Agricultural Wages Board

Debate between Andrew George and Mark Spencer

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

This is a difficult debate, and I am grateful to the Labour Opposition for having brought it forward. In a point of order after the debate on Lords amendments to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill last week, I said how strongly I opposed our having had neither a debate or a vote on this significant matter. As I indicated earlier in an intervention, we had only limited opportunities to discuss the abolition of the AWB, among a large number of other measures, in our debates on the Public Bodies Act 2011. We were reassured throughout those debates that the House would have ample opportunity to debate the issue and come to a conclusion on it at a later stage, when a specific proposal was brought forward under the powers in schedule 1 to that Bill. I come at this debate on the basis of a significant disagreement with how the Government have handled the matter and frustration that we are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Nevertheless, it is important to have the debate.

I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and did not get the impression that the AWB was being abolished because it was holding back wages and conditions for agricultural workers. In fact, I still have a strong impression that the opposite is true. I know that there has been a lot of speculation about the outcome of the abolition, but I am clear that it is not happening to enhance agricultural workers’ pay and conditions.

I also find it difficult to understand the impression that the Government are giving, given the slogan “We’re all in this together”, which they adopted in their first Budget and which I approve of entirely. One good proposal from the European Commission on the common agricultural policy is to cap the single farm payment at €300,000 and disburse the money saved in different ways. That could have been on the agenda under the previous Administration 10 years ago, but we are where we are. On the one hand, the Government are content to pay cheques of more than £1 million to large farmers who, frankly, usually do not need it. On the other hand, I fear the abolition of the AWB will mean that more public funds need to be deployed to pay the wages of agricultural workers who find their conditions and wages cut, or to pay benefits to those whose standard of living falls below a certain level. In both cases, a lot of public money is involved, in one case enriching large farmers and in the other subsidising poverty in our rural areas. I am not content with that contrast, and I will draw conclusions about it at the end of my comments.

The abolition of the AWB was not in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. It was in the Conservative party manifesto, however, and indeed the NFU made it clear in the lead-up to the last general election that it was very much in favour of the abolition of the AWB. That was certainly the case in my area, so my experience contrasts with that of the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on that point. One of the NFU’s key asks was the abolition of the AWB, yet when I raised the issue with farmers, I found that a significant number of them were opposed to that policy. They were opposed to it for the reasons the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) has outlined, such as that it would leave them in the position of having to negotiate individually. The collective approach through the AWB provided them with a framework that enabled them to avoid considerable embarrassment and difficulty or having to buy-in human resources consultants to resolve things. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is right: few small-scale farmers employ agricultural workers, but those who do will encounter great difficulties if they have to negotiate these arrangements with their workers.

I have regularly worked with the NFU over many years, not least on the creation of the groceries code adjudicator, on which the Government must be warmly congratulated. I have worked with it on a wide range of issues, and often agree with it and stand shoulder to shoulder with it—but not, I am afraid, on this issue. Regrettably, on matters such as this the NFU tends to resort to becoming a large farmers’ union, rather than an all farmers’ union; I have accused it of that to its face, so I am not saying this behind its back.

Many pertinent issues have already been raised in our debate, and I shall not repeat the concerns expressed about the impact this move will have, and about the Government simply saying, “We have the national minimum wage, so we no longer need an AWB.”

[Mr Spencer]

Can the hon. Gentleman define for me what a large farm is? Is an intensively farmed three-acre poultry farm a large farm? Is a 200-acre dairy farm a large farm?

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman might be drawing me into a different debate, but he knows about standard man days—I do not want that to be interpreted as a sexist term—and the number of jobs a holding generates, or requires in order to be maintained. That is calculated irrespective of the acres covered, because as his question implies, especially in less favoured areas—some of which fall within my constituency—there are geographically very large farms that have low productivity. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, some farms that are small in acreage are intensively farmed and have high levels of productivity. He makes a good point, but the point I was making about larger farms was in the context of the fact that some—although admittedly very few—receive hundreds of thousands of pounds, or even over £1 million pounds, in public subsidy. He cannot deny that that is the case. Those sums are given to a very few large farms as a result of the arrangements through the single farm payment.

I regret finding myself in this position. I know the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), has been handed a hospital pass with this issue since taking up his post, and I am enormously grateful to him for the work he is already doing through his conversations and meetings with people in the sector. Despite this regrettable decision, he is working with them to try to identify opportunities for voluntary agreements within the sector. I hope that will serve to provide some of the protections which I fear will be lost to agricultural workers as a result of this Government decision.

There is something further that I regret. Normally, I feel enormously disappointed by Opposition day debates, because they usually degenerate into rather tribal, finger-pointing and teasing events, in which it is not possible to take the Opposition line on an issue because of how the debate has been handled. I regret that on this occasion—partly as a result of how the Government have handled the matter so far, by not giving us an opportunity for a debate or a vote—after a considered debate, I will be voting against the Government in the Division.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrew George and Mark Spencer

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Spencer]

Again, there is a misunderstanding of what will happen. We are talking about very large companies that are negotiating with very large companies. They both have an equal amount of commercial muscle, so no one party will be able to bully the other. That is quite important. The adjudicator is meant to get involved as a referee and negotiate when one large party abuses a smaller party and uses its commercial muscle to push something through.

[Andrew George]

I support the arguments that my hon. Friend is making. He knows that this is a dynamic and creative market in which a number of intermediaries and subsidiaries have been created with a turnover of more than £1 billion, which could be used as a means of sidestepping the legislation if new clause 2 was accepted.

[Mr Spencer]

I recognise that. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has worked on this matter since before I became a Member. Perhaps that is something that the adjudicator could look at as we move forward. There is this ability to put a film between parties and cause an issue. That comes back to small suppliers, who supply the middlemen.

New clause 3 would cause the Bill to expire after seven years. It would be disappointing if it did so. Using the analogy of a football match, if we get to half time and the referee has not needed to issue a yellow card, no one suggests that we do not need a referee in the second half.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrew George and Mark Spencer

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). It was interesting that in his introduction he declared an interest as a Labour and Co-operative party Member. It has been my privilege over many years to chair the Grocery Market Action Group, which has been mentioned in this debate. Reflecting on the discussion about naming and shaming, I should perhaps name and fame the stores that indicated that they would support the measures proposed in the Competition Commission’s report of April 2008 when we wrote to the stores that would be affected. Marks and Spencer, Waitrose and Aldi were the three stores that indicated that they would support the measures, with some reasonable conditions. In spite of my efforts to talk to the Co-op, I was surprised that it was not prepared to sign up at that stage. However, the regulation has been in place since February 2010, and there are opportunities now for all those stores to reflect on that.

Like others, I want to commend many people who have been the architects of this extremely welcome measure. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has already been mentioned—indeed, I mentioned him in an intervention. His private Member’s Bill did a great deal to pave the way for the measure. Former Members, too, made significant contributions. In 1998, Colin Breed, the former Member for South East Cornwall, made a valiant effort to put the matter on the agenda. He undertook an inquiry, which stimulated a further inquiry by the Competition Commission, entitled, “Checking out the Supermarkets”. He stimulated much activity, which is reaping the appropriate reward today on the Floor of the House. The former Member for Stroud, David Drew, was also a significant contributor to the debate, as was the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who is not in his place, but was present earlier. I have had many conversations with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who has been a strong supporter of the proposal for a long time. I also commend the Minister for an excellent exposition of the purpose of the measure, and the Government’s strong support for what is now Government primary legislation, even though its origins were a private Member’s Bill under a previous Government.

I do not need to repeat much of the background to what we hope will be legislation in perhaps weeks—certainly not many months. It is worth reflecting on the fact that, when I was originally involved, and certainly when the former Member for South East Cornwall engaged in the work, there was no party political support for regulation, even among Liberal Democrats, who subsequently adopted the proposal in their 2005 manifesto. In those days, the proposal that there should be any regulation was advanced only against all the odds. Even the National Farmers Union proposed a buyer’s charter and set its face against regulation, even though I and others had proposed it. It has therefore taken many years and a glacial pace to achieve progress. To be in the position whereby the proposal had all-party support at the last general election was remarkable. The larger parties clambered on board at the last minute, only months before the election. However, we had almost created a “who blinks first” scenario as we went into the general election, and all parties came on board and supported the proposal.

Significant commendation should be given to Peter Freeman, chairman of the Competition Commission, and the whole commission, for an excellent inquiry, which commenced in 2006 and concluded in 2008. It considered all the evidence that many of us had been encouraging the competition authorities to scrutinise for many years. It reached the telling conclusion that, in some cases, as the Minister said, the supermarkets were guilty of transferring excessive risk and unexpected costs to suppliers, with the consequent detrimental knock-on effect on not only suppliers and their capacity to continue trading, but consumers and, indeed, innovation in the retail sector.

I do not approach the matter from the position that supermarkets are wicked. Their activities are entirely rational. Had all of us been in the same position, and we had not maximised all our market muscle to advance the interests of our company, and we had therefore lost market share in a cut-and-thrust market, we would have failed in our duties. However, the question is, “When does effective, clever and successful use of power become abuse?” The Competition Commission rightly identified that we have long passed the point at which that use of power has become abuse, as the many examples that have been given today show.

The previous Government rightly supported changes to the common agricultural policy, which forced farming to become much more market facing. Price support policies were done away with, the protections that farming was so used to in this country were no longer in place, and the industry needed to live or die by the marketplace. However, how could farmers and growers succeed or survive in that climate? I appreciate that many growers, pig farmers and others struggled to survive long before those changes. Nevertheless, leaving that aside, how could farmers survive when, as Prime Minister Tony Blair said, the supermarkets had got them in an arm lock? One could argue that they had got them in an even more painful position at times. The supermarkets were able to control market conditions, which was a conclusion of the previous Competition Commission report.

What are we trying to achieve? It has always been my view that if supermarkets have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from embracing the Bill. I have said to the supermarkets that, if they are clever, they should embrace the proposal and see it as something good. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) suggested that there should be a panel to review the supermarkets’ success in applying the code. My view is that, if the supermarkets are prepared to embrace and invest in the proposal, there would be a fair trade regulator, which could give a mark to each supermarket to show whether it was a fair trader and grade it accordingly. Supermarkets could then perceive the code as a promotional tool rather than a stick with which to beat them.

Fining has predominated today’s discussions and will doubtless do so in Committee. After all these years, I do not want to risk any further delay in implementing the proposal. I would not like any amendment to the Bill to cause such delay. Will the fear of reputational damage be sufficient to persuade supermarkets to apply the code effectively and not to engage in the sort of practices that got us into the current position? Of course, I am on the side of those who want fining on the face of the Bill, but I believe that reputational damage has an impact. I remember the days when genetically modified technology was introduced and available to the supermarkets. Non-governmental organisations undertook a lot of campaigning, which dissuaded the supermarkets from putting GM products on their shelves. If there were adverse reports, the campaigning bodies—if they were doing their job—would draw the attention of customers and the public to the failure of those supermarkets.

[Mr Spencer]

On that point, there cannot be a more passionately felt issue than animal welfare. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the British pork industry had much higher standards of animal welfare than its counterparts in Europe, but that that made no difference to whether consumers bought British or foreign pork?

[Andrew George]

There is evidence and evidence to counter it on all sides, and that takes us to a point that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made earlier. Providing that customers who are buying British are reassured that it genuinely is British and not some kind of subterfuge, the point about animal welfare is relevant. Customers understand that significantly higher animal welfare standards have been in place in the UK for many years, particularly in the pig industry, and that is one of those reassuring messages. I agree, however, that it does not always work, particularly when the message becomes confused.

When I intervened on the Minister, I said that there was likely to be a lot of evidence of contraventions of the code from the time it was first put in place on 4 February 2010. My concern is that the position of adjudicator will be such that they will operate for only one day a week from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and when they are fully operational, they will work three days a week with three or four members of staff. I also understand that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority already wants to present 1,000 pieces of evidence to the adjudicator, and I am concerned about whether sufficient resources will be in place to deal with all the work, cases and evidence that may be brought forward.

Food Prices (Planning Policy)

Debate between Andrew George and Mark Spencer

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Spencer]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman. He is very clever in his thinking. It is a difficult tightrope that he has put there for me, and I almost hesitate to tiptoe down it. It is easy to come across as a hypocrite. Farmers clearly want to make the largest possible profit, and as a member of the Conservative party, I believe that the Government should not be interventionist and poke their nose into people’s private business.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is to look at the carrot and not the stick. Within the Government’s delivery of subsidies and support for different sectors, farmers are adept at finding the schemes that work for them. We need to tempt farmers back into food production, but Government support will be needed because there are commercial decisions to be made between producing energy, which is fairly heavily subsidised through the EU, or food, which has also been subsidised in the past. The Government could consider the way in which farmers retail that food and support them in getting more value from it, and there are currently plans for a grocery ombudsman to protect farmers.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent case, and I apologise for missing his opening remarks. Further to the previous intervention, does he not accept that the planning system is, after all, fuelled by greed, rather than by need? If a farmer sees the capacity to convert his land from food production to something that is akin to £1 million an acre, what could be more profitable? Is that not the issue? He says he will not consider sticks, rather than carrots, but does not that incentive for going down the route of development, rather than food production, need to be addressed, too?

[Mr Spencer]

That is exactly where the ball lands in the Minister’s lap, frankly. There is a big difference between considering controls on developing land for residential or industrial use and considering variants of crops that may be produced on that land, because whatever crop is grown, the land can be reused for another crop. Of course, once land is converted to bungalows or industrial units, it can never go back. The Government, at whatever level, have a role to play in ensuring that we get those choices right. Again, that is the thrust of the debate. I do not hesitate to repeat myself: we have to develop brownfield sites before we start tearing up the green belt, which can never return. A number of colleagues wish to speak, so I shall leave it there.