The Supreme Court has backed the Welsh government over Westminster in a dispute over the future of farm workers' pay and conditions in Wales.

image expired

The ruling means that Welsh government plans for emergency measures to protect workers' pay following the abolition last year of the Agricultural wages Board can go ahead.

Welsh AMs introduced emergency measures to appoint a panel to advise on agricultural pay rates after the struggle over the AWB, first earmarked for closure in 2010, came to an end in October. Before it was scrapped the AWB negotiated graded pay rates and work conditions, including tied in housing, provision of protective clothing and issues relating to working animals for 150,000 workers across England and Wales.

UK Attorney General Dominic Grieve attempted to block the Welsh government's efforts to set up a replacement body, claiming that although agricultural policy is a devolved issue, wage control is beyond the Welsh Assembly's remit. He referred the matter to the Supreme Court. However, the country's highest Court ruled in favour of Welsh AMs on Wednesday.

All five Supreme Court justices presiding over the case supported the Welsh Government, meaning the emergency measures can be effected.

In its consultation documents on the closure of the AWB, Defra appeared to cede that the scrapping of the quango amounted to a redistribution of wealth from workers to their employers. Critics said that the decision would exacerbate rural poverty and turn agriculture into a minimum wage industry.

Outlining the government's intention to do away with the board in England and Wales, the Defra consultation stated that "The net benefit of changes in payments to workers is zero, as a cost to workers is a benefit to farmers" and that, although workers in a low-paid sector will feel more pressure as a result, employers stand to benefit from the "Reduction in sick pay paid by farmers, value of labour to farmers of decreased annual leave [and] reduction in wages paid by farmers."

Much of the Welsh farming industry opposed the moves by the UK government, and the governments of Scotland and Northern Ireland have both opted to retain their wage boards.

However, on Wednesday, NFU Cymru President Steven James told ITV, "If you're employing on farm you've got to abide by the Agricultural Wage Board's rules and that becomes burdensome… it's an extra level of bureaucracy and [it's] not required. That's our argument."

Mick Antoniw, AM for Pontypridd, who led the campaign to retain the AWB in Wales, countered that the position of rural workers is especially precarious, and the wage boards were initially set up in recognition of this fact. He said wages would have been slashed and protection for workers removed if the Attorney General's challenge had been successful, as farm workers'  ability to negotiate effectively with their employers, when work alone or in small teams in isolated areas, is limited at best.

He told Wales Online, "The Tory/Lib Dem government tried to avoid consultation on this issue and refused to enter into meaningful discussions with the Welsh Government. Despite the Scottish and Northern Irish Parliaments' retention of their Agricultural Wages Boards and the House of Lords Grand Committee's rejection of the abolition proposals, they decided to press ahead with this vindictive action."