Draft Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 General Committees

[John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I have a few brief points. I thank the Minister for her comments and references to devolved Administrations. The fact that they are speaking with each other is reassuring. I am confident in the Scottish Government’s ability to scrutinise the UK Government.

As Members will know, improving air quality is a priority for the Scottish Government. Our ambition is for Scotland to have the cleanest air in Europe. Compared with the rest of the UK and other parts of Europe, Scotland has a high level of air quality, which we are trying to protect at all costs.

None the less, we have also set out stringent air quality targets, higher than those in the rest of the UK. Scotland has adopted in legislation the World Health Organisation guideline values for fine particulate matter, PM_2.5, and I believe we are the first country in Europe to do so. We spend more than £1 billion a year on public transport and doubled the active travel budget in 2018 to support sustainable travel options.

Finally, I am certain that others, and certainly Scottish MPs, will join me in congratulating Falkirk on being the best walking neighbourhood in the UK—a clear demonstration of putting our feet where our mouth is—getting people out of their cars and developing a healthier life choice. That is an award well recognised by everybody in this House. Unfortunately, I could not attend the award ceremony because I was speaking on climate change at that time. Nevertheless, I think it should be recognised.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I urge all Members to go to see the Falkirk wheel, if they have not already inspected it. It is essential to understand the importance of water and the way engineering and water can combine for the public good. It is also makes a wonderful day out.

[The Chair]

Before the hon. Member for Falkirk responds, I have looked at the order carefully and the word “Falkirk” does not appear in it. I would be grateful if he could stick to the matters in the order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Lots of countries.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

5. What the Government’s policy is on the level of remuneration of senior executives of monopoly water providers.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)]

On 1 March I set out the need for water companies to respond to public concerns over executive pay and a number of other practices. The Government fully support Ofwat’s reforms that require water companies to ensure that executive pay is linked to customer service.

[Ian C. Lucas]

The chief executive of Severn Trent earned £2.45 million last year. As a Wrexham customer I have to contribute to that salary, following the hostile takeover of our local water company. Does the Secretary of State, in his new progressive form, agree that Severn Trent should follow the example of the John Lewis Partnership and link the pay of its highest paid chief executives to those within the business who are lower paid?

[Michael Gove]

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I am a huge fan of the John Lewis Partnership and the leadership that its executives have shown. This Government and this DEFRA team have taken stronger action than previous Governments and previous teams have done in order to ensure that water companies smarten up their act, that they deal not just with executive pay, but with some of the byzantine financial structures that have not worked in consumer interests in the past, and that they invest more in improving the environment and keeping bills low.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

We are looking at how we might reform the packaging recovery note—PRN—system to ensure that the market works better to encourage more recycling and more capacity in the waste industry.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

When I was doing my family shopping at Asda in Wrexham last weekend, I noticed the appalling amount of plastic packaging on meat products, which seems to be in place for the ease of the supermarkets rather than that of their customers. Will the Secretary of State please raise the issue of packaging with the supermarkets?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely will, but while I have no wish to undermine Asda, which is an admirable retailer, I find that when buying meat, the best thing to do is to go to one’s local butcher, buy locally and invest in the local economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we make water usage more efficient. What we have seen since the industry was privatised 25 years ago is £116 billion of investment to upgrade infrastructure, reduce leakage, put in meters and make the industry more efficient.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

What the Secretary of State has studiously avoided telling us is the record of this Government since 2010. Will she tell us what the percentage increase in water bills has been since 2010?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the early price determinations under this Government were the result of the previous Government’s policy. The recent price determination that has happened on our watch is seeing a potential reduction in the draft determination of up to 5%. We have already seen water companies keep their bills low and stabilised in recent years.

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We want action to be taken, but if we can send one message from today’s debate, it is: always ask, “Where’s mum?”

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Further to the previous intervention, one role that Members of Parliament can play is to promote cat and dog rescue institutions in their constituencies, so that people know they do not have to go to pet shops. Voluntary organisations will provide perfectly good and loving pets for most people.

[Robert Flello]

My hon. Friend makes his point and I will just say again, yes, I agree. It could not be simpler: all prospective dog owners should first consider adopting from a reputable rescue shelter. If they specifically want a puppy, it should be sourced from a responsible breeder where puppy and mother will always be seen interacting together.

We believe that powers are already in place to tackle the issue but such is the volume of often old legislation that there is a need for clarification to ensure that loopholes cannot be exploited. The Pet Animals Act 1951 does not require pet shop owners to highlight the provenance of their animals and states only that the local authority “may” inspect a premises. In financially constrained times, it is hardly surprising that such inspections are not a priority.

The Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 requires third-party dealers selling puppies from licensed breeders to sell them with identification badges or tags, but because the 1999 Act does not form part of the pet shop licence conditions, it is generally not enforced. The 1999 Act enables breeders to sell puppies younger than eight weeks to a third-party dealer. That is beneficial for the breeder, who does not incur the costs of inoculating or caring for the animal, and for the dealer, who pays less for the dog. It certainly is not in the interests of the animal or its potential owner. The Act even provides a bit of a get out of jail free card, saying that as long as reasonable precautions are taken, an offence is not committed.

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 largely has not been used, nor has the secondary legislation in place to make it effective. Section 14 of the Act refers to codes of practice and guidance, but there is no liability if they are not observed. I will come back to the Act, which was enabling legislation. Again, we want the Government to “switch it on”—to make it work. The entire system desperately needs overhauling, but in the meantime one clear route to market for the puppy farms can be shut down. We can take a big step towards that today.

The 1951 Act states that a local authority shall have

“discretion to withhold a licence on other grounds”.

The former Minister of State at DEFRA, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), stated in a written answer:

“Conditions can be placed on individual pet shop licences restricting the animals that can be sold.” —[Official Report, 2 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 121W.]

That point, however, is contested. We would like the current Minister to clarify on the record what the situation is, given that Pup Aid’s own research shows that over half of local authorities are unaware that they are empowered to act to amend licensing conditions and to stop the sale of puppies and kittens.

It is the unanimous position of leading animal welfare organisations that the sale of puppies and kittens from retail premises should be banned. This regulatory change would inflict no additional burden on local authorities and match their own desire to clamp down on irresponsible breeding practices. Indeed, it is consistent with DEFRA’s own advice to prospective owners that

“if you are buying a puppy or kitten, you should ask to see it with its mother and the rest of the litter”,

and be satisfied that it is really the mother and not just a dog that has been brought in for show purposes.

Gangmasters Licensing Authority

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful for that intervention and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on co-sponsoring the 2004 Bill. The point he makes is critical. This is not just about protecting vulnerable and exploited workers; it is about cleaning up supply chains. That feeds right into the argument about good business being rewarded for doing good things, and the need to support initiatives that get rid of businesses doing bad things. It is crucial to recognise that it is good for good businesses to be involved in initiatives such as the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. That emphasises the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) about potentially extending the GLA to other areas, and clearing up the supply chains to which the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) referred.

The GLA has discovered a number of cases where trafficking for financial benefit, linked directly or indirectly to labour exploitation, is to the fore. Some of the activity appears to have direct links to the targeting of vulnerable people in homeless refuges in the host country, and to persons of interest to the police in their host country. Workers are sometimes left in a no man’s land: they have no means of supporting themselves in the UK, but are unable or unwilling to go home. They are exploited; to work in a promised land, they pay up-front fees that they are never likely to be able to repay.

I have some examples that give the issues a human face. The GLA has discovered workers living in squalid accommodation; the rent is often high—above the market rate—and deducted at source. One person described 12 workers living in a caravan with no water, sanitation, lighting, heating or cooking facilities. Another talked about 30 workers who lived in a structurally dangerous two-bedroom house; they were subject to summary eviction by men wielding baseball bats if they complained.

Transport problems were an issue. Those problems included unreasonable wage deductions for transport, and unsafe vehicles. The GLA uncovered the case of a worker who lost a leg when an unroadworthy van was involved in an accident. The gangmaster’s licence was revoked, and he could no longer provide farm labourers, but two weeks later he was back in business, supplying builders’ labourers. That highlights the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian.

An eastern European worker discovered on a farm in Cornwall was promised a job in Scotland, but was then sold to another gangmaster. Having worked all week for £5, they were told that they owed the gangmaster £6.17 in costs, which of course they did not have. They were obliged to keep working to pay the debt, which continued to accrue, resulting in bonded labour.

Those are just some of the human examples of what happens in an unregulated trade, but the GLA is identifying exploited workers in contemporary slavery and is able to do something about it. The question that people will ask is: are UK companies involved? The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that some, possibly many, UK-based companies rely on supply chains that involve the use of slave labour, both in the UK and abroad. The complex chains of subcontracting through a variety of labour agency networks, both in the UK and abroad, mean that many companies are unaware of, or can deny knowledge of, the conditions under which their goods are produced.

The UK supply chain is inherently based on a low-cost, labour-intensive business model. The GLA identified that price pressures from competition have led to a culture where gangmasters and labour users will exploit the most vulnerable link in the chain—the worker—to protect their profits. They will often accept a charge rate that, realistically, does not allow the labour provider to meet legal requirements. Workers are being paid below the national minimum wage so that labour providers are able to make a meagre profit by charging an unrealistically low amount.

The GLA has sought to tackle this insidious problem by developing a protocol with supermarkets and suppliers—a point was made by the hon. Member for St Ives about clearing up supply chains—that allows for the exchange of information. It has garnered the support of the majority of key retailers in the food sector. By working in partnership with supermarkets—that is key—the GLA has been able to encourage them to deal with allegations of exploitation in their supply chain, and to establish an audit standard for labour supply; that allows them to clear up their supply chain. The protocol is supported by every major supermarket in the UK. It is welcomed by them as a way to allow them to monitor their supply chains.

What is the future of the GLA? I welcome Ministers’ announcement that they do not intend to abolish it. Nevertheless, the Government are considering limiting its role, and the role of licensing remains under review. The Minister needs to be crystal clear that there will be no watering down of the GLA and its powers. This is not about counting paper clips, but saving lives, preventing exploitation, promoting clean supply chains, exposing organised criminal activity and undermining human trafficking—there could be no greater cause. The GLA is especially important in difficult economic times when labour supply exceeds demand and the pressures on work increase.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a frightening aspect to the rhetoric we hear from the Government about health and safety, and health and safety legislation in particular? Will he ask the Minister to give an assurance that the Government believe that health and safety legislation is necessary to protect individuals at work? Some of the rhetoric on this issue, particularly from the Prime Minister, is deeply worrying.

[Ian Murray]

The Minister has heard that challenge on health and safety. The red tape challenge website, which I am sure every hon. Member has dipped into and had a look at, is wide-ranging. The first line of every category, including the Equality Act 2010 and health and safety legislation, poses the question: “Should this be scrapped?”. I appreciate that it is a consultation, and that the Government are looking for ideas and views on the current make-up of regulation, but there is no greater challenge than maintaining health and safety regulations to protect workers whose lives or safety may be at risk. I hope the Minister will tell us categorically that some of the questions in the red tape challenge are challenges to seek answers, rather than an overall strategy to diminish workers’ rights and health and safety regulation.

To date, the Government have been rhetorical about the dilution of workers’ rights, but a statutory instrument changing the unfair dismissal period has been laid before Parliament and will come into effect in the next few weeks. There have been leaked reports from No. 10 Downing street about making it easier to fire, rather than hire, people. There is anti-regulation sentiment and rhetoric coming out of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, with its “one in, one out” policy on regulation. There is real concern that some of the enforcement actions that are critical for protecting vulnerable workers and good businesses through such authorities as the GLA are being challenged.

The Macdonald report suggested an end to gangmaster licensing completely, and a move to a system of self-regulation combined with “earned recognition”. It also suggested that the GLA should change from being a heavy enforcement body to a light-touch advisory body. I am not sure that anyone would deny earned recognition to good businesses, supply chains and supermarkets who are working in partnership with the GLA, and to the good farmers who want supply chains cleaned up. The problem is that all earned recognition does is divert attention away from where gangmasters may infiltrate in the future.

There is significant confusion about the future, what with the red tape challenge and what has been termed the star chamber process. That was highlighted by the Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who said initially:

“I am pleased to say that the need for the GLA to enforce protections for vulnerable workers in its sectors”,

which is crucial,

“was endorsed by the red tape challenge ministerial star chamber, although it recognised that the GLA needed to better target non-compliant operators and reduce burdens on the compliant. The GLA will of course continue to be monitored under the Government’s ongoing reviews of public bodies and enforcement agencies.”

That is not particularly clear. In a later exchange on the same question, he says of the star chamber process and the red tape challenge:

“From my knowledge of star chambers…they are where conflicting views which may need to be resolved are discussed in an informal way. That is exactly how the star chamber has functioned in this way.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2011; Vol. 733, c. 993 and c. 995.]

I hope that the Minister will clear up some of the confusion this morning on the Government’s view of the GLA, and on the perceived and reported fight between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and BIS on the where the GLA should sit. It is right that it sits with DEFRA in its current guise. It should not be transferred to a Department that is considering deregulation and stripping out the safeguards put in place by the GLA.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian C. Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to promote farm animal welfare.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

5. What steps her Department is taking to promote farm animal welfare.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

The coalition Government are committed to achieving high standards of animal welfare and are working through the detail of several policies to ensure that we accomplish this.

[Mr Paice]

That is complete nonsense. As the hon. Gentleman should know, the date is already enshrined in law. The question is whether we seek to change that. To suggest that I have not set a date is nonsense, because his Government set that date. But we are considering representations, as did my predecessor, about whether to change that date. One of the underlying factors, not just on this but throughout animal welfare, is the advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which is the body set up to advise the Government, and I think the cross-party view is that it is a very worthy organisation. We take its views strongly into account as we consider this matter.

[Ian Lucas]

As a former Minister, I have seen photographs of the terrible consequences of some of the types of game bird farming that occur. Supported by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and other animal welfare groups, the previous Government brought forward legislation to improve the position. Why is it that this Government are determined to reverse that legislation and cause unnecessary suffering to game birds?

[Mr Paice]

It is precisely because that was the advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which his Government disregarded.