 5. Amendments 30 and 31 would require that regulations set up the names of those persons exercising public functions, and bodies of trustees, to whom functions can be transferred. Amendments 32, 34, 35 and 39 would amend the definition, removing the reference to

“other unincorporated body of persons”

or adding specific reference to community benefit societies and registered charities. I understand, and it was clear from the debate, that the spirit of the amendments is to query the reasoning behind the Government’s definition of “eligible person” for the purposes of such transfers.

Before responding specifically to the amendments, I will briefly set out the process leading to the Bill because, during the course of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, I felt that he either had missed or was deliberately missing a central point of the legislation. It might be helpful to the Committee if I set out how we got to this place and how we see the process for making what are generally recognised to be the overdue changes to public bodies that will follow Royal Assent.

The proposals that the Bill will enable through clauses 1 to 5 and the corresponding schedules, which we will debate, are the result of a cross-Government review of public bodies, which took place last year and was reported to the House by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude) on 14 October 2010. The proposed changes to individual bodies and offices, and to which person functions may transfer in the case of bodies listed in schedules 1, 2 and 5, are—as I stressed in my intervention—the responsibility of individual Departments and their Ministers. That is entirely in line with the Government’s approach, which is clear that Ministers should be ultimately accountable for the delivery of public functions.

Given remarks made by a number of hon. Members, I would like to emphasise to the Committee that the Bill as drafted would not create a power to transfer any of the functions of S4C, which is listed in schedule 3 only, to another person or body. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Bill does not set out explicitly what will happen to each body listed in the schedules, but that does not mean that the Government have not been clear about their proposals. Ministerial statements, information provided by the Cabinet Office to the House and debates in both Houses and elsewhere on the Bill have seen significant transparency and scrutiny of many of the proposals for individual bodies in the Bill. Such debate will continue in Committee.

As I have made clear, the Bill is enabling, and the proposals we discuss will be the subject of a secondary legislative process, which will require draft orders to be scrutinised and approved by both Houses of Parliament, through an enhanced procedure if either House decides that that is appropriate. Such a draft order can only be laid following consultation on the proposal, as described in clause 10. Both procedures will require Ministers to make available detailed proposals about the future of the bodies, including, in cases in which functions will be transferred, precisely who the proposed transferee will be, what functions they will inherit and on what basis. For that reason, returning to amendments 30 and 31, it is not necessary to include in the Bill such a requirement for regulations. The accompanying explanatory material would clearly state to whom a specific function would be transferred.

Parliament will therefore have the opportunity to debate each proposed transfer of functions and the suitability of each proposed transferee; crucially, it will retain the capacity to reject an order that is deemed inappropriate. To require separate regulations would result in an additional layer of procedure; it would also prevent Ministers from taking a flexible approach to their proposed reforms in the event that a potentially valuable and sensible option for transfer of functions was not set out in the regulations proposed by the Opposition. That is particularly pertinent, given that new innovative approaches to delivery, perhaps not anticipated by the Government—we cannot anticipate everything—may emerge as a result of the consultation process.

I turn now to the amendments that deal with the definition of “eligible person”. The thinking behind this provision is simple. The Government envisage that effective public body reform in the short and long terms will best be delivered by transferring functions to a range of persons. For example, the Government are working to establish local enterprise partnerships across England—something that we shall debate later—to provide targeted support for regional growth. However, the Government do not seek to prescribe the form that LEPs should take, and they could include unincorporated bodies. We believe that such decisions should be taken by the partners themselves.

Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I am glad to have the honour of serving under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

I find it difficult to understand the Opposition’s objection to subsection (3)(e), and the phrase “unincorporated body of persons”. I became a Member of Parliament only recently and was in various businesses and charitable organisations for the 30 years prior to that. When I see an unincorporated body of persons, I see people who are prepared to take full legal responsibility for what they do; they do not hide behind trusts, companies or guarantees that limit their liability. The hon. Member for Hemsworth gave the example of groups of people getting together in pubs, but I think that people are prepared to work for organisations where they can be held responsible. That is an excellent thing for accountability, and I welcome that definition.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. He is right that the definition of unincorporated bodies is broad and covers a wide range of organisations. We welcome that. We need to retain flexibility to create the space for exactly the sort of innovation that I mentioned earlier.

I return to the example of local enterprise partnerships. They could include unincorporated bodies. The Committee will be aware that Government amendments have been tabled that will take forward the abolition of RDAs; the transition to LEPs will be by a different route. However, it remains the case that to restrict the Bill in the manner proposed by amendment 34 could prevent innovative approaches to the delivery of public functions. As I said, the Government view the scope to open opportunities to a diversity of organisations as being crucial to the success of public body reform.

The category of “unincorporated body of persons” to which the hon. Member for Hemsworth takes exception is broad. It could include charities not registered with the Charity Commission and, as he suggested, it could also include a variety of community associations. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s interest in seeking clarity on the processes and safeguards that might needed to apply to such categories—indeed, to all reforms that can be made under the Bill—and I hope to provide some reassurance on that point.

I have already discussed the important safeguards provided by the consultation and parliamentary procedures that apply to this enabling Bill. In addition, there are two other crucial safeguards that I draw to the Committee’s attention.

Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Wigan, have expressed concern about the independent operation of public functions. That is an extremely important point. I assure them that clause 7 prevents Ministers from making orders that would prevent some important public functions from being exercised independently, including those important scrutiny functions that we would associate with bodies such as the office of the Children’s Commissioner. In addition, clauses 20 to 22 create a set of restrictions that prevent certain functions from being transferred to persons not already exercising public functions, such as companies limited by guarantee. That would, for example, prevent functions, including a power to search, to seize property or to compel evidence, from being transferred in an inappropriate manner.

The hon. Member for Hemsworth is right to point out that this is not the whole story. To ensure that public functions are delivered effectively, efficiently and with due accountability, the Government need to be sure that the appropriate mechanisms are in place. As I said—this is the key point—the Government’s public bodies programme is underpinned by the notion that Ministers should be accountable for public functions. Where the hon. Gentleman saw evidence of the Executive seeking to accumulate power—he used the expression “nationalisation”, which was emotive—I see an opportunity to reassert and increase ministerial accountability.

Like many members of the Committee, I see this through the prism of my constituency and the views expressed to me by a number of constituents who are frustrated by the size, complexity and cost of government and the public sector and would like to see it simplified and made more efficient and effective and cheaper. They would also like to be clear about who is in charge. What I often hear is: “Who is accountable? Who is in charge?”

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

The Minister talks about clarity and accountability so to whom would the unincorporated body of persons be accountable? It does not have a normal shareholder structure. If it is a registered charity, the Charity Commission looks after it.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

As I said earlier about who these unincorporated bodies might be in the event that that was the appropriate solution for any proposed reform, the clarity and definition would come through the secondary legislative process. In terms of accountability, at the end of the day accountability for the delivery of a public function lies with Ministers. It is a requirement on them and that is set out clearly in clause 8. There is a requirement on them to ensure that, in proposing and implementing any transfer, there is adequate accountability.

Moving on from the central point about the motivation to increase ministerial accountability and make it clearer who is accountable and in charge, the Government intend to abolish 200 public bodies, in many cases transferring their functions back to the sponsor Department. The hon. Member for Hemsworth characterises such changes as renationalisation. As I said, I prefer to think of it as making Ministers, not unelected chairs and boards, directly accountable for public functions and for the use of public money.

As the Committee will be aware, Government Departments and agencies are subject to rigorous audit through the National Audit Office. The Government are also committed to increase transparency in their actions, as evidenced by the publication of detailed Treasury data on public expenditure and by the new departmental structural reform plans. Where public bodies have been retained and where functions have been transferred to them from other bodies, I can assure the Committee that they will continue to be subject to existing requirements on accounting, reporting as well as data protection and freedom of information law.

Non-departmental public bodies are required to have in place robust governance and accountability arrangements and both the Cabinet Office and the Treasury provide detailed guidance on that. The Government are further committed to extending the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to provide greater transparency and they have announced their intention to extend it to a range of bodies carrying out functions of a public nature.

There may be instances where public functions are transferred to an eligible person outside the scope of some of these protections, such as a company limited by guarantee or a community interest company. In such cases, it would be the responsibility of Ministers to make sure that appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that the body is properly accountable for its delivery of public functions. Such information will perform part of the proposals for consultation and orders laid before Parliament. As I have emphasised, the Government’s clear position is that the ultimate accountability lies with Ministers. I have no doubt that Parliament will wish properly to scrutinise any order made under the powers of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Hemsworth also emphasised the value he attaches to asset locks as a means of securing for the community any proceeds stemming from the delivery of public functions. The list of eligible persons in clause 1 already provides for one type of legal form which must, by law, include an asset lock, which is the community interest company. The list also provides for other legal forms which can, but are not necessarily required to include asset locks—namely, companies limited by guarantee and bodies of trustees or other unincorporated bodies or persons.

To be a charity, an organisation must be established for wholly charitable purposes and for public benefit. The hon. Member for Hemsworth knows that. In practice, that means that whatever its legal form, the organisation must have an asset lock and a non-profit distribution clause. Otherwise, it would be considered to exist for private benefit and would not qualify for charitable status.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

I appreciate the way in which the Minister is approaching the discussion, which is enormously helpful. He has just moved on to charities and asset locks. The truth is that the eligible persons do not include charities; that is the reason for our amendment. Why did the Government not include charities as eligible persons? Is the Minister now agreeing to our amendment?

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

No. I will come on to that; we think we did. In relation to amendment 32, and speaking to the hon. Gentleman’s point, I assure the Committee that we believe existing charities are already within the scope of the Bill. Charities can take a number of legal forms, including charitable trusts, companies limited by guarantee and unincorporated associations. We believe that each of those forms is covered by clause 1(3) as drafted.

Indeed, the Government propose to use the powers in the Bill to transfer a number of functions, including the specific example of those of British Waterways, to charitable bodies. We believe that amendments 32 and 34, taken together, would have the effect of excluding some small charities which, while subject to charity law, are not required to register with the Charity Commission, and exist as unincorporated associations.

Amendment 35, in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Dover and for Esher and Walton, and amendment 39 seek to add community benefit societies and co-operatives to the list of types of organisation defined as an eligible person. As has been noted, the Government are, as part of our commitment to the big society, keen to explore how alternative models such as mutuals, co-operatives and social enterprises can be supported to deliver public services where appropriate. The Committee will note that, for example, the Bill already makes provision for public functions to be transferred to community interest companies.

I have a lot of sympathy with the spirit of the amendments, which have been particularly helpful in the specific. There may indeed be circumstances where public functions could be effectively carried out by community benefit societies, and potentially by other forms of co-operative. I will bear in mind the points about the use of assets made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth. I commit to consider the matter further before Report. I hope that provides some assurance that the Government are committed to exploring a range of options to support community-focused provision of services and functions.

Finally, the hon. Member for Hemsworth raised the question of salary control, an extremely emotive issue about which we have read in the press. We know that is an extremely important matter, not least for our constituents. I assure him that the Government have taken steps to ensure that appropriate controls are in place. I think the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have debated the matter in a Standing Order, that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury signs off all civil service and NDPB appointments that pay salaries that exceed £142,500—which is the extraordinarily good-value salary paid to the Prime Minister, I would like to place on the record.

The Government publish annually the salary details of all staff earning £150,000 and above. The Committee should know that there are 291 individuals on the recently published 2011 list, compared with 345 in the equivalent disclosure for 2010. That represents a salary bill saving for the highest earners of approximately 16%, or a cash saving of around £10 million. I hope I have assured the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that, in relation to controls on salary, we are moving in a better direction.

This has been a substantial debate—with good reason, as it speaks to the importance of the functions carried out by many of the bodies the Bill proposes to reform, and to the responsibility of Government to ensure that appropriate levels of transparency and accountability apply to their actions and proposals. As I have stressed, and perhaps laboured, the Government’s position on that is clear.

Ministers are ultimately responsible for the effective delivery of public functions, many of which require a degree of independence from Government, and they are accountable to Parliament in that regard. The mechanisms of the Bill and the safeguards that it includes reiterate that position. Clause 1 is a valuable and important contribution to that.

On that basis, Mr Robertson, and with the commitment that I have made to consider further potential provision regarding community benefit societies and co-operatives, I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

I welcome you, Mr Robertson, to the Chair this afternoon. We look forward to working under a benevolent, but probably fairly tough, chairmanship. I certainly suffered from that this morning, and I still feel humbled by Mr Amess’s exercise of power. What hon. Members do not know is that I lost my speech on the way across here. It was a two-hour speech. Being chastised by the Chair was a salutary lesson not to forget speeches, but the Committee may not like it if I end up with two-hour speeches rather than 55-minute ones. However, having said all that, it is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Robertson.

We are anxious to get on to the bones of the Bill, which are in the schedules, but I want to make a couple of points. We agree across the Committee that there is a wide perception in the country of a gap between the governed and those who govern and that we ought to narrow down what we have come to describe as a democratic deficit wherever we can. The previous Government had, therefore, begun the process of reviewing quangos. We probably did not work fast enough or go far enough, and I accept that. We support the principles of the Bill, as the Minister was generous enough to indicate, and on that there is no disagreement whatever. It is the detail of the amendments that I want to turn to for a moment.

Overcoming the clear democratic deficit of the quango state in general is not necessarily best achieved by increasing the power, functions and size of the centralised state or by giving extremely strong powers to Ministers. Although the other place introduced—the Government accepted this—a number of checks and balances on the power that Ministers can exercise relating to quangos, the Opposition are somewhat troubled by it. That is why I wanted to open up clause 1 to a significant debate before we get on to the schedules. It would still be better were the Minister prepared to publish regulations on how he intends to proceed with “eligible persons”, but we would not want to vote against clause 1 as a whole, because it gives Ministers the power to abolish.

The Minister was good enough to say that he would look again at the amendments that have been submitted by both sides of the Committee relating to co-ops or community benefit societies, which are a narrower form of co-op that gives an asset lock and guarantees community benefit. Given the Minister’s generosity on that, it would be bad of us not to reciprocate and say that we are happy with that assurance, and we await his further comments as the Committee proceeds.

On amendment 32, which relates to charities, it would have been better to have had charities as a separate “eligible person.” Listening carefully to what the Minister has just said, it is possible for vehicles (c), (d) and (e) to be charities, and it is clear that a trust can be a charity. It is also possible for a company limited by guarantee to have charitable status and, therefore, to be registered by the Charity Commission.

There might be charities that do not take the form of a trust, community interest company or company limited by guarantees. I want a generic commitment to the charitable sector, which the Government have made a lot of in their talk of the big society. Having said that, we will not press the amendment because the Minister has again indicated that he sees a role for the charitable sector in the provision of services. We now have a better understanding of his intentions.

The other amendments, apart from amendment 34, which I will press to a vote, address the possibility that orders explaining the Minister’s intentions are not followed. I do not accept that it will be best to deal with them case by case. The Minister’s argument is, “Look, we are obliged to consult on each case, and we are obliged to go to both Houses. There will be an enhanced procedure should either House not agree.” That is all very good, but it addresses individual decisions being taken one at a time; I want a generic debate on how the regulations will operate across the board, because there are issues that ought to be addressed by the House. In the spirit of trying to make some progress, for the moment at least, we will allow our amendments to rest with what I have said, the Minister’s response and the comments of other Members.

I have spoken already about the co-op, and there was no disagreement on that, which leaves us with unincorporated bodies of persons, about which I am genuinely troubled. An unincorporated body, as I said earlier, is a legal non-entity; it is not a legal person in its own right. The Minister wants public functions guaranteeing the common good in particular areas of activity to be regulated by bodies independent of the Government. That is fine, and we agree with it, but he wants to include unincorporated bodies of persons, about which I am genuinely troubled.

Let me read out a brief note—I will not detain the Committee long—that defines an unincorporated body:

“A group of persons associated for some common lawful purpose in a body, normally under such a name as…club or society, which body is, however, not incorporated“.

It is, thereby, not a legal entity in itself. This is the point I wish to make to the hon. Member for Watford:

“The consequences of not being incorporated are that the body has no existence“—

in law—

“apart from the members”.

That is important, because an unincorporated body cannot exercise functions, could not be sued if it were to be neglectful in some way and cannot hold property. Each individual member of the unincorporated body, which could change over time as individuals come and go, would individually be liable for the decisions taken by that unincorporated body. That is a serious problem and it troubles me.

Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for addressing the point I raised in my intervention. He has made my point for me, inasmuch as members of unincorporated bodies will think carefully about their actions, and whether they are correct, for that very reason. Unlike the hon. Member for Walsall South, who, as ever, spoke very eloquently this morning—I cannot say that I am a lawyer, because she knows I am not a lawyer—I think there is nothing better than such personal liability and responsibility. An unincorporated body will not automatically provide less accountability or a lesser service to the public than an incorporated body.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

Order. That is more a speech than an intervention.

Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)

My apologies.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

Of course it is wonderful that there are so many unincorporated bodies of persons in our society who come together to clean the streets, clear away the rubbish, help young people off the streets to play football in the evening or whatever objective they give themselves. All those voluntary activities are wonderful. They enrich our society and make our country what it is, but what the Government suggest is an entirely different prospect. They suggest that public functions that Parliament deems necessary to be provided for the common good should be handed from a public body created by statute, with a legal persona in its own right, to an unincorporated body of persons that, in and of itself, has no existence.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I, too, am troubled by the category. I want to take my hon. Friend back to his pub group—I think I would like to be a member. Is it not the case that if that group bid to run S4C, we would have no idea at this point how it would be accountable or transparent?

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

Thank you. Of course that is exactly the point I am trying to make, though I think the Minister said that S4C was not included because it is not listed under the clause. However, the point that my hon. Friend makes is correct. If a body of people who are unincorporated come together to make a decision about the common good, exercising a function currently performed by a quango or NDPB, that group has no legal existence at all. It cannot hold property and it cannot be sued for incorrect decisions or negligence. That poses a serious problem.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

I will, and will then try to bring my contribution to a close.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me; I used to be a lawyer, and it is not right to say that because unincorporated bodies of persons and unincorporated associations or, typically, partnerships, do not have legal personality as companies they do not have legal identity. They have legal identity through the individuals. The key difference is that we can burn a company, put it into bankruptcy, wind it up and stuff the creditors, but we cannot do that individually because our house, property and personal assets are on the line. As such, and ironically, we will have to take greater responsibility than a company.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

Is that really how we want to run our society? Public functions created by Parliament are handed over to individuals who are left to be sued and left homeless if a mistake has been made, perhaps through poor advice. I do not think so. It would be better if we were to enrich our society by using co-operatives, charities or other bodies to deliver services, not by using individuals who from the goodness of their hearts volunteer to undertake activities on behalf of the wider community, thereby leaving themselves exposed, as the hon. Gentleman said, to legal action. The unincorporated association has no existence, as he confirmed, other than the existence of the individuals who make up the association.

If the Minister had been able to help us by printing regulations that made it clear what functions, assets or whatever an unincorporated body might hold, I would have listened carefully to his argument. However, that was one of the possibilities in his argument, not the thrust. On that basis, it is difficult for us to say that such a body meets the character of an “eligible person”. Subsection (3) describes an “eligible person”, and it is in inverted commas because it has a specific meaning.

It is hard to see how an unincorporated associated, which is a group of discrete individuals meeting to have discussions and make decisions, can form a single persona. It is a legal non-entity. I am a plumber by the way, so I am not going to mix with the hon. Member for Dover, but even I know that an unincorporated association is not a “person”, as it says here. It is a group of separate individuals.

I remain unconvinced, Mr Robertson, so I seek your permission to press amendment 34 to a vote at the appropriate time. I fear that either somebody will be badly damaged—in the course of carrying out a function because they want to make a better society—by making an inappropriate decision and being held responsible, or, more likely, that the unincorporated body that receives the public functions will be so risk-averse because of the potential for actions against it that it will effectively make no decisions at all. I want to test the feeling of the Committee by pressing amendment 34 to a vote, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 30.

Schedule 1 - Power to abolish: bodies and offices

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to move amendment 26, in schedule 1, page 18, leave out lines 5 and 6.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 18, leave out lines 7 to 9.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

On a point of order, Mr Robertson. You indicated that you would allow a stand part debate on the whole schedule at the end of all the amendments. Is that correct?

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

Yes.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I have some general points to raise about schedule 1, but I will leave those until the clause stand part debate. The fact that amendments 26 and 27 have been tabled at all partly relates to the conversations that we had in this morning’s Committee. I will be asking the Minister a number of questions and seeking some reassurance, partly because it has not been possible to quiz the bodies directly and also because of the lack of available information about the Government’s deliberations so far regarding successor arrangements. I hope that the Committee will bear with me as I go through a number of issues that we need to consider as part of the scrutiny process.

It is easy to overlook the work of advisory bodies. The Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances provides expert advice to Government on the science behind hazardous chemicals. At present, it is made up of 11 scientists, who are drawn from private sector industries and public sector non-governmental organisations, and a lay member. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides is a statutory body that was set up by Ministers under section 16(7) of the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985 to advise on all matters relating to the control of pesticides.

Those are very important committees that have as a key aspect of their work the protection of public safety. They cover issues such as the effects of pesticides on human health—for example, the effects of garden pesticides on children. Each year, they look at the national poison survey and at reports about incidents relating to hazardous substances and pesticides, so they are very important bodies. If the Government are to change arrangements that appear to have worked reasonably well to date, it is incumbent on them to tell us why.

These amendments are largely probing ones. It is important that the Committee gets reassurances so that members of the public and those working in related industries and occupations dealing with hazardous substances and pesticides are not put at greater risk by the abolition of those two bodies.

In the other place, Lord Henley, speaking for the Government, said that

“abolition of these three committees”—

three committees because it includes a Northern Irish committee as well—

“in their current form will enable us to put in place better arrangements for the work to continue through expert scientific committees.”

We thought that we already had expert scientific committees. However, that is the point that he made. He goes on to say that it reflects the work that the Department is undertaking with the Government chief scientific adviser and the head of the Government Office for Science

“to identify more accountable and effective ways to deliver independent, high-quality scientific advice to government”.——[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 2010; Vol. 722, c. GC1361.]

The problem with that is that there is no mention of how and in what ways the new arrangements of the committees of experts will do a better job than the current advisory committees. Indeed, no evidence has been presented that suggests that the committees to date have done something wrong or given information that is inaccurate or ineffective. Perhaps when we hear from the Minister later, he will explain to us why that point was made and whether it is it one that is shared by other Ministers. Indeed, quite the reverse could be the case. It is possible to argue that the current arrangements have really stood the test of time.

I hope to give the ministerial team the opportunity to correct the really significant omission that occurred in the other place and to give us a reasoning and rationale as to why these committees are to be abolished. Will it tell us exactly what is to be gained by setting up two new committees within the Department?

Will the Minister explain why one of the reasons that was given by the Government for abolishing the committees on pesticides and hazardous substances is that statutory regimes for hazardous chemicals and pesticides are increasingly driven by EU legislation? That suggests two things: first, that the current committees do not deal with EU issues so they are increasingly irrelevant; and secondly, that there is no need for the committees as the Government must do what they are told by Europe without further scrutiny. However, neither of those two things is correct.

The current committees give valuable advice on EU legislation. I quote an example from a 2009 report by the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances, in which the Chair said:

“We also had the privilege of hearing a number of high quality presentations to inform our work especially on the EU Water Framework Directive”.

There is, therefore, clear evidence that the existing committees deal with EU directives and appear to have been capable of giving the Government advice on such matters. Will we be assured this afternoon that the successor committees will also give advice on EU directives?

Secondly, the current committees value the independence that enables them to put public safety right at the top of their agendas. In doing so, they have been able, because of their independent status, to draw on a range of outside experts. I again ask that we be given some assurance that that will continue, once the committees are moved within a departmental structure, which is what we think will happen.

Independence is especially important when one considers that the Government have recently abolished the Sustainable Development Commission and scrapped the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Those were well respected, independent bodies, which worked in a related area to the two advisory committees that are the subject of the amendments. That raises concerns among the public and those working in related sectors that the Government, in this area of possible environmental pollution, do not want proper, independent, external scrutiny. I am sure that we will get more information this afternoon about whether that is the case.

Will we be told how the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposes to access expert opinion more widely than what is immediately available from committee members themselves? We have seen that accessing that is a valuable trait of the independent bodies, as currently constituted, but what will happen under the new arrangements?

Thirdly, because of their independent status, the committees have been able to provide a co-ordinating role, so that evidence could be taken across a range of Government Departments, either on specific issues, or perhaps more importantly, to help develop a strategic view of how best to protect the public and the environment from hazardous substances and pesticides. Will the Minister confirm that the new arrangements will enable this co-ordinating and strategic role to be carried out? It would be quite unusual if that were not the case, because bodies in one particular Department generally find it quite difficult to work in a cross-departmental way. We want some assurances that the ability to work across Departments will not be lost under the new arrangements.

Fourthly, we have it on the record that the committees operate in an open and inclusive manner. Will the Minister guarantee that the new committees will operate with same spirit of openness and transparency?

Lisa Nandy (Labour, Wigan)

My hon. Friend’s last few words prompted me to recall that the bodies are known for their impressive transparency and accountability arrangements. A concern that was raised in the House of Lords, and which has been raised by many others, is whether the new structures will replicate such arrangements, because many others have been able to learn from them. I would be grateful if the Minister assured us about that, given the importance of the bodies for safety.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She is absolutely right to say that we need strong reassurances on this matter, given the sensitive issues that the two committees deal with. Once they are moved into a departmental structure, they might be subject to a wider range of objectives and they might be tempted on occasion to listen to other voices rather than do what is immediately in the public interest. For example, will we get the same openness, transparency and wide range of views taken when a committee is dealing with such difficult questions as the use of animals in chemical testing? There are many other sensitive issues as well.

Given the importance of well rounded, independent scientific advice to Government, can the Minister explain why he has decided to take such committees in-house when that will lead, by the Government’s own admission, to negligible savings? The Government are not disputing that the committees are needed, so why are they making the changes? How does the Department propose to reassure stakeholders that those important areas of work will continue to be resourced adequately by DEFRA and that, once those committees are taken inside, they will not simply disappear or merge into other committees? That is a really important point. There is a lot of anxiety out there that when finances are under pressure in future, those committees might simply disappear. They also have an important regulatory function, and we need to hear from the Minister that that function will be addressed and managed by the new structure.

What will the remit of the proposed new committee of experts be? Will its advice be covered by ministerial protocol? We know that the current remit allows the committees to look at a wide range of issues, and it might help the Committee in its deliberations if I go through a few of these. The committees advise the UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum on appropriate research needs and the development of relevant indicators, so they have an important advisory role for a whole range of bodies beyond Government. [Interruption.]

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

Order. The Committee will resume in 15 minutes.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

When the Division bell rang, I was making the point that the committees in question have a wide range of responsibilities, from making regulations and looking at how chemicals are stored, to commissioning research and developing indicators. Importantly, they are doing so without direct interference from Government. There is a huge risk that that might not happen in future. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what will happen to that wide range of functions. Will they be transferred in totality to the new body? How will the Minister assure the public?

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

I will not launch into a great defence of the committees, but would the hon. Lady agree that the Minister in another place talked about the new system being more coherent and efficient, with better advice? That was in November last year, and time has moved on. There have obviously been great discussions in the Department. We are told by the Minister that, quite correctly, in the fullness of time things will become much clearer. However, it is imperative that the Committee is told how the discussions in the Department proceeded.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Part of the problem in scrutinising this legislation is the lack of information from the Government about successor bodies. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an assurance that such bodies will remain independent and accountable once they move into a departmental structure.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, as it is to be asked to contribute in some small way to the Committee. I feel that I am almost back where I first started, because one of my first acts as the newly elected leader of Somerset county council back in 1985 was to abolish the Somerset light horse committee, which had been established to ensure that there was sufficient supply and procurement of light horses for the Somerset yeomanry in the first world war and which no one had thought to abolish since. The general purposes of the Bill are something that I have a lot of time for.

The hon. Member for City of Durham was good enough to say that her amendments were essentially probing, rather than seeking to remove from schedule 1, and prevent the abolition of, the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides for Northern Ireland. It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain that, as far as the two advisory committees on pesticides are concerned, although they are legally distinct, they are the same in practical terms, because they have the same members and meet at the same time.

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

How many members are on the committees? How often do they meet?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on how often they meet and their detailed membership. My recollection is that they have 11 members, but I may be incorrect on that, so I will ensure that I give him a correct figure.

It is important to make it clear from the beginning that it is our intention to reconstitute both the ACHS and the ACPs as expert scientific committees, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said, but to do that, we need first to abolish them by means of the powers proposed in schedule 1. I have now remembered that the committees meet quarterly, and I was correct in saying that there are 11 members on ACHS, but there are 19 members on the ACPs.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

I am slightly confused. Indeed, I am often confused. You say that you will abolish the committees, but then reconstitute them. Will they have different memberships?

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

Order. May I say to the hon. Lady that I am not confused?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I think the hon. Lady was referring to me. The purpose in the Bill is to abolish the committees as statutory bodies, and replicate and enhance their functions elsewhere by means of the expert scientific committees. As far as the membership is concerned, they will not necessarily have the same membership for ever and a day, but several members of the existing committees have just had their terms renewed, which would suggest an overlap between the two bodies. I hope that I can reassure her on that.

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

Will the Minister give way?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am not making a great deal of progress, but of course I give way.

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

I am puzzled. I accept that one of the drivers of the Bill is reducing bureaucracy and administration; we all accept that. Another driver, however, is saving money. How much does reconstituting these structures actually save?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

As the hon. Gentleman will see as we work our way through the bodies in the Bill, sometimes the driver is to save money, and sometimes it is simply to do the job better and more effectively. In this case, there is not a great cash saving; that is not what this is about. It is about making sure that our structures are most effective at producing the advice to Ministers and Government that is needed if they are to do the job properly. I will come to the rationale behind the measure in a moment. I hope that I will be able to explain to the hon. Gentleman how the Government reached their conclusion.

The hon. Member for City of Durham mentioned the debate in another place. It was a good debate, and some important points were raised, many of which were carefully considered by Ministers, which is shown in the way the changes have been taken forward. I think I can provide the sort of reassurance that she sought on the other matters. Let us make one thing absolutely clear, because it is important: there is no intention to turn off the flow of independent and impartial scientific advice to Ministers or others on hazardous substances or pesticides. We fully intend and expect the proposed successor bodies to operate independently. They will be able to put advice directly to Ministers, and be open in how they work and report on what they do. That will not change.

However, we have a responsibility to deliver more effective ways of working and making policy. The proposals in the Bill are part of a much wider, consistent approach across all 18 scientific and technical advisory bodies of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The hon. Lady will have seen the statement made by the Secretary of State about that approach on 26 January, when she announced the new arrangements for the Science Advisory Council to DEFRA. It will preserve the independence, and provide greater scrutiny and co-ordination, of the scientific advice that underpins policy in the Department.

The Science Advisory Council and DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser will, working more closely together, provide greater oversight of all DEFRA’s scientific committees. That degree of challenge and peer review will yield greater and more co-ordinated evidence assurance to meet DEFRA’s needs. As a quondam scientist of sorts—my first degree was in a scientific subject—peer review seems to me to be a crucial element in providing competent, evidence-based advice. The Department, and the new expert committees with which we intend to replace the ACHS and the ACPs, will benefit greatly from that approach.

The new bodies will bring together independent people with a range of specialist scientific expertise, and will work independently of Government and in an open manner. They will be able to put advice directly to Ministers where members consider that to be appropriate. Importantly, the new arrangements will be inherently more flexible and adaptable than current arrangements. That touches on a point that the hon. Member for City of Durham raised: why change at all if we have something that works reasonably well and everyone accepts that it does?

The new bodies’ non-statutory basis will allow changes in membership or terms of reference to reflect developments in relevant sectors. That will help negate the risk of a statutory body being overtaken by legislative developments. That is quite important in this highly technical field. It is no good having an advisory committee that is bound, through its terms of inference, by statute, to limit or restrict its advice on matters that are no longer part of the legislative framework that is being addressed.

The hon. Member for City of Durham asked about specific areas. I have indicated why I think the new arrangement is better. It might help her and the Committee if I give a little more background. The new model for the Science Advisory Council that the Secretary of State announced follows an arm’s length body review and a separate and independent review of the Science Advisory Council led by Professor Charles Godfray. The arm’s length body review sought to ensure better co-ordination among the science advisory bodies. As part of that, DEFRA reviewed the roles and functions of all 18 scientific and technical advisory bodies. On 14 October, the Government announced that the majority of DEFRA’s advisory bodies would be reconstituted as committees of experts. In DEFRA, they will continue to provide independent advice, but will now work more closely with the Science Advisory Council and the chief scientific adviser. We are getting better integration, not only of the advice that the specialist bodies offer, but also in the way such bodies work with other advisory bodies elsewhere, the chief scientific officer and the Science Advisory Council.

There is an issue with European legislation. I do not want to over-stress it, because part of the function will be, as the hon. Lady rightly says, to advise Ministers on the effects of European legislation. Legislative developments might stem from Europe. For example, the regulation on hazardous substances is now largely occupied by the EU REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemical substances—regime, which means that we no longer make domestic regulations as such. There are Europe-wide regulations, and previously the advisory committee would obviously have been deeply involved in that function. It is now involved in providing a view and advice to Ministers, but not involved in the sense of developing the legislative proposals.

The hon. Lady asked whether the committees will still be able to access outside expert opinion. Of course, yes. She asked whether they will be able to work across Departments. I think they will do that better than they have done—not due to any inherent flaws in the previous arrangement, but simply because there will be a wider scientific advisory framework. I think I talked about transparency and openness, which we have already stressed.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Minister; he has reassured me on the efficiency that the new committees will exercise. We heard the debate in the other place on the costs of the restructuring being negligible. Will he give more detail on openness and transparency? They have been great strengths of the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances, as the hon. Member for Wigan mentioned. They are important, if he is to hit the three targets of the overall reforms—cost, transparency and efficiency.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I can only give assurances to my hon. Friend that it is the intention that nothing will change in those terms. This will not suddenly become a deep dark secret in the Department. The openness and transparency of the system will remain, buttressed by the code the Government published on the conduct of scientific advisers. If anyone imagines that any scientist with their professional expertise, buttressed by the provisions of the code, will not provide open and peer-reviewed information to the wider scientific community, I have to say that that is an underestimation of how scientists work at that level. There is no question that that would be the case.

The hon. Lady asked about the regulatory functions. To be honest, I am not absolutely sure what she means. I do not think the previous advisory committees had regulatory functions. They advised, but they did not have a regulatory function. That was not part of their remit.

The hon. Lady’s final point was very important. It was essentially on whether the changes limit the scope of what the committees can do in their present form and what they will be able to do in their future form. It is quite the reverse. It might help the Committee if I quote from the consultation on the future of the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances. I can only do so at length, I am afraid. It was published in July and I am sure the hon. Lady will have read it carefully. Terms of reference were suggested for the new committee, and she will realise that the scope is wider, rather than narrower, than previously:

“To advise officials, UK Ministers, and other relevant bodies, on request or otherwise:

on matters of relevance at a domestic, European and global level, relating to the protection of the environment, and human health via the environment, from potentially hazardous substances and articles, including nanomaterials; including on future issues of concern, on impacts and on wider strategic linkages;

on the assessment of risks associated with potentially hazardous substances and articles, including nanomaterials;

on research needs and other evidence gaps relating to potentially hazardous substances and articles, including nanomaterials; including analysing, interpreting, and assessing the quality and relevance of, evidence.

To advise officials and UK Ministers, on request or otherwise, on policy development and evaluation, including the impact of different policy options; the assessment of new regulations and deregulation, and the development of voluntary initiatives, best practice advice and formal guidance, which are relevant to its remit.”

It goes on to detail the ways in which the committee will engage with the chief scientific adviser, the Science Advisory Council and others. The committee has a pretty global remit, and it is hard to identify a legitimate spirit of scientific curiosity that would fall outside those terms of reference.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I wish to ask the Minister for clarification. He said that, within the terms of reference, the new committee might be able to assess regulations. I understand that, at the moment, the committees can bring forward regulations for Ministers to consider. Will that continue with the new bodies, or will they simply be assessing current regulations?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

They are open to do anything. My point is that they will not regulate, which is the responsibility of the Department and its Ministers. They will advise on external proposals, such as European legislation, and on internal matters at which it is requested to look. There is no restriction, and I hope that, from the draft terms of reference, which I have just read out, the hon. Lady will accept that the remit is a wide-ranging.

These statutory bodies, which may be limited by their statutory remit, are being moved into a position in which they have a much wider remit within the same field. Initially they will have the same or similar membership, and they will be able to integrate better with other scientific committees and will be part of a wider structure in which they have the security of the code of conduct for scientific advisers. All of those things, put together, indicate that this a sensible move, but to get any of those advantages we first have to abolish them as statutory bodies so that we can reconstitute them as expert advisory committees, which is the Government’s proposal.

I hope I have reassured the hon. Lady on her main concerns.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I thank the Minister for his detailed response, which was genuinely helpful to the Committee. We have received some additional information this afternoon. I do not totally agree that the new terms of reference extend beyond the work of the current committees, but we perhaps need a little more time to look at the emerging structure and further consider what it will do.

I do not wish to divide the Committee on amendments 26 and 27. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to move amendment 24, page 18, in schedule 1, leave out line 11.

The amendment deals with the Agricultural Wages Board and brings us to the first double-whammy for rural communities that we will debate today. The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board was much debated in the other place. Interestingly, Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords put forward amendments to try to prevent the abolition. I confess that I am not an avid reader of Liberal Democrat Voice, though I do occasionally dip into it, to know what the opposition are thinking. During one of my dipping-in sessions I was interested to discover that it was tracking the debate on the AWB in the other place and advising Liberal Democrats to lobby their MPs to ensure that the AWB remains. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

I confess I have never read Lib Dem Voice, but I am intrigued. Earlier today, Mr Amess indicated that we could take written evidence from any interested body. Does my hon. Friend think it would be possible to ask it to submit written evidence as to why that body should not be abolished?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Personally, I thought it enough to dip into it, not to read it all. However, if it will help the deliberations of the Committee I will be happy to write to Liberal Democrat Voice and ask it to send us additional evidence.

Given the catastrophic effect the abolition of the AWB could have on the pay, terms and conditions of agricultural workers, it is important to ask serious questions of the Government about why they consider it necessary, and whose interests they are serving in doing so.

As we are aware, the AWB’s purpose is to set the scale of agricultural wages and related minimum terms and conditions of employment. It is an independent statutory body, established by the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, but it has a lineage that can be traced back to 1924. Given its long period of existence, I have to question whether it is still needed and what the Government propose as an alternative. Will that be an adequate guarantee of the terms and conditions of employment for agricultural workers? The answer to that is a pretty straightforward no. As far as the Opposition understand the Government proposal, it will not be an adequate safeguard.

The Government’s response to why they want to abolish the AWB is that agricultural workers, like others, are now covered by minimum wage legislation. Excellent though the minimum wage legislation is, it does not cover the range of wage levels and categories that the AWB covers and it does not look at the other terms and conditions at all. Why are the Government doing this, and in whose interests? I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some additional information to help us to understand why the Government want to abolish the AWB, and what will be put in its place to carry out the wide range of functions that it currently undertakes.

We know that the National Farmers Union has called for the abolition of the AWB for some time.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

My hon. Friend rightly makes that point, but the Farmers Union of Wales has taken a completely different line and has emphasised the importance of the AWB to family farms in Wales. The line taken by the NFU is only one of many.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will come to in a moment. We know that the NFU has called for the abolition of the AWB for some time, although not all farmers—even if they are members of the NFU—who employ agricultural workers support its abolition. Indeed, many farmers, particularly small farmers, do not feel that their needs and concerns are adequately represented by the NFU. Many farmers like the AWB because it sets out a clear template for wages and terms and conditions of employment without their having to negotiate or regulate those. The Farmers Union of Wales does not support the abolition of the body either. In listening to the NFU and using what it has said as a reason for abolishing the AWB, the Government appear to be listening only to some of the larger and most powerful farmers, and completely ignoring the views of many small farmers.

Glyn Davies (Conservative, Montgomeryshire)

Although I am not a farmer now—I let all my land—I used to be one. We should remember that an awful lot of very small farmers are members of the NFU. It is not a union for larger farmers; it is a union for all farmers. In Wales, the NFU and the FUW are two separate unions, and farmers of a variety of sizes belong to each of them.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I was not suggesting for a moment that the NFU represented only large farmers. I was saying quite clearly that in abolishing the AWB, the Government are representing only the interests of the larger farmers and not listening sufficiently to the needs of smaller ones. One reason why a number of small farmers support the AWB is that they often have close working relationships with their employees, because they are part of a very small team. They have stated that the closeness of such relationships can make bargaining difficult on both sides, so they prefer a clear framework that saves them from having to get into the nitty-gritty of such negotiations.

The FUW, as we have heard, is particularly concerned that the wish to abolish the board has not been adequately thought through and is rushed:

“FUW is concerned that there was little opportunity to discuss the implications of losing the Board and what alternative arrangements will be put in place.”

We can see huge concern from the FUW. It has also stated—the Minister can tell us whether this is still the case—that since the consultation in Wales in August 2010, no progress whatever has been made on any of the issues that the FUW raised with the Government. It has also clearly said that as a union, it believes that

“the AWB’s role in setting minimum rates of pay and conditions allows for the unique labour requirements of the industry to be taken into account.”

Agricultural workers are required to be flexible in their working arrangements to cover busy periods, the weather and unsocial hours. Those are not covered by general employment provisions, and the FUW argues that it is therefore important to keep the AWB in place.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and for the many references to the FUW, which is based in my constituency. On consultation, is she concerned about not only the extent of consultation with the farming unions, but the apparent lack of consultation with the Assembly Government and the Minister responsible for agriculture in the National Assembly?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. The FUW goes on to say that it believes that there is still a vital role for additional minimum rates of pay for agricultural workers across all levels. It is an arrogant Government who think that they know better than farmers when it comes to how farmers should go about employing their workers.

Jon Ashworth (Labour, Leicester South)

I have to be honest: I was not familiar with the Farmers Union of Wales until I joined the Committee. Is one reason for the FUW’s support for the AWB that it appears to bring stability to industrial relations in the sector? As I understand it, there has been no major industrial dispute in the agricultural sector since the 1920s. Is there a risk that if the AWB is abolished, we could return to industrial disputes in that sector for the first time in 90 years?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My hon. Friend makes a really excellent point, which I may return to later if there is time. Indeed, the TUC made the comment on the proposal that the Government may be incurring long-term costs—industrial relations problems could be one of those costs—to get short-term gains. That is an additional reason why we want the Government to think again about whether abolition is the correct way forward.

I hope that my comments demonstrate my point that the minimum wage legislation does not cover all the dimensions of the AWB’s work, and in making that point, I owe the Committee a deeper explanation. The agricultural industry needs to attract people with the right skills and aptitude, and that is becoming more important as farming methods continue to develop technologically. There is a grading system in the terms and conditions of employment for agricultural workers that reflects the diversity of skills needed and the responsibilities attached. Level 1 is for unskilled, seasonal and temporary workers and is barely above the minimum wage. Level 2 requires minimum basic qualifications or comes with certain responsibilities, such as working with animals. That is currently £6.58 per hour—just a bit above the minimum wage. The grades continue to reflect additional skills needs and supervisory duties up to £8.23 an hour. Let us be clear: that is a farm management grade. A person on £8.23 an hour could be responsible for managing a whole farm and its staff. It is not a huge salary by any stretch of the imagination. The Government and Ministers have to explain why they are picking on such a relatively low-grade group of workers by seeking to abolish the body that ensures key protections for them.

Some people argue that we do not have as many agricultural workers as we did a century ago, so the AWB is not needed. It is true that we have fewer agricultural workers, but the AWB provisions cover about 150,000 workers, with a further 14,000 in Wales, so it is not an insubstantial group. The small numbers are not a reason for getting rid of the AWB. It is clear that the abolition will not help agricultural workers or farmers. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), our DEFRA spokesperson, has grave concerns that abolishing the AWB will result in a race to the bottom in agricultural wages. Labour members of the Committee share her concerns.

If the Government manage to get approval for the abolition, it is incumbent on the Minister to explain how he will prevent such a dreadful situation. To that end I have a number of questions for him. What will he do to prevent wage levels in the sector dropping? As I have argued, he cannot say that minimum wage legislation will do that, because it would cover only level 1, and even then not quite when we have the next uprating. What will happen to the other levels? Everyone knows, as stated in the other place, that supermarkets put pressure on farmers to reduce costs every day. Unite’s representative for agricultural workers identifies that one of the reasons why the horticultural sector has problems with the AWB is the pressure put on the sector by supermarkets to lower costs. She recommends strengthening the negotiating position of the agricultural industry with supermarkets. I agree with her, but perhaps the Minister does not, because Unite’s negotiating position will not be strengthened by the withdrawal of the AWB.

There is likely to be extreme pressure on farmers to reduce staff costs. What will the Minister do to ensure that wage levels are not affected? Lord Whitty, speaking in the other place, said that within a week or two of the legally binding minimum wages disappearing from horticulture and agriculture, the supermarket buyer will say, “You now do not need to pay the wages that you previously paid. You can lower your costs and your prices to us and provide a significantly lower rate.” He pointed out, poignantly, that in such a scenario the savings do not go to the farmer but to the supermarket. So the agricultural worker, who is not that well paid in any case, sees his or her standard of living drop. The only people who will benefit are big business. That prompts the question of whose interests it is in for the body to be abolished. A strong fear expressed by those working in the sector is that it will benefit not farmers—though they think it might—but big business.

In the 1980s and 1990s, when other wage boards were abolished by the Thatcher Government, average wages in the sectors concerned dropped significantly. Even Mrs Thatcher recognised the peculiarities of the agricultural industry and decided to keep the AWB. I will not argue that the AWB could not be updated or improved. It could be more open in its deliberations; it could consult more. Those are reasons to modernise the board, not abolish it. It is not clear that the Government have recognised the needs of modern farming, and in particular the need for an experienced and skilled work force.

Has the Minister consulted Lantra, the skills organisation for the agricultural and horticultural sector? I am fortunate in having—unusually for a Member with a city seat—an agricultural college in my constituency, so I deal with Lantra and those seeking to build skills in the sector probably weekly. There is real concern in the agricultural and horticultural sector that not enough people are getting the skills to work in that sector. There is a problem in encouraging some young people to think that it is a career that they might wish to take up. Lantra does excellent work, going round schools, trying to persuade young people that they can make a good career in agriculture in particular. It is perhaps not such a problem in horticulture.

The point Lantra would make is that unless there is a really good process in place to move people up the skills levels, so that they can upgrade and receive higher wages, there will be a complete loss of skills to the sector, and people will not choose it for an occupation. It says that there is a clear, identifiable need to build and maintain professionalism. We do not know how the situation will be improved if progression rates are not clearly visible and there is not proper remuneration. We know that because of the ease with which the Government seek to abolish the six different grades of agricultural worker. The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), says that on the abolition of the AWB, the six grades of worker will not be replaced. He makes the point—again, wrongly—that the minimum wage will meet that problem. It will not. We need to hear from the Minister what will happen about the different grades.

The crucial missing element in all that the Government have said so far is how the other levels are to be protected. Many workers have set salary scales in other occupations that depend on skills and experience. We need that to remain, and certainly not be removed, for agricultural workers. We are concerned that members of the NFU and the Government constantly refer to the national minimum wage as the protection. Perhaps they think the only wage level in place in the sector in future will be the national minimum. If that is not to be the case, we again need clarification and reassurance.

Lisa Nandy (Labour, Wigan)

Does my hon. Friend agree that a function of the AWB that has not been discussed enough is that it also regulates the wages of under-16s? As they are not subject to the national minimum wage, they do not have that protection. Young people are often vulnerable to exploitation anyway, but in this case, where the national minimum wage does not apply, it is particularly important that the industry has a body that is capable of protecting young people at a time of huge youth unemployment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and it is yet another matter on which the Minister must comment.

Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I hope, even though it is unlikely, that she also says my point is excellent.

I have listened carefully to her arguments about why the AWB should be retained—that the industry is complex and that the minimum wage legislation is not enough, and so on. If that is the case, and if one follows her argument, is it right to say that the Labour party would also ask for the reinstatement of all the other wages boards that were created in 1948 and have since been abolished? Many of those sectors are complex, and for many of those, the minimum wage is not suitable. I assume that that would be a change in Labour party policy.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I am not sure that I have ever made a statement such as the one I am about to make: on this issue, I agree with Margaret Thatcher—and that is really saying something. When she abolished all the other wages councils, she recognised that the peculiarities of this industry meant that the AWB should remain. It may be the only time I ever say this, but in that instance, she was absolutely right.

Jon Ashworth (Labour, Leicester South)

My point is similar to a point I made earlier, and it picks up on the intervention by the hon. the Member for Watford—I think. I am a new Member, so I am still getting used to all the names of hon. Members’ constituencies. Perhaps industrial disputes, which I mentioned, were one reason why Mrs Thatcher did not abolish the AWB. We know that Mrs Thatcher enjoyed a good industrial dispute, but a dispute in this sector is particularly serious because of the effect on food production, and security of supply on food production. Anything that puts industrial stability in this sector at risk is very serious.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That may well have been a reason for her decision, but in agreeing with her on this very, very specific point, I am not going to suggest that I know what her thinking processes were generally.

The Government need to explain how other issues that are not covered by minimum wage legislation will be dealt with. There are quite a few. Who will decide the value of accommodation provided under contracts of employment to employees who live on the farm as part of their job, if it is not the AWB? Which civil servant will person the existing helpline, or will it be scrapped? How will complex arrangements to cover the work demands of different seasons be addressed? Have the Government given any consideration to how the economy of rural areas will be affected by a depression in rural wages, should it occur because of this ill-thought-out proposal? Why has there been no assessment of the impact that the abolition of this body could have on rural communities?

Who will set overtime rates, stand-by duty and night allowances? Who will set out bereavement leave? Who will set the birth and adoption grant? Who will make specific rulings for apprentices under the age of 19 during their first year of apprenticeship, and who will consider the position of students on work placements of less than one year? Who will deal with sick pay? Who will regulate the food and care provision for dogs, where a dog is needed to do the work? Who will set rest breaks? Who will set bad weather payments?

The order covering the sector for this year has already been produced, and if Members have a quick look, they will see that at present the AWB addresses all those issues in some detail. Part 4, for example, addresses minimum rates of pay for workers in grades one to six, and part 6 addresses allowances, grants and supplements, including dog allowances, on-call allowances, night work supplements and birth and adoption grants. The order also addresses piecework, overtime for a range of workers, training, travelling, bad weather, flexibility of employment and entitlement to rest breaks. Those issues, which are vital to the sector, are addressed by the board, so what will happen in future? The AWB has much stronger powers for enforcing the order than currently exist for the minimum wage.

The AWB deals with a wide variety of issues, so the Minister cannot simply abolish it without saying how those issues will be addressed. The order is one thing, but it does not demonstrate how individuals are affected by the proposed changes and it does not tell us what it feels like to face the possibility of one’s terms and conditions of employment changing drastically.

A number of people have written to me, and, if the Committee will bear with me briefly, I will read out short excerpts from two of those letters. The first letter reads:

“I have been in horticulture for nearly 25 years, working for the same nursery since 1987. During this time, as you can imagine, I have seen many changes. The work is sometimes hard, sometimes repetitive and often carried out in less-than-pleasant conditions.”

The letter goes on to state that the AWB has worked hard to ensure that the salary rates for that sometimes difficult work have been negotiated and recommended to employers, which has made the work bearable:

“Without this Board in place, I have no doubts at all that less ethical employers will try to depress wages in an already low-paid sector.”

Lisa Nandy (Labour, Wigan)

Listening to that extract, I am struck that this is precisely why there was such strength of feeling this morning on the decision not to allow expert evidence to be presented to the Committee. I would have welcomed the opportunity to hear directly from people, and, given the importance of the abolition of the AWB and the serious effect it will have on their lives, those people would have welcomed it themselves.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which I would also address to you, Mr Robertson.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

Order. We have had that argument, so we will move on.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The second letter makes a point about skills:

“What the AWO provides is an industry wide structure which recognises and rewards workers based on levels of responsibility and qualifications.”

Again, concern is expressed about what will happen when the body is no longer in place. It is important that we have raised those issues. This is a sensitive matter, and many workers in the sector are concerned.

I conclude with another quotation; I would like to see whether the Committee can guess who said it.

“In the absence of Minimum Wage protection”—

we have seen how minimum wage protection does not cover the whole of this industry; it does not go beyond level 1—

“the good employer will be undercut by the bad and the bad employer will be undercut by the worst.”

Those words come not from a trade union leader, but from Winston Churchill, when he introduced the wages councils. The sentiment in that statement is, unfortunately, all too relevant today, so the AWB is still needed to protect farm workers and their families. The Government should think again and remove the AWB from schedule 1. I look forward to receiving further information and comments from the Minister.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

It is a privilege to be able once again to talk about an issue that has a direct effect on Wales. Wales has had a very good day in this Committee, and I suspect that there will be livelier ones in due course.

The hon. Member for Wigan was right to make her comments about the young in the farming sector. My constituency is in a large, important rural area in Wales, and it contains 600 farming families and 147 villages. I have fought four elections, and every year at election time we have meetings with the Farmers Union of Wales and the NFU, two functioning unions in my constituency. At the end of those meetings, we are always asked, usually by an elderly farmer—our farmers are increasingly elderly; the age profile of farmers is going up—whether the candidate would advise their son or daughter to remain in the farming industry. I am always asked that question, and the hon. Member for Arfon has had the same experience in his constituency.

With hand on heart, it is incredibly difficult to say, “Yes, your son or your daughter—maybe more than one—should stay in the industry.” One of the reasons for that is the low wage base in the low-wage economy that many of our constituents in Wales grapple with daily. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Wigan has said. It is very hard to attract young people into the industry. We have vibrant young farmers’ clubs across our constituencies, but all too often those people have to farm part time or leave the industry altogether.

The hon. Member for City of Durham was also right to talk about the influence of the supermarkets, and I am pleased to say that the Government are taking action on that through the grocery ombudsman. We have waited a long time, and there were many debates in the previous Parliament—and no doubt beyond—about the inadequacies of existing legislation. I look forward to proper legislation coming from this Government to deal with some of the monopolistic practices of the supermarkets.

Like the hon. Member for City of Durham, I start with the spirited debates in the House of Lords, in which my noble Friends Lord Maclennan and Lord Greaves, who were no doubt tracked on Liberal Democrat Voice, tabled amendments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, who will be responding for the Government, knows all about the issues that we are discussing. He has direct experience of them because he represents a rural constituency in Somerset, so these matters are not lost on him. I start by posing to him the final question that my noble Friend Lord Greaves asked in the other place; it reflects what I ask from the Government, which is to lift the haze. As we have heard, it is not totally acceptable to rest behind the national minimum wage legislation, because other concerns about terms and conditions need to be addressed. Lord Greaves said in that debate:

“Will there be a new national system set up? Will there be a bargaining system set up within the industry—an unofficial system…outside the purview of statutes and government, in which employers and representatives of agricultural workers negotiate? Or to what extent will it be left to individual farmers to negotiate with their own workers or just impose”—

the word “impose” is critical—

“terms and conditions and wages…above the national minimum wage?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 December 2010; Vol. 722, c. 1515.]

I am still looking for the elusive clarity on that matter, particularly about the issues that the hon. Lady mentioned on terms and conditions, people under 16 and so on.

Sam Gyimah (Conservative, East Surrey)

The hon. Gentleman makes his point eloquently, but given that fewer and fewer young people are going into the farming industry and there is a wages board, does not the logic of his position indicate that a wages board is not effective in supporting the industry? Is that not why we should look further and create a new industry?

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

I hesitate to use the words “wages board”, because I am looking for some reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister on new structures and systems that will be put in place. Some beauties of the wages board were the differentiation of the six levels and how skilled, often highly technical, work could be rewarded at an appropriate level. I do not think that it has been a disincentive; it has been a reassurance.

I represent some family farmers who work in the most sparse and scattered communities, often made up of one or two individuals. They might be members of the FUW or the NFU, but the wages board gives some reassurance that there is a body to assist them. I am not sure that it will be the Agricultural Wages Board, but that is the reassurance I seek from the Minister. There has been talk of the Low Pay Commission taking on some responsibilities, but I need clarity on that.

The hon. Member for City of Durham was right when she talked about the other issues, such as terms and conditions. In particular, she talked about the implications for the wider rural community. We are talking about very small communities and the prospect of people leaving the industry and the area and taking their families away.

My wife and I are blessed with four young children. There was great concern in my village that had I lost my job, four children would have been taken out of my village school and school numbers would have plummeted. We have only 30 children in our school. There was an interest in electing me. In very small, close-knit communities, the job base waning and people leaving the industry has a direct effect on the wider rural economy and the ability of councils and the Assembly to respond to needs in education, transport and so on. We need acknowledgment that that is an issue.

I was going to remind the Committee that this is an English and Welsh matter, but there has been no need to do so. When I intervened, I made a point about the consultation. The former Agriculture Minister in Wales—we share the same constituency, though not the same party—said in the National Assembly, in response to questioning, that she did not feel that the Department for Rural Affairs in Cardiff had been adequately consulted. I believe that the Government are serious about the respect agenda with the devolved Administrations, but there have been serious lapses and this may well be one of them.

The former Agriculture Minister in Wales also said that had the Assembly Government wished to pursue a Wales-only agricultural wages board, DEFRA would not have intended to devolve the Welsh share of any savings. I may be corrected on that, but that was certainly my understanding of what she said in the Assembly. There are arguments to be had about a Wales-only agricultural wages board because there is movement of workers between England and Wales, which has benefited my constituency.

I am waiting to be reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister. There is a role for clarity on these matters, but I am not sure we have had it to date—the point raised by my noble Friends in another place. I look forward to the Minister’s lifting the haze. These are matters of great concern, not only in a handful of scattered rural constituencies in mid, west and north Wales, but across the country. I think we are talking about 154,000 workers. I know that my hon. Friend empathises with these points. They need to be addressed.

Lisa Nandy (Labour, Wigan)

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, on my first Public Bill Committee. I ask for your patience and that of the rest of the Committee, who are my guinea pigs today. I hope that the Committee will bear with me.

It is also an honour to discuss such an important issue. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion just said, the issue is important for people up and down the country, but it is also important for my constituents. People often make the mistake of thinking that Wigan is an urban constituency because of its town centre and all the fantastic things for which Wigan is famed, such as football and rugby league in particular. We recently won the Challenge cup, on which I am sure the Committee will want to congratulate us later.

The constituency of Wigan actually has huge areas of beautiful countryside with a number of agricultural workers and employers in Shevington, Standish and Aspull in particular, and this issue could not be more important to them. I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham in her introductory speech. This is not simply an issue that will affect workers in rural areas; it will also affect employers. From both those perspectives, Ministers are making a significant mistake.

The AWB has protected thousands of workers since it was set up, but it has also protected their families. As someone who has spent the past 10 years or so working with children and young people, that is particularly important to me. I want to remind the Committee that in this country—one of the wealthiest in the world—one in five children still grows up in poverty, and a number of those children are in rural areas. I know that Ministers have expressed concern about that and have said that they will do all they can to tackle it. I want to say to them that this measure will make that situation worse; I am almost sure of it. The matter is not just of concern to Ministers in the Cabinet Office; it should be of concern to Ministers right across the Government with an interest in the issue.

The point about the AWB, as hon. Members have said, is that it covers not just pay but a whole range of other things. One issue that I want to dwell on briefly is tied housing, because nearly one third of the workers that we are discussing live in such housing. The AWB plays an extremely important role in that it regulates rent and negotiates to ensure that people are not evicted. Many agricultural workers have families and children and that is why I am concerned about what will happen to them should the AWB cease to exist, with no clear arrangements or understanding of what will follow.

I mentioned earlier that the AWB regulates under-16s, to whom the national minimum wage does not apply. I want to remind the Committee that, at present, we have some 1 million unemployed young people in this country. The Education Committee, of which I am a member, has recently looked at several issues to do with that and has identified that there are particular problems for younger people—particularly those who leave school at 16.

In rural communities, young people often work in agriculture before they reach 16, with the intention that it will become their full-time job. We should not be starting those young people off on a lifetime of employment with the strong message that their labour is not worth much at all. Given that they are not protected by minimum wage legislation, I would welcome some kind of response from the Minister on the issue of under-16s and what will happen to them under the new system.

Several of my colleagues have pointed out that the AWB is also of considerable use to employers. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South pointed out earlier that there has been no major dispute in this area for some time. The last major dispute was in 1923, one year before the AWB, in its present form, was constituted. It cannot be a coincidence that there has been no major strike in this industry since the AWB was set up, and I ask the Committee to reflect on that.

It is also true that the AWB has a good track record of success. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire asked whether we should conclude that because there are difficulties in recruiting young people into the industry, the AWB has not done its job. The reverse is true. There are a number of examples, many of which have been sent to Committee members by Unite and others who represent these workers. Of particular importance is AWB’s success in removing discriminatory age wage rates. Given my interest in young people, I consider that very important. It certainly has not happened in all industries. In 1993 it successfully negotiated for equal pay and conditions for women. I am sure that we would all congratulate it on that and recognise how important that was.

I also want to respond to a point raised by the hon. Member for Watford—whether the logic of arguing that the AWB should remain should also lead us to set up wage boards in other areas. There are some unique factors in this industry, which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham dwelt on and which are worth stressing. Health and safety is a subject close to my heart because it is incredibly important in my constituency. Many people work in agriculture and the construction industry, and the injury rates in agriculture are high. It is a dangerous industry. If we needed a more pressing example of that, the fact that 45 people died at work as a result of working in the agricultural industry in 2009-10 should serve to focus our minds. It seems almost inconceivable in this day and age that people should die at work. It is therefore important that people be protected and remunerated and that they have their own negotiating body. The point applies to that industry more than any other; it is unique.

Such work is incredibly isolating in many instances. There needs to be a centralised way of ensuring that a forum exists for employers and workers to come together to negotiate pay conditions and all the other elements my hon. Friend referred to. There is a real problem of lack of mobility in this area. My constituency is a former mining area, made up of a town centre connected to a number of pit villages by narrow roads formerly used just for carts. A number of geographical factors make it difficult to widen those roads, including houses being built at the side of the roads. We have a canal and a railway line. Moving around the area is therefore particularly difficult for people in the industry. For someone who works on a farm in Shevington, getting work in Standish is extraordinarily difficult. They would have to go into Wigan town centre and then back out again. Also, there is not a huge availability of such work. At a time when six people are chasing every job in my constituency, it is hard for people to move around. That makes it particularly important that people with limited choices of where they work and the sort of work they do are properly represented and remunerated.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that tied housing, which often comes with these jobs, is very important for the workers? There is a strong need to protect such housing in contract. Rural housing costs mean that it is often difficult for workers simply to move to another job; they have to check that housing is available. High rural housing costs also impact on this industry.

Lisa Nandy (Labour, Wigan)

Absolutely. Pressure on housing is just one of many factors that make such work and the costs incurred when living in these communities very expensive. As I said earlier, we are talking about people’s homes, not just jobs—in effect, their lives. I hope that Parliament sends a strong message to them that their homes, jobs and lives matter and that we will do our utmost to protect them.

A feature of this industry that makes it unique, and which greatly concerns me, is the prevalence of gangmasters. This issue was recognised in action taken by the previous Government. The obvious reasons for the prevalence of gangmasters are the factors I have mentioned: isolation and the mobility of labour. This is an incredibly serious issue. In order to protect the vulnerable from the terrible people who carry out these acts, we must ensure there is a body capable of acting in the collective interest. One aspect of the AWB is that it works with employers as well as workers, which is important, as that dialogue is essential.

Finally, I wish to talk about the groceries ombudsman. The subject could not be more relevant to the decision to abolish the AWB. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham gave a good portrait of the pressure from supermarkets on farmers, who then have to find those savings somewhere. In some cases, they bring pressure to try to drive down wages and terms and conditions. It is essential to have a level playing field and that we reward the employers who do everything they can to act decently and ethically. In the light of the banking crisis and the News International scandal, we would all surely now accept that we as politicians have a huge duty to ensure that we promote the best and not the worst of business.

I am concerned that we have seen some action to bring in a groceries ombudsman, but we do not know when it will happen. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister on that. The legislation as drafted is weak and I am concerned about that: if we do not know what action is being taken to stop the pressure at the top, removing the AWB would be a huge mistake.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

Before I call the next speaker, I am minded not to have a stand part, so I will give a certain amount of leeway. However, I do not want any repetition.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

Many of us were rather mystified when last October the Government announced plans to scrap the AWB, which sets wages and conditions for farm workers. One of those who appeared rather mystified was the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on DEFRA matters in the House of Lords, Lord Greaves. He made the point that the abolition was not in his party’s manifesto or in the coalition agreement.

The AWB sets pay and conditions for 154,000 workers in England and Wales, 140,000 of them in England—including almost 24,000 in the south-west, as I am sure the Minister is all too aware—and 14,000 in Wales. Over the summer, I had the pleasure of travelling to Pembrokeshire. That journey took me through Clwyd South, seeing many of those agricultural villages, through Montgomery, seeing more of those agricultural communities, further into Brecon and Radnor, then Ceredigion. I do not know if I passed through the hon. Member for Ceredigion’s home village with its school. My stopping point was the beautiful area of Preseli Pembrokeshire, with its extraordinary countryside and agricultural communities. One can imagine the importance of agriculture in those areas.

The AWB in its current form was set up by the Attlee Government in 1948. It provides basic pay and protection for fruit pickers, farm labourers and other farm workers, including on wages, holidays, sick pay, overtime and bereavement leave. I speak with a constituency interest, and I am delighted that the FUW is supporting this amendment to keep the AWB in place. We have already discussed the FUW’s argument, so I am pleased to be able to quote an excerpt from a letter written by the FUW to Elin Jones, the former Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs, to whom the hon. Member for Ceredigion has alluded:

“As many farms in Wales run with relatively few staff, the Agricultural Wages Board, is considered an important means of avoiding potential conflict and lengthy negotiations with individual staff.

The Farmers’ Union of Wales believes that the Agricultural Wages Board’s role in setting minimum rates of pay allows reflection of the necessity for agricultural workers to be flexible in their working arrangements to cover busy periods, fine weather, and unsocial hours, which are not covered by general employment law provision.”

That recognises the specific and unique case of agricultural workers.

“Thus, the Union believes that there is still a vital role for additional minimum rates of pay for agricultural workers.

The Union maintains that the future of the agricultural industry is dependent on attracting highly trained technicians into the industry. The economic climate within the agricultural industry has made it a less attractive option for young people and, therefore, in the Union’s view”—

which in part answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion—

“rewarding skills, qualifications, and levels of responsibility, is a vital means of persuading high calibre people to remain in or enter the industry. Reliance on a single national minimum wage will inevitably result in an erosion of talent and skills from farming as more lucrative and physically less challenging professions are taken up.

The Union believes that it is vital to ensure that whatever new arrangements are put in place, enhanced terms and conditions as a reflection of the dedication of agricultural workers must be fully retained.

The Union would also point out that information on Agricultural Wages Board agreed terms and conditions is a popular query received at the Union’s offices around Wales and it is clear that the work of the Board and its Committees has been much appreciated by farmers in Wales.”

That letter is from Ms Rhian Nowell-Phillips, the FUW’s deputy director of agricultural policy, to Elin Jones.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for quoting a constituent of mine. In the debate in the other place, it was suggested that there would be an enhanced role for ACAS and citizens advice bureaux in advising some of our farming constituents on such matters. Does she acknowledge that they will be able retrospectively to advise on matters gone by, but they will not be able proactively to advise in the first instance? There needs to be a permanent advice structure, rather than a somewhat piecemeal suggestion.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

There is a good case for that, but some of those advice agencies would have a greater role if they had funding and existed in many such communities.

We have discussed how, at the lowest level, the AWB is only 2p more than the national minimum wage—in the House of Lords, Lord Greaves made the point well that only some 20% of workers covered by the AWB are at grade 1—which fails to recognise that the AWB sets pay and conditions across six grades, from £5.95 to £8.88. The point has been well made that the Government are going where not even Mrs Thatcher dared to tread. Whether that was a great ideological point or an awareness of the number of agricultural workers in the south-east, the south-west and the east of England is a moot point, but it is a point that Mrs Thatcher was not shy to recognise.

It is important that the AWB is seen as a partnership between industry and unions, which sets fair wages and terms and conditions for people working in agriculture. The board also sets overtime rates, rates for night work, standby allowances, sick pay, bereavement leave and holiday entitlements. Without the AWB—this is an extension of the point made about the FUW—each farm business owner would have to negotiate their own terms and conditions with their work force. Many farmers want to keep the AWB, because it means that they do not have to become employment specialists, and they can get on with running their farms.

Should the AWB be abolished, farm workers could lose up to £264 a week in sick pay, if they fall sick. Allow me to explain: farm workers are entitled to agricultural sick pay after one year’s employment, equivalent to the minimum rate for the grade that they are on. Under the plans, workers on the lowest grade will lose £150 in sick pay. Grade 1—initial grade—agricultural sick pay is £232.05, while statutory sick pay comes out at £81.60, making a potential loss of £150.45 a week. The source for this information is the Agricultural Wages (England and Wales) Order 2010. For grade 6—farm manager—sick pay is £346.32, while statutory sick pay is £81.60, making a potential loss of £264.72. Clearly, that would not be affected by a diversion into any sort of low-pay business, because it would not affect many of these grades.

We also have to look at the wider impact on rural communities. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, in its report from last November, “A minimum income standard for rural households”, made the point that living costs in rural areas are 10% to 20% higher than in urban areas, due to high petrol costs, which is something Members across the House have expressed concern about. There is also the lack of affordable housing, cuts to public services, and few accessible jobs.

The Government plan to take £2 billion in cash out of the DEFRA budget over the next four years, which is the second biggest cut for any Department. I hope that the Minister takes on board people’s concerns, but I cannot help thinking that the same Government who wanted to sell off the forests now want to sell out agricultural workers. We have seen front-loaded cuts to local government, meaning that there are fewer council-supported rural bus services on Sundays and in the evenings. Next January, the Government will cut the bus service operators grant, which supports many rural services, by 20%. That will mean higher fares and fewer buses.

Getting rid of the AWB at a time of such cuts, which I believe are disproportionately affecting rural communities, would be devastating for workers in the agricultural sector. It would make it even more difficult for them and for people’s lives in our rural communities.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It has been an interesting and illuminating debate on a subject that people feel very attached to, and I recognise the totemic significance of the AWB. I yield to no member of the Committee on the rurality of my constituency and the number of people directly affected by the proposals—not to my hon. Friends the Members for Ceredigion and for Preseli Pembrokeshire, or the hon. Members for Arfon and for Clwyd South. I represent 900 square miles of rural Somerset with an awful lot of farm enterprises, so I speak with some knowledge, at least.

I gently say to members of the Committee that we have to look at this issue not with the eyes of someone from 1948, or even the beginning of the 20th century, because agriculture has changed. Not only has agriculture changed, but the social and employment legislation of the country has, too. We are not working in the context that Churchill worked in—I think that that quote probably came from when he was a good Liberal, rather than a good Conservative. He operated in circumstances where there were no social protections. People in rural areas were the poorest of the poor. He was trying to establish a basis of fairness, equality and social security for those people. That is not the case in circumstances where we have the national minimum wage—I will come back to the fact that that is not the be-all and end-all in this argument—employment protection legislation, working time regulations, housing protection and contract protection. When we are talking about people who work in the agricultural and horticultural industries, a lot of different factors come into play that simply were not there when this—then necessary—protection was put in place.

Jon Ashworth (Labour, Leicester South)

Given what the Minister has said, would he claim that there is no connection whatsoever between the existence of the AWB and the fact that there has been no industrial dispute in this sector since 1923 or 1924?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I could make a flippant response, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is making a serious point. A lot of other wages boards have been abolished, and the hon. Member for City of Durham has been asked why the Labour Government did not bring them back if they were so necessary. The answer, of course, is that they proved not to have been necessary, and when we look at some of the wages councils that have been abolished we can see why. This is a reduction to the absurd, because it is quite astonishing that some of them got through to 1993 without being abolished, such as the Aerated Waters Wages Council; the Coffin Furniture and Cerement-making Wages Council; the Flax and Hemp Wages Council; and the Ostrich and Fancy Feather and Artificial Flower Wages Council. If I were trying to make a flippant point, I would say that perhaps the time had gone for some of those.

The wages councils for some serious, current industries also disappeared at that point: the Licensed Non-residential Establishments Wages Council; the Licensed Residential and Licensed Restaurant Wages Council; and the Hairdressing Undertakings Wages Council. If I were to say to the hon. Member for Leicester South that I cannot remember significant industrial unrest in any of those sectors since they were abolished, he would quite rightly say that I was making a spurious point. It is a point, however, that that we are talking about disparate industries, in which people are working for many individual employers without any common negotiating machinery in those areas, but we have not seen the sort of effects that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

I am trying to work out, from remarks that the hon. Member for Ceredigion has made in the Committee and that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has made in the House, the basis for the Liberal Democrat position on the AWB. Is it a policy area that the Liberal Democrats sacrificed in the construction of the coalition? The hon. Member for St Ives, who leads on these matters for the Liberal Democrats, has said clearly that he is opposed to the abolition of the AWB. Have the Liberal Democrats sacrificed this area to form a coalition Government?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is not an area of sacrifice; it is an area where one applies common sense to the prevailing circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives will speak for himself, as he frequently does—as he did, in fact, over the past two days on another matter—but I will speak for the Government, and I will not be distracted from speaking for the Government on this issue.

I am making the valid point that if I felt that protections were insufficient to protect my constituents and the constituents of rural Britain, I would not be arguing this case. I will say, however, that there is an argument—it is perfectly proper and is the argument that the Government are putting forward—that here we have the only sector in the economy that retains a specific employment regime for workers. That is simply fact. That means that businesses in this sector face regulatory burdens when they employ workers that are not shared by other businesses in other areas. There are internal contradictions, which I shall expand on in a moment, within what is proposed, but all of us want to see a thriving and sustainable agricultural industry.

The industry has shrunk massively over the years. I used to have 10 dairy farms in my village. I now have three working farms and one that is essentially used for shooting purposes. It has contracted massively. Most of those farmers no longer employ large numbers of staff. The ones that they do employ are highly prized, and that may come as a surprise to some members of the Committee who are perhaps not as close to rural communities. In the livestock sector, farmers desperately want to recruit good stockmen and stockwomen who will look after your livestock. They do not come cheaply or easily. They have to be attracted. The idea that a good milker could be paid below the national minimum wage is nonsense in the present agricultural context. I want to see something developing that will help both employers and workers alike.

Looking at it objectively, the legislation is outdated, restrictive. It discourages employment and inhibits modern employment practices. I will give an example, because it is one that people may instantly recognise. At the moment, the legislation discourages the payment of annual salaries. In most professions and trades, annual salaries are now the norm. We do not pay people on a less-than-annual-salary basis. In the context of agricultural workers, however, because of the way that the AWB does its business, that is actively discouraged. In contrast, the national minimum wage legislation, which I have always supported, provides for the payment of annual salaries, which benefits workers by giving them better control over their financial planning.

I will give another example of the difficulties in the present system. The current arrangements mean that farm businesses are often required to operate dual regimes. What constitutes agricultural work for the purposes of the AWB is not necessarily carried out in isolation from non-agricultural work, which leads to confusion and difficulties and a great deal of bother for both employers and employees. An example of that would be if a farmer operates a packer house on a farm. Under the current arrangements, packing produce grown on the farm is covered by the agricultural minimum wage. The packing of bought-in produce is covered by the national minimum wage. That makes no sense from a business point of view, and it discourages the use of produce grown on-farm, which hinders enterprise and job opportunities within agriculture. That is a real and practical difficulty.

We want to simplify the legislation and create a single employment framework governing all workers, which would end the confusion and the administrative duplication for agricultural businesses. It would encourage the growth of an integrated food supply chain, which would offer better prospects for the agricultural sector as a whole.

In the absence of the AWB, we would amend legislation to bring agricultural workers in England within the scope of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and wider employment legislation.

Lisa Nandy (Labour, Wigan)

I would be grateful if the Minister could return to my point about under-16s, because they, of course, will not be covered by the national minimum wage legislation.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I promise the hon. Lady that I will come back to that. I will just make a little more progress first.

Agricultural workers will receive the same level of employment protection as workers in other sectors of the economy. There have been claims that if the board were abolished, workers would see an immediate drop in wages and other benefits. For the purposes of the Committee and for those listening outside, it is very important to stress that all workers in employment at the time the board is abolished will retain their existing contractual rights until their contract is varied by agreement between them and their employer or it comes to an end. That includes not only basic salary conditions, but the other conditions as well. There is contract protection, provided someone has worked for the same employer continuously for 52 weeks. It does not matter whether there is a written contract of employment; there is an implied contract. There have been concerns about the loss of agricultural sick pay, but, again, that would be covered by the implied contract. Workers would remain on exactly the same terms.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

Will the Minister clarify what he is saying? It would not affect the sick pay and conditions of somebody currently in post, but a new person coming to do exactly the same job could be penalised.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Yes, that would be the case, as it would be the case in every other industry, but let us consider what I said earlier about the competition for people to work in the industry. That is a real situation in real agriculture, as opposed to the romantic idea of what happens. Farmers are desperate to get good staff. They will employ them under contracts that do not put them at a disadvantage to those already in the industry and elsewhere. That is the reality and I see no reason to doubt that that would be the case.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Can the Minister help us further by agreeing to monitor the situation should the abolition go through and by requiring annual reports to be given to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? That way, the future impact of the abolition of the AWB on wage levels and other terms and conditions of employment can be absolutely clear and transparent.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I will not give that commitment as such, but I certainly expect the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to take an active interest. However, I will mention the important role we anticipate for the Low Pay Commission, which touches on a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion. Again, I stress that not all people working in the agricultural industry are at the bottom end of the wage spectrum, as hon. Members have said. Only about 20% of such workers are in the lowest bracket, but because it is desperately important that we protect their interests, it is important that the responsibility for setting the minimum wage for agricultural workers will be transferred to the Low Pay Commission. It will consider evidence from the agriculture sectors when recommending the adult national minimum wage rate, as well as the rates for young people and apprentices. It will collect that information.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which already enforces the national minimum wage on behalf of Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, will enforce the new arrangements. The Committee may be interested to know that the details of the arrangements for covering the costs to the Low Pay Commission and HMRC are a matter of discussion between BIS and DEFRA at the moment, but we expect the change to lead to the development of more efficient ways of working to help deal with wider budgetary pressures.

Following the transfer of responsibility to HMRC, enforcement arrangements would change significantly. At the moment, agricultural workers’ minimum wage entitlement is enforced only if they make a complaint. HMRC has traditionally operated a more proactive approach. As well as dealing with complaints from workers, it routinely undertakes investigations on the basis of risk. That approach would be applied to agricultural workers and would put a far larger number of the most vulnerable workers in agriculture within reach of minimum wage enforcement. Workers who wish to make a complaint or seek advice will continue to use the pay and works rights helpline as their first point of contact. That is quite a significant protection.

Let me come back to the wider issue, because it is important. This industry is very dear to my heart, as I come from a part of the county where milk and cheese production is still a significant part of our economy. It is important that this industry shake off some of the old notions about what constitutes the industry, and the prejudices involved. Part of that is low pay. We cannot have a thriving agricultural industry if it is seen as an industry that pays rock-bottom wages and has to be forced into providing decent conditions. We need a skilled and qualified work force. We only have to look at the way that agriculture has changed to recognise that. We no longer send a chap out into the fields with a pair of wellies and a stick. They are operating very, very expensive machinery. They are dealing with very high-tech kit to make this industry work. It is essential that workers be properly rewarded for their responsibilities. I hope the whole Committee agrees.

Glyn Davies (Conservative, Montgomeryshire)

I want to reinforce the point the Minister is making. I was involved in the agricultural industry for many years. Good agricultural workers are like gold dust. In the part of the world I live in, agricultural workers are paid considerably above the minimum wage. They are in huge demand. I just want to make certain that that impression of the industry is the correct one, and not that it is low-paid work. It is not: it is now a skilled business attracting well-paid, professional employees.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He emphasises the exact point I am trying to make.

Stephen Crabb (Conservative, Preseli Pembrokeshire)

He knows his stuff.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

He clearly does. Those of us who live and work in close proximity to the industry know how it has changed over the years.

I wanted to touch on consultation because, the issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion. We have a Welsh tinge to this Committee. I suspect that it will not be the last time that I hear concerns about the Principality in Committee. My qualification for listening carefully to Welsh concerns is that I can see Wales from my constituency and the Welsh can see me. I do not accept that there was not proper consultation with the Welsh Assembly Government on this; nor do I accept that that is not still carrying on. It is. We still await the final position of the Welsh Government. There was a point at which they appeared to be supportive of these proposals. There was then the election in Wales. There is a change.

We do not quite know what the position is at the moment. But let me make it clear on behalf of the United Kingdom Government that if Wales wants to have a different arrangement, that is its prerogative. We will do everything we can to facilitate that. That offer is there. What we have to do here is deal with the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales, and we have decided that these matters can be better dealt with in another way. If the Welsh Government decide that they wish to retain something on the basis of the advice they receive from the Farmers Union of Wales and others, then certainly, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in Whitehall will happily listen to those proposals and act accordingly.

Stephen Mosley (Conservative, City of Chester)

In my constituency, right on the border of England and Wales, there are farms—sometimes fields—that cross the border. When looking at different systems in England and Wales, please consider cross-border issues. We do not want farmers having to pay different rates to someone for driving a tractor from one side of a field to another. Please bear that in mind.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Member for City of Chester has made a very relevant point, which I hope will be borne in mind by the Departments. I will be brief, Mr Robertson, because this is irrelevant, but many years ago when I was a county councillor and chairman of the police authority, my car had two entirely different mileage rates, depending on whether I was going to police headquarters or county hall. I had to work out whether my car knew it was meant to use less petrol going to county hall than to the police authority. That is an aside.

I accept it would create a huge difficulty, though not completely impossible, and we must look into that.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

My hon. Friend will not be surprised, as a committed devolutionist, to learn that his statement was very welcome. Will he tell us a little bit more about the financial implications? If there are savings to be made through the abolition of the AWB, would there not be financial benefits by the way of Barnett consequentials for the National Assembly?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I will have to write to my hon. Friend on that, simply because there are lots of complexities. I am not sure that I entirely accept the case that Wales should benefit if there are cost-savings from something we are abolishing in England but not in Wales. No doubt that will be a matter for negotiation between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Department. I will happily write, if it is helpful, insofar as I can give any indication.

Jon Ashworth (Labour, Leicester South)

Given that there appears to be so much opposition in the Liberal Democrat party to these proposals, the hon. Gentleman is putting up a very spirited and entertaining defence of the policy. I hope that when the Prime Minister refreshes his top team he gives an opportunity to the hon. Gentleman to shine on a larger stage.

On the point of savings, could the Minister tell us how much the Exchequer expects to accrue by abolishing the AWB?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I have not got that figure. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets an estimate of it. I do not have it in front of me at the moment. The purpose of the exercise is not primarily cost saving; it is a deregulatory measure. DEFRA has made clear it is an issue of deregulation; it is about lifting burdens from industry and, hopefully, creating a sounder basis for the agricultural industry. I will ensure that Ministers from the Department write to the hon. Gentleman to provide an estimate of the savings in the abolition.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

There appear to be several costing implications in what the Minister says. Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South, does the Minister have some idea? He mentioned new enforcers at the HMRC. Will he give an idea of how much it is all going to cost? This all fits in with the general confusion. The abolition clearly was not in the coalition agreement; it was not put before the electorate. What sort of mandate does he have? Who made up this policy and when?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

There are a lot of bodies listed in the Bill. I will not be able to point to a position in the coalition agreement where it says that we will abolish a specific body. What I can say is that we have been firmly committed from day one to the removal of quangos. Indeed, both coalition parties were committed before the election, as indeed was the hon. Lady’s own party, to the removal of quangos—the removal of unnecessary public bodies, or their conversion to a more satisfactory and accountable form. That is the process in which we are engaged. The hon. Lady will look in vain in the coalition agreement for a list of the bodies—running into three figures—to be abolished. Departments are doing their work, they are asking the right questions and they are coming up with the right answers to what can be done better and more effectively.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

What about the cost?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

There will be no significant resource saving on the specific issue of enforcement, because the people who were doing the enforcement based on demand within the AWB set-up will be doing the same thing, with the exception that they will be able to instigate investigations themselves through the HMRC system. I do not anticipate significant cost savings in that instance.

It is important that I address the other points raised by Members. Having dealt with the general terms and conditions, a key issue is the downward pressure from supermarkets. All of us who have campaigned for many years against the unequal arrangements between the oligopoly that the supermarkets represent and the primary producers will recognise that as a real fear. We are now in a much better position to resist such downward pressure than ever before. Not only do we have the grocery supply code of practice, which gives protection in exactly those terms, but we will soon have a Bill enacting the ombudsman responsible for the grocery supply chain, which addresses the point raised by the hon. Member for Wigan. Not only has that Bill been published in draft form; it has been considered by a Committee. It has therefore had its pre-legislative scrutiny, and I am hopeful that we can introduce it as a substantive Bill in the very near future. The draft Bill will represent a huge improvement in the position of many primary producers across the country who currently feel as if they have an unequal relationship with the supermarkets.

I am pleased the Government have taken the action that many of us have been advocating for many years. I cannot pre-empt the way in which the House considers the matter, which is one for the House. It must have time to look at and go through the draft Bill in due course, but there will not be a long delay so far as the Government are concerned in introducing that proposal. Such a delay is certainly not anticipated.

It is important that we promote agricultural skills. In the rural development programme for England there is funding for training and skills development in the farming sector, including horticulture, food and forestry. My genuine feeling is that, once the Bill is enacted, there will be better long-term prospects for advancement for young people entering the industry and that agricultural work will be promoted as a career path, quite separate from the currently rather limited pool, which consists of those who inherit their family farms and therefore start with inherited capital, rather than having a stake through their own wish to engage in the industry. I am hopeful that we will do better at developing skills and bring people into the area.

The hon. Member for Wigan talked about young people below the minimum wage regulations, and she is absolutely right. At the moment, people younger than the school-leaving age are not protected by the national minimum wage. That is true in agriculture and in many other sectors. I must say that a limited number of young people now work in this sector—or, indeed, any other sector. The number of pre-school-leaving-age children working is much, much lower now than it was at one stage.

People working in the agricultural or horticultural industry will be in the same position as they would if they were sweeping up in a hairdressing salon, working in a newsagents or anything else. They continue to be protected by general employment law and health and safety legislation. They would also be regulated by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which gives local authorities powers to make byelaws concerning the employment of young people, sets limits on the types of work that a young person can undertake, and puts a ceiling on the number of hours worked each week. Byelaws under that legislation can also allow the issuing of permits to employers to provide a number of documents to their local authority, including a declaration that an appropriate risk assessment has been carried out. The dangers of working in the agricultural industry were mentioned in a different context, particularly in the case of young people; no one wants to see them put in dangerous positions.

None of that answers the question of whether young people will be paid the national minimum wage. No, they will not, just as they will not elsewhere. I am not sure that I actually want a system that encourages large numbers of much younger children into what the hon. Member for Wigan acknowledges is a dangerous workplace, but we need to look at ensuring that all the protections that can be put in place are put in place. I think that relatively few younger children now work in agriculture. The days when we used to arrange our school holidays in Somerset to ensure that the children were available to bring in the harvest are long gone. That was the case, and it is a well-known fact, but it is perhaps a slightly outdated issue. She mentioned gangmasters as well, and the changes that were made persist in giving protection against unscrupulous gangmasters, so that should not be an issue in this context.

I hope that I have not tired the Committee by covering some of the issues involved. I recognise the Committee’s genuine concern to ensure that the measure does not disadvantage people in rural areas. I share those concerns, but having looked at what is proposed, I believe that those concerns are misplaced. We should continue with consultation through DEFRA, and discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government, with a view hopefully to helping the industry develop modern working practices that are untrammelled by the long list of things that the hon. Member for City of Durham was kind enough to read out. As she read out all the things that are set by some national body rather than by the employer and the employee, I thought, “She is making my argument for me.” They should be set out in a proper contract of employment, with the security of national legislation underpinning it. That would be better in the long run. On that basis, I hope that she can withdraw her amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I will make every attempt to be brief, because we have had an interesting and full debate this afternoon. I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion for his informed speech, and for helping us to understand the impacts of the possible abolition on his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan made several powerful points, particularly about protecting young people in the industry, and the need to give them opportunities and protect their homes and jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South spoke about the importance of the AWB to farm owners. We must not overlook that, as it added much detail to the debate.

Let me turn to the Minister’s comments. As more than 1,000 workers in his constituency are covered by the AWB, the Opposition respect what he has to say; we understand that he knows something about the industry. Nevertheless, I must disagree with him to some extent. The main argument seems to be that the AWB is in some way anachronistic. If that is the Government’s argument, we must try to modernise it, and not simply abolish what there is. As for the Liberal Democrat voice, it needs to turn up its volume. Perhaps between now and Report, we can encourage the Liberal Democrats to do that.

I am not really sure what the Minister means by removing regulatory burdens. My point in reading out the list was to show that a wide range of issues are covered by the AWB. I am none the wiser about how those wider issues will be addressed following the Minister’s comments. If he could give more consideration to the matter before Report, that would be really helpful.

If governing bodies’ purpose is to ensure that the industry is not characterised by low pay, why refer issues to the Low Pay Commission? I am also still bewildered about the whole issue of costs and savings. The Opposition would like to give the Government another opportunity to think about the issues. We want to consider some of the responses made this afternoon, and perhaps consider the issue again on Report. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.