Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]
Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Andrew George
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). I welcome the Lords amendment and do not oppose it. I am sure that that will be a great relief to my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I congratulate on all the work she has done on the Bill.
The key point addressed by the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire is that the order, when it is brought forward, is couched in a manner that has the impact we all want. Whether fines will be a set figure or a proportion of turnover was debated at some length in Committee. A proportion of turnover for Tesco as opposed to, say, Waitrose, is significant. Certainly, in other areas of competition law this appears to be the case. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look at a proportion of turnover as an alternative to setting an absolute amount in the order. I congratulate the Government on accepting the need to provide for fines in the Bill. The fact that significant changes have been made shows the benefit of debate and scrutiny in this place. Without question, the Bill improved over time.
I echo the words of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). I sat through the previous debate on the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill and made a point of order about how we had not had an opportunity to debate the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. The groceries code adjudicator is being put in place to address some of the pressures on primary producers. It is a great pity, however, that we were not given the acres of time we have now—to debate this relatively minor issue—in order to debate an issue that will have a significant impact on the future of agriculture and agricultural workers in this country. The risk that this might become a race to the bottom or that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority might be the only body able effectively to regulate and protect workers in the agricultural sector is one that the House ought not to take. I hope that the House will reflect on the fact that the undemocratic House has introduced a measure without the democratic Chamber having an opportunity to debate it. We must ensure that such a thing never happens again. There has been no debate or vote in this House on an issue of great significance.
I shall return to the primary purpose of the amendment. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister. This is a welcome change and we look forward to the order being brought forward as quickly as possible, so that when the adjudicator begins her job, in the coming few weeks I hope, we will see this measure introduced effectively and a proactive adjudicator seeking vigorously to enforce the groceries code.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to throw you by standing so late. I had not intended to speak.
I welcome the amendment from the other place and the consideration given to the Bill and the great input from both Houses. It has undoubtedly benefited from it. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I, too, truly wish that we had also availed ourselves of the opportunity to debate the Agricultural Wages Board, on which we have had no vote or debate in the Chamber. In effect, it has today been abolished by an unelected Chamber. While welcoming the amendment and the thorough scrutiny given to the Bill now before us, I think that the House should reflect on earlier business, when we effectively bypassed this House entirely. It is a sad day for our democracy.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Andrew George
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. An earlier point of order was made on the vote we hoped to have on the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board—Lords amendment 41 and subsequent measures. A large number of hon. Members wish to ensure that this House, even though it has debated the matter under the Public Bodies Act 2011, expresses its view, rather than the decision being made in another place. The House—the democratic House—should have an opportunity in the Chamber to debate and make a decision on the abolition of the AWB. What opportunities do Members of the House have to express a view on that measure, rather than expressing a view on it when it is conglomerated with other amendments?
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to delay the House, but I sympathise with the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who feels strongly about the matter. I have sought advice from the Clerks, but I am not clear. I might be mistaken, but I understand that, should the Secretary of State or his representative on the Treasury Bench choose to raise the matter even in objection to Lords amendments, they would give the House an opportunity to express its view on the matter once and for all. It is annoying that we have no opportunity to debate the abolition of the AWB, but to have no opportunity even to vote on it is a double indignity. Can you advise the House on that, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]
Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Andrew George(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ankylosing Spondylitis
Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Andrew George(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
As the hon. Gentleman knows—we have discussed this on a number of occasions—I also suffer from AS and many of my experiences mirror his, although I have never experienced the compassion of those in the Whips Office. Although the condition affects many esteemed people, it also affects many humble people such as me. I was also involved in the campaign for anti-TNFs. Does he agree not only that proper and effective diagnosis is critical, but that it is vital that medicines are properly prescribed and made freely available to those who are suffering very badly from the condition?
Huw Irranca-Davies
That is absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point and I will touch on it when I describe my mini manifesto for how we should move forward on AS. Different sorts of treatment will be appropriate for different people with AS.
Arthritis Research UK is currently funding research into other aspects of AS, including the award of more than £1.3 million to seven experimental arthritis treatment centres that aim to fast-track the most promising treatments to market, research into the genetic factors of AS, and even education resources to help families affected by AS. It is tremendously commendable work.
The Minister is not here just to listen to my or anybody else’s sob story, or to help me regain my prowess on the badminton court or at the cricket crease. I want the Government to help other people with AS, now and in the future, to get the best care, so here is my wish list.
First, we should increase the awareness and recognition of AS. AS has always had a low profile among both the medical profession and the public. Because back pain can have a number of causes, it is easy for AS to be misdiagnosed or to go undiagnosed.
Secondly, we should improve the way in which people with AS are referred. GPs may focus on trying to manage people with lower back pain and not consider referring them on to appropriate specialists such as rheumatologists.
Thirdly, please can we use MRI, not X-rays, for early diagnosis? Clinicians now agree that MRI scanning is a far better option because it can pick up the early joint damage due to AS before it is evident on an X-ray. X-ray changes because of AS may take years to show up.
Fourthly, we should improve access to the right specialists. Experts in other forms of spinal pain are not necessarily skilled in treating inflammatory back pain and associated conditions. For the best outcomes, it is vital that people with AS are managed by the right specialists as part of a multidisciplinary team.
Fifthly, we should improve access to the best medical and surgical treatments. The last decade has seen much improvement in imaging, which is vital to improving the safety and effectiveness of surgery, and treatments that offer better symptom control and quality of life. Early access to those is critical.
Sixthly, we should implement long-term follow-up and management. For the right decisions to be made at the right time, people with AS need long-term monitoring by appropriate experts and ready access to advice or treatment when necessary.
Seventhly, we should develop quality standards and clinical guidelines for AS. In the absence of those, perhaps the Minister will say what can be done now to focus local clinical decision making on AS.
We also have a range of things that we want from GPs. We want them to consider AS as a possible diagnosis if patients have symptoms of back pain and stiffness that are not improving. GPs should refer patients to a rheumatologist as soon they suspect AS. MRI scans should be part of that process. There should be access through GPs to specialists, including rheumatologists, physiotherapists and specialist nurses. There should be access to physiotherapy sessions, either as part of a group or individually. Information should be provided in GP surgeries. There should be access to expert surgical assessment and treatment for people with severe spinal deformity who may wish to have surgery to correct it. There should be regular follow-up appointments and ready access to expert reassessment, including monitoring for bone health, osteoporosis and cardiovascular risk. Finally and critically, there should be information on, and access to, sources of support including physiotherapy, financial advice and psychosocial services.
I say to the Minister, on behalf of 200,000 people who have AS, that that is our manifesto for improved diagnosis, improved treatment and improved quality of life. Despite my late diagnosis and early mistreatment, I am pleased to say that thanks to great, if late, support from tremendous NHS clinicians and staff, I am currently active, sporting and able to be a thorn-in-the-side— or should I say constructive critic—of the Government whenever the need arises.
I am part of a team alongside great friends and campaigners such as Gillian Eames who are taking part in the worldwide “Walk Your AS Off” event for the next month promoting exercise as part of the self-management of the condition. On 1 and 2 April, I will be walking 50 miles at the age of 50 to raise awareness of AS and funds for the National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society. I invite the Minister to join us. Take a walk in our shoes, as people say, and we will show how a little support goes a long way, reduces health and social care costs, helps people to stay active and in work for longer, and gives people a far better quality of life. If he cannot make the walk, perhaps he will agree to meet me and a delegation from NASS and Arthritis Research UK to discuss further our ideas. I thank the Minister for listening and hope for a positive response.
Badger Cull
Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Andrew George(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), but I would like to return to a point that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) made at the start of our discussion: that the debate can easily become polarised between “team badger” and “team farmer”, when what we need is “team science” and “team TB” and to address the issue much more calmly and rationally, because outside the Chamber there has been much light as well as a certain amount of heat.
I should like to emphasise from a constituency point of view and from my farming background the need fully to understand what is driving the issue and the disease’s emotional and financial impact over decades on very committed people in west Cornwall. Many Members have this afternoon conveyed the emotions that are felt from the impact of this devastating disease.
I strongly supported the RBCT in my constituency, which involved a proactive cull on the Penrith moors, and faced down the very strong campaign against the line I was taking just over a decade ago in support of the trials because I believe in sound science being the basis by which we take forward policy to bear down on TB. In a climate where the science might encourage legislators to prevaricate, to recognise dilemmas and perhaps to see only the need for further research and not to take action, the Government should ensure that they do not make the situation worse. We say that policy making must be evidence based, but as the Government former chief scientist, Lord Robert May, said in The Observer just a couple of weeks ago, the Government risk transmuting evidence-based policy into policy-based evidence.
There are a number of knowns in the science, one of which I put to the Secretary of State at DEFRA questions today—that some of the figures from the RBCT have been exaggerated or cherry picked to justify the policy. For example, there is the argument that TB in culling areas was reduced by 30%. The research itself showed a reduction of somewhere between 12% and 16% in the net impact. Overall, this resulted in reducing only the increase in TB infection.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that two of the other knowns are the recent breakthrough in the DIVA test, which could lead to it being put forward for licensing, and a 60% efficacious BCG vaccine for cattle, which could also lead to licensing, although it would require the Government to negotiate with the European Union for field trials within the UK?
Andrew George
There are certainly significant gathered knowns now that were not available 10 or 15 years ago. To go forward, we need to build a policy on a sound foundation—not simply on selective evidence.
In his summing up, I hope that the Minister will deal with the evidence in support of the Government’s policy. Will he recognise that the 12% to 16% reduction in incidence of infection for herds within culled areas in the randomised badger culling trial is not an absolute reduction, but a net reduction, which means only that the incidence is increasing at a lower level than it would have been without the cull. It would be helpful and reassuring if the Government were to acknowledge that.
Let us use the opportunity provided by the pause to go back and speak to the many scientists who are still saying that the Government have got this one wrong. Instead of having a war of words through the media, let us make sure that those scientists—the majority behind the ISG—are brought in. I believe that they should be involved.
Finally, I hope that the Government will accept that we should go to Europe, as was implied by the hon. Member for North East Somerset and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) in his intervention. These matters are not, after all, pre-ordained by God; these are decisions taken by human beings in Europe. We need to take a strong case to Europe in order to sort out the regulations and advance the testing of the vaccine and the DIVA test. That should allow us to come to a solution that is generally workable and does not make the situation worse.
Food Prices and Food Poverty
Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Andrew George(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Huw Irranca-Davies
Charitable effort has indeed always been part of this country, before the phrase “big society” was invented, but never with the proliferation that we currently see. It is a tragedy.
Let me relate a direct story about one not unusual family of four in England today. One parent is out of work and the other is in a low-paid job. Before Christmas, they found themselves behind on their mortgage, with their council tax debt racking up and the gas and electricity meters running out of money. They receive working tax credit and child tax credit, both of which will soon be cut by the Government. Their home is increasingly cold and dark and the only things in their cupboards are food parcels from the local food bank. The right hon. Lady shakes her head, but they buy what fresh food they can when they can, but without the support and kindness of local people, they would simply go hungry. We would love that to be fiction, but such are now the facts of life for too many families.
Into that harsh reality stumbles a throwback to the 1980s—a former Conservative Minister who was then the hon. Member for South Derbyshire. When confronted recently with that dire social and economic regression, she boldly answered:
“Are you telling me people in this country are going hungry? Seriously? Seriously?”
Yes, seriously—former Conservative Ministers might not want to believe it, but it is a searing indictment of the Government that more and more people across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland find themselves relying on food banks, one of which was opening every week last year. Those people depend on the generosity of others to get by.
Last year, 60,000 people received help from a food bank, a figure that the Trussell Trust predicts will rise to 130,000 in the next year. For all those impoverished families who now need a voice in the Chamber, the words and sentiment of the former Member for Ebbw Vale echo down the years: this is their truth, our truth—tell me yours. What is true across the UK is true in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. From Llanharan to Gilfach Goch, and Maesteg to Pontycymmer, and all points between, food banks proliferate.
We should pay tribute to the many volunteers and organisations involved, such as the Bridgend food bank and the Pontyclun food bank, but the issue is a terrible indictment of the economic misery inflicted on families under this failing coalition Government. I challenge the Minister and the Government to dispute that stark reality. The Government’s failing policies and inaction on the economy mean that families are finding it hard to make ends meet and struggling to cope with rising living costs, higher energy, housing and food bills, and the constant fear that they could lose their jobs—if they have them—at any time.
For too many, eating is losing out to heating and housing costs. Charities warn that having a job is now no protection; an estimated 10% of food bank recipients are middle earners whose salaries have been cut or frozen or who have recently lost their jobs. Food prices rose by more than 4% last year. Lower-income families are eating less fresh fruit and vegetables. They spend more than 15% of their income on food. In real terms, it comes down to a couple with two young children spending an extra £233 on their annual food bill.
When surveyed by Which? in the last year, more than half of consumers said that increasing prices made it difficult to eat healthily. Nearly 90% genuinely fear the increasing cost of food. Those are startling figures. However, when people need help, the Government seem torn between prevarication and paralysis when it comes to taking action that will go some way towards easing the pressure on people’s wallets—not least by assisting farmers and manufacturers of the food we eat with the retail and financial challenges that they face.
When in government, Labour took action after the hike in food prices in 2008 to address that challenge and to produce more food sustainably. In 2010, we published the first Government food strategy for 60 years and our priority was a sustainable, affordable competitive food sector. We gained cross-party support for the supermarket ombudsman—to ensure a fair deal for farmers and food producers, who still need a fair deal from major retailers—and for the implementation of the groceries supply code of practice in February 2010.
Yes, there was more to be done, but the creation of an ombudsman—the groceries adjudicator—to enforce and monitor the code of practice was a recommendation of the Competition Commission and is supported by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Business, Innovation and Skills Committees. It would do a great deal for farmers, food manufacturers and the public. It was not just us asking for it.
Andrew George
I have to put the hon. Gentleman right. The Competition Commission was empowered and used its power to introduce the groceries supply code of practice; it was not the last Labour Government. Will he retract that claim?
Huw Irranca-Davies
I am happy to say that the code is in place, and that happened while the Labour party was in government. I agreed with the hon. Gentleman when he said last September:
“Every week the government fails to act, farmers are finding themselves in more difficulty.”
So let us get on with it.
We do not want bluff and bluster; we do need action. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said, we ignore the perfect storm of rising prices, falling incomes and food poverty at our peril. I urge the House to support the motion.
Public Bodies Bill [Lords]
Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Andrew George(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew George
It is up to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the very Back Bench of the Labour party to consider the demeanour they wish to adopt in this debate. Given that we share concerns about a relatively small and vulnerable group of about 150,000 isolated rural workers, many of whom are working on the lowest wages possible in that sector, I should have thought that a better demeanour would be to try and build bridges and find ways forward where we can adopt common ground in order to protect those workers, rather than making what I am sorry to say are rather cheap party political points.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
As a compromise, does new clause 7 weaken in any way the protections for agricultural workers? If so, is that not completely contrary not only to the Liberal Democrats’ historical position on the Agricultural Wages Board, but to an early-day motion tabled in 1990 when the last attempt was made to abolish the board? Not only the hon. Gentleman but every Liberal Democrat Member was a signatory to that motion, which stressed that we did not want any weakening of the board whatsoever.
Andrew George
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his research, but it must be incorrect because I was not in the House in 1990, so it must have been another date. On the question about the potential weakening of the protections available to agricultural workers, of course, if I thought that the new clause in any way significantly weakened the board’s role in protecting agricultural workers and ensuring that they had a decent baseline and a progression, or in any way jeopardised the terms and conditions that have been secured for them over many years, I would accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
I have had discussions with the Low Pay Commission on the issue. All that it will say is that it is up to Parliament to decide what regulations the commission should adopt, but they need to be enforced. Under the present regulations, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs clearly has the ultimate responsibility for enforcing those.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The hon. Gentleman rightly corrected me: it was in 2000, but I was completely accurate in what I was saying. So may I ask him one more time? If the Minister is unable to reassure him that, in whatever compromise new clause is brought forward, not simply will basic pay be protected, but so will holidays and sick pay, overtime and bereavement leave, rent protection and security of tenure in farm cottages, as they are under the Agricultural Wages Board provisions, will he support the Opposition’s amendment, not his new clause?
Andrew George
I agree. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his correction. I was here then and it is for the hon. Gentleman and his party to reflect on why we thought at that stage that the board might have been under threat. I entirely agree with him about the full raft of protections that should be available to agricultural workers. If I thought those protections were being significantly undermined, I would certainly not pursue the new clause in this manner. I emphasise that I do not feel precious about a particular quango; it is the protections I am most concerned about. I hope to hold out an olive branch to Ministers and say to them, “I agree with the principle underlying the Bill, which is to try to rationalise, amalgamate and abolish where that is necessary. Here is an example where we want the protections, but the small quangos that have proliferated can be amalgamated.” I am meeting them halfway and saying, “Let’s keep these protections.”
Andrew George
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I must admit that I am not fully aware of such surveys. As I said in response to an earlier intervention, the view is not universally held across all agricultural employers, some of whom have privately explained to me that they find that the framework that the AWB provides creates inefficiency in how they negotiate and establish agreements, sometimes admittedly verbal, with their work force.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that many farmers welcome the stability that is given them in their relationships, as they can avoid doing individual farm-by-farm, person-by-person negotiations. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, that is the view of the Farmers Union of Wales. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that it is also the view of the Welsh Government. The Minister will be able to confirm later that the Welsh Government have been in correspondence with DEFRA seeking to avoid today’s scenario of the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board because they want to retain its functions within Wales.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that important point. We are part of a United Kingdom and, in spite of some hon. Members, a European Union in which the work force can migrate. The protections that an Agricultural Wages Board provides, which may be lost from England and Wales—and, I emphasise, from Cornwall—will not be lost in Scotland and Northern Ireland as a result of the Bill. Those who support the Bill’s measures on behalf of the agricultural sector argue that agricultural workers are highly prized. If the Agricultural Wages Board is withdrawn, there is a risk, certainly in the north of England, that agricultural workers will migrate north of the border, where their pay and conditions might be rather better. That will happen over time. The Minister looks at me in a rather quizzical and critical manner. Although it is true that the pay grades and terms and conditions of agricultural workers will not immediately be withdrawn as a result of the abolition of the board, for new entrants to agriculture the only protection similar to the regulations that will be jettisoned will be the application of the national minimum wage.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. The initial defence that Ministers gave for their proposal was that it is okay because there is a national minimum wage. The last Conservative Government did not consider such a proposal because there was no national minimum wage, but now that there is, they say that there is no fear because it provides a safety net for agricultural workers.
There are six grades of pay, from grade 1, which is only 2p above the national minimum wage, up to grade 6 which is—I do not have the figure in front of me, but I am sure the Minister will tell me it—about £8.80 an hour. Grade 6 is paid to farm managers and equivalent positions. I do not think that that is a lot to pay a farm manager. It is important to acknowledge that as little as 20% of the agricultural work force are paid at the grade 1 level. Therefore, 80% are paid above the grade 1 level. That helps to emphasise the point that it is vital to retain those grades.
It is not only the grades that are vital, but the conditions on holidays, sick pay, retention to be available on duty, standing pay, payment for the retention of a dog, and tied accommodation. About 30% of agricultural workers have tied accommodation. The regulations that apply to that are important because once somebody is in tied accommodation, they have a rather different relationship with their employer.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The hon. Gentleman is actually making some good points in defence of Labour’s amendment 32, not his new clause per se, because it will be not only new employees who are affected but contracted employees and casual workers renegotiating their contracts. I understand that 32,000 of those workers are in England and Wales. Does he agree with the point that I made earlier that if the view of both the Farmers Union of Wales and the Welsh Government is that the Agricultural Wages Board should be retained in Wales, it is inappropriate under the current devolution settlement to outlaw, abandon and abolish it? The Bill provides the people of Wales with no facility whatever to exercise their democratic legitimacy and retain it, let alone the people of Cornwall; we have not even moved on to devolution for Cornwall yet.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I also agree with the hon. Gentleman, as his peroration was, in fact, an argument in favour of our amendment, not his new clause. I therefore say to him that he should by all means press his new clause to a Division, as if he does so the Government Front-Bench team will have to consider whether it supports him. However, if he is not minded to do so, I urge him to support our amendment, as it will do exactly what he has previously argued is right for poor rural farm workers.
Andrew George
The purpose of my new clause is to achieve the Government objective of saving money by doing away with unnecessary quangos and other NDPBs, while also retaining the protections for agricultural workers. It therefore achieves exactly the same outcome as the hon. Gentleman is claiming to want, while also saving public money.