Sale of Puppies and Kittens
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for securing this debate, and the 125,000 people who signed the petition. If nothing else, it has enabled MPs to get up and demonstrate how many dogs, cats and goldfish they own, and also to put their names on the historic record—a valuable contribution to our civilisation.
Early in 2009, a network of puppy farms in Wales was exposed. It was horrendous and showed the barbaric treatment of animals. I tabled an early-day motion, which was signed by 75 hon. Members and called for a review of the legislation to ensure that it was effective. At the time and since, we were given various assurances that the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006 were appropriate. I am grateful for the work done by the Select Committee and various campaigning organisations to demonstrate that, although that legislation laid the foundations—I welcomed the 2006 Act and thought it was quite comprehensive—a lot more detail needs to be addressed.
I fully support a number of the proposals that have been made today. I think that reducing the number of litters allowed each year under the licensing regime to two is critical. Beyond that, breeding becomes an industry, and that is the point at which abuses start. Importation is critical. The threshold of five animals per individual is too high, because it enables a large number of animals to be introduced into the country, almost subverting the current legislation. The third issue raised today was the removal of puppies from their mothers after only two, three or four weeks, and I take a fairly strong line on that. I would have a limit of 12 weeks, rather than the proposed eight weeks. I want a harder regime, and I want it to be encompassed in legislation so that it is clear-cut.
Too often in this House we will the objectives without willing the means to achieve them. As has been said a number of times, local authorities do not have the resources invested in this to enable them to undertake the kind of enforcement regime that we expect. It would be wrong simply to castigate those authorities, because in many areas they are struggling to protect children and elderly people with the resources they have. Their resources are stretched. I think that it behoves us now to review in detail the resources available to individual local authorities.
Earlier in the debate an hon. Member talked about the need to inculcate best practice across local authorities, and I agree, but best practice still relies on expert professionals being able to undertake inspections, work with the RSPCA and the voluntary sector, advise owners— some of this is about advising those involved in the industry on how to raise their standards—and, ultimately, ensure that there is enforcement. Having talked with other Members and local authorities in my area and elsewhere, I understand that those resources are not available.
I would like the Minister to engage in dialogue with local authorities and perhaps survey them on what resources are being devoted to the issue already and how they need to be strengthened. He could then bring the report back to the House so that we can properly undertake our role, which is to set objectives and ensure that a systematic process is in place and that we devote the resources for tackling the problem. That way, I think that we can manage to find a way forward. If we cannot do that, all the pious words and eloquent speeches we have heard will be irrelevant, and we will be back here in another four of five years to talk about more scandals and an excellent legislative regime that is not being implemented at the grass roots, where resources and implementation are vital.
George Eustice
Let me finish the point. Since that time, it would be fair to say—from all the representations made during today’s debate and from the recommendations of the Select Committee—that this is the wrong way to interpret the legislation. Those carrying on a business of breeding and selling dogs should be required to have a licence. I can confirm that we will write to local authorities to provide new clarity through new guidance so that they can interpret the Act in the spirit intended by the House today.
Pet shops are a key item of today’s debate. It is important to recognise that only about 2% of pet shops sell cats and dogs—around 70 in total—and they are already regulated and licensed. They are regulated under the Pet Animals Act 1951. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South asked me to clarify whether local authorities have the additional power to place restrictions on which animals can be sold at a licensed pet shop establishment. I can confirm that they do have the power to restrict the number of animals that can be sold. He asked, too, about the issue of ambiguity and contestability in that context. Let me clarify that the intention of the provision is for local authorities to judge on a case-by-case basis whether a particular premise is suitable for a particular animal to be sold. It is not necessary for local authorities to change the law; it is for them to have considerable discretion in making a judgment about whether it is appropriate for certain animals to be sold on the authority’s premises.
The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) made the important point that much can be done within the existing regulations. I agree. In January this year, along with the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and many other charities and organisations, we contributed to some model licence conditions that were made available to all local authorities and were published by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. These included 50 pages of recommendations about the sorts of conditions that should be included in a licence for dog-breeding premises. There were strict provisions on the need for social interaction with humans, which should apply for the whole day if the buyers were present all the time.
In addition, in September 2013 we published the model conditions for pet vending, which also set out strict conditions for pet shops about the need for interaction with staff and humans. It is specifically recommended that at least four times a day a human should spend at least 20 minutes with the puppies on sale. We have already put in place important guidance on these issues.
I would like to conclude by saying that we have had a really important debate. I, too, have received many hundreds of letters on the issue and it is clearly of great importance to the country. We have 8 million dogs in this country and we are a nation of animal lovers.
John McDonnell
Before the Minister concludes, will he respond on the issue of local authority resources, which was raised by several Members?
George Eustice
All I can say on that issue is that the internet will make it easier for some local authorities to identify where they have a problem. One thing we have done in the new code, agreed with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group, is provide that where a licence is held it must be advertised, and where it is not held contact details should be advertised. That gives local authorities a ready way to identify where they have the most serious problems.
In conclusion, we have had a good and important debate. The Government are committed to improving animal welfare, as I am personally. I hope that my comments today will help reassure the House that the Government are doing a considerable amount to move this item forward.
Badger Cull
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Williamson
Policing costs are a significant contributory factor to the overall cost of the badger cull, but we live in a democracy and people have a right to monitor the badger cull and protest against it. We do not live in a dictatorship and those costs have to be factored in.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Is it not important to acknowledge the distress the cull has caused to the wider community overall?
Chris Williamson
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That distress is not confined to people living in towns and cities; it is felt by rural communities and by many farmers. Dairy farmers have approached me to say that they are extremely distressed by the badger cull and do not feel that there is any justification for it. I see the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) shaking his head, but I can assure him that that is a fact. They are fearful that this folly will make matters worse for them. They want to proceed on a scientific basis and see this disease eradicated. They do not want to see badgers suffering and they certainly do not want to see the situation made worse as a consequence of the folly we have seen so far.
I hope that there can be a rapprochement between those on the Government Front Bench and Opposition Members, and that we can find consensus. To achieve that, the Government must abandon this cull.
Flooding
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will try to take just five minutes, so that my “hon. Friend for Heathrow, South”—the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng)—can speak.
I will briefly make three points about constituency matters. I visited on a daily basis those areas of my constituency that were at risk in West Drayton; West Drayton came into my constituency at the last general election. We were very fortunate that no homes were flooded but it was a near-run thing, particularly in Frays avenue and Donkey lane, and down in Longford. I cannot pay enough tribute to the Environment Agency staff, who were superb, as were the local fire services. The local council was slow at first, but then really got in on the act. I am very grateful to all of them; I thank all the officers involved.
I would like to raise one issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson); I would welcome a ministerial meeting, or a meeting with officials, about it. In 2010, there was a proposal for what was called the Arklyn Kennels scheme in West Drayton, for investment to build up concrete and earth-bank defences by 2014-15. Originally, that was a £2.8 million scheme, which subsequently, I am told, was reduced to a £1 million scheme and delayed until at least 2018-19. I hope that, in the light of the events of recent weeks, that scheme will be reviewed and we can look at it again. I would welcome a meeting with Ministers or officials to talk it through, and to bring in the relevant local authority representatives as well, because the area affected is one of those on the Thames floodplain that has demonstrated that we need to do much more.
The second constituency issue that I want to raise is about Heathrow. I am not trying to be opportunistic; I am just making a relevant point. At the terminal 5 inquiry, detailed submissions were put forward with regard to expanding Heathrow on what is, in effect, the Thames floodplain. The argument put forward in favour of Heathrow expansion then was that rivers would be diverted and culverted, which I do not think has been successful. The Howard Davies review is looking at the various options for runways across the south-east, including at Heathrow, and it is important that his attention is focused on the implications for flooding on the Thames floodplain. Any further expansion at Heathrow—any additional runway—will effectively build up a dam, which will cause flooding further on.
Finally, I will return to the issue about the Pitt review. Recommendation 39 of the review was that a statutory duty should be placed upon fire authorities with regard to flooding. In opposition, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats supported that recommendation, and a number of us went to see Labour Government Ministers to urge them to implement it. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee also recommended that it should be implemented; the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), raised the issue in debate after debate. There were delays and we were then told that there would be Operation Watermark, which would eventually determine whether that statutory responsibility would be given to fire authorities. That took place and there were recommendations that the issue should now be addressed. The chief fire officers have come out in favour of the proposal. The Government’s new system of an ideas bank, which I support, has also recommended that the Government act on this matter. I urge the Government to consider it seriously.
In the coalition agreement, there was an agreement that the recommendations of the Pitt review would be implemented. This recommendation is important, and I will say why. I think that it was the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) who said that there have been improvements in recent years in the supply of equipment and so on. Those improvements came as a result of learning the lessons of past disasters, when firefighters had turned up and there was inadequate equipment. We realised that for decades there had not been sufficient investment because no one took responsibility. Placing a statutory responsibility on fire authorities protects their budgets, ensures that someone takes responsibility, and in the long term cumulatively ensures that the lessons of past disasters are learned.
This matter must be addressed now. As I say, I hope there is virtual consensus on it, and it just requires political will to undertake it. Let us use this lesson this time round to ensure that this recommendation is implemented and that we do not delay further.
Water Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miss McIntosh
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her good services to the all-party group, where we serve as fellow officers. We hear of many entrants, but obviously, until the law is in place, it is difficult to put a number on that. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will have heard and can perhaps comment, as he is closer to the issue.
We suggest that if existing companies are unable to compete with new entrants who want to come in for very good reasons and lose customers as a result, it makes sense to allow an exit strategy. I personally feel that we heard no compelling evidence during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill and during our consideration of the water White Paper to suggest that the reform should not include a retail exit strategy. That is why we feel honour bound to come forward for the sake of the Bill’s completeness.
New clause 2 would give all undertakers the power but not the obligation to transfer their non-household retail business to a different company. It would give the Secretary of State the power to make any such transfer subject to approval and any necessary safeguards to ensure an orderly exit from the market. I hope that the House will be able to support the proposals because much of the Bill is silent on these matters and we want to use the new clause and amendment to give it more teeth.
There are several arguments in favour of allowing such a retail exit. For example, an exit clause is needed to allow the market to function normally and competitively. Additionally, a company should be able to organise its business in the way it considers best in the interests of its customers and shareholders. An exit clause would facilitate new entrants, especially larger ones, into the water and sewerage retail market because they would not need to win one contract at a time. Without new clause 2, I understand that economies of scale would work against new entrants and either prevent them from entering the market or, at the very least, reduce the benefits that they could provide to new customers due to higher costs of entry. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that the proposal is helpful and that he will be minded to accept it. It would not be in the interest of companies or their customers to force companies to stay in a market in which they have few or no customers.
The general thrust of the new clause goes to the heart of this group of amendments dealing with the regime of the water industry. We should learn from what has happened in Scotland. I understand that DEFRA has stated that it intends to create a market in which access is regulated—in other words, with the rules of entry clearly set out and adhered to by all market participants. The reverse side of the coin is that if the rules of entry are to be set out, the House would, I am sure, want rules of orderly exit to be set out. I am not saying that exit would happen in many cases, but it is important that such rules are on the statute book.
Following our pre-legislative scrutiny, we said that as much detail as possible should be set out in the Bill so that the House could consider it. It is wrong—I part company from my hon. Friend the Minister in this respect —to leave too much to regulations, given that many of us with a great interest in this subject will not be selected to serve on the Delegated Legislation Committees that consider them. As the Bill does not provide for retail exit, the strategy is too open. It could be argued that the Government’s approach is based on the premise that parties in the retail market should be left to negotiate among themselves about matters such as service and price, but that could be set out in the Bill.
Considerations of price, service levels and the ability to respond to difficulties go to the heart of why it is important to have a competitive market in England, as has been achieved in Scotland. There must be a way of policing a situation in which incumbents are simply slow in responding to requests for information or services from new entrants. It is important not only to facilitate the path for new entrants, but to allow for an exit strategy and to bring about a competitive market. The Bill is completing its remaining stages in the House today, but little is known about upstream competition. The Government are asking that we take an awful lot on trust, but it would be better if the Bill provided for a definite exit strategy, which is why I commend new clause 2 and amendment 12 to the House.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). I see in the national press that she has had a little local difficulty. I hope that she can resolve the matter, because she would be a loss to the House if she were not returned at the next election—unless of course she were replaced by a Labour Member.
I want to speak to new clause 14, which is in my name. It suggests to the House that before we move forward with further legislation, we stand back and look objectively at the performance of the water supply industry since 1989 when it was privatised. I am not part of this common agreement among some parties in the House that privatisation and competition have been a success and are the way forward. In fact, I deeply regret what has happened since privatisation.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has been a consistent if sometimes lonely voice on this issue for a great many years. It is not for me or for anybody to defend individual water companies, but does he not concede that companies such as South West Water have spent an enormous amount of money cleaning up our beaches and rivers? Has he measured the trajectory of investment that was happening before privatisation and compared it with the £100 billion plus that has been spent since privatisation on improving our water sector and making it more environmentally-friendly and on keeping costs down for customers?
John McDonnell
I have heard the argument about infrastructure investment doubling since privatisation, but what is significant—
Alison Seabeck
Let me pursue the point about South West Water. There is no doubt that it has made dramatic inroads into the problems around the coasts, but there is an issue with the privatisation in the first place. The customer base was far too small to sustain the work that needed to be done around those coasts. As a result, bill payers in the south west—here I disagree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon)—are paying an extraordinarily high amount for their water.
John McDonnell
I agree that significant investment has been made in the infrastructure, but the problem is that since the 1990s that has declined as a proportion of the overall turnover of the industry. So the record is not glowing by any means, and the cost of that investment has been paid through significant debt burdens on those companies, which is eventually then paid for by consumers
Hywel Williams
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that the level of investment would be even higher if all the profits were devoted to investment in the infrastructure, rather than being siphoned off abroad.
John McDonnell
That is one reason why I support the Welsh model of a not-for-profit company, because, as I say, I feel that the general public have been ripped off throughout this period.
Let me just finish off with my last couple of examples, because I would not want to miss them out: United Utilities was fined £75,000 for management failures that contributed to a fire in October 2013; and Severn Trent Water received a £30,000 fine for sewage pollution in September last year. The performance record of these companies is that not only do they not tackle the leakages and the real need for infrastructure investment, but they are polluting the very water they are supposed to be protecting and supplying.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned Severn Trent Water. Given the pollution incidents involving water companies, does he agree that there is an urgent need to examine the court costs and fines imposed on water companies? Does he also agree that there is a real danger that some companies might prefer to go ahead, pollute and accept a fine because that approach is nowhere near as expensive as making the investment in the first place?
John McDonnell
The drive for profits is making these companies ignore their duty towards the wider environment, and the fines and costs are relatively marginal in comparison with the profits they make.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Interventions are supposed to be brief. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a defence of the water industry, he can stand up to make a speech—he may not do so in an intervention.
John McDonnell
Former Ministers need an element of retraining, so may I say to the hon. Gentleman that he can intervene on me as often as wants, but perhaps he could be a bit briefer?
The issue is this: we are not talking about advocating a return to the previous model of nationalisation here; we are talking about the long-term future of the water industry, which is why this debate is important. My view is that privatisation and competition has not worked, but there are other models that we should explore. The Welsh model of a not-for-profit organisation ploughing the money that comes back into the infrastructure and into quality of service is the one we should now be exploring.
Hywel Williams
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this can be clearly seen in Welsh Water’s response to the cryptosporidium outbreak in my constituency some years ago, when it managed to spend £1 million almost immediately on installing new mechanisms to get rid of the cryptosporidium and then spent £7 million on further treatment works? It responded appropriately and quickly to the outbreak.
John McDonnell
Competition and privatisation have not worked, which is why I do not think that the Bill, the main thrust of which is to introduce more competition and privatisation, represents the way forward. It provides further opportunities for exploitation. I think that we can all agree to condemn the level of profiteering that has taken pace, particularly in recent years.
I wish to put on the record what has been happening, as independent examinations have shown. Sir Ian Byatt, Britain’s top water regulator throughout the 1990s, wrote in the foreword to a report by the think-tank CentreForum that
“many companies, especially the private equity infrastructure funds, have paid out excessive dividends to their owners.”
He went on to argue for some form of dividend control. That was echoed by Jonson Cox, Ofwat’s chairman, who has called for water companies to share unintended gains with consumers, arguing that the profits and tax- reducing corporate structures were “morally questionable”. I can understand why.
Let me give some examples of the profiteering that has gone on. Northumbrian Water is owned by Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings, which is based in Hong Kong. Last year its operating profits were £154 million, but it paid nothing in tax. Its debt was £4 billion. Its chief executive, Heidi Mottram, received a salary, bonus and benefits worth £595,000. Yorkshire Water is owned by Citi, a US company, GIC, which is based in Singapore, Infracapital Partners and HSBC, based in the UK. Last year its operating profit was £335 million, but it paid only £100,000 in tax. Its debt was £4.7 billion. Its chief executive, Richard Flint, received a salary, bonus and benefits worth £800,000.
Anglian Water is owned by Canadian Pension Plan, Colonial First State Global Asset Management and Industry Funds Management, which is based in Australia, and 3i, which is based in the UK. Last year its operating profit was £363 million, but it paid only £1 million in tax. Its debt was £6.9 billion. Its chief executive, Peter Simpson, received a salary, bonus and benefits worth £1,024,000. Thames Water is owned by Macquaire Group, which is based in Australia, China Investment Corporation and Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. Last year its operating profit was £577 million, but it paid minus £70 million in tax, because it is receiving grants from the Government, as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) pointed out at the time in his article in the Standard on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Its debt was £9 billion. Its chief executive, Martin Baggs, received a salary, bonus and benefits worth £845,000.
South Staffs Water is owned by Alinda Capital Partners, which is based in the US. Last year its operating profit was £16 million, but it paid only £200,000 in tax. Its debt was £488 million. Its chief executive, Elizabeth Swarbrick, received a salary, bonus and benefits worth £202,000. Sutton and East Surrey Water is owned by Sumitomo Corporation, based in Japan. Last year its operating profit was £17 million, but it paid only £1 million in tax. Its debt was £219 million. Its chief executive, Anthony Ferrar, received a salary, bonus and benefits worth £290,000. Those are obscene levels of profiteering at the expense of the consumer.
Why is the borrowing level so high? It is not because it is all going into infrastructure. It has now been exposed that some of the borrowing is being used to pay dividends to shareholders and high salaries to chief executives and board directors. That was not the intention of the Thatcher Government’s original privatisation—well, it was not the stated intention. Privatisation was meant to reduce prices, increase investment and make the industry more accountable to the wider public through shareholding. That has not been the case. It is not more accountable through shareholding, because most of the companies that now own British water are owned by overseas shareholders. It does not make it any more efficient for the consumer, because prices have gone through the roof in recent years, which people are angry about. It does not make it more accountable to the taxpayer. In fact, the taxpayer is being bled dry as a result of tax avoidance and the various scams that have been going on, which have been explored by Richard Murphy, the tax justice expert.
Corporate Watch has produced an excellent report on some of those issues. It reports that six UK water companies took high-interest loans from their owners through the Channel Islands and then converted them into euro bonds. They then lent them back to the companies and paid virtually no tax on them whatsoever. This is a tax scam for which these water companies are used as a vehicle. Corporate Watch found that the six companies it looked at—Northumbrian, Yorkshire, Anglian, Thames, South Staffs, and Sutton and East Surrey—had borrowed £3.4 billion using this method. It highlights Northumbrian Water as “the most brazen case” as it paid 11% on just over £1 billion of loans it had taken from its owner, the Cheung Kong group, a Hong Kong-based conglomerate run by the world’s ninth-richest person. No wonder he is the world’s ninth-richest person—we are making him so. This is a scandal. The Bill does not go any way near addressing this rip-off of the British consumer or tackling some of the tax evasion and tax avoidance by these companies that has gone on. People are angry about this. In recent reports in the media there has been exposure after exposure, and people expect this House to act on these matters.
Dan Rogerson
I certainly was not seeking to suggest that the market is not working in Scotland. My point was that some people have chosen to stay with their incumbent, and they may wish to do so rather than to have an incumbent abandon them and walk away.
An Oxera report commissioned by WICS and published in November 2012 predicted that incumbents would lose some 40% of their non-household customers in the first year of the opening of the retail market, with a 5% loss of profit. However, arguments that make an economic case for exits seem to be based on incumbents losing all their public sector and multi-site customers in the first year of market opening. The Oxera view is bolder than that of the rating agency Moody’s which, in February 2012, said that a worst-case scenario would be incumbents losing 25% of their non-household customers in the short to medium term, with a much smaller loss of 0.69% of profit. Although no doubt all incumbents will lose some customers, we can suppose incumbents will take steps, such as those that Business Stream has taken, to retain customers.
Anecdotal evidence from business customers suggests that incumbents are already upping their game, even though retail competition reform is some years away. Large business customers have suddenly discovered that they have a named customer service contact, and some have been offered improved metering services. The idea of incumbents sitting around while customers disappear is therefore, in our view, an unlikely scenario. In addition, water-only companies will be able to apply to Ofwat for a sewerage licence, which will allow them to compete with licensees and other incumbent sewerage companies by offering both water and sewerage services to their customers.
My point is that this is evolution, not revolution. Many non-household customers may choose to stick with the incumbent supplier because the incumbent supplier will improve its services to them as a result of the reforms. The benefits of that may in turn be passed on to household customers. Forcing or even allowing retail exit ignores such points. Where customers choose to switch, we anticipate a growth market in which innovation and competition lead to benefits, both environmentally and in customers’ bills. Allowing partial retail exit would open the door to forced separation if individual cases of discrimination were discovered, and we have made clear our position on that.
As I have said, any decision on separation should be made by Ministers and Parliament. We are not prepared to take the risk of forced restructuring, or even the potential for it as provided for in new clause 2, destabilising investment or increasing costs to customers. The new clause envisages the Secretary of State permitting exits, but that may not reduce the risk of a competition authority forcing an incumbent water company to make an application to exit. I therefore urge hon. Members who tabled new clause 2 and amendment 12—led by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh)—not to press them to a Division.
The hon. Lady raised other issues about the industry in general, particularly in relation to upstream reform. We know from experience that setting out how markets should work in primary legislation is very inflexible and can stifle innovation. I know that she is keen for us to do more in that regard, but our view is that that was one clear lesson from the last attempt to extend competition through legislation in 2003. That is why the framework in the Bill sets the scope and direction of reform, without being overly prescriptive. We are working closely with Ofwat, customers and the industry—through the high-level group and the Open Water programme—to ensure that new markets work effectively, and we know that the industry does not want to constrain the market unnecessarily with too much detail in primary legislation, any more than the Government want to do that.
On new clauses 11 and 14, the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) have raised important issues about how the sector is run. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife pointed out, we had a previous debate on this set of issues in which hon. Members from all parties were keen to put on the record their concerns about the past operation of the industry. I fear, however, that we have been talking about things as they were, not as they are and will be. Ofwat is already taking action to improve standards of corporate governance across the sector. It recently consulted on principles relating to board leadership, transparency and corporate governance, and it is putting pressure on water companies to strengthen audit arrangements, board member appointments and governance. The response from water companies has been positive and I welcome that. I do not want to belittle the issues that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington set out, but Ofwat has listened and is providing leadership to deal with them.
John McDonnell
Is the Minister satisfied that United Utilities, which supplies water to the north-west, is forecast to have made £627 million in the year up to March last year, which is up from £594 million; that Pennon, the owner of South West Water, which must supply his constituency, is due to unveil profits of £273 million, which is up from £268 million; and that earnings at Severn Trent Water, which supplies the midlands, are expected to hit £525 million, which is up from £504 million? The profiteering is continuing as normal.
Dan Rogerson
The hon. Gentleman is referring to the current price review period, but we are about to enter a new one. The measures that I am setting out have been prepared by Ofwat to change the industry and to meet its aspiration of better performance by the industry. They also recognise the low cost of borrowing from which companies have benefited in the latter years of the current price review period.
John McDonnell
Would the Minister put his mortgage on United Utilities, Pennon and Severn Trent not increasing their profits next year?
Dan Rogerson
I suspect that they would not welcome my mortgage, given the debts that they are already dealing with because of the investment that they have put into the sector. The Secretary of State made it very clear in the letter that he sent to the industry and the framework that he set out for Ofwat that we want to see a settlement that reflects the market conditions that companies have benefited from in recent years. Ofwat, in turn, has been very clear that it expects companies to take account of that in the coming price review period. Companies are responding to that and we have seen some good signs.
Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]
John McDonnell Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is right. He knows as well as I do that if such a sunset clause is not introduced, and if the Bill is shown to be a completely unnecessary waste of time and an expensive bit of bureaucracy that we could well have done without, it will carry on endlessly. Nobody will have the guts to do anything about it. The provision will provide a mechanism for getting rid of the legislation if it is seen to be unnecessary. If it were seen to be necessary—who knows, I do not think it will, but it might—people could bring it back and would be anxious to get the legislation in place again. My new clause 3 will stop some ridiculous white elephant carrying on in perpetuity, when it is seen to be unnecessary. I say in passing that it would be sensible if more Bills had sunset clauses included in them, so that we can analyse whether they have been worthwhile and have done what was said on the tin.
My intention in this group of amendments has been to focus on new clauses 1 and 2. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to divide the House on new clause 2, which would put the same £1 billion threshold on suppliers as applies in the Bill for the retailers themselves. There seems no good reason to me why the same figure should not apply to both sides of the equation. A Division will enable us all to see who has gone into the Lobby to look after the interests of big multinational suppliers and who effectively wants their constituents to pay more for their shopping to benefit the bottom line of those companies.
I do not believe I was sent to Parliament to boost the profits of Heinz, Mars or Nestlé, who are perfectly capable of looking after their own interests. I want my constituents to pay the lowest price necessary for the products they buy in the supermarket. They are already struggling with the cost of living. How ridiculous it would be if we were to put legislation in place that made them pay more than they would otherwise need to pay for their shopping. I hope that the Government will see sense and realise that the same equation should apply on both sides of the supply chain—to retailers and suppliers. I hope they will think about that and listen to reason. If they do not, I hope the House will force them to do so.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I shall provide a brief background to amendment 3 and to the other amendments tabled in my name.
I am chair of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union parliamentary group. We meet that union, which represents the workers in the baking and confectionary industry, on a regular basis. We have had a long campaign over a number of years to express our concerns about below-cost selling in the baking and confectionary sector. The concern relates to the Bill’s general provisions, but because I raised it on Second Reading, I shall not delay us further except to explain that the same pressure suppliers have felt from supermarkets has had its effect on the baking industry, as it has on farming and elsewhere.
The pressure to cut overall costs has reduced the quality of the product. Concerns have also been expressed over the years about the safety of ingredients. Some consumer organisations have pointed out the deterioration of the quality of bread as a result of the amount of water introduced into bread production, which has undermined the nutritional benefits from eating bread and has had an impact on the population’s health.
The anxiety is that the same sort of pressure has been applied to the baking industry. The result for members of the bakers’ union has been reductions in wages and job cuts, and the reduction in overall pay means that this sector has significant levels of low pay; in fact, it is one of the most low-paid sectors in our industry at the moment. Another impact of that pressure is deteriorating working conditions and terms of employment. Bakers have expressed the concern that skills within the sector have been undermined, too. With people’s potential to be upskilled undermined, it means further pressure on wages.
These are vulnerable workers, therefore, and they are fearful of raising their concerns about what is happening in this sector. That is why the bakers’ union has combined with employers and others to welcome this Bill. It feels that it gives its members protection when they blow the whistle on some of the supermarket practices that lead to deteriorating conditions in the industry. That, then, is the background to the amendment.
The bakers’ union welcomes clause 13, which enables the adjudicator to recommend to the Office of Fair Trading changes to the code as issues arise over time. It is important, however, that this process is seen to be open and transparent. That is what amendment 3 is designed to achieve. It would simply ensure that the Office of Fair Trading is required to publish its response to the recommendations in the groceries code adjudicator’s review. The response should explain whether the OFT has acted on those recommendations. The amendment would introduce a process of openness and transparency that will lead to accountability. It would place a statutory duty on the OFT to make its functions patently open to scrutiny from the general public and the industry itself.
I expect that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) will speak about amendments 34 and 35, which relate to the wider concern that we now feel about the nutritional content of some of the consumer goods that are placed before us. My amendment responds to some elements of that concern by proposing that recommendations whose implementation would improve the nutrition of our country and the operation of a particular food sector are in fact implemented, or reasons are given for the fact that they are not being implemented.
Andy Sawford
When Labour Members tried in Committee to strengthen the relationship between the adjudicator and the Office of Fair Trading, we were given very unsatisfactory reassurances. We were told, for example, that the adjudicator could use the publicly available telephone line to contact the OFT. Any measures that strengthen that relationship must surely be welcome.
John McDonnell
I followed the dialogue that took place in Committee and read the reports of it. That has been one of the joys of my life over the last couple of months. The Minister said that an amendment such as mine was unnecessary, and would not give the Bill any additional force. She suggested that if the OFT repeatedly failed to act on the adjudicator’s recommendations, two routes would be available. Select Committees, she said, would have “a role to play”, and it would also be possible for any supplier to conduct a judicial review of the OFT, in particular to establish whether it was behaving reasonably or in relation to its duties under the Enterprise Act 2002.
I shall not comment on the hotline issue mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), because I thought it too bizarre, to say the least. I took it to be just part of the knockabout of Committee stages in which Members engage just to keep themselves awake. I shall, however, deal with the issue of the judicial review. Of course it is open to any supplier to initiate such a review, but it is virtually impossible that it would succeed on reasonableness grounds, especially in the context of the OFT’s powers and the broad range of the adjudicator’s role. I do not think that it would be a constructive process. Moreover, the time required for it would not deal with the immediacy of some of the adjudicator’s recommendations.
As for Select Committees, of course they have a role, but they have no directional force. They can recommend, but their recommendations are often ignored, or there is a long gestation period between the initiation of a review and the acceptance and implementation of recommendations in the subsequent report.
I understand the reason for the Minister’s responses in Committee. I realise that she does not want to over-bureaucratise the process. However, I think that the world has changed and moved on since the Committee stage. There has been, for instance, the issue of public concern about the content of consumer goods following the horsemeat scandal. People expect the Government to be decisive, as well as open and transparent, in tidying up the current mess, but in the long term they expect a system that will monitor the operations of the supermarkets and other parts of the grocery supply chain. It is necessary to ensure that when we have a structure in place it operates openly, transparently and effectively, and that is what my amendment seeks to do.
If we cannot give the OFT a duty to report on whether or not it has acted on a recommendation from the groceries code adjudicator or has taken it into account, that demonstrates the weakness of the Bill. The amendment does not even require a detailed report giving reasons for the OFT’s decision, although there will probably be a public clamour for such a requirement following the rejection of a recommendation. This is a simple, minor amendment, which I think the House would be expected to support in the current climate. For that reason I intend, if time permits, to press it to a Division.
John McDonnell
Does that mean, then, that the Minister can now place it on the record that the Government expect the OFT to respond in a public, open, transparent and timely manner to any requests or recommendations by the adjudicator?
Jo Swinson
I absolutely give that assurance. If a body such as the OFT receives information, particularly from a respected public servant, we would expect it to respond appropriately as part of its general duty, but we do not want to be overly prescriptive in how we set that out in legislation. I hope that that reassurance is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and I urge him not to press his amendment.
Amendment 28 would require the adjudicator to set out in guidance which laws will apply to arbitration and where it will be conducted. The amendment is superfluous, because it would duplicate information that is already in the groceries supply order. We discussed arbitration in Committee, as did the other place when it debated the Bill. Article 11 of the order sets out the rules that will apply and the fact that
“the seat or legal place of arbitration will be London…or such other city within the United Kingdom as the Supplier nominates.”
Of course, the adjudicator may choose to publish guidance on arbitration, but we do not believe that it is necessary to make that a requirement under the Bill.
Horsemeat
John McDonnell Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government lost in the High Court this morning. The High Court ruled that the Government’s Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 are unlawful. The regulations forced people into unpaid work—workfare—and, if they refused that work as unsuitable in assisting them in gaining employment, they lost their benefits. This morning the regulations were declared unlawful. At midday, the Government put out a written statement:
“we intend to lay new regulations which will come into force immediately and enable us to continue to refer Jobseekers Allowance claimants to our employment schemes”—
that is, back on to workfare. Those regulations have not been published yet. I am told that they may be subject to the negative procedure and so will come into immediate force without a vote in the House and with no opportunity to debate them. Could we ask the Government to make a statement to clarify the current position? A large number of people will, as a result of the regulations being ruled unlawful, be able to claim back the benefits they lost as a result of the unlawful penalties that were levelled against them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advance notice of that point of order. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his desire for a statement to be made on this matter. He has been in touch with the Journal Office and it seems that no regulations have yet been laid. I suggest that he keeps in close touch with the Table Office, which will be able to advise him on how best to pursue this matter.
Animal Welfare (Exports)
John McDonnell Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I, too, apologise for arriving late to the debate. I do not have the same excuse as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) of being the sole representative of my party—although on some issues it feels like it—but I have been dealing with a serious matter in my constituency that may come to the surface in the next few weeks. I am sure that hon. Members will understand.
I thank the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for securing this debate and for her consistency in raising this issue in recent months. Live exports have become a regular problem. We have had debates in the past, and bans have been introduced at individual ports, but the issue has recurred and there has been more than one incident similar to what happened with the Joline. Time and again I remember hearing reports in this House in which we felt that the appropriate regulatory system had been put in place, only to hear similar reports of problems with animal welfare within months. That is not incompetence; it is an almost blatant disregard of animal welfare by some of those involved in such transactions, and of the legality of some of the cases dealt with. None of the systems that we put in place seemed to have worked, and such cases returned time and again. I therefore came to the conclusion—after receiving briefing from the National Farmers Union as well as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—that the system was not working and that a ban would be the appropriate approach.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said, there are two issues. One is a matter of principle—do we support the export of live animals in this way?—and the other is about pragmatic practicality and regulation. Are the Government going to continue allowing live exports? I do not believe that European legislation should hold us back because, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, representations can be made and we can use other legislation to enforce the ban if necessary. However, if a ban is not introduced and we seek a pragmatic inspection regime—this is the point raised by the hon. Member for South Thanet—the work done by Thanet district council has been superb. It has set out a number of recommendations, working with the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency and delegating some of those functions to the RSPCA, to gain maximum confidence in the implementation and rigorous nature of those inspections. Those recommendations, if taken on board by the Government, would at least provide a practical way to address effectively some of the abuses of the past.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend has been an absolute champion of agricultural workers during his time in Parliament—often, I dare say, a lone voice. Does he accept that a ban on live exports would be a huge hit to the agricultural industry and hurt the very workers he has worked so hard to champion?
John McDonnell
My hon. Friend always knows the point of vulnerability in a debate. I have never been convinced about the economic necessity of live exports, which is why the idea of an inquiry is important. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is looking at a wide-ranging inquiry into the practical nature of how the industry operates.
As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, we need to address the location of abattoirs and how they operate. By locating, promoting and developing local abattoirs we can overcome the problem of the lengthy journeys that animals take, and particularly any necessity to export live animals.
Bob Stewart
I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and reading about this issue. Surely when the animals see that ramp into a truck they will start panicking. They must panic the whole time and be terrified for the whole journey and that really worries me. I feel so desperately sad for them that I am beginning to think that the way we should proceed is to slaughter at the farm. I know it is difficult, but that is what I am beginning to think.
John McDonnell
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) will come back and argue about the practicalities of that for certain geographical locations in the United Kingdom. However, the desire must be to have slaughter as close to the farm as possible and to obviate the need for any long-distance journeys, whether in the UK or to the continent. I am arguing that we should look again seriously at the recommendations of Thanet district council, the RSPCA and others. From experience, every regime so far put in place has not worked. We had another scandalous example with Joline this time round, and there have been others in the past. That is why I support the proposal for an inquiry.
I would prefer the Government to set up an independent inquiry, but if it must be the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, so be it. That Committee can look at animal welfare, the economics of the industry and why there is such economic necessity for live animal exports, as well as at the distribution of abattoirs, which in themselves have the potential to generate employment. It can look at how, if we are to transport animals in the future, we can reassure people that those animals will be safe and secure, and that their welfare will be maintained not only in this country but, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, when they reach other countries. In the past we seem to have lost control of what happens to our exported stock in other countries.
That is the short-term practical approach; we need to undertake an inquiry, take on board Thanet district council’s recommendations and introduce an economic debate on this issue. I am also worried about the staffing of individual organisations on which we rely to undertake these tests and checks. I give the example of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Its offices are being closed, staff are being laid off, and I doubt whether it has the capacity to maintain the vehicle inspection regime that we would expect of it. I am also concerned about staffing in DEFRA and the cutbacks there, and about the resources available to the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency. The inquiry should consider that range of staffing issues because the worst thing that could happen is that we put an inspection regime in place, but the resources and the expertise are not available. That includes the expertise of working alongside voluntary organisations such as the RSPCA. That is the problem with a pragmatic approach in the near future if we do not move towards a ban.
So often, promises have been made, and procedures and regimes have been put in place that have not worked. My view now is therefore that a ban should be introduced because the animal welfare issues are overriding.
Jim Fitzpatrick
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about ensuring that adequate resources are available to do the job. On Tuesday, Committee proceedings finished on the HGV Road Levy Bill, which gives the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency additional resources to monitor and enforce the levy that will be introduced in due course for foreign hauliers using our roads. Perhaps the Minister will say whether, given the additional safeguards that appear to be required at Ramsgate, DEFRA will provide additional resources to address that matter.
John McDonnell
I think that the Minister heard the question; he does not need me to repeat it.
The Minister has a job to do now in negotiating with other Departments. Yesterday, I met some Public and Commercial Services Union representatives, who are involved in the Department for Transport, including VOSA and DVLA. There are genuine issues about the future, including the review of Department functions, the threat of privatisation and outsourcing, and staff numbers. I am therefore fearful for whatever regime we expect to be put in place. I believe that neither the staff nor the expertise are there, or that they will be so stretched that the regime will not meet our requirements.
After several years as a Member of Parliament, with the problem arising regularly, it is clear that every regime put in place has not worked, resulting in immense animal suffering and immense concern throughout the country. I have many letters from constituents who are concerned about the matter and constituents who have been on demonstrations in Ramsgate. Time and again, they have come back extremely concerned about what they have witnessed. It is now therefore my view that we should introduce a ban and, if necessary, lobby Europe to challenge the European interpretation of the directives, thereby reassuring many of our constituents who are anxious about the matter.
Failing that, if there is to be an inquiry, it needs to be done quickly and be fully inclusive. I am anxious that organisations such as the RSPCA, as well as producer representatives and the trade unions, are fully involved, and that the inquiry comes up with some recommendations fairly soon. That must include representations about the level of resources, as well as the regime that will be put in place.
Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]
John McDonnell Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bailey
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am sure that one could develop an argument along those lines. I hesitate to do so because I have an innate faith in good will and do not believe that a supermarket would be so unscrupulous as to do that. Perhaps he does not share my innate faith in the good will of supermarkets.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The best example of that is that when the Competition Commission found that a supermarket was reducing the price of bread to 7p, which was below cost price, that supermarket gained a boost in sales.
Mr Bailey
That is a form of advertising that could, in certain situations, benefit a retailer.
It is simplistic to believe that the possibility that the Secretary of State will implement fines will be a sufficient deterrent. Even if the Secretary of State feels that it is appropriate to levy fines, the process for arriving at that point is slow and cumbersome. Under schedule 3, before the Secretary of State can make such an order, he must consult six bodies, plus any other body that he feels it appropriate to consult. That is a time-consuming and possibly self-defeating process. It is a slow and ineffective way to implement the deterrent on the retailer, which could be exploited considerably.
I also find the Government’s approach rather strange in respect of the escalation of penalties. The adjudicator can take notice of the failure of a supermarket to respond to highlighted breaches of the code, but seems to have no enforcement powers to do anything about it. There is no express sanction for non-compliance with a recommendation, but it may be taken into account when further arbitration is carried out. That is hugely time-consuming and amounts to an invitation to ignore the adjudicator. I cannot help but reflect on the danger identified by Murray Worthy of War on Want:
“A watchdog that is all bark and no bite won’t be able to stop supermarkets bullying their suppliers.”
I will move on briefly to a couple of other issues. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee reflected on intermediaries at some length. We said that third parties, such as trade associations, should be able to give evidence to initiate an inquiry. The Ministers seem to have accepted that point and my intervention earlier elicited the sort of response that I wanted. I emphasise that this issue is extremely important and that there should be no delay in the adjudicator being able to implement such provisions.
Lastly, I have a request. Given the importance of the adjudicator, I hope that the Government will allow the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee to hold a pre-appointment hearing with the proposed adjudicator. Given that the Select Committee was entrusted with the pre-legislative scrutiny and given the concerns that have been echoed in all parts of the House, I feel that it is important for the Select Committee to have the chance to question the adjudicator to ascertain whether we feel that they will apply the rigour and forensic examination that are needed to deliver what everybody in the House wants.
There is a huge groundswell of support from all parties for the Government to consider fines. Although I recognise that the Bill is very significant as it stands, I hope that the Government will listen to the voices from all parts of the House and table an amendment at a subsequent stage to ensure that there is a power to levy fines. That would make a good Bill into a very good Bill indeed.
Albert Owen
If. I am hopeful that if that situation arises the Government will bring forward their reserve powers, so we are only delaying the inevitable.
John McDonnell
If there is an adjudication that affects the trade of an individual company, it will resort to law anyway.
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.
Mr Heath
I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. If he would care to engage with Government lawyers on that point of law, I am sure we would be happy to engage with him. We can return to the subject in Committee or on Report.
The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) queried clause 15(10), and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) also thought it was a bit odd. Let us debate that in Committee. What is proposed there is a safeguard which we hope will not be used. It is designed to deal with the circumstances in which the adjudicator was swamped with spurious complaints which hindered him or her from doing their work. The adjudicator would be required to pare those complaints down to the categories set out there. It would not stop them taking information from any source, but it would stop them taking complaints from any source. As I have said, I do not envisage that that will be necessary and hope that it will not be, so it is a reserve power, but I completely understand the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that it is in some ways an unusual provision. It is certainly something we can discuss properly in Committee.
John McDonnell
The point I was trying to make is that if we have to amend the legislation in due course by statutory instrument, it would be better to design the new clause on the basis of the experience and recommendations of the review, rather than just reverting to type.
Mr Heath
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and that is clearly something we can discuss.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) mentioned the very bad news about Vion UK, which I understand will affect not only her constituents in Strath of Brydock, but many others in Livingston, Portlethen and Broxburn, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned the situation in St Merryn in Merthyr Tydfil. I can certainly give an assurance today that we will happily engage with colleagues in the devolved Administrations—most of those jobs are situated in Scotland or Wales—to see whether there is anything we can do to assist them in dealing with what will be a very significant event in the local economy. If there is anything we can do, I can give an assurance that we will do our best.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire also talked about—
Ash Dieback Disease
John McDonnell Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Heath
The consultation was about a statutory ban and the responses we received were overwhelmingly supportive of that. In fact, they also provided some further helpful advice about the implementation of the ban, which enabled us to achieve that at the very first opportunity.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I do not doubt the Minister’s commitment to tackling this issue, but when the Public and Commercial Services union made representations to the Government, it stated that cuts in the Forestry Commission would have such consequences. Even if the Minister does not accept that point, we will need additional resources. Will he undertake a swift, independent review of the need for those resources? I assure him that if he requires support in getting those additional resources and lobbying the Treasury, the Labour party will assist him.
Mr Heath
May I make it absolutely clear that we will not fail in our fight against this disease through lack of resources? We will make available from the Department those resources that are identified as necessary by the scientific team and taskforce that we have brought together to consider what should be done next.
Oral Answers to Questions
John McDonnell Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
5. What plans she has to improve air quality.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
10. What plans she has to improve air quality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
As you know, Mr Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has responsibility for food and farming, is not here today as he is representing the UK at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council.
Air quality in the UK is much improved, though more needs to be done, especially in cities, where transport is the main issue. We must strike a balance between protecting health and the environment and supporting sustainable economic growth. Working with local authorities and others, we are investing significantly in cleaner, more sustainable transport. Underperformance against European vehicle emissions standards is making compliance on nitrogen dioxide challenging for us and many other member states.
Richard Benyon
The way in which member states quantify where they stand with regard to air pollution varies. In this country, we have a very rigorous system that divides the country into 43 air quality zones. If one area in a zone is failing, the whole zone is deemed to have failed. It is up to local authorities to work with the Government to deal with problems when they occur, when there are high levels of deprivation and, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) mentioned, around schools. It is important that local authorities with access to that information use the funding that the Government give to address problems with air quality.
John McDonnell
When people enter this country—for example, to visit the Olympics—they land in the most air polluted area of the country. The Mayor’s strategy does not seem to have worked, the local air quality management zone has barely scraped the surface and we need a fresh initiative. Will the Minister meet me, a delegation of local councillors and others to see whether we can launch a fresh initiative, particularly around the Heathrow area?
Richard Benyon
I know that the hon. Gentleman works closely with agencies in the area, particularly on air quality issues emanating from Heathrow. My noble Friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who leads on this issue, will, I am sure, be willing to meet him and others to ensure that there are local strategies. I should point out that the Mayor, through his air quality strategy, has addressed many of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. We are starting to see improvements in a number of areas and I look forward to being able to report improvements in London for 2011.