Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Pat Glass Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

It is an absolute pleasure to follow such a powerful speech, which drew on a long track record on this important issue. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), as other Members have done, for bringing forward such an incredibly important campaign. It has united Members across the Chamber. This has been one of the most positive and constructive debates I have taken part in. I am delighted that the campaign was highlighted in the Swindon Advertiser, in which the hon. Gentleman featured. We have all been contacted on social media by a great number of people. Interestingly, my Facebook page with the article on the campaign attracted over 60,000 views and 534 shares, which is 10 times more than for anything I have done before. That is no surprise, as 13 million households in this country have pets.

As Members have been naming their pets, I am delighted to say that my wife champions rescuing dogs—I have almost had to put in place a limit. Susie, our 11-year-old rescue dog, which we found on the Golden Oldies website, recently came second in the Lydiard park best rescue dog competition, which means international fame for her.

The mass commercial production of puppies purely for profit and without care for their welfare or happiness is a serious issue.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I sometimes feel that we do not fully understand who the people are who run those places. There is at least one puppy farm in my constituency, and the people who run it are linked to organised crime. Whether it is the exploiting of people or animals, drugs, or crash for cash, those people are willing to exploit anything, including the most vulnerable animals.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that important intervention. The evidence shows that 95% of people would not wish to buy from puppy farmers, but over 900,000 people a year inadvertently do so. It is a hidden crime.

Agricultural Wages Board

Pat Glass Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

The Agricultural Wages Board is important in constituencies such as mine—rural communities where there is already much poverty, and wages are low. Established by the Attlee Government in 1948, the board has served us for the last 65 years, setting a minimum wage and terms and conditions of employment for workers employed in agriculture. It costs the Government little to administer; I am told that it will probably cost more to abolish than to maintain.

It appears that the decision to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board is not based on financial evidence. It is yet another decision from a Government who spurn concepts such as data and evidence in favour of ideology and dogma. Once again, their adherence to ideology and dogma will have an impact on one of the hardest working and least well paid groups of workers in our rural communities.

The Government were intent on abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board from day one. The original announcement was made in July 2010. The leading party in the coalition Government, whose MPs include members of the wealthiest landowning families in this country, hardly had time to get their well-heeled shoes under their new shiny Government desks when they made their initial announcement. However, before the Government could take the final abolition decision, I understand they were told that they needed to carry out a consultation of interested parties or face a judicial review that they would probably lose on the grounds of insufficient consultation, and that they needed the consent of the delegated Welsh authorities to abolish the board.

[Mr Spencer]

Given that the hon. Lady knew about the decision in 2010, has there not been adequate time between then and now to consider all the options?

[Pat Glass]

I am not the Government, so I cannot respond to that question. Had I been the Government, I would have stuck to their rules and standards for consultation. They did not.

What did the Government do? Did they conform to Cabinet Office standards for consultation? Did they carry out an extensive 12-week consultation, avoiding main holiday periods, and making extensive efforts to ensure that all those affected, as well as all those with an interest, had an opportunity to take part? Did they carefully consider the outcomes of consultation in their final decision? Did they consult the Welsh Government, whose agreement was needed for abolition? They did none of those things; they came up with an extremely shabby plan to get round them.

The Government redefined the Agricultural Wages Board as a “regulatory reform” to avoid the necessity of even trying to get the co-operation of the Welsh Government, and they cobbled together a four-week consultation that failed to meet their own standards on consultations, issued by the Cabinet Office. Even then, 63% of those who responded to that sham and shameful consultation disagreed with abolition, so they were simply ignored.

Having failed to carry out a proper consultation, the Government decided to attach an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill and pushed it through the House without debate. When the Government hold something that is clearly a sham consultation over four weeks instead of 12, ignore their own standards, and then ignore the results of the consultation, is it any surprise that people question, and are suspicious of, any public consultation?

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The problem was not just the lack of consultation with the public, but the lack of consultation with the House. Those of us who were engaged in the passage of the Public Bodies Bill expected that there would be a full debate on the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board in the future but, whether through cock-up or conspiracy, we were denied that opportunity.

[Pat Glass]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not a decent way for a Government to behave. Hon. Members start to feel superior about foreign Governments that we consider illegitimate when we see them behaving in this way. We criticise such behaviour in others, and it is not what the House and the country expect from our Government.

Why are the Government so desperate to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board that they will breach their own consultation and deny debate in the House? Is the board excessively expensive? Does it act illegally? Is it so far beyond reform that the only way to deal with it is by abolishing it in this high-handed manner? It is a public body that costs very little, yet decides the terms and conditions of agricultural workers. It sets rates for young workers, including those under 16, who are not covered by the minimum wage. It also sets out maximum deductions for tied housing, which affects up to a third of farm workers.

Why are the Government so determined to use whatever means possible to abolish the board? Their only answer is that it is too bureaucratic for farmers, so implementing decent wages and conditions for workers on top of all that form filling to claim EU farm subsidy payments is clearly too bureaucratic. The Government argue that abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board, and hence the agricultural minimum wage regime, will simplify employment practices and remove an unnecessary regulatory burden. The problem for farmers is therefore nothing whatsoever to do with the predatory practices of the supermarkets, but all about the time it takes to read the annual bulletin from the Agricultural Wages Board.

The Government’s impact assessment shows clearly that workers’ wages will fall by up to £34.5 million a year over 10 years as a result of abolition. For new contracts, the change in the value of annual leave, if employers implement statutory terms rather than those under the agricultural workers order, will be up to £13 million a year over 10 years. Farmers’ employment costs that represent transfer payments to the Government and others will fall as wages fall, so the Exchequer will also be hit, and that is before we consider the cost to the public purse of paying the working benefits that agricultural workers will need as their wages fall.

The north-east is the region that has the smallest number of people working in agriculture. That is partly because it is the smallest region and partly because it has the highest rate of unemployment in the country. Nevertheless, 3,360 people in the north-east work on the land. The abolition of the board will have a direct impact on 60 people in my constituency. If we force agricultural workers off the land and cannot attract younger workers, just who do Ministers think will fill these jobs? Let me tell them: it will be people from overseas.

According to the Government’s figures, the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will take £260 million out of the rural economy over 10 years. It will take money out of rural communities, village shops, pubs and post offices, and away from everyone who relies on those businesses. Rural communities have already lost local buses, and the Government are set on a national funding formula for schools that has no place for a small schools premium, which will result in the closure of rural schools—hon. Members heard it here first. The abolition of the board will lead to lower wages, poorer rural housing and an increase in the number of immigrant workers on the land. The way in which the Government have brought about the abolition does them no credit whatsoever, yet the real tragedy is not the way this discredited Government have acted, but the real impact that their policy will have on rural communities such as mine throughout the country.

Horsemeat

Pat Glass Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Spencer]

Absolutely, and that is fundamental. Frankly, that could not happen in the UK because environmental health officers and trading standards officers are checking a paper trail that goes right back.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but surely the issue is about criminality, which is international. If a criminal changes the label, it does not matter whether the meat is British or comes from abroad; consumers will not have confidence.

[Mr Spencer]

I acknowledge that position, but my point is that given the traceability in the UK industry, the opportunity to change those labels is simply not there. Registered vets in every abattoir in the United Kingdom are watching the line and checking that the carcases are stamped and marked. They cannot be changed. When one buys what is basically a block of frozen meat from an international buyer, it is easy to pull off the label that says “beef” and slap on one that says something else, or reverse that process. That is a sad state of affairs.

Consumers want to know exactly what they are eating, but today we are in a position where I could set up my own little factory, buy in Brazilian chicken, make chicken pies in my kitchen, and sell them as Nottinghamshire chicken pie. We need to look more closely at the labelling process so that the industry tells consumers exactly what they are buying and where it has come from.

In the end, the consumer has the power and can choose where they source their products. They can choose to go to a supermarket or to a local, small and independent high-street butcher. They can shop around and make those decisions. I acknowledge that that becomes challenging right at the bottom, where people are struggling to make ends meet and to find the cash to buy those products. That is why we need a regulatory system that they can have confidence in, that they can support and that they acknowledge.

My final message is that this weekend, when people are thinking about what they want to have for dinner, they should go to their local butcher, look him in the eye and say, “Where has this animal come from? Tell me about it.” People will then be able to eat that dinner with confidence, knowing that they are buying good-quality, locally produced meat.

Food Prices and Food Poverty

Pat Glass Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who, like me, represents a large rural constituency where farming is an important industry. I visit farms and talk to farmers regularly, and the one question they ask me to raise in Parliament is, “When are we going to get the supermarkets ombudsman?” I was not here in the previous Parliament. I cannot answer questions about why successive Governments did not introduce a supermarkets ombudsman. However, Members who were here tell me that the issue of a groceries code adjudicator has a long and not very productive history.

Members have championed the cause in opposition, but have proven remarkably slow to put anything into action when in government. In opposition, the Tories announced that they would create the new body through a levy on retailers. Two years ago this month, in January 2010, the then shadow Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), said that

“further consultation is not the decisive action that consumers or the industry need…Conservatives are clear: we would establish a supermarket ombudsman to enforce the grocery supply code as a dedicated unit in the Office of Fair Trading to ensure a fair deal for producers and safeguard the consumer interest.”

However, we are two years into this Government, and it appears that they are not quite so decisive now. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who was then the Liberal Democrat environment, food and rural affairs spokesman, also told us in January 2010:

“For years, Labour and the Tories have twiddled their thumbs while huge supermarkets have pushed thousands of farmers to the brink. Their response has been totally inadequate”.

However, the Lib Dems are part of this Government, yet we are seeing no sign of decisive action.

Where we have seen consistent, strong and decisive action is from the big four supermarkets. They have always offered strong and sustained resistance to the establishment of a supermarket ombudsman. Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons have fought a long, consistent and, it now appears, successful campaign of opposition and delay. However, in the meantime, the farming industry and the consumer continue to wait. Tom MacMillan of the Food Ethics Council tells us:

“The government must now ensure that it listens to small producers as well as big business. A strong supermarket ombudsman, invested with real power, would have the authority to ensure fair prices from the farm gate to the checkout”—

the very point that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton made. He continues:

“It would protect the livelihoods of farmers across the UK and give consumers better access to fresh, healthy food.”

The National Farmers Union tells us that dairy producers have been particularly squeezed, with dairy farmers going out of business every day. That is exactly what I am seeing in my constituency, where the number of dairy farmers has been reduced significantly, as they either move into other forms of farming or, more often, leave the industry altogether. War on Want believes that a supermarket ombudsman would support farmers here at home and help poorly paid workers in the developing world. Only the British Retail Consortium, speaking for the supermarkets, believes that a supermarkets ombudsman is a costly and unnecessary new bureaucracy that would not benefit suppliers or consumers. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Oh sorry, only the British Retail Consortium plus one or two Government Members.

The farmers in my constituency, and in many others across the country, are looking for decisive action from the Government on this matter. How many more of them need to go out of business before the Government get around to taking action? Farmers and consumers need a groceries code adjudicator with real powers who can impose real fines of a magnitude that will change the behaviour of food retailers, and that are not just seen as an occupational hazard and a risk worth taking. Thatis the way to bring in fairness across the food chain. It really does not matter whether we call the body a groceries code adjudicator, a supermarkets ombudsman or Oftrolley; what matters is that we get such a body now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pat Glass Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

As I said in my opening answer, discussions are still going on. There is a further meeting of officials in Brussels next week, and that really is the last chance for the EU to prove that it is serious about improving animal welfare and enforcing its regulations. If, as I fear, no solution comes about next week, I will make an announcement shortly on how we intend to protect our industry.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

My constituent Mr Tulip and his family have spent almost £8 million bringing their farm up to the EU directive level. If the meeting next week does not go well, will the considerations include banning eggs from countries that are acting illegally?

[Mr Paice]

I fully appreciate that UK producers have invested about £400 million in new systems, and they are entitled to expect others to do the same; that is perfectly reasonable. As for the measures that will be taken if we do not get anywhere in Europe—and I cannot claim much optimism on that front—I will make an announcement shortly. A ban has not been ruled out, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that there are some pretty big legal issues here.

Environmental Protection and Green Growth

Pat Glass Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I want to focus on three aspects of the motion: the sell-off of forests, which, despite the Government’s U-turn and nice warm words, is still going ahead, including in my constituency; the Government’s nonsensical approach to waste; and the broken promises to communities up and down the country on flood defences.

My constituency, like that of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), is a large rural constituency with many lowland and upland farms. It has two areas of outstanding natural beauty, and many acres of moorland and forest. What DEFRA does matters to people in my constituency, and so does what DEFRA does not do. In the countryside, we have had, in effect, 18 wasted months and a trail of broken promises. First, we had the proposal to sell off forests. Despite the Government’s U-turns and all the nice warm words that were said in this House, the Government are still planning to sell off 40,000 hectares of land over the next four years, some of it in my constituency. Ministers got away with it last time, but they will not do so this time. On Monday night, I listened to many impassioned speeches by Conservative Members saying, “I have to vote for this EU referendum because my constituents have been in touch with me and told me that I need to.” Their constituents got in touch with them in droves in response to the sell-off forests, and yet it is still happening.

I accept that the mess that now exists around waste is not really of DEFRA’s making, but lies at the door of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—a man who seems to be obsessed with little other than bin collections. The Government have failed to set ambitious targets for recycling in England, and—this is a capital offence—they have stopped Labour’s ban on wood going to landfill, saying that they will think about it again in 2012. Frankly, that is not good enough. I live in the former Derwentside district council area, which is now part of Durham county unitary authority, and we left weekly bin collections behind years ago. There was a lot of upset at the time—people do not like change—but if Durham county council tried to reintroduce weekly bin collections now, people would be incredibly unhappy.

I have three bins—one for waste; one for recycling, which gets emptied fortnightly; and one for garden waste, which is collected monthly—and guess what, I do not have rats and vermin skulking around my bins. My neighbours and I recycle everything we can, and we are proud of our recycling. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) gave us a long list of councils and their actual recycling levels as opposed to the targets. None of us in this House is responsible for that, but I am responsible for my own recycling and the waste that is produced in my house.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

I understand that the hon. Lady and I cannot control the recycling rates of our councils, but it seems odd that people always complain to the Government when it is councils that deliver that service. My challenge is that we must encourage our councils to recycle as much as they can.

[Pat Glass]

I absolutely agree with that, but it ultimately comes down to us. I do not want weekly bin collections to be restored and nor do any of my neighbours. They are a waste of time and of our natural resources. There is virtually nothing in my waste bin; almost everything goes into the recycling bin. If I can do it, so can everybody else.

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the hon. Lady agree that although recycling is important, it is third on the so-called waste hierarchy? Reusing resources and reducing the number of resources that we use in the first place are also critical. On those matters, we need Government action as well as local authority action.

[Pat Glass]

I absolutely agree. We need a proper strategy on recycling and waste, and we need to stop obsessing about bin collections.

On flood defences, I know that DEFRA has taken a massive 30% cut and that some of that has been passed on to flood defence schemes. The Government have rejected the Pitt report on improving flood defences and have cancelled major schemes that were scheduled to take place in towns and cities such as York, Leeds and Morpeth in Northumberland. That will cause massive concern not only for people who have suffered from flooding in the past, but for anyone who lives in a city or town that had hoped to be included in the flood defence scheme. We all acknowledge—even the Government acknowledge—that the flood risk is growing and that flooding will affect more communities across the country in the future.

In the summer, I was visited in my constituency surgery by constituents who live halfway down Blackhill bank in Consett. They came to see me about flooding. Anyone who knows Consett will know that it is 885 feet above sea level. According to Wikipedia, it is the second highest town in the country. We have never had flooding in places such as Consett before. Those people told me that it is not only water that comes through their house, but black water—sewage. It can take up to two years for home owners and businesses to get back into their properties.

Despite that, flood defence schemes have been cut. That means that many home owners and businesses will no longer be able to get insurance when Labour’s agreement with the insurance industry runs out in 2013, because that agreement was based on continued Government investment in flood defences, not on cuts.

The Government’s strategy on the environment is simply not working. It is not supporting the countryside, it is not delivering for the majority of people in this country, and it will leave communities that are vulnerable to flooding to fend for themselves.