Elliott Review and Food Crime

Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate, and to do so under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I assure you that my phone is on silent and will not interfere with my contribution to the debate.

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate secured by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), because this issue has caused much concern in the past, and still does. We have seen some improvement, and I am sure that the Minister will set that out in his response. The other contributors, the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), also outlined some of the changes that have taken place. The hon. Member for South Thanet set the scene clearly for us all.

At the time of the horsemeat contamination incident, back in January 2013, I was among the first to state that we needed changes to ensure that the same thing did not happen again. Along with many other hon. Members, I was concerned that the issue had arisen at all. Apart from putting many people off buying burgers, the scandal revealed that there was no adequate policing of the food chain in the globalised market. Although we can take action on our home soil in Westminster, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, there is a globalised market out there over which we have no control.

We must do better at home and ensure that the produce that comes to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is controlled. Gone are the days when a person knew the farmer who slaughtered for the butcher who sold them their meat, but I am glad that there is a re-emergence of interest in and commitment to our local butchers—not before time. We are living in times when meat from Spain, Portugal, Brazil or Argentina is as popular as good, British beef, due to the rise of the supermarkets and their long-reaching arms.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I were talking before the debate, and we were saying that a housewife who has three or four children to feed and must put meat on the table faces a quandary when she goes to the supermarket. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said that it is cheaper to buy a roasting joint, from which a reasonable meal can be made, and which lasts for one or two days, but if the housewife sees a £3.99 and a 99p version of a product in the supermarket, often the cheaper will win because it puts meat on the table for her family at a cheaper price. It may not be as good quality as the £3.99 product, but at the end of the day it provides a meal. No matter what we do in legislation, it is hard to affect the housewife’s choice in the supermarket, and we must be aware of that.

Unfortunately, the checks process has been diluted; that was highlighted by the scandal. It was made clear at that time that we desperately need a more effective approach to ensure that best use is made of limited resources, and to prioritise consumer interests. It is vital that the Government and every Member of the House ensure that we use the opportunity to make lasting changes. In the Minister’s response, will he tell the House how he is working with the Northern Ireland Assembly—three of us here represent Northern Ireland—and the Scottish and Welsh Administrations to ensure that what happens in England happens in the other regions and applies to everybody?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He has a particular perspective on this issue because, like me, he comes from an area of devolved Administration. One of the lessons that was flagged up by the scandal and that Elliott touches on is the necessity for trans-border, transnational co-operation, not only on food standards and food safety, but at the level of political leadership. If we do only one thing, we must ensure that this works across borders, at a European level.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the shadow Minister for that sensible contribution, which we can all endorse. When the Minister responds, I hope he will provide more detail about how that will work.

When I spoke in a debate on the subject last year, I used the analogy of spilt milk: we should not cry over it, but fix the jug handle to make sure it does not spill again. We have the chance to fix the handle, and we must do it. I am pleased to say that Professor Elliott is based at Queen’s university in Belfast—all good things come from Northern Ireland, as you and I know, Dr McCrea. Queen’s university has had many good things happening in the field of health—it has had world firsts and innovations in cancer research and treatment. In December, Professor Elliott published the interim findings of his wider review of the integrity and assurance of food supply networks, which was commissioned by the UK Government. It took a “consumers first”, zero-tolerance approach, to ensure that industry, the Government and enforcement agencies always put the needs of consumers above all other considerations. The review recommended that a new food crime unit be led by the Food Standards Agency, and that the agency and local authority staff develop a coherent approach across all areas of hygiene and standards. That includes improving the guidance and training of enforcement officers that is co-ordinated by the FSA and other professional bodies.

The initial findings of the Elliott review emphasise a need for local authorities and the FSA to work together more effectively, which has not happened in the past. We look forward to seeing how they can knit together better in the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, as the shadow Minister said, across Europe and globally.

The most recent research by Which? shows that about half of consumers changed their meat eating habits as a result of the horsemeat scare in 2013. Local butchers to whom I have spoken say they are getting a younger clientele, who would have shopped in the supermarket in the past but now go to town to get their meat. That is a positive sign that augurs well for the future. Many local butchers have been making the most of the new trade by diversifying into creating meals. For many busy families—those in which both partners work full time—it is handy to have a meal that can be cooked quickly and is easy to prepare and put on the table. I am not saying that it should always be cooked in the microwave. The meals that the butchers have been creating are easy for younger people to make, and they have simplified the packaging so is easier to understand. Local butchers have been making the most of the new situation, but have we done so, at a parliamentary and regional level? It is vital that we take action to ensure that consumers are confident about the food they buy. We must feed into that process with robust checks. I welcome the re-emergence of the local butcher.

In my constituency of Strangford, we have some of the foremost food producers in not only the whole of Northern Ireland, but in the UK. A couple come to mind. There is Mash Direct, whose motto is:

“From our fields to your fork”.

There is Willowbrook Foods in Killinchy, which has another factory in Newtownards. These are growth industries. The quality is five-star, and they offer a good choice of vegetables. We also have top-quality lamb, beef, pork and poultry—all produced locally and sold in supermarket chains and across the water. Most of what we produce is exported to the Republic, England, Scotland or further afield. Every day, our fishing fleet in Portavogie lands the finest fresh prawns. There is Pritchitts foods in Newtownards, which is an example of the powdered milk industry. It sources all its milk from farmers in Northern Ireland, from a catchment area of 40 to 50 miles. That top-quality powdered milk is exported all over the world—as far away as China, Asia, South America and all over Africa. Food manufacturing and produce are intertwined, and Northern Ireland leads in the field.

The Which? report stated that consumers need to be reassured that businesses’ controls are checked and that legislation is reinforced. Only 56% of those surveyed were confident that the food they buy contains exactly what is stated on the ingredients list.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is making some extremely good points. Does he accept that one of the interesting facets of the debate is that it cannot be divorced from fair reward in all parts of the supply chain, and from measures that we took on a cross-party basis in this House, such as the Groceries Code Adjudicator? There is a race to the bottom and a relentless squeeze on prices. As Billy Bragg said, if anyone wants an example of where out-and-out, unlimited, unrestricted capitalism takes us, it is horsemeat.

[Jim Shannon]

Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a valuable contribution that I endorse and support. It is not right that manufacturers and producers should be squeezed over and over; it should not happen. We cannot expect farmers or producers to produce products at a negligible profit and remain in business. We then wonder why other countries are able to produce similar products and sell them here. Price matters, but so does quality.

Ankylosing Spondylitis

Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Jim Shannon

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Let me begin this debate by posing what may seem a little like a pub quiz question. What do all the following people have in common: Mick Mars, the guitarist for rock band Mötley Crüe; Vladimir Kramnik, the Russian world chess champion; Mike Atherton, the English cricket player; Jens Stoltenberg, the Prime Minister of Norway—and, not forgetting, me? We all have a condition called ankylosing spondylitis—athletes, chess champions and rock gods and Members of Parliament: we can all get it, along with around 200,000 other people from all walks of life across the UK.

Ankylosing spondylitis is not a condition we hear a lot about, yet the 200,000 people with this condition are roughly twice the number who have Parkinson’s disease or multiple sclerosis. Perhaps it is the very name ankylosing spondylitis, which does not lend itself to easy headlines or easy campaigning, although it may also be due to the historical lack of awareness, including among GPs and clinicians, of the condition. AS is often overlooked and misdiagnosed, but it is a type of arthritis that can start when people are young—often between 15 and 35 years of age. It is a type of chronic, long-term arthritis that affects parts of the spine, including bones, muscles and ligaments. The condition can be severe, with around one in 10 people at risk of long-term disability. It is often misdiagnosed or diagnosed late—typically 10 years late—and that was certainly the case with me.

Let me begin by setting out drily and coldly the standard description, and I would like to thank the National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society for its help with that. It says:

“AS usually starts in the late teens and early twenties and can cause lifelong pain and stiffness. There is no cure for AS. It’s a form of inflammatory arthritis mainly affecting the spine and hips, which may fuse over time. Ankylosing means fusing together and spondylitis means inflammation. It can also cause inflammation in other areas of the body, including the heart, the bowel and the eyes. Unless treated and managed effectively, AS will lead to great pain and can render people immobile and unable to work”—

and so on. It is worth using the words NASS has collated to illustrate what this means practically. People with the condition have described the type of task that can cause difficulty. One person says, for example:

“Opening and closing the boot of my car is a nightmare for me and makes it so much harder for me to get out and about with my 2 year old and my 5 year old.”

Another draws attention to the problems of simply

“sitting on the grass having a picnic.”

Another says that

“washing my hair and putting on tights”

is a problem. Others refer to

“pouring water out of the kettle”

or

“reaching high shelves or cupboards”,

and so on. NASS notes that

“people with AS deal with constant pain and stiffness, along with high levels of fatigue. In the early years it is an ‘invisible’ illness with bodies showing no outward signs of the pain and suffering, making it difficult for others to understand what they are experiencing.”

It is worth turning to some of the words that people with AS use to describe themselves. One person says that they feel

“isolated, lonely, fed up with pain, envious of”

what they say are “normal people”. Another says:

“I have low self esteem, feel isolated, depressed and in constant pain. I am fed up of swallowing all the tablets and sticking a needle in my leg…I hate the shape of my back and the position of my head. But people always say I have a smile on my face and look so well.”

Another says:

“I feel overly tired most days. Outside of work my participation in activities has been reducing. I don't spend as much time as I used to socialising with friends and family. I used to be very active and go out in the evenings but now I have early nights instead.”

Every single person with AS will have a different experience, but here is mine. I, like many others, was diagnosed very late in life. In my late teens, I played first division and county badminton, and competed in national competitions. My tennis was not too bad either, and I was a pretty keen leg-break bowler for my school, though my rugby had long gone. But during and after matches I would experience real stiffness and soreness in the neck and the spine. I found it increasingly hard to look up towards the shuttlecock as it descended. However, I thought that this was just routine, as I was extremely fit and active. As the years went by, the stiffness became more routine and more painful, and progressively the flexibility in my spine and my neck grew less and less. At the time, I was working in sports centres, I was coaching sport, and I was still actively playing many sports myself. I thought that it was just part of a sporting life: you end up creaking a little bit.

By my late twenties, the stiffness and the pain were periodically debilitating, and affecting my sport and my general health. I had been to see GPs over the years since my teens. I had been given strong painkillers, sometimes steroids. I had been to see masseurs and chiropractors who had stretched and crunched me, worked out the knots in my neck, and applied various odious potions to me. I had resorted to homeopathic medicines, including a vile concoction involving exotic mushrooms from Russia, complete with a handbook on how to use it, and various mail order medicines. Some of these were harmless but utterly useless. Others were probably directly detrimental to my health and even antagonised the condition.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this very important matter to the House. This debate will raise awareness, but does he agree that there is also a need for awareness in the benefits system, because I know people in my constituency who have difficulties in getting disability living allowance for this condition?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

That is a very important point. People often refer to it as a bad back, growing pains, and as an assortment of other things, but that is a classic case of misdiagnosis. If somebody has AS, it does not go away. It is long term and debilitating and unless diagnosed, it will get worse and worse. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct.

At that stage of the development of the condition in me, no one had diagnosed it, so I was trying anything and everything. Then, as luck had it, in desperation I had an appointment with a different doctor because my usual one was away. He suggested that I visit a rheumatologist, and that is where I first heard of the condition called ankylosing spondylitis. There started the beginning of a more coherent diagnosis and a programme of treatment involving appropriate physio- therapy and, when needed, oral steroids or, when the problem was severe, steroid injections directly into joints. By this stage, in addition to the fluctuating but regular stiffness and pain, every few months I would have a major flare-up when my joints, especially ankles, knees and hips, would swell like billy-o and scream with pain. Yet—this is a common refrain from AS sufferers—I would just carry on. Sufferers get our heads down and carry on. We build a tolerance to pain and a dogged determination. It is far from heroic; it is just pragmatic. We have bills to pay, places to go and people to see. We just do not give up very easily.

My situation came to a head here in Parliament. The story I am about to tell will be disbelieved by many, because it reveals—wait for it—the compassion of the Whips Office. Back in 2003, I had been struggling along and getting by, but this was the mother of all flare-ups. I have the acute form of AS, which I sometimes feel makes me fortunate, although I guess that others who have it may disagree. Rather than enduring constant pain and discomfort, I could go for months without problems, then—bang!—when it hits, it hits big.

The early-warning aches, throbs and fatigue started about a month before the crunch. After hobbling slowly for a couple of weeks, I resorted to using a stick, then two sticks, and then switched to crutches a few days later. Progressively, I also looked like I felt—like I had been through 10 rounds with Mike Tyson after a week without sleep. Finally, for one particular vote it took me nearly 15 minutes to walk from one end of the voting Lobby to the other, which is the length of this Chamber. I was in so much pain. At that point, a friendly Government Whip whispered to me, “Huw, get yourself home.” Although that reveals the compassion of the Whips, the following sentence was telling: “Get yourself better, ’cos we need you back in two weeks for a crunch vote.” Still, I take compassion wherever it comes from and whatever the motive.

That episode finally got me on to the treatment that has transformed the quality of my life over the past decade and—touch wood—has meant that I have not had a major flare-up in all that time. I was fortunate to be referred, finally, to an AS specialist and was put on to an innovative and then experimental treatment called anti-TNF—anti-tumour necrosis factor—which is an immunosuppressant that has helped control the condition. It is not without the risk of side effects and I would prefer not to be on medication for the rest of my life, but my quality of life has been transformed. Anti-TNFs, which are now moving on to new generations that can target specific types of AS, will not be right for everyone, but I say to the Minister that, where appropriate, they really must be made available, and investment in research must also be maintained.

People such as me have much to thank Arthritis Research UK for its research in London in the 1990s, which led to successful trials of anti-TNF therapy.

Agricultural Wages Board

Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) for securing and introducing the debate. He opened with such an erudite analysis of why the AWB and its functions have been so important over a long period and continue to be important, not least against the backdrop of declining economic activity throughout the country and in rural areas. The issue is indeed to do with the protections afforded not only on pay but on conditions, such as bereavement and all the things mentioned by my hon. Friends. It is also to do with ensuring that we have a good supply of keen, enthusiastic and well-skilled people coming into the industry in future. I shall return to such points because I do not agree with what was said in the written ministerial statement, although we thoroughly welcome it, and I appreciate the courtesy of receiving it before the debate started.

As I looked through the statement, I noted:

“The functions of the Agricultural Wages Committees are now largely redundant”.

I shall return to the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made a good contribution, but the points made by my hon. Friends make it clear that it is far from a settled issue that such functions are redundant. I will go through some of those arguments in detail.

I ask the Government and the new Minister in post, who has this opportunity, to think again about the abolition of the AWB. I ask him to do so because it is not without precedent for this Government to think again. Uniquely, it would be the first time that the Government have thought again in October. In every other month, we have had thinking again and U-turns, so the Minister could make a bit of history today by being the first Minister, although new in post, to think again in the month of October.

DEFRA has done much thinking again on many countryside and coastal issues. We have had U-turns on proposals to destroy buzzards’ nests to protect pheasant shoots, on pasty taxes—thanks to nationwide outrage led by the good people of Cornwall and the south-west—and on the great forestry sell-off of 285,000 hectares of state-owned woodland. We have had a partial U-turn on proposals to close coastguard centres and, unfortunately, a U-turn the wrong way on circus animals, dropping the previous commitment to a ban down to a commitment to new licensing conditions.

I do not want to be exhaustive, but my argument to the Minister is that he could think again because doing so is not unprecedented. We have had tax U-turns on caravans, video games and charitable donations, and other policy U-turns—some welcome, some not—on housing benefit, the mobility parts of the disability living allowance, financial inclusion fund debt advisers, the chief coroner, the military covenant, softer sentencing discounts, strike fighters, Ofsted inspections, school sports, rape anonymity and free school milk. I am dizzy from thinking about the number of U-turns.

In November last year, given opposition to the Government’s proposals, there was a U-turn on the decision to scrap the Youth Justice Board as part of the bonfire of the quangos. Suddenly, that bonfire had one less log on it. I ask the Minister to leave the fire burning brightly without the little log of the AWB as well—it will crackle nicely without it. The Minister can—independently, with independence of mind, new in his ministerial position—make his mark, a welcome mark, by performing one little pirouette of a U-turn on the AWB, a graceful and elegant pirouette. We would applaud his skill and his general loveliness. Other U-turns have been clunky and begrudging. Let the Minister, new to the role, manoeuvre artfully and delicately about-face.

I am not asking the Minister to do something that he does not want to do. In his heart of hearts, he is on the side of farm labourers and smaller farmers, and he has many in his constituency. Does he know how many agricultural workers in his constituency may be affected by the proposals to abolish the AWB? Of course he does. According to Library statistics, there are 1,020. Does he know that that puts him into the elite club of constituencies in the UK with more than 1,000 agricultural workers, many of them low paid and subject to the provisions and protections that we have talked about today? Of course he knows that. The figures are even starker when comparing the number of agricultural workers with the overall population in areas such as the south-west, where there are nearly 23,500 agricultural workers. His constituency might be hit hardest by abolition of the AWB, which may affect 152,000 workers in England and Wales.

I am convinced that the Minister wants a U-turn for his constituents, small farmers and farm workers. Before he attempts that pirouette, I will helpfully warm him up by reminding him why the AWB is so important. This is not, as he may later want to persuade us, just a matter of minimum pay. That would wilfully misconstrue the nature and purpose of the AWB, which is so much more. The Agricultural Wages Board involves

“representatives of farmers and agricultural workers together with independents, negotiating legally enforceable minimum wages and conditions which are significantly superior to those set by the National Minimum Wage and Working Time Regulations”.

The quote continues:

“the Agricultural Wages Board also sets a series of rates of pay to reflect the varying qualifications and experience of farm workers, thus providing a visible career structure for recruits going into agricultural work and is used as a benchmark for other rural employment… average earnings in rural areas are considerably lower than in urban areas… any weakening of the Agricultural Wages Board or its abolition would further impoverish the rural working class, exacerbating social deprivation and the undesirable indicators associated with social exclusion”.

I could not agree more. Those fine words are from early-day motion 892 in 1999-2000, to which the Minister was a signatory. What, I wonder, has changed since then?

During our early and youthful days in Parliament, we all had foolish fancies—we would not be human if we had not—and we would prefer not to be reminded about some of them. However, we also had strong and unwavering beliefs, and I know that the Minister has such beliefs, to which he stays constant. We deviate from such principles at our mortal peril. The Minister should stay true to his course and abide by the pledge he rightly made in that early-day motion. It was not a foolish fancy; it was his principles in writing. He said that the AWB provides a

“visible career structure…a benchmark for other rural employment”

and that abolition would result in “social deprivation” and “social exclusion”.

The Minister was right then, and we are right now, so he should return to the right side of the argument. The AWB streamlines and simplifies decision making for small farmers, so avoiding the time-wasting and complexities of drawn-out negotiations with individual farm workers one by one. Its abolition will increase bureaucracy for small farmers. Furthermore, as was said earlier, some small farmers market their own skills to others in a straightforward way with pay and conditions set and agreed by the AWB. They do not have to hammer out deals at each and every turn. I thought that the Government wanted to make things easier for businesses, especially small businesses, in which case they should keep the AWB.

The Minister may, as his predecessor did, pray in aid the National Farmers Union, for which I, like other hon. Members here, have a great deal of time. It does a sterling job in trying to synthesise a wide variety of views on a wide variety of issues. The manager of a large agri-industrial concern farming 10,000 or 20,000 acres may have slightly different motivations and needs than those of a small upland hill farmer on a couple of hundred acres. I declare an interest because 40% of my constituency is upland hill farmland, and I have family who are upland hill farmers. However, I am not speaking just for them; I am speaking for young farmers.

The Welsh Assembly Government had a cracking debate last week that was supported not just by the Farmers Union of Wales, but by young farmers of Wales who are worried that abolition of the AWB will hamper their access into the industry. Through this debate, I ask the NFU whether it is really saying that none of its farmers, not even tenant farmers, smaller farmers and those who want entry to farming want the AWB to be retained?

I will not go through all the reasons why the AWB is so important. They have been brilliantly articulated by my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland, for Islwyn (Chris Evans), and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), and have been made in previous debates by me and others.

I turn briefly to some of the messages from the Low Pay Commission. Its factual observation is that minimum rates will not cover pay for skilled workers. There is no statutory minimum wage for workers under the age of 16, and there is concern about the overtime premium, the night premium and the on-call allowance. It notes that holiday entitlement will be reduced if the AWB is abolished and that sick pay will be significantly less. It also notes that the number of days of bereavement leave will not be specified and that there will be no statutory right for such time off to be paid. Rest breaks will be less favourable for adult workers, and so on. There will be no statutory entitlement to a birth and adoption grant. Piece rates will be lower. At the moment, they are at least the minimum hourly rate of pay applicable to the grade. What is a fair rate, if it is not what is currently being paid under the AWB?

Northern Ireland and Scotland will retain AWBs. The hon. Member for Strangford said that he has his ear to the ground. I say with conviviality and friendliness that the problem of having an ear to the ground means hearing lots of different things. I have my ear to the ground in different places throughout the UK, and farmers have told me that they treasure retention of the AWB and/or its functions. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) is not in his place, but he made a valid observation: if not the AWB, what? The Minister should answer that, because the issue is not just the minimum wage aspect, but the protection of a broad range of functions.

I say in all honesty that most farmers are absolutely well-intentioned towards their employees. Most want to do the right thing, and they want skilled people in the industry. They want to ensure good rewards, because they realise that farm labouring is back-breaking work. It has the highest mortality rate of any industrial sector in the UK, and sickness levels are high, so workers need protection. The hon. Member for Strangford says that he has his ear to the ground, but he opposes the position in Northern Ireland, so if not the AWB, what will protect those workers?

[Jim Shannon]

We have heard about having an ear to the ground and hearing many stories, but my responses on this issue have been clear. The AWB is unnecessary and does not provide the support that it should to workers. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that farmers are interested in their workers and want to do the best for them, which they do. I tried to reflect, in my contribution, that that is what the people are saying, and that is what the majority of elected representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly are saying. Unfortunately, although the majority of people want the AWB removed, under the partnership Government, the Minister can overrule us. That does not reflect the opinion of all those in Northern Ireland, which is the point I am trying to make.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I fully appreciate that point.

In all debates on this matter, I have striven, in my position as a shadow Minister, to speak not only for England, but for other parts of the UK in which what is happening with the AWB is mirrored or contradicted. I want to ask the Minister how negotiations are going with Wales. How are they progressing, or not progressing? The Welsh Assembly Government, the Farmers Union of Wales, the young farmers of Wales, Unite the Union, GMB and others have lined up alongside individual farmers to demand the retention of the AWB’s functions in Wales. To that effect, an excellent debate, which I mentioned earlier, was held last week, spearheaded by Mick Antoniw, the Assembly Member for Pontypridd, who is a brilliant advocate for all workers, including agricultural workers. The only dissenting voice in the whole of that debate was not a Liberal Democrat or a Plaid Cymru Member; it was a Conservative, who had been sent out as a token to speak against the retention of the AWB’s functions in Wales.

Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme

Debate between Huw Irranca-Davies and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

It is indeed, but as I will not be present on the Front Bench for the next debate, I will take the opportunity to comment. The GLA has been commented on by other hon. Members.

The action that the GLA takes to tackle worker exploitation in the agricultural, horticultural, shellfish and food processing sectors is second to none. Its success has been acknowledged by everyone in the House and in wider reports, including those by the universities of Liverpool and Sheffield, the Wilberforce Institute and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The Minister and I debated the issue in February, and it will shortly be debated again in this Chamber, but at that time we were still awaiting the outcome of the red tape challenge, so we were a little in the dark.

On 24 May, the Government announced the outcome of the challenge and the changes that they intend to make to the GLA. The announcement included news that the GLA has taken a risk-based approach and will no longer regulate low-risk sectors. That includes apprenticeships, forestry, land agents and voluntary workers. Automatic compulsory inspections of businesses when they first apply will be abolished. The licensing period will be extended from 12 months to two years for highly compliant businesses. There will be a move to allow shellfish farm businesses with exclusive rights to use the seashore to use their workers to grade and gather shellfish stock, without needing to be licensed as gangmasters. There will be a substitution of administrative fines and penalties for low-level and technical minor offences, which we debated in some detail during the last such debate. Alternatives to prosecution when taking enforcement action against a labour-user who uses an unlicensed gangmaster will be explored. There will be a focus on the gross abuse of workers by unscrupulous gangmasters who commit multiple offences, such as tax evasion and human trafficking.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to the GLA. I say that in spite of the appalling Beechcroft recommendation to abolish it—an opinion reflected in some of the responses to the recommendation. It was an unacceptable and dangerous proposal, and I am glad that the Government have said that they will not accept that or other recommendations in the report. The Minister will agree that the bottom line must be that the most vulnerable workers in our society are not abandoned. What impact assessment did the Government undertake—I am sure that they undertook one—before announcing the changes? What will be the impact on protecting vulnerable workers? Where are the areas of risk in this risk-based approach?

[Jim Shannon]

We have had some success in Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency, integrating migrant workers into permanent jobs. Examples include Willowbrook Foods and Mash Direct. One employs 260 people and the other just over 100 people—coming from nothing. Perhaps we can use good practice in other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly Northern Ireland, as an example of how we might do things better elsewhere.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman knows the area well, and an advantage of the devolution of administration and powers is that we can, and should, learn lessons about differential applications across the UK. We need to do more within the joint committees that bring the devolved Administrations together and in discussions between Ministers, so that those lessons can be learned. He makes a good point. We should not always try to work from a completely blank sheet of paper, but look at what works well elsewhere.

Will the Minister provide us with the timetable for changes to the GLA? His written statement of 24 May was not clear on the consultation timetable or process. Is he in a position to provide us with that now? Will he confirm that the GLA will have the necessary resources to tackle worker exploitation in the relevant sectors, even under the new approach? We all want the GLA, in its revised form, to be lean, mean and effective, but that requires resourcing, so I seek assurances on that. Will he also provide information on how he intends the GLA to work more collaboratively with other organisations, including the Serious Organised Crime Agency?

I want briefly to talk about the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, which I have discussed on several occasions with the Minister and other hon. Members. He knows how strongly I and the Labour party feel on the issue. That strength of feeling is shared by some of the farming unions, such as the Farmers Union of Wales, and by farm workers and the Welsh Government. The AWB protects 152,000 farm workers in England and Wales and has mirror effects on others in the sector. It ensures that people working in the countryside, from apprentices to farm managers, get a fair deal. In its 62-year history, it has provided basic pay and protection for fruit pickers, farm labourers and foresters. That covered wages, but also holidays, sick pay, overtime and bereavement leave.

The Minister will no doubt say—we have had this discussion many times—that many farmers pay well above the agreed wage rates; and I do not disagree. He may also say that there is a national minimum wage—so what is the fuss? However, the AWB does far more than set pay minimums, and when it is gone, the pay and other terms and conditions are threatened. The wages of 42,000 casual workers could drop as soon as those workers finish their next job, once the AWB is gone. It is probable that the wages of the remaining 110,000 will be eroded over time. Ministers have said in the past that farm workers will be protected by the minimum wage, but only 20% cent of farm workers are on grade 1 of the AWB. The rest earn considerably more than the minimum wage. The downward pressure on higher grades in economically difficult times will be high. Children who do summer jobs or part-time jobs currently receive just over £3 per hour, but they are not covered at all by the national minimum wage. They will have no wage protection—unless the Minister wants to correct me on that—when they do holiday work, as has been mentioned, or weekend work, after the board is abolished.