The Climate Emergency

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers]

That is, of course, the case. I would always urge everyone not to drop litter; it is an eyesore that blights our communities and open spaces, and we are determined to tackle it. The Environment Bill includes significant new powers to crack down on fly-tipping and waste crime—those deeply antisocial crimes.

A range of measures in the Bill will help to ensure that more of the items that we consume are reusable, reparable or recyclable to help us to create the circular economy about which I was asked earlier. The Bill includes the power to create deposit return schemes for drinks containers and an extension of charging schemes for certain types of single-use plastic. We want to replicate the success of the plastic bag charge, which has led use to plummet by 90%—a great illustration of the enthusiasm and commitment of so many people to addressing the tragedy of plastics pollution in our oceans.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

In more general terms, looking beyond the Environment Bill that we will have next week, can the Secretary of State give a cast-iron guarantee from the Dispatch Box that if we were to leave the European Union, the UK’s environmental protections, regulations and laws would be better than those we currently enjoy as a member state of the European Union?

[Theresa Villiers]

We are actually setting out a much more demanding programme for the environment than we would be required to undertake under EU law. We are proposing to go further and faster than EU laws, and as an illustration of that—

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to spot the growth in these markets. Last year, our exports to China grew by 6%, our exports to India by 7% and our exports to the USA by 9%, and only last week the Prime Minister was in Russia talking to President Putin about increasing our exports there. At the moment, the BRIC economies represent only 3% of our total export market, but there are massive opportunities to expand further.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

16. Happy Thursday, Mr Speaker. Will the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that the British food producers industry makes a significant contribution to the UK economy? What impact would it have on that industry, were the UK to leave the EU?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman is right to spot the importance of food production. It is the largest manufacturing sector in the country, and we would like to see exports expanded into Europe and the BRIC countries, as I have just said.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions he has had on the adulteration of food in the UK.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

12. What recent discussions he has had on the adulteration of food in the UK.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

On 25 and 27 February I updated the House on the discussions I have had on the adulteration of food in the UK with the food industry and at a European level. I continue to have regular update discussions with the Food Standards Agency and I shall also be meeting the food industry on a regular basis.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and entirely agree that no matter what the price of a product, it must be as marked on the label and as sold. To do otherwise is a fraud on the public. He asks about laboratory capacity. We need only look at what has happened: in an extraordinarily short time in recent weeks, the industry has conducted 5,430 tests that have shown that less than 1% of the products are adulterated.

[Ian Murray]

May I draw the House’s attention to a non-declarable interest as a former employee of the Meat Hygiene Service? It costs approximately £170 to test each slaughtered horse for bute, yet the meat is worth only about £300. The industry has talked a lot about full cost recovery, so will the Minister tell the House when the taxpayer will stop having to pick up the bill for bute testing and how much he estimates the total bill will be?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which is very relevant. We have cauterised the problem of bute getting into the food chain, as no horse carcase can enter the food chain until it has tested negative for bute, but he is right to raise that question. This is a holding position. I had a meeting with senior members of the horse industry recently because the horse passport scheme that we inherited is unsatisfactory. We will make proposals on that in due course.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is the purpose of the Bill. The big multinational companies that I have mentioned are the biggest suppliers to the supermarkets, in that they supply the biggest volume of the 40,000 or so products on sale in supermarkets at any given time, and they therefore have the most scope to benefit from the Bill. Why on earth should we wish to enable them to do that? I do not know the answer, and no one has yet argued that Heinz or Nestlé cannot afford to take their contractual disputes to court or explained why we need an adjudicator to act on their behalf. They do not need an adjudicator; they are perfectly big enough and bad enough to look after their own interests without needing an adjudicator to step in, and so are the supermarkets.

When there is an agreement between a huge multinational supermarket such as Asda, which is owned by Wal-Mart, and a huge multinational supplier such as Heinz or Walkers or Nestlé, let them get on with it. If there is then a row about who has broken a particular rule, let them get on and sort it out themselves. Believe you me, Asda needs Heinz products in its stores just as much as Heinz needs Asda to sell its products. It is a perfectly even arrangement between the two; the one could not manage without the other. Let them sort the disputes out between themselves. Why on earth are we legislating to get involved in those disputes? That is completely ridiculous. Members are arguing that the introduction of a groceries code adjudicator will help small suppliers, and supporting new clauses 1 or 2 will give them an opportunity to make it abundantly clear to the House that the Bill is designed to help the smaller suppliers to supermarkets.

I want to explain why I have used the figure of £500 million in new clause 1 and £1 billion in new clause 2, and why—with your permission, Mr Speaker—I shall put new clause 2 to a vote. I have listed some of the suppliers that would be covered by the £1 billion figure in new clause 2. The adjudicator will deal with retailers with a turnover of more than £1 billion. The Bill is effectively saying that other people need protecting from such huge organisations, and that they are too big not to have an unfair advantage in any contract negotiation. The Bill therefore puts in place a kind of backstop. My point is that if a supermarket with a turnover of £1 billion a year is deemed big enough to look after itself without any extra help or support, surely suppliers with a similar turnover are in exactly the same situation. If a supermarket with such a turnover is deemed too big to be trusted to negotiate properly, why would a supplier with a similar turnover need the protection of the adjudicator? Where on earth is the logic in that?

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is about to tell us.

[Ian Murray]

We have all been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to make two important points. First, his proposals are not backed by the industry itself. The Food and Drink Federation and the British Brands Group do not support the proposed restrictions in his new clauses. Secondly, although I have some sympathy with his wish to move further down the supply chain, his proposals were not accepted in Committee.

[Philip Davies]

That is an extraordinary intervention. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he is not minded to support my new clauses because the representatives of the food and drink industry, who represent massive suppliers, do not support them. The Opposition are not going to support them because they want to look after the interests of those massive organisations that pay the bills of the Food and Drink Federation. Can the hon. Gentleman not make a decision for himself on this matter? Has he not got the capability to understand the equation for himself? I will make it simple for him. Why do suppliers with a turnover of more than £1 billion need help, if a supermarket retailer with a turnover of more than £1 billion does not need help? It is a nonsensical position for anybody to hold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Paice]

It is entirely for the Government to decide whether to accept new clause 2. It does not cause me a huge problem, but I believe it to be completely unnecessary for the reasons I have described. Nothing I have said could be deemed to suggest I am against it, but I just do not see any need for it. I certainly believe, however, that there is a very real problem that needs to be addressed, and this Bill seeks to do precisely that. That is not the basis on which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley proposes his amendments, however; as he has said, he does not agree with the Bill at all. I do agree with it, and I would like its provisions to become law as soon as possible.

[Ian Murray]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). As his contribution shows, we have a cross-party and cross-House consensus on this matter, and we should take it forward.

Amendment 28 provides that when the adjudicator publishes guidance, she must include guidance about which law applies to arbitration and where the arbitration should be conducted. That is particularly important where there are suppliers from remote parts of the United Kingdom. Article 11 of the Groceries (Supply Chain Practices) Market Investigation Order 2009—that rolls off the tongue—provides for a dispute resolution scheme. The scheme provides for the application of certain arbitration rules, with London as the default location for any arbitration. Clauses 12(5) and 12(6) of the Bill make provision for the amendment of the scheme and the application of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 to arbitrations carried out by the adjudicator. However, it will be important for suppliers and retailers alike to be given statutory guidance on the law applicable to arbitrations and the choice of location for arbitration. Our amendment would require the adjudicator to issue such guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr George, I am sure that you are not listening to a message while you are in the Chamber. I hope that we do not see a repeat and that your phone is completely switched off.

[Ian Murray]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We know the origins of the code came from the Competition Commission report in 2008; we have already discussed the excessive risks to suppliers, particularly overseas ones. The practices behind that would have had the potential to harm those producers overseas who are the most vulnerable and to be an obstacle to progress on the pay and conditions of, and innovation by, farmers and farm workers in developing countries. UK shoppers rightly enjoy the widest range of choice, via large retailers. The outstanding quality of produce cannot be in doubt, but the Bill has the opportunity to ensure that there is protection for all territories and to make a large contribution to the development of other countries. Amendment 30 asks for the code to be extended to other territories and asks the adjudicator to look at this matter when making recommendations to the OFT.

The subsidiaries issue is also worth exploring, as it shows clearly that the large retailers have different arrangements in place. That has to be taken into account, which is what the amendment seeks to achieve. It would be good to get clarity from the Minister on what the process would be if difficulties were identified with regard to the code in these subsidiaries or other territories. The relationship of the code in the complex matrix of buying and production is from the large retailer to the immediate supplier. As the Bill stands, that means that the large retailer is able to set up subsidiaries to buy apples from X Ltd rather than directly from the supplier.

Amendment 34 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and it goes to the heart of some of the main issues that have been discussed in the House over the past few months. Our amendment calls on the Government to ensure that the GSCOP, which the adjudicator referees, covers the issue of commercial pressures that can be put on suppliers and that drive down quality and safety, creating possible food scandals, such as the recent revelations around horsemeat in beef products.

The amendment would explicitly enable the adjudicator to include in its annual report details of any incidents where it had become aware that commercial pressure had been applied to suppliers to drive down costs, standards and health and safety, resulting in a drop in food standards or authenticity. To answer some of the criticisms that will probably come from the hon. Member for Shipley and his like, I should say that the amendment is directly related to clause 14 and the annual report to the OFT, not necessarily in the sense of the issues arising where someone takes a case to the adjudicator to deal with in terms of the code.

Amendment 35 would require the adjudicator to send its annual report to the Food Standards Agency. That would create an important link between the adjudicator and the FSA in terms of some of the issues related to the horsemeat scandal that we have seen in recent weeks. As has been reported, the UK’s National Beef Association has blamed what it called the “bullying culture” that retail buyers have used for decades for the presence of horsemeat in beef products. Its national director, Chris Mallon, has said the public and retailers were paying the price for

“short-sighted, price-led purchasing tactics”.

He said that buyers had

“adopted a bullying culture aimed exclusively at securing as much farm food as possible, for as little cost as possible, and the result is tortured supply chains that add so much unnecessary cost that short cuts on quality and traceability, and even cheating by some suppliers, was inevitable.”

That quote shows how important it might be to include the amendment in the Bill.

Consumers must have confidence that the food they buy is correctly labelled, legal and safe, but over recent weeks that confidence has been hit hard. Many of the problems in this particular scandal have been outright criminal, and, of course, the criminal courts will deal with those, but Ministers have been slow to act, as has been shown in our debates in this House. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland has been ahead of the UK every step of the way. By having an annual reporting requirement on food safety and hygiene through the adjudicator, some of the issues that have been raised eloquently by the national director of the UK NBA could be dealt with.

The amendment has another link with the Food Standards Agency, as its budget has been cut from £143 million to £132 million. Although we should not get into a debate today about budgets of particular Government agencies or Departments, it would be an important step to say that the adjudicator, in its report to the OFT, could refer some of these cases. That might help to soften the blow caused by the reduction in resources.

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

It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman made clear his belief, which is certainly my belief, that no matter what commercial pressures there are, it does not excuse criminal behaviour on the part of producers, processors or retailers.

[Ian Murray]

I agree 100% with the Minister. We hope that by having the adjudicator reporting annually to the OFT on those issues, steps would be taken before any criminal activity had taken place. That might be dealt with at a much earlier stage in the process, because the adjudicator may come across instances where it feels the costs have been driven down so low as to compromise food safety. Our approach would allow a supplier to take such issues to the adjudicator, and they may be included in the adjudicator’s annual report. That might help to stop things reaching the stage we have seen in the past few weeks. The amendment could play an important part in tackling future abuses that could occur—that goes to the heart of what the Minister has just said. Does the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who is going to reply, agree that it is crucial that the adjudicator is alert to these issues? Will she therefore support our amendment to allow the adjudicator to report any abuses it sees occurring on food hygiene and food safety issues directly to the OFT? My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore might want to expand on some of those points.

Amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is critical as it would require the Office of Fair Trading explicitly to respond to the recommendations that the adjudicator publishes. If the adjudicator were to include a food hygiene or food safety issue in their annual report to the OFT, it is only fair that the OFT should have to respond to those recommendations. That should be considered in how the GSCOP and the adjudicator are set up.

As the Bill stands, the adjudicator can make recommendations to the OFT should it determine that changes should be made to the groceries code. Of course, only the OFT can change the code, but, critically, nothing in the Bill binds it merely to respond to the recommendations. We are not saying that a binding clause in the Bill should ensure that the OFT acts on every recommendation, but the OFT should at least be bound to respond to the recommendations so that the industry has some transparency on the issues raised in the report. We made that point in Committee on a number of occasions. The Minister responded that if the OFT continued to ignore the recommendations, the Government would step in and do something about it. Indeed, she suggested that there could be some review of the OFT’s processes. That is all well and good, and I appreciate the fact that she gave that reassurance, but we are looking for a two-way dialogue between the adjudicator’s office and the OFT. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and I have put our names to the amendment and we will certainly support my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington if he wishes to press it to a Division.

Let me turn briefly to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Shipley. Sometimes we need regulation to allow the free market to work properly. Indeed, the whole purpose of the groceries code and the groceries code adjudicator is to ensure that those markets work properly without a damaging imbalance in the power of the various factors concerned. The large companies listed by the hon. Gentleman can look after themselves, and he is right to raise that issue, but they will not go to the adjudicator. The adjudicator has been set up to consider supplier imbalances in market power, as considered by the Competition Commission. I am sure that the adjudicator would not wish to consider an imbalance in the other direction just because she is not mandated to do so.

As for the sunset clause, the hon. Member for Shipley cannot have it both ways. He says that the adjudicator will have nothing to do, but also says that the adjudicator will look after the interests of the very large organisations. If the adjudicator will have lots to do, we will not want a sunset clause after seven years. The adjudicator will therefore carry on. New clause 3 is unnecessary as we must show our confidence that the adjudicator will do a good job.

I do not think that I need to deal directly with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), given that we have already dealt through amendment 30 with whether the ActionAid and Traidcraft issues of international territorial extent can be dealt with. I have some sympathy with amendment 27, as one of the big arguments in Committee was that the adjudicator could not come in on day one after Royal Assent—I think the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) also mentioned that in one of his amendments—to consider the issues happening now as well as to collect evidence on what has happened since the groceries code came into effect. The amendment would be very sensible; the quicker the adjudicator gets up and running the better as she will have to deal with either lots of issues or, if the hon. Member for Shipley is correct, none.

I will wish to test the view of the House on amendment 34, which is, of course, consequential on amendment 35. We would also like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington if he wishes to press amendment 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I do not believe that is the case. The adjudicator will obviously be able to make their own assessments. The industry is confident that there will be very few complaints, and I wholeheartedly hope that will be the case, but if we find that there are many breaches of the code, and if the evidence comes from a variety of sources, the adjudicator will need to look at that and be empowered to make recommendations and requests, and they will need to be properly and adequately resourced in order to do so. Therefore, an arbitrary restriction on who can complain would actually make the adjudicator’s life harder and, indeed, could increase the risk of judicial review, so we will reject the new clause and encourage hon. Members to oppose it if it is pressed to a Division.

The hon. Member for Shipley seemed to suggest that the provision would cost consumers more money, but all the supermarkets that gave evidence on the matter said, when asked, that complying with the code had not caused them to raise prices, so his concerns are misplaced. This will not cost consumers. Indeed, surveys have shown that 84% of consumers support the adjudicator, and I am sure that hon. Members will be well aware from their mail bags that there is a great deal of public support for the adjudicator.

[Ian Murray]

The Minister is making a compelling case for the Bill, which we all support. I wonder whether she will reflect on the fact that some of the evidence we received in Committee and before showed that the groceries code and a well-functioning adjudicator will help innovation in the supply chain sector and therefore has the opportunity to lower prices for the consumer.

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Competition Commission was very clear that innovation could be stifled by the potential anti-competitive practices in the sector, so it absolutely follows that encouraging innovation by ensuring that no anti-competitive practices are going on will allow consumers ultimately to get a better deal, and that is in their interests.

A few red herrings were put forward on the question of whether Esso and tobacco companies would be protected in some way by this. I refer hon. Members, as the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) did, to the Groceries (Supply Chain Practices) Market Investigation Order 2009, which is very clear. It states, on page 3:

“Groceries means food (other than that sold for consumption in the store), pet food, drinks (alcoholic and non-alcoholic, other than that sold for consumption in the store), cleaning products, toiletries and household goods, but excludes petrol, clothing, DIY products, financial services, pharmaceuticals, newspapers, magazines, greetings cards, CDs, DVDs, videos and audio tapes, toys, plants, flowers, perfumes, cosmetics, electrical appliances, kitchen hardware, gardening equipment, books, tobacco and tobacco products”.

That is what was found to be relevant through the Competition Commission’s investigation. I think that it is important to note for the record that some of those earlier red herrings were just that.

The hon. Member for Ogmore said that the adjudicator’s office would not involve huge costs. It is estimated that the costs of running it, including all running costs and staff salaries, will be £800,000 a year. As for how much of that is for the adjudicator themselves, they are currently acting as adjudicator-designate for one day a week on £23,000 a year, going up to three days a week on the same rate once we have Royal Assent and commencement, as we very much hope we will.

On new clauses 4 and 5, it is fundamentally right that large supermarkets should treat their suppliers fairly wherever those suppliers are located. The Competition Commission’s finding of decreased innovation and investment in the supply chain is likely to result from unfair treatment of suppliers and to cause detriment to consumers, regardless of whether those suppliers are outside the EU or the UK. Excluding overseas suppliers would therefore not be helpful to the fundamental purpose of the provision and would, indeed, undermine it. The code and the adjudicator complement each other and so they need to have the same scope. I resisted in Committee amendments that would have expanded the adjudicator’s role beyond merely enforcing the code, but I must now also resist amendments that would limit the adjudicator’s scope to being narrower than the code. I hope that my hon. Friends will withdraw their amendments, but if they choose not to do so I will advise colleagues to vote against them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

Thank you for that timely reminder, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief in my list of thanks.

I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) for what he just said. I also thank his Committee and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for their work on improving the Bill.

I want to start with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who, as the hon. Gentleman says, has done a superb job of listening to people as the Bill has made progress. She took up a baton that was already well on its way thanks to her predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, to the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and to my immediate predecessor, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). I can exclusively reveal that there was a conspiracy within government, of which I was part in my previous role as Deputy Leader of the House, to ensure that the Bill made progress whatever other priorities arose as we all felt that it was important.

I also want to mention the contribution of a few others who are not in government. It was a delight to find myself so often in the Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), and he has campaigned vigorously for the measure as chair of the grocery market action group. I stood shoulder to shoulder with him when we were in opposition to make it a reality and his efforts have been appreciated. I hope he feels that they have been rewarded as the Bill reaches the statute book.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has long pressed for the adjudicator, including in his private Member’s Bill. His pleas fell on deaf ears at the time, but now all is sweetness and light and the Opposition are united with us in taking the Bill forward. I should add, as I am trying to be as consensual as possible, that I know from what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said that colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench made debates in Committee enjoyable and that they made a genuine contribution. As they know, we have listened to what they have had to say and have on occasion been able to agree with them. That goes for the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who often secretly agree with me but sometimes cannot express it openly—

[Ian Murray]

Give examples!

[Mr Heath]

I could not possibly; it would embarrass the hon. Member for Ogmore too much.

Now that I have awarded bouquets around the House, I want simply to say that the Bill establishes an adjudicator to enforce the groceries supply code of practice. As recommended by the Competition Commission’s market investigation in 2008, the adjudicator will ensure that large retailers treat their direct suppliers lawfully and fairly. The adjudicator will be able to receive anonymous complaints from any source and may decide to launch an investigation if it is felt that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the code has been broken. We anticipate there will be around two to four investigations per year and if the adjudicator is satisfied that the code has been broken, a range of sanctions will be available. The adjudicator can make recommendations to a retailer, require it to publish details of the breach, and, in the most egregious cases, impose a financial penalty.

We also announced our preferred candidate for the adjudicator last month. Christine Tacon has a wide range of experience in the groceries sector, has held senior corporate roles in retailers and direct suppliers and spent 11 years as managing director of Co-operative Farms, the largest farming operation in the UK. Members will be pleased to note that she will undergo her pre-appointment hearing with the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee tomorrow, although Ministers retain the final decision on her appointment. We are confident, and we hope that the Committee agrees, that she will be an excellent adjudicator.

We are satisfied that we have given the adjudicator sufficient powers to enforce the code effectively and during pre-legislative scrutiny we broadened our drafting so that the adjudicator could receive information from any source, giving us a good Bill. At the urging of hon. Members on Second Reading, we tabled amendments in Committee to give her the powers to impose fines from the outset. On Report we proposed additional safeguards in relation to clause 15(11) to cover the Secretary of State’s powers to restrict the information on which the adjudicator can start an investigation.

At every step along the way we have improved the Bill, and we now have a Bill of which the House can be proud. The Government have listened to the concerns of hon. Members from all parties to ensure that we create the most effective adjudicator possible, and we believe that we have now achieved that goal. I am delighted to note that a press release from the grocery market action group on 8 February announced in large letters:

“Fair Trade campaigners say Supermarket Watchdog has teeth.”

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wanted a watchdog with teeth and even brought the visual aids to support that contention on Second Reading.

We have done our work. I believe that we have a good Bill. I commend it to the House. The sooner we get this adjudicator in place, the better it will be for our producers, consumers and retailers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I will be quick, but let me start by returning the thanks to the Front-Bench team—the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who I recall on Second Reading stamped her authority and said that we would not have fines in the Bill. We now have fines. They stamped their authority in Committee and said that they would not send the appointment of the adjudicator to the BIS Select Committee because it would be a dereliction of their parliamentary duty and was not an important enough position to be subject to a Select Committee pre-appointment hearing. I am delighted that Ministers have come round to our way of thinking. I am also delighted that they came round to the way of thinking of the other place by putting trade associations into the Bill. The Bill is far better now than when it first entered the House, and the Ministers listened to some close analysis and persuasion from the Opposition.

Let me right a wrong that happened in Committee. It is traditional at the end of Committee proceedings to thank all the officials, the Chair and everyone who has been involved in the Committee. I forgot to thank one person—my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—when I was wrapping up the Committee. He has done more in the House than many to get us to where we are today, and I would like to right that wrong by putting on record my thanks to him for everything that he has done and, of course, for his wonderful speech earlier today.

I have tried twice to thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) both in the Chamber on Second Reading and in Committee. Just before thanking him, he popped up and threw a wobbler at me of some description. I am delighted that I have been able to thank him today without him doing that.

Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) first brought the matter to the House in his private Member’s Bill, and it should be a proud moment for him today as we send the Bill to the palace for Royal Assent. The last two thanks are to everyone who served on the Committee. We had lively debates. I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) has not taken the opportunity to be in the Chamber. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, had been on her feet for only about 20 seconds in Committee when my hon. Friend popped up and suggested that we should call the new adjudicator Oftrolley. I could not let the moment pass without putting it on record that I am disappointed that he is not here.

We have used a lot of terminology such as “toothless tiger”, and there was a danger that the Bill would be that. The Bill now has teeth. There are still some things that Opposition Members would have added to the Bill, but unfortunately that has not come to pass. We hope that the Ministers will be amenable to changing the way in which the adjudicator works as the process beds in. There are problems with the code itself. The hon. Member for—is it East Bedfordshire?

[Mr Spencer]

Sherwood.

[Ian Murray]

Sherwood, of course. I was not even in the right part of the country. The hon. Gentleman used the example in Committee of the dairy farmers dispute. In fact, that dispute would not have been covered even if the adjudicator had been in place, because there had not been a breach of the code. That example was interesting in terms of trying to keep the code live and make sure it is as responsive to the industry as possible—not just to the suppliers. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made some important points. It needs to be responsive to the supermarkets. They make such a considerable contribution to our economy, and we must not forget the role they play. The code has to be responsive to their needs too.

We set three tests for the Bill at the outset, and we have met all of them. We are a little disappointed on intermediaries and supply chain issues, and I hope that Ministers will reflect on those. I gave a commitment on Second Reading and in Committee that we would work constructively with the Government to make this a better Bill. We have done that and we have got a better Bill. Everyone who has been involved in this process for far longer than I have been should be very proud tonight that we will have an adjudicator and, I hope, a far better supply chain and a far better supermarket market.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that I am not going to give an exhaustive list. If the groceries code adjudicator felt that the remedies were not sufficient and were not being adhered to and if there were repeated breaches or if the recommendations made by the adjudicator were not being followed up on, those things would weigh heavily in the balance.

There has been a lot of lobbying on this issue, not least from hon. Members. As I am discovering, ministerial life brings with it a variety of interesting experiences, one of which happened last month, when I accepted a petition from a giant dog.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Was it an actual dog?

[Jo Swinson]

It was a man in a dog suit, rather than an actual dog. The event was organised by Traidcraft, ActionAid and War on Want to highlight their message that they want the groceries code adjudicator to be a watchdog with teeth. To further press the point, they left me with my own watchdog, which has brightened up by ministerial office. I assure the House that I have declared the gift appropriately. I appreciate that the decision not to have immediate fines will be disappointing to some supplier and campaign groups, but the dog remains on my office shelf as a reminder that, should we find that stronger sanctions are needed, the Secretary of State will be able to bring in fines quickly. I assure the House that we will have no hesitation in doing so if they are needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I did not realise that we could bring toys to the Dispatch Box. If I had known, I might have brought my bear, Frosty, which I have had since I was a child, for everyone to see. Perhaps we can do that next time, or maybe a Scalextric for the Table would be exciting.

I pay tribute to those in the other place who have diligently gone through the Bill and sent it here. It is a significant measure, but it has been a long time coming. Labour Members can rightly claim some ownership of it. As Lord Grantchester said, the Bill

“has Labour’s fingerprints all over it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 2012; Vol. 737, c. 728.]

In government, we gained cross-party support for a supermarket ombudsman to ensure a fair deal for farmers and food producers from the major retailers, and to monitor and enforce the code of practice in the form of the groceries code. We were therefore pleased that the Bill was included in the coalition agreement in the heady days of May 2010.

However, the Government have dragged their feet on creating the adjudicator, and on the powers to help food suppliers. As the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said,

“we look as though we don’t understand the urgency of this matter. Every week the Government fails to act, farmers are finding themselves in more difficulty.”

[Andrew George]

Of course, I also used those words when Labour was in power because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Competition Commission reported in April 2008, and for two years there were excuses and consultations, and a variety of reasons were given for the Government’s inability to go ahead at the time, despite the excellent private Member’s Bill that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is in his place, introduced.

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted with that intervention because we introduced the code, on which the adjudicator will now adjudicate. We are two and half years into the coalition Government, and the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said when he was a shadow environment Minister at an Oxford farming conference just before the 2010 election that,

“Conservatives are clear: we will introduce an ombudsman to curb abuses of power which undermine our farmers and act against the long-term interests of consumers”.

However, we are on the cusp of 2013, and the Bill has just been introduced.

[Andrew George]

I do not want the debate to degenerate into a party political spat, but to put the record straight, the Competition Commission had the power to introduce the code, and it, not the Labour Government, introduced it.

[Ian Murray]

The code is there for everyone to see, and was introduced before the general election. The next paragraph in my speech pays tribute to the hon. Member for St Ives for all his work. If I had my pen handy, I might cross that out, but I would not be so churlish. I therefore pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Grocery Market Action Group. He has harnessed the support of organisations such as the Rural Shops Alliance, the Association of Convenience Stores, the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the British Independent Fruit Growers Association, the British Brands Group, Traidcraft, ActionAid UK, Banana Link and many others in pushing the agenda from the early days of the Competition Commission inquiry, which he mentioned, in 2006 through to the establishment of the new groceries supply code of practice. He deserves great credit for continuing the fight, and I hope that he will support the Opposition in wanting to create a robust adjudicator.

I also take the opportunity to put on record thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is in his place and has long championed the establishment of an adjudicator. It is now more than two years since his private Member’s Bill—the Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill. In the debate on Second Reading of that measure, he made it clear that the concept of a grocery ombudsman or adjudicator was not about being pro or anti any particular interest group, but about fairness, and the Opposition echo that sentiment. Nevertheless we are here now and, in a sense of cross-party support, we wish the Bill a swift passage on to the statute book. It is important, however, to get the legislation right, and although the Opposition are generally pleased with the current Bill, we will seek to strengthen it so that the adjudicator has the powers it needs to be effective from day one.

As the House will be aware, competition authorities have held two major inquiries into the grocery market. The first, by the Office of Fair Trading in 2000, led to the creation of the code of practice to regulate the relationship between the largest supermarkets and their suppliers. In 2006, the Office of Fair Trading referred the market to the Competition Commission, which completed a second inquiry in 2008. At the time, the commission said that,

“the transfer of excessive risk and unexpected costs by grocery retailers to their suppliers through various supply chain practices if unchecked will have an adverse effect on investment and innovation in the supply chain, and ultimately on consumers.”

It recommended a strengthened and revised code of practice to be enforced by an independent ombudsman—an unambiguous case for an adjudicator. As a result, in February 2010 the Labour Government brought in the groceries supply code of practice—GSCOP—to replace the supermarket code of practice, with the intention of putting the adjudicator on a firm statutory basis.

I am sure Members across the House will appreciate the work of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which is brilliantly chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) who I see is in his place. He did a diligent job on the Bill during pre-legislative scrutiny—I should perhaps declare an interest as I was on that Committee at the time and have probably just patted myself on the back a little.

In its report, the Committee raised two concerns about the way the adjudicator’s office would operate. First, it was anticipated that the office would be able to launch investigations based only on evidence supplied by retailer or suppliers. The Committee argued that third parties such as trade associations or whistleblowers should be able to submit complaints about retailers. I am pleased that the Government made changes in that respect prior to Second Reading in the other place. They are to be commended on that alteration which the Opposition consider key to ensuring that individuals have the confidence to come forward with complaints under the cover of an industry group to protect anonymity and secrecy.

Secondly, the draft Bill allowed the adjudicator to impose fines on retailers that had breached the code, but only if the Secretary of State made provision for that by order. The Committee rightly argued that the adjudicator should be allowed to impose fines from day one—I shall return shortly to that crucial point.

There is little doubt that this legislation is necessary, and it is important to emphasise that supermarkets and retailers support the adjudicator in principle. One such retailer wrote to me privately earlier this week and stated:

“The groceries code adjudicator will encourage fair and robust regulation of supplier-retailer relationships.”

That speaks volumes.

We will scrutinise the Bill to ensure that it delivers on three key tests—that it promotes innovation and investment in the supply chain; ensures a fair deal for farmers and producers; and delivers better outcomes for consumers in terms of prices, quality and service.

[Michael Connarty]

As my hon. Friend will have heard in my earlier intervention, having read through the code it seems there is absolutely nothing in it to protect the labour factor in the supply chain. Will my hon. Friend take on board the need to raise that issue in Committee and table amendments so that people who use gangmasters cannot hide behind them if those gangmasters then use crooks, as recently happened in the Noble/Freedom Food eggs case, which I believe is now going to court?

[Ian Murray]

I know that my hon. Friend has worked on the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and we will take that debate forward to Committee. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority has been downgraded under this Government—indeed, the Beecroft review recommended that it be scrapped. We must be vigilant and ensure that the great work done by that authority in saving lives and stopping exploitation continues, and we can debate that in Committee. If I look towards the Whips, perhaps my hon. Friend will join us on that Committee to make those points—his name is being jotted down as we speak.

I was talking about the huge impact and value that supermarkets bring to our economy. The groceries market was worth nearly £157 billion in 2011, and it provides significant choice and good value for customers, which is vital. A number of supermarkets in my constituency do a tremendous job through investment in our high streets, job creation, and supporting community projects, and I am grateful to them for that positive role. I also place on record my thanks to Sainsbury’s at Cameron Toll in my constituency for its continued support for my schools Christmas card competition. Likewise, farmers and small suppliers play a critical part in achieving economic growth. It is an incredibly difficult time to be a farmer or small supplier in the UK—there have been increases in feed prices, not to mention the difficulties that many small and medium-sized enterprises have experienced in accessing finance. We should set retailer abuses against that backdrop.

We should acknowledge that retailers have done much to clean up their supply chains, but we know that abuses by retailers against suppliers still occur, and that evidence supports the need for a groceries code adjudicator more than ever. FoodDrinkEurope, the European federation, surveyed businesses from around Europe anonymously. It asked whether businesses had been confronted by various situations, and the survey gives us a picture of the situation in the UK. Seventy-seven per cent. of businesses said they had experienced non-respective contractual terms; 75% said they had experienced de-listing threats to obtain unjustified advantages; and 60% said they had experienced unilateral deductions to invoices. Only a very small number of the businesses interviewed—3%—said that they had done something other than discuss the situation with their customers. When asked why, more than half said they did not believe in the effectiveness of the remedies by public or legal authorities, and 44% said they were afraid of commercial sanctions. In one case of which I am aware, the supplier—a salad grower based in Yorkshire—said:

“The retailer has reneged on a commitment to cover the costs of packaging should they terminate dealings with me at short notice—despite this being confirmed”

on numerous occasions in e-mails.

[Ian Paisley]

Given those statistics, does the hon. Gentleman believe that food producers will feel emboldened to come forward and make their complaints if no financial penalty is front and centre in the Bill?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need proper sanctions—we need to take the carrot-and-stick approach. Without proper fines in the Bill, the adjudicator could, as the Minister said, be a toothless dog or tiger. I will come to that shortly.

There are times when a market needs intervention to make competition work well, particularly if players in that market become too powerful. Roughly 3.6 million people are employed in food production in this country, and making competition in that market function more fairly through the introduction of the adjudicator is ultimately good for growth and for those jobs. It will undoubtedly also be good for consumers in the long term. Because the choice of products is supported, small suppliers and products will not be driven from the market by anti-competitive practices, which hon. Members have mentioned. The choice of retailers will also be supported, because small retailers will not be driven from the market by the disparity in buying terms, which can be exacerbated by anti-competitive practices. Suppliers will be better able to plan their businesses, yielding efficiencies. Critically, they will be able to invest in innovation, new products and product quality. Finally, more competition will hopefully bring down prices.

The benefits of a strong adjudicator are clear, but fundamentally the Opposition’s major concern is that the adjudicator will be toothless. The adjudicator must have teeth to tackle the breaches of which all hon. Members are aware.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The only contention between the Government and Opposition is whether fines should be available at the beginning or whether they should be introduced at the behest of the Secretary of State. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to supermarkets, which are massive businesses, reputation and name are the most important things of all? Naming and shaming and reputational damage will therefore probably have more force in pressurising them. If that fails, even in the medium term, new primary legislation would not be necessary, because we could introduce fines.

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman brings a great deal of experience of the sector to the House. I am not convinced that the public will be surprised if a major retailer engages in a particular practice and is named and shamed in a national newspaper or trade magazine. If the adjudicator does their job properly, we would hope there would be no one to name and shame. It will help the system to operate properly if we can use the stick and say that retailers could be hit with financial penalties. If they can be hit with such penalties, naming and shaming become almost irrelevant.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Certainly, when I have spoken with supermarket chief executives I have challenged them. They sometimes take out full-page newspaper adverts to highlight fair trade for third-world growers. Does he agree that we want to get to the stage where supermarkets are highlighting the fair trade they are doing with British suppliers?

[Ian Murray]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a critical point, but the point is the full plethora of sanctions in the Bill. All we are talking about is what is in the Bill; we are not saying that fines could not exist in the short to medium term at the behest of the Secretary of State, but if he thinks that fines might be required in the future, why not just put them in the Bill?

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

Just so we know the terms of debate, will the hon. Gentleman outline how big a fine he thinks would be appropriate to deter inappropriate behaviour on the part of, say, Mr Tesco?

[Ian Murray]

That should be in the hands of the adjudicator. We are asking the adjudicator to do a job to assess whether someone has breached the code. The adjudicator should therefore be given the power to determine the sanction. If the sanction is to seek recommendations, then that is the sanction. If the sanction is to name and shame, then that is the sanction. If the sanction is a fine, we should leave that in the hands of the adjudicator to determine. That could be a debating point in Committee. The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position, but the argument is whether financial penalties should be in the Bill. If they are, the Secretary of State could then propose that fines be within certain parameters, or up to the adjudicator, or a proportion or a multiple of the loss achieved by a particular supplier. There are a plethora of ways for an adjudicator to determine a financial penalty. [Interruption.] The Minister says, “I don’t know,” but the Government have not told us what they would propose. Yes, we do not know how much the fine should be. That would be up to the adjudicator, within parameters applied in respect of the Secretary of State, to determine how much a fine should be, and that should be in the Bill.

[Mr Spencer]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those charged with the responsibility for spreading the message of the naming and shaming will be the same publications taking the advertising revenue? I wonder how much enthusiasm to naming and shaming there will be from those publications, when that might put their own advertising revenue in jeopardy.

[Ian Murray]

That is a wonderful point, and I think we now have our second candidate for the Committee—or given that helpful comment, perhaps not. The hon. Gentleman is right: there is a conflict of interest. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned the large full-page adverts that supermarkets produce relating to fair trade. Indeed, if it is about advertising revenues, there will be a conflict of interest, and I hope that the adjudicator would take that into account. If fines were included in the Bill, an adjudicator could balance up what would be the best punishment for a particular crime and deal with it in that way. By hamstringing the adjudicator from day one on fines, we are merely pushing down some of those routes by which questions would have to be answered.

Let me run through some of the issues relating to the adjudicator potentially being toothless, which is why we are calling for fines to be available to the adjudicator from day one. We are not the only people who are calling for that. In January 2009, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—the current Minister with responsibility for agriculture and food, who has been chuntering on about fines for the past few minutes—said, when he was an Opposition spokesperson all those many months ago, that there must be “an ombudsman with teeth” to ensure that farmers get a fair deal. I wonder whether he and his colleagues will support our amendments in Committee to give the adjudicator such powers, because they did not support them in the other place. He is not the only one. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said last year:

“I agree with my hon. Friend and other Members that the adjudicator must have real teeth so that they can take action to stop abuses.”—[Official Report, 5 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 240WH.]

Just this weekend, a host of stakeholders wrote an open letter to The Sunday Telegraph. It is worth my quoting from it, because it touches on the crucial part of the Bill:

“Sir, Having got the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill this far, the government will be scoring an own goal if it denies the supermarket watchdog the one tool that will make it effective: the power to levy fines from the outset. The evidence of supermarkets’ unfair treatment of suppliers—which includes farmers both here and in developing countries—is all too clear. Watering down the bill so that penalties only go as far as ‘naming and shaming’ will not be a sufficient deterrent and the Adjudicator risks failing in its job to hold supermarkets to account.”

That letter was signed by ActionAid UK, the National Farmers Union, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, Traidcraft, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Independent Fruit Growers Association, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, Friends of the Earth, War on Want, RedOrange and Great Glemham Farms. Clearly, then, there is a great movement to provide for fines in the Bill, and I cannot understand why the Government have not listened to the letter.

We are in danger of creating this toothless tiger—I have “tiger”, but it could be a dog, I suppose. Let us imagine an old-fashioned circus act. Where is the fear in a circus clown putting his head into a tiger’s mouth, only to have his neck viced by the tiger’s gums? There is no way we can put fear into the hearts of the supermarkets with an adjudicator that does not have the power to fine. Providing for fines in the Bill does not mean that fines should be imposed on retailers randomly—I hope there would never have been sufficiently serious breaches to require the invoking of the power—but allowing the adjudicator to have the power easily to hand might influence the retailers’ actions and go some way in preventing serious breeches of the code.

Clause 9 gives the adjudicator the power to fine retailers, subject to permission from the Secretary of State. Even if the adjudicator decided that the power to fine was necessary, several considerable hurdles would have to be jumped. First, the adjudicator, who would be best placed to decide whether fines were appropriate, would have to publish guidance in deciding the amount of financial penalty—a point that goes back to the Minister’s intervention. Secondly, once that had been given to the Secretary of State, he would have to consult stakeholders on the guidance. Finally, a statutory instrument would have to be presented to Parliament and passed by affirmative resolution. This hugely drawn-out process will do nothing to instil much-needed confidence in farmers and small businesses that might have been severely affected by a breach of the code by a retailer that the adjudicator thinks merits a fine.

We must trust the adjudicator to issue remedies fairly. By not providing in the Bill for the power to fine, the Government are in danger of scoring an own gaol, as said in The Sunday Telegraph letter from ActionAid. Indeed—if I may continue with the footballing analogy—a red card could be issued. It would be available to the adjudicator in the case of a penalty, but it would not be in its breast pocket, where it could be issued fast and effectively against the offender if necessary. Essentially, we are saying in the Bill that if the referee wants to issue a red card, he will have to ask the Football Association, after which the FA will consult on its use and then pass a new law to allow it to be used. I much suspect that the match would have finished many months before the decision is made.

The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have also said that the power to fine should be provided for in the Bill. Furthermore, in a recent joint statement, the Grocery Market Action Group, ably chaired by the hon. Member for St Ives and made up of 23 organisations from across the farming, international development, environmental and small business lobbies, called on the Government to give the adjudicator the power to levy fines. I ask the Minister, again, why she is not listening to the entire industry when it comes to fines.

I turn to the intermediaries. At the bottom of all this lies the nagging doubt that many of the alleged abuses will not be resolved even by the presence of a perfectly functioning adjudicator, because the problem is in the code itself, not its implementation. Central to this idea is the code’s limited scope—this point has been raised by voices across the sector—as much of the bad practice occurs at the level of intermediaries not covered by the code and therefore the adjudicator. For example, let us imagine that a supermarket has a ready meal supplier, but decides it wants fewer carrots in the ready meal and goes through the proper GSCOP processes to remove carrots. The supermarket can do that legitimately under the code, and that is only right. However, the ready meal supplier will buy those carrots from a carrot supplier, and could therefore dismiss one of its suppliers of carrots or change the terms of the contract without any recall to the groceries code. In that example, nothing would have gone wrong according to the groceries code, so we could see suppliers further down the chain being harmed quite considerably by the decision of an intermediary.

Equally, that binary view of the market seems inappropriate when the supplier is a huge manufacturer of branded goods, such as Unilever, Kraft, Nestlé or Coca-Cola, whose turnover may exceed that of even the retailer. We are protecting the relationship rather than the carrot producer further down the chain. The adjudicator will be required to recommend changes to the code to the Office of Fair Trading, yet the British Retail Consortium claims that the OFT has taken no action to offer feedback on the annual reports that its members have already submitted under GSCOP on their implementation of the code or even to publish them.

Many farmers and growers are currently not covered by the code, as they do not directly supply the 10 largest retailers. Nevertheless, they are often the ultimate victims of unfair behaviour and the transfer of risks and costs. We hope that ensuring that retailers comply with the code will resolve those issues. If, despite the adjudicator’s best efforts, those problems persist, primary producers will continue to struggle to make a fair return for their enterprises and consumers will continue to suffer from the subsequent lack of investment. That is why it is critical that the adjudicator should have the power in the Bill to keep the code live, to enable such issues to be dealt with if the adjudicator deems that to be necessary. May I ask the Minister what consideration she has given to those concerns and whether she will come back to us in Committee with an assessment of the issues affecting intermediaries?

Finally—

[Daniel Kawczynski]

The hon. Gentleman, who appears to be moving towards the end of his speech, mentioned carrots. The British carrot industry is actually doing quite well, but I very much hope that he has spent some time thinking about how the adjudicator will help our British dairy industry, which is on its knees, with many farmers going out of business every month. In the last Parliament I set up the all-party group on dairy farmers in order to fight for them. Our main report suggested that we should have a grocery adjudicator Bill. Will he spend a few moments talking about our dairy farmers?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman raises a critical point, because naming and shaming did not work for the dairy farmers. What worked were blockades and sanctions in getting their points across to the Government. I will perhaps highlight the dairy industry and how the groceries code adjudicator should be able to help, but he makes a critical point about how the Bill could be seen as toothless, because the dairy industry had to blockade and withhold its services to get any action on how the supply chain worked. It neatly follows that the debate needs to be on where the code sits in the legislative framework.

[Glyn Davies]

It concerns me that the hon. Gentleman has just said that the improvement in the dairy farmers’ returns was based on just direct action. There was a serious debate in this House and a serious debate in central London, and the normal processes of politics had a great influence. It is not just direct action and blockading properties that are needed to have an influence on businesses.

[Ian Murray]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. The point I am making—I think his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham was making it too—is merely that we can draw a parallel between the code in the Bill and how it could work in the example I gave involving carrots in a ready meal, and what happened with the dairy industry. We are merely drawing parallels. I am not denying the actualities of what the hon. Gentleman has said; I am saying that having an adjudicator without teeth—one without the power to deal with the issue—could lead to exactly the same examples with many other industries.

To finish, my noble Friend Lord Knight—I pay tribute to the work he did on the Bill in the other place—speaking on behalf of the Opposition on Second Reading in the Lords, said:

“It is fundamentally odd that while Parliament is entitled to debate and scrutinise the function and powers of the referee, we are denied the opportunity to give the same scrutiny to the rulebook itself.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 2012; Vol. 738, c. GC80.]

I appreciate that the Minister said that the code has a footing, in that the adjudicator can use it to compel supermarkets and retailers to comply, but there is a question whether it should be put on a statutory footing in this House to allow that to occur, rather than be dealt with through executive order.

The code must be a living document that is open to continual improvement in order to ensure that the framework is responsive, and that it ultimately works in the best interests of all businesses as well as consumers. The National Farmers Union has raised concerns about the status and enforceability of the code, because it is contained in a schedule to an order under the Enterprise Act 2002, rather than in a statute of its own. We would consider going further, and we will explore the ways in which the code could be a matter for Parliament to consider on the basis of recommendations from the adjudicator, who is best placed to evaluate the code. The code needs to be capable of responding to changing market forces, and to be as durable as the adjudicator who will referee it.

I mentioned extending the scope of the code to intermediaries, and hon. Members have already raised the recent issues surrounding the dairy industry. Cuts to farm gate prices mean that dairy farmers are being paid less for milk than it costs them to produce it. That is not a sustainable model. We welcome the news that there is agreement on the terms of an industry code of practice that will lay the foundations of a new deal between farmers and retailers. For too long, dairy farmers have put up with wholly unbalanced terms and have been struggling to cope in an increasingly unworkable financial situation. It cannot be right that supermarkets use milk as a loss leader while farmers are being paid less for the milk than it costs them to produce it.

Ministers need either to ensure that the voluntary code on dairy contracts works for farmers, or to bring in regulation to fix the dysfunctional supply chain in that marketplace. I believe that the adjudicator could fit that role if necessary, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on whether their role could be extended into areas such as the dairy industry when problems arise. That would be part of keeping the code as a living document.

[Stephen Timms]

Traidcraft and others have raised a point relating to the confidentiality of those who report their concerns. The Minister referred to that matter in her speech. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Bill will provide enough protection for those reporting breaches of the code?

[Ian Murray]

We will have to explore that matter in detail in Committee, because there is confusion in the industry and among trade bodies. They are uncomfortable with the current requirements, and I hope that the adjudicator will offer recommendations on the level of evidence that will be required to set up an investigation. A balance will have to be struck involving anonymity and confidentiality. That could be difficult in the circumstances in which a product could be uniquely indentified as coming from a particular supplier, and care would have to be taken to ensure that that supplier’s identity was not disclosed in the course of the proceedings.

This is a good Bill, but it could be a great Bill. The situation was best summed up by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), who said in the House in April 2011:

“None of us wants a weak, ineffectual, pointless adjudicator which will cost everyone something but achieve nothing.”—[Official Report, 5 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 236WH.]

The adjudicator could and should be strengthened through the various proposals that we have heard this afternoon, and we will seek to achieve that in Committee. I give the Minister a commitment today that the Opposition will work constructively with her. Similarly, I hope that she will be open to giving due consideration to the amendments that we will table in the weeks ahead. I also hope that Hon. Members on the Government Benches who recognise that the Bill does not quite fulfil its potential will look at our proposals in detail in Committee. We look forward to playing our part with the Government in establishing an effective adjudicator as soon as possible.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I chair the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union parliamentary group. The group supports the Bill, because we hope that it will address the issue, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), of below-cost selling. We have been campaigning on this issue for a number of years by tabling parliamentary questions and early-day motions, and meeting Ministers, yet the problem continues. As my hon. Friend said, below-cost selling is when a retailer sells an item for less than its input cost—what is described as being sold with a negative gross margin. When the Competition Commission conducted an inquiry into items of known value, it identified that bread was a particular issue, as he said. It was not just one supermarket selling white sliced loaves for 7p—many others were selling bread at extremely low prices and low margins. As he said, other countries addressed the issue at the same time by introducing legislation to prevent the resale of goods at a loss. This area is regulated in several European countries.

My hon. Friend also quoted the Competition Commission. In the passage that he quoted, however, the commission went on to say that if the practice went unchecked,

“we conclude that this will ultimately have a detrimental effect on consumers, by leading to low-quality goods, less choice of goods, or less product innovation.”

That is exactly what has happened to the supply of bread. The loss of bread quality should worry all concerned—in many instances, it is now little more than water—and is contributing to the nation’s unhealthy diet. Price pressures are also having an impact on the working processes, so we are concerned about health and safety, particularly in relation to the preponderance of Baker’s asthma among workers producing bread for supermarket chains. As has been said elsewhere, the price pressures obviously result in firms closing, the loss of jobs and pressure on overall pay and conditions.

I want to refer to the three main points raised so far. The first concerns fines. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union has been involved in campaigns to name and shame. As I mentioned earlier, however, not only have they not worked but they have had the contradictory result of giving publicity to companies providing products at extremely low prices. In some ways, naming and shaming actually boosts supermarkets’ sales, as we saw with the Competition Commission’s inquiry into the 7p loaf. Our experience is thus not only that large conglomerates can ride out a naming and shaming campaign but that some actually benefit from it.

From my reading of the Bill, it looks as though the fines order will be brought into play only on a case-by-case basis. [Interruption.] No, the Minister says it will be on a general basis. If that is so, it will still be left to the Secretary of State to designate in the order the size of the fine to be levied. I would welcome more information. Will a tariff system be established? Will the recommendation on a tariff system come from the adjudicator? The House could usefully discuss whether a tariff system would prove effective and have an impact on companies’ practices.

The second issue concerns third party reporting. We have all welcomed that provision and put on record the fact that it will include trade unions. That is incredibly useful, and I congratulate the Government. Having said that, trade unions are anxious that companies might take retaliatory measures against a union or individual members. That is a concern, given past victimisation and blacklisting, so I would welcome the Government’s revisiting the blacklisting regulations to ensure adequate protection for trade unions, trade unionists and individual workers who blow the whistle on some of the practices of the supermarkets, as they put pressure on individual companies.

I am extremely worried by clause 15(10). I have seen clauses that allow for a review of the implementation of legislation, and for that review to bring forward recommendations that the House can discuss and on the basis of which we frame further legislation. That is the rational process. I have never before seen in legislation, however, the actual proposed new clause to be introduced. That flies in the face of the rational process of review, assessment and recommendation, after which the House comes to a view. It would help if we could hear why the Government feel they need the draft clause on the shelf, within the Bill itself, to introduce readily. It smacks of defeatism over the effectiveness of the legislation. May I also have some clarity on the process for the order? Will it be the affirmative process or the super-affirmative process—or whatever other process—that the Government recommend? There would need to be quite a heated exchange in this Chamber if we felt that the Government were reverting to type and removing those provisions from the Bill.

Thirdly, the appointment of the adjudicator is very important. I am therefore keen that the Government should concede that there ought to be some form of pre-appointment process via the relevant Select Committee, but I worry sometimes about the timidity of this House. Other Select Committees now have the right to approve appointments, so why not in this instance?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. As he is talking about giving this House some input in the appointment to an important post, does he agree that we should go down the route outlined in the Conservative party manifesto from the general election, which said that the Conservatives would

“give Select Committees the right to hold confirmation hearings for major public appointments, including the heads of quangos”?

[John McDonnell]

This point coincides with a private Member’s Bill in my name on the appointment of the Governor of the Bank of England. I can understand that the Government—or rather, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—might have some anxieties about that, but I cannot see why anybody should have any anxieties about the adjudicator being appointed with the approval of the relevant Select Committee. In fact, that is exactly what happened with the Office for Budget Responsibility. The appointment of the chair—in fact, the members were there too—was subject to the approval of the Treasury Committee. The post of adjudicator needs to be given sufficient authority, which often stems from the process of appointment. If the appointment was subject not only to pre-examination and review and so on, but to approval by the relevant Select Committee, that would send a message to the supermarkets and anybody else that the Government were serious about this job, and the individual concerned would have the full authority of this House to do as he or she saw fit in implementing the legislation. That is not an awful lot to concede, really.

It is rare to find such unanimity on the Back Benches across all parties. I genuinely do not understand why the issue of fines has arisen. In the old days, an influential figure in a sector of industry would phone No. 10 and the Prime Minister would drag in the Secretary of State and say, “We’re not having it, so you’d better amend it.” I hope none of that has gone on. I hope we will get a rational process in Committee, an acknowledgement of the unanimous view on the Back Benches and a Government amendment on fines that we can all agree on. If the Government strengthened the role of the new body—with the unanimous approval of this House, which they would get, because they have had it so far, apart from on this one issue—they could put down a marker to show that the Government mean business on this issue, and so do all legislators in this House.

In that way, the proposal will prove to be effective; otherwise, I make this prediction. There will be rows. The adjudicator will come forward, there will be publicity about a particular instance, the supermarket might pull back for a few months, or maybe a year, then it will return to its practices and we will end up going round the cycle yet again, most probably in two years’ time. We will be kicking ourselves and asking, “Why didn’t we give the adjudicator powers to fine?” Rather than waiting and revisiting the issue, why not do that now?

As for the order being in place and the choice being between fines in the Bill and fines in a statutory instrument that would take six months to introduce, there are people here with more experience than I, but getting a statutory instrument through this House can be quite difficult to say the least. If there is a civil servant out there or someone lobbying, the fastest I have seen it happen is 18 months to two years, so I have some scepticism about getting an SI through in that time. There will be lots of vying for parliamentary time in discussions with the Leader of the House and something could crop up that sends this issue to the back of the queue. It is not just a matter of saying, “Well, if it doesn’t work, we’ll bring forward an order in six months.” Instead, we could be waiting beyond the next Parliament. Some elements in the industry could play on and exploit that as part of their lobbying practices.

Ultimately, if the ability to fine were put in the Bill and a fine were imposed that the supermarkets, or whoever, were unhappy with, they would resort to a court of law anyway. If they felt that there was something wrong with the process, they could ask for a judicial review of the Government or the adjudicator. They have all the facilities to do that anyway, so I am not completely sure what the Government are arguing about on that point. I am hoping that we can have a rational process, and that the Government will see reason and table the appropriate amendments in Committee. I also hope that the work that has been done over the years by all those hon. Members who have been congratulated today will come to fruition in an effective piece of legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

We have to look at the picture in the round. The reality is that most farmers on aligned supermarket contracts have not had their prices cut. The problem is with supermarkets and the other big retailers that operate in the middle ground, whose processors have continued to invest in new bottling plant and undercut each other for contracts instead of attacking growing markets both overseas and in import substitution.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Gangmasters Licensing Authority is very important to the dairy industry, and the recent ministerial statement on the GLA has given the supermarkets grave concern. Has the Minister had any discussions with the supermarkets about that matter and the potential suspension of the supermarket protocol?

[Mr Paice]

No supermarket has approached my Department with any concerns about the GLA or the changes that I announced a few weeks ago, so frankly, I think the hon. Gentleman is whistling in the wind. If supermarkets have evidence that there are problems, I am happy to listen, but I am not aware of any concerns.

Gangmasters Licensing Authority

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to have secured this Westminster Hall debate under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I am delighted to have been given time by the House to hold this timely debate on a very important authority.

I start by paying tribute to a number of hon. Members who have done so much in this area. First, I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), whose 2004 private Member’s Bill commenced the legislative process that created the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who was the Minister responsible for taking the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 through the House of Commons, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who has been a champion of vulnerable workers, and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority in its various guises, for many years before becoming an MP.

It is also appropriate to pay tribute to the trade union movement, which has championed the cause of vulnerable workers for many decades and has been a stalwart defender of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority when it has been attacked by this Government. I should also pay tribute to everyone who works in the authority for doing the incredibly challenging and difficult job of making sure that workers are not exposed to exploitation.

I should remind hon. Members why the Gangmasters Licensing Authority was created in the first place. It was created as a result of tragedy: the drowning of 23 cockle pickers in Morecambe bay in 2004. The deaths of the Chinese cockle pickers put back into use a word that had almost been forgotten in British public life since the 1960s: “gangmaster.” A Chinese man who had organised the group was described as their gangmaster and was later found guilty of the manslaughter of 21 of those who had drowned. The incident led to a wider debate about those who organise casual workers and sometimes exploit them. It resulted in the creation of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to regulate that form of labour.

The new legislation was groundbreaking, as it was widely assumed that working gangs and gangmasters had disappeared. In agriculture, European migrant labour has generally moved from areas with smaller farms to places where prices and wages are higher. That movement created the gang system, particularly in the eastern counties of England, where accommodation for permanent farm workers is scarce and there is high demand for seasonal labour. So the gangmaster was alive and well, had been exposed through tragedy, and was often linked with organised criminal activity.

New versions of the old exploitation developed over time, encouraged by the relentless pressure to cut food production costs. The new licensing authorities are attempting to prevent exploitation, but the poverty of some countries compared with Britain will sustain such a system in the future. Once it was Irish migrants; now they might be Latvians or, as we saw with the cockle pickers, Chinese. What continues is the movement of migrant agricultural labour and the abuse-prone gangs that have historically always been associated with such labour.

Once the Gangmasters Licensing Authority was established, it was supported by a coalition of national retailers, food industry representatives, labour providers and trade unions. Crucially, there was cross-party support in this place for the regulation of those who supply labour in the areas of agriculture, forestry, horticulture, shellfish gathering, food processing and packaging. However, we are not simply talking about a piece of employment legislation that the Government would have people believe is a burden on business. This is a life-saving body that safeguards the welfare of workers, while regulating the providers of such workers and protecting some of the most vulnerable workers from exploitation, abuse and modern-day slavery.

As stated in many independent reports—I shall mention just a few—the GLA has been a huge success. Independent evaluations conducted by Sheffield and Liverpool universities have confirmed the effectiveness of GLA enforcement. In a survey of licensed gangmasters in 2008, eight out of 10 respondents were in favour of licensing; seven out of 10 felt that the GLA was doing a good job; and only 18% described their contact with the GLA as burdensome. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has had a major research programme on forced labour for several years, and much of its work has touched on the GLA and the role it plays. What it says sums up the GLA:

“To put our position simply, we are big supporters of the GLA. All of our research and contacts with businesses, employers, unions, campaigners—everyone—suggests they are doing a vital job. They are a hugely effective tool in preventing contemporary slavery. Indeed, there is a case for expanding their remit out with the sectors they currently regulate.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s inquiry into human trafficking in Scotland commented that:

“Apart from the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA), the Inquiry did not identify evidence of regulators linking anti-trafficking efforts with their work”.

Crucially, the Hampton report, which looked at reducing regulatory burdens on business, and which led to an inspection programme covering all regulators, strongly endorsed the GLA’s approach, concluding that:

“The GLA’s impact in improving working conditions for some vulnerable workers has been impressive, particularly in view of its relatively small size.”

That report was endorsed by the Institute for Human Rights and Business, the Ethical Trading Initiative, anti-slavery organisations, the Association of Labour Providers, the Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility and, of course, Oxfam.

Since its inception, the GLA has protected workers by ensuring that they receive their pay and holiday rights, and that they work in a healthy and safe environment. Inspectors also check that vulnerable workers are not housed in substandard conditions while being charged excessive rents. The GLA has played a central role in reducing human trafficking in the UK. The authority also helps to recover unpaid tax and national insurance, thereby increasing revenues for the Exchequer.

According to the GLA’s annual report last year, 845 cases of worker exploitation were identified. The financial cost of that exploitation amounted to £2.5 million. Some 91% of the GLA’s intelligence-driven operations identified serious cases of non-compliance. Some 36 cases of unlicensed activity were uncovered, and 33 licences were revoked. There were also 12 successful criminal prosecutions.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does not the GLA’s success mean that the problem is being moved across to the construction industry? A major problem is that there is no regulation in the construction industry to match the regulation that the GLA provides for other industries. Therefore, there is a good argument to say that the GLA should be expanded to cover the construction industry. That would help to deal with the industry that has the highest rate of accidents in the UK.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. He has a private Member’s Bill on extending the GLA’s remit to construction workers, but because it is low down on the Order Paper, it will never be passed. I hope that the Minister will say in his response whether the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will examine the possibility of extending the GLA to cover other areas. The forestry and agricultural industries are becoming more regulated, gangmasters are becoming licensed, and the GLA has been successful, but there has been a migration of exploited labour into other parts of industry. I may mention that later.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good case. I was co-sponsor of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill 2004 with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), who should be congratulated. Would he add to the many benefits he has listed as having resulted from the GLA’s introduction those relating to farmers? They feel much more reassured that they are dealing with gangmasters on a sound basis. Also, the many legitimate gangmaster operations in existence know that the GLA is driving the illegal trade out of business altogether.

[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.

[Andrew George]

On that point, the hon. Gentleman appears to be contradicting himself. On the one hand, he is saying that the GLA should be extended to the construction trade and other trades. On the other hand, he is saying that it should remain in DEFRA. If it goes beyond the parameters of the operation of DEFRA, does he not agree that it would be appropriate to rest the body in another Government Department?

[Ian Murray]

I was about to come to that. I agree that that seems inherently contradictory, but the key fact about the Gangmasters Licensing Authority sitting in DEFRA is that it is there to do a particular job, which it is doing rather well. Moving the GLA from DEFRA to BIS would be putting it into a Department that is looking at deregulation and is running the red tape challenge. A previous Under-Secretary at BIS—now the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change—has made clear remarks about where the GLA should sit and what its function should be. Indeed, he initiated the Macdonald report, which recommended a light-touch regulatory approach. If the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) commits the Department at least to examining the extension of the powers of the GLA, there might be an argument about which Department it would sit in, but my point is that in this particular confusion, DEFRA is the best place for the GLA to sit. Moving it to BIS would merely be an act of deregulation, rather than showing support for an organisation that is prone to be hugely successful.

Will the Minister at least examine the possibility of not diluting the GLA, but extending it to other areas? We have heard about similar problems of exploitation and unlawful practices in construction, the social care sector and hospitality. There is evidence that the limited GLA remit has led to the displacement of rogue operators from GLA sectors into other parts of the labour market—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. The Trades Union Congress has identified a strong case for extending the GLA licensing scheme, a view shared by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its report on “The Trade in Human Beings” back in 2009.

There is also support for an extension to the GLA’s remit in the business community; that is critical to where the GLA currently sits in the Government’s thinking. Nearly three quarters of the gangmasters who responded to the 2008 survey by Liverpool and Sheffield universities, which I mentioned, said that the GLA scheme should be extended to other sectors—either to all sectors, or especially to the construction and hospitality sectors. That is significant, because many gangmasters operate in other sectors that are not subject to GLA regulation, most notably non-food manufacturing, distribution, cleaning and construction. Good business wants a level playing field, which can be delivered only by dealing with this contemporary slavery.

Recently, controversy has surrounded areas that the GLA has looked at, such as dairy farming, but the courts have recognised that, again, it is clearing up the supply chains. There is also a strong view that forestry should be removed from the GLA remit, but does that not provide a reason to allow the GLA to follow the evidence of gangmasters into any industry? I pose that question to the Minister. That way, gangmasters, rather than the industry, become the issue. Let the evidence follow the crime, if the evidence is there to investigate.

[Mr David Hamilton]

May I draw attention to my hon. Friend’s point about the support of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the TUC? There is other support, too; the Select Committee on Work and Pensions took evidence in Midlothian many years ago, and the construction industry was represented there. It felt aggrieved about what was happening. Good, honest employers are having to compete against some unruly organisations, and they feel that they are in a deficit position as a result. It is important that we recognise that good employers also want regulation.

[Ian Murray]

Absolutely. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. His private Member’s Bill, which I have already mentioned, looked at similar aspects of the construction industry. The critical point is that good businesses want good regulation—this is not about the amount of regulation—to clean up the sector, so that those good businesses benefit, as they deserve to benefit. As my hon. Friend said, “unruly organisations” and employers can then be rooted out, protecting not only workers but the industry. That is key, and it is why supermarkets have been so keen to work in partnership with the GLA, to bring that together.

May I summarise for the Minister some of the questions to which I would appreciate an answer? I am grateful for his presence—the Minister with responsibility for the GLA is otherwise engaged. Will he at least guarantee that there will be no watering down of the GLA regulation and enforcement powers? Will he keep resources in place, because the GLA is needed more now, in tough times, than in better times? Will the ministerial team at least examine the evidence for the GLA going into other sectors and, perhaps, following the evidence, rather than dealing only with particular sectors? Will the Minister look at the potential for more flexibility for the GLA, perhaps making it self-financing or providing it with the powers to examine other industries in less stringent terms, so that it looks not just at criminality? For example, I mentioned the dairy farmers: a slap on the wrist might have been more appropriate than a proper criminal process in that case.

There is widespread evidence that the GLA and the licensing system have been effective in raising standards in the fresh food processing sector, and other sectors covered, and in protecting some of the most vulnerable workers in the United Kingdom. The confusion and uncertainty on the part of the Government are not helpful, and the red tape challenge has proven that confusion can reign in such matters. Finally, let me return to where I started: the Gangmasters Licensing Authority was set up on the back of a horrendous tragedy. Any reduction in the remit of the GLA would put vulnerable workers at risk of exploitation, modern slavery and perhaps even death. Let us not scrap something that works.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Pugh]

The hon. Gentleman has slightly anticipated me. There is a prima facie case in the construction industry, and there has long been a history of gangmaster behaviour, which used to be called the lump. Building firms sometimes employ people as a gang instead of employing them individually to avoid some of the penalties that might be incurred because work on a building site is intrinsically risky. A construction firm might incur liabilities, but sometimes, by arrangement, they fall on the gangmasters, who accept no ultimate liability whatever.

There is a decent case for including the construction and agriculture industries, but it becomes more difficult in the catering industry, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh South mentioned. We seem to be moving into territory where we may be imposing on an industry regulation that, strictly speaking, is unnecessary.

[Ian Murray]

Perhaps I could provide some clarification. I examined whether there should be an extension to other industries, but I particularly asked the Minister to examine whether it would be appropriate for the GLA to cover other industries, rather than saying that it should have a blanket involvement. I was asking for some proposals from the Government, and whether it would wise and prudent to do so.

[John Pugh]

The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely valid point. He is suggesting a benchmark or threshold that must be met before imposing additional regulation. Surely, that benchmark or threshold has been met in the agricultural industry. In my view it has certainly been met in the construction industry. Removing existing controls when there is clear evidence that they are needed would be regressive and wholly detrimental to the interests of British commerce and to the people who work in those industries.

Public Forest Estate (England)

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of the matter. The only legally enforceable rights are public access rights guaranteed under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The introduction of further “higher rights” would require changes to primary legislation. [Interruption.] Who will enforce the leases in 150 years’ time? It is certain that none of us will be around to remember this debate at that time.

Who will benefit from the sales? The Confederation of Forest Industries’ website says that the price of commercial forests rose

“138% since 2002, which equates to a 17% average annual growth over the period”.

So the forests that the Tories sold off in the 1980s and ’90s have trebled or quadrupled in value. Where is the public benefit from those increased land values? There is none. Forestry land is exempt from inheritance tax after two years, and timber sales have no income tax or capital gains tax. When we sell our forests, the taxpayer loses many times over.

“Private companies buying 75-year rights to woodland would naturally seek to maximise returns from timber extraction”—

[Interruption.] The Minister should allow me to finish my quote before chuntering; I think that he is going to like it:

“There is no sign that the consequences for conservation, recreation and tourism have been properly weighed up in these plans. The Government is using ‘slash and burn’ tactics”.

Those are not my words; that was a press release from the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury in January 2009, when a similar plan was proposed by the Scottish Government. I do not see the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) in the Chamber today.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I should like to draw my hon. Friend’s attention to a quote:

“Liberal Democrats believe that the SNP are in a real way threatening to destroy rural Scotland through this hugely flawed proposal and are prepared to sell off the family silver for what amounts to a very small, one off sum of money.”

Will she join me and the Liberal Democrats in their “Save our Forests!” campaign?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. For some reason, the photograph of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury with a “Save our Forests!” sign has disappeared from the Liberal Democrats’ website. If anyone can find it, please will they e-mail it to me?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

No—I am not giving way anymore.

Finally, on jobs, I want to make this point. The Government believe that any commercial undertaking that leases parts of our forests for commercial purposes will want to increase commercial and economic activity. That is the best way to encourage job creation. People will not take forests on just to shut the gate—they would be unable to do so even if they wanted to—and leave it there; they will want to run that area as a commercial, job-creating business.

This debate was based on Opposition claims that range, frankly, from the spurious to the absurd. Not only do the Government not intend, as the Opposition motion suggests, to sell 100% of the forest estate; we could not do so, because we do not even own 58,000 hectares of it. The actual figures are in the document.

The Secretary of State and I have repeatedly stressed—