Draft Wine (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024

Debate between Ian Lavery and Mark Spencer

Wednesday 17th January 2024 General Committees

[Mark Spencer]

I actually think they will be marketed by the half-bottle—in my limited experience, dessert wines tend to come in half-bottles. If the hon. Gentleman reaches for the internet when he makes these purchases, I am sure there will be more information there.

The changes before us align with those adopted by the International Organisation of Vine and Wine since 2009 and approved by the UK through our membership of that organisation. The instrument was notified to the World Trade Organisation’s Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, and no comments were received.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give examples of the different oenological practices introduced by the IOVW? I am a bit stumped by that.

[Mark Spencer]

I can help the hon. Gentleman out. The regulations are about making sure, for consumers who buy ice wine, that the correct process has been followed, and that includes the grapes being frozen on the vine. It is possible to create dessert wine by harvesting the grapes and then freezing them mechanically to change the sugars so that the wine becomes sweeter. However, ice wine is produced only as a result of a natural frost while the grapes are on the vine, and the regulations are about protecting that process, although we do not use it in the UK, and it is quite uncommon in Europe as well. They are about protecting this product so that consumers buying ice wine know that the grapes have been frozen naturally rather than in a freezer.

[Ian Lavery]

Is it ice wine or nice wine?

[Mark Spencer]

It is ice wine, but I am told it is also quite nice.

UK Poverty

Debate between Ian Lavery and Mark Spencer

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for calling the debate and for the passion with which she delivered her speech. Interestingly, in the 45 minutes she took to do so, she did not give us a single indication of what a future Labour Government might do to address some of the concerns she raised. She did not even look at how she might solve the challenges we face.

It seems fairly straightforward to me that the best way to solve an individual’s financial difficulties is to get them into work—to give them a job and let them earn their own money, so that they can provide for their family. That gives them not only the cash to improve their lives, but the self-esteem and quality of life they deserve. We should do that as a Government. If we do, we get a double whammy. If we take an individual out of the welfare system and they succeed in the workplace, more of the pie is left for those who are genuinely in difficulty and who need the support of the welfare state.

Let us look at what the Government have done over the past four and a half years. Some 1.7 million more people are in work. We have tried to get people out of the welfare system and into the workplace, so that they can improve their own lives.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is all well and good saying another 1.7 million people are in work, but what type of employment is it? Some of the statistics that have been published show that up to 1.4 million people are on zero-hours contracts, which, in effect, provide less than benefits.

[Mr Spencer]

Zero-hours contracts are not something that happened under this Government; they existed before we came to power. The Labour Government did nothing about them when they were in power.

I have met individuals in my constituency who have been offered a zero-hours contract. They took it up, went to work and became very successful. They were then offered a full-time career; they progressed through the management structure; and they are now earning a substantial salary. Zero-hours contracts can therefore sometimes be a gateway to a career.

The Government have to find a way to create such gateways, so that individuals can aspire to make their way through the system. One way of doing that is to create apprenticeships, and 2 million have been created under this Government. That is a way to give the next generation the skills they require to take up a career in the future.

UK Coal Operations Ltd

Debate between Ian Lavery and Mark Spencer

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale) on securing this important debate.

I want to place on the record my thanks to the National Union of Mineworkers, which has done a tremendous job in highlighting the very difficult situation, and to people in the communities who have been constantly on the phone, concerned that, having spent a lifetime in the industry, they do not now have what was promised on the day they joined it.

We need to look at several things, but we must understand that the concessionary fuel arrangement is not, as many people suggest, a benefit; it is a hard-earned entitlement. It is not a free gift—it is not free coal or free fuel—but part of working underground. When people started work at the pit, they immediately got concessionary fuel, if they had a house and no one else in the house had the entitlement. They got fuel immediately, but we are talking about a lifetime entitlement. It had to be earned through years of service, so that when they finished work—many miners finished young, in their 40s and 50s, not too long ago—they had at the back of their mind their entitlement to fuel because they had worked the required amount of years listed in the national concessionary fuel agreement. This is from years ago, so I might be wrong and the situation might have changed, but I think that the required number was 15 years in the industry, with five of the last 10 years being continuous.

The right was hard earned, and yet we hear some people say, “Free coal bemuses me, by the way”. It was not optional or something that people had to go and ask the bosses for; it is deferred wages, as part of their employment package or their contract of employment. That has been disputed, but there is no doubt that the law clearly states that something not in people’s normal contract is an implied contractual obligation. “Law at Work” simply states:

“If terms have not been expressly agreed, they can be ‘implied’ through conduct or custom and practice.”

We cannot get much more “custom and practice” than people starting employment and getting fuel every week or month, or whatever the cycle was, to the time they finished work. It is not even in dispute: if it is not in people’s contracts but is an arrangement, it is an implied contractual obligation.

[Mr Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech. Morally, he is absolutely correct, but the difficulty is that the employer, UK Coal, has gone into liquidation and so has side-stepped that obligation. The question is whether the Government should step in to fill that moral gap if there is no legal necessity to do so.

[Ian Lavery]

I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I think that there is a moral obligation. I will come to why I think there is more than a moral obligation.

Some 1,600 to 2,000 people will be affected, including widows—women whose husbands died underground—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield explained, those who left the industry under ill-health retirement. For some of the people who had accidents and retired, the judge agreed that they would have compensation, but that was sometimes reduced to the amount of concessionary fuel they would receive well into the future. All those things need to be looked at.

Coalfield Communities (Regeneration)

Debate between Ian Lavery and Mark Spencer

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery]

I will not give way if hon. Members are going to ask me about belly dancing.

[Mr Spencer]

That is an example of something that is nice to have but that is not an essential item. We should have been concentrating on employment—it has got to be about jobs.

[Ian Lavery]

That is not correct. I am trying to outline what the CRT has provided in terms of grant assistance for people within the community. There are other organisations for the creation of jobs, and finances should be readily available for those organisations. For example, there is One NorthEast, but its total closure has just been announced. Those are the organisations that should be looking to present job opportunities in these communities. What I am outlining this morning is what the CRT has done in the communities to help people to regain their self-esteem, as was the case when people in those communities, including their fathers and mothers, all had employment, but now these communities have very little employment. So there is a huge difference. I really do not see the CRT’s role as creating employment in the communities; its role is quite distinct from that. It has a huge role to play, without having to create jobs.