The MP for West Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Constituency of St Ives, Andrew George, has today welcomed news that the Government is expected to announce its plans tomorrow.

Mr George, who chairs GMAG (Grocery Market Action Group), understands that Minsters in the Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills intend to publish the draft Grocery Adjudicator Bill tomorrow.

The draft Bill will detail the proposed structure, remit and operating practices of the Adjudicator. In April 2008 the Competition Commission warned that “the transfer of excessive risk and unexpected costs by grocery retailers to their suppliers…if unchecked will have an adverse effect on investment and innovation in the supply chain, and ultimately on consumers”. New rules to enforce fair dealing between supermarkets and suppliers came into force in February 2010, with GMAG subsequently campaigning for the creation of a watchdog to scrutinise supermarkets’ practices in accordance with the Code.

GMAG, which includes in its membership the National Farmers Union, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the British Independent Fruit Growers Association, Friends of the Earth, ActionAid, Traidcraft and other bodies, has been fighting for five years to successfully secure crossbench support for the creation of a new watchdog to ensure there is fair dealing in the grocery supply chain.

Mr George said:

“Every day food producers are going to the wall. And many more are struggling as a result of the market distorting power of the large supermarkets. Every day this happens means that the proposed supermarket watchdog is being introduced another day too late.

This proposal has cross-party support. The Government has no excuse to delay. Speed is of the essence. No time should be lost in setting up an effective watchdog with real teeth. Food producers here and in the developing world want to concentrate on the efficient production of healthy food not perpetually fight for their survival.”

Originally posted in 2005

FOR THE WESTERN MORNING NEWS

DEFRA has a clear vision for our rural areas. Though unstated, I believe that it is to quietly manage the decline of family farming and to bury the news that our rural communities are becoming the exclusive preserve of better off second homeowners and others.

Any prospect for an exciting, ambitious and challenging programme to breathe new life and opportunities into our countryside appears to be absent from the very Government department which should be providing this kind of vision.

On the lack of affordable housing in rural areas, Ministers wring their hands, furrow their brows and use expression of concern but with no action.

Looking at the problem of supermarket dominance of the food supply chain (which is crucifying the future of traditional small family farms in our regions), Ministers have decisively shrugged their shoulders.

And when it comes to facing up to the difficult decisions about how to contain and bear down upon the escalating outbreaks of Bovine TB in our local herds, the department have produced a long-winded strategy which is short on any decisive action.

A General Election victory provides any new Government with an opportunity for a new beginning; a chance to take full advantage of an electoral endorsement so that it can really get to grips with the challenges of the day.

The radical reform of the Common Agricultural Policy this year provides the department with a golden opportunity to ensure that the taxpayers money which goes into supporting farming helps those in the most marginal farms, rather than continuing to provide what is, for many in the larger agribusiness holdings, inessential additional income.

The forthcoming British Presidency of the EU could provide the Government with a pivotal role to drive through reforms. The Government could also ensure that those family farmers who really need their Single Farm Payment early in the payment window – a welcome Christmas present rather than a late spring attempt to keep the bailiffs out – can receive it.

It would also give the Government a strong position so that, at the World Trade talks this winter, a strong case can be made for clear labelling and fair import controls to ensure that food brought into this country is sold on the basis of its genuine country of origin and that it has to meet the same food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards which we expect British farmers to meet.

But I suspect that these opportunities will be overlooked.

The mounting evidence of the stranglehold which supermarkets have over farmers at the farm gate seems to have no impact at all on Government Ministers – especially those in DEFRA.

Wouldn’t it reassure farmers if we saw Government Ministers genuinely taking up the cudgels on their behalf, seeking to ensure that there was a Supermarket Code of Practice which guaranteed fair trading throughout the food supply chain and gave farmers and food suppliers a real champion to protect them from late payment, over-riders, improperly returned stock, late contract changes and having to fund promotional campaigns, etc.

There is so much that needs to be done, yet we have a department whose main objective appears to be to keep a cap on bad news stories coming from the countryside and to stand on the sidelines as farmers increasingly struggle to make a living.

On the housing front, the situation is, of course, dire.

Last month I published a report following a survey undertaken amongst local estate agents which shows something which will be of no surprise to many. In my constituency (West Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly) last year twice as many properties were sold as second homes than to first time buyers. That does not mean to say that there is little demand for first homes amongst the local population. Quite the opposite.

Thousands of local families are living in desperate and unacceptable circumstances. The gap between local incomes and local house prices has now become stratospheric.

The Government must now take radical measures. It has to accept that our planning system – especially in rural areas – is fuelled more by greed than by need. Planning permissions on scarce development sites should not be about turning agricultural land values into windfalls for new millionaires.

There is a great deal that the Government can do and it doesn’t necessarily have to cost the taxpayer dearly. The Government can give local authorities the tools to deliver planning permissions which would be exclusively for local housing need in perpetuity; the construction of a new lower rung on the housing ladder to meet the desperate need for affordable housing for locals.

Shared equity and mutual housing schemes are not new. They can and do work and could be largely privately financed.

Active concern and dynamism is what is required to address these now desperate problems.

We need a Government department which will champion the interests of rural areas. Instead we appear to have a Government department which tinkers with administrative structures, panics if it’s faced with real policy decisions, but which instead attempts to bury bad news and smother ambition.

Andrew George MP 20th May 2005

Originally posted 28/02/05

FOR FARMERS GUARDIAN

The Government’s bovine TB strategy fails to understand the sense of urgency felt by British livestock farmers. That having been said, if there were a politically easy, inexpensive and scientifically robust solution to the inexorable spread of bovine TB then I am sure that all politicians, let alone political parties, would grab it with both hands.

The problem for politicians is that we are being asked to snatch at a solution in a very uncertain environment in which emotions are running high and scientifically robust evidence still remains weak.

Let me set out where I think we are. All sides can agree: that any future TB control and eradication strategy should be based on sound science; and that we desperately need the development of an effective cattle and/or badger vaccine.

However, there are two elements which a future strategy cannot be based on: the widespread extermination of the badger – which is neither politically, financially nor practically achievable; the eradication of livestock farming from perpetual TB hotspots.

In contrast there are two further elements on which we will not achieve agreement but which will have to form part of a control and eradication strategy: badgers will have to be culled; and pre- and post-cattle movement tests are necessary for movements from TB hotspots.

Further desirable elements in the development of a strategy might include: a more sensitive cattle test – i.e. one that does not throw up so many false negatives (or positives) and which can detect at an earlier stage in the development of symptoms; a live test for badgers; and sufficient resources in the state veterinary service to ensure that tests are carried out and reactors are removed quickly and efficiently.

Identifying a robust solution to the very serious problem of bovine TB is not one, as some seem to believe, which can be judged on the basis of the number of Parliamentary Questions asked. It would be better to spend the hundreds of thousands of pounds which Mr Paterson’s questions have cost the taxpayer, in the pursuit of a better test, candidate vaccine, etc., rather than attempting to make synthetic political points.

I believe that there is already enough evidence to set up Regional Action Groups. Without compromising the remaining work of the Randomised Badger Culling Trials, regional control strategies can be set up and acted upon now. For example, Cornwall could set one up tomorrow. Stakeholders could be brought together and action started to create biosecure barriers and rings around affected areas. Indeed, Cornwall’s geography lends itself to an effective ‘barrier’ policy along the border with England (Devon)!

Andrew George MP 28th February 2005

This was originally posted on 29/03/2010

St Ives MP Andrew George will tomorrow lead the Liberal Democrat involvement in the Committee Stage of the Grocery Market Ombudsmen Bill. The Private Members’ Bill calls on Government to create a Supermarket Ombudsman who would act to protect the rights and interests of suppliers and shoppers as recommended in a report by the Government’s own competition watchdog the Competition Commission. ? ?

The Private Members’ Bill was proposed by Labour MP Albert Owen and Mr George has worked closely with Mr Owen to ensure that it has strong cross party support. The Ombudsman as proposed by the Competition Commission would act to police unfair abuses of market power by the big supermarket chains. These abuses harm the interest of consumers, farmers and suppliers alike. ? ?

Indeed, Professor Roger Clark – a competition specialist at Cardiff Business School – published an academic paper disproving the big supermarket’s claim that an ombudsman would lead to an increase in prices for shoppers. Professor Clark’s research found that an ombudsman would protect the interests of shoppers and would “lead to more choice, better quality products and lower prices”.     ? ?

Mr George has been leading the debate for the creation of a Supermarket Ombudsman for over 10 years, and chairs the Grocery Market Action Group (GMAG). The Action Group brings together suppliers’ organisations, NGOs, and academic experts including Friends of the Earth, the British Independent Fruit Growers’ Association, Traidcraft, the National Farmers’ Union, War on Want, Action Aid, the British Brands Group, the Association of Convenience Stores and others.? ?

“I am very pleased that the after the hard work of all involved in the campaign the Bill has made such strong progress,” said Mr George. “We have had countless reports and inquiries, all of which have called for an Ombudsman to be created. Hopefully with the Second Reading of the Bill tomorrow a bright future for suppliers and more choice for shoppers is one step closer.”

Andrew George MP – Chairman of the Grocery Market Action Group – offered a guarded welcome for the announcement by Conservative Agriculture Spokesman Nick Herbert MP that his party supports the proposal to set up a Supermarket Ombudsman. Mr Herbert will make this announcement at the Oxford Farmers Conference later today.

Mr George has been leading calls for the creation of a Supermarket Ombudsman for over 10 years. The Ombudsman as proposed by the Competition Commission would act to police unfair abuses of market power by the big supermarket chains. These abuses harm the interest of consumers, farmers and suppliers.

Mr George chairs the Grocery Market Action Group (GMAG). The GMAG includes Friends of the Earth, the National Farmers Union, Action Aid, Traidcraft, War on Want, the British Brands Group, the Association of Convenience Stores and others.

In August the Government’s competition watchdog the Competition Commission referred their recommendation for the creation of an Ombudsman to Ministers. The referral recommended that Government should legislate to create an Ombudsman. However in a November meeting with Business Minister, Kevin Brennan MP, Mr George and a delegation from the GMAG were told that Ministers were about to embark on another round of meetings with interested parties over the final weeks of the year before coming to a delayed conclusion in early 2010.

Mr George and the GMAG have maintained pressure on the Government since the Competition Commission’s made this recommendation in April 2008 following a 2 year inquiry. Mr George has also met with Environment Secretary, Rt Hon.Hilary Benn MP and Ministers from the Department for International Development. Mr George has also hosted a Parliamentary Symposium on the need for an Ombudsman that gathered members of the GMAG, politicians and expert speakers to discuss the issue and is a sponsor of Albert Owen MP’s new Private Member’s Bill seeking the same outcome.

Last autumn Mr George wrote to the Conservative Business Spokesman, Ken Clarke MP, to encourage his party to commit to supporting calls for an Ombudsman.

Responding to today’s Conservative announcement Mr George commented:

“I am encouraged that the Conservatives are making encouraging movements towards the fold of people and organisations those seeking a rational solution to one of the greatest obstacles to the development of a successful British agricultural sector. Although they are not signing up fully to the Competition Commission’s recommended remedy, it is at least a movement in the right direction.

“Earlier support would have been helpful, but I am grateful none the less. Now the pressure is on Lord Mandelson to respond to the Competition Commission’s recommendation by introducing a Supermarket Ombudsman before the General Election.”

FOR LIB DEM NEWS (via Tudor Jones) Originally posted March 2nd 2005

During his visit to the North Wales constituency of Delyn, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Rural Affairs Minster, Andrew George MP, met with local PPC Tudor Jones and local farmers during a tour of Mold livestock market and a local farm.

Both Mr George and Mr Jones received strong support for the Party’s policy which seeks to constrain supermarket abuse of their powers in the marketplace which is considered to be having a severe and detrimental impact on the viability of many farms and the livelihoods of many farmers.

Mr George said, “The recent and very dramatic changes in the way farmers are supported under the Common Agricultural Policy means that they need to be much more ‘market orientated’. But how can they when the supermarkets have frankly got them where it hurts! For example, the Milk Development Council report shows clearly that whereas farmers are hardly breaking even (indeed 60% of them are operating at a loss) the supermarkets are creaming it.

“The Government, on behalf of society as a whole, should be able to distinguish between the rational use and the unacceptable abuse of power. Farmers’ indirect relationship with supermarkets is unsustainable for British farming. That is why the Liberal Democrats would introduce a Food Trade Inspector to operate proactively within the OFT,” said Mr George.

Originally posted November 18th 2002

The Government has promised to review its 20-day livestock movement restriction on farmers, but will not make a decision until next February.

Meanwhile, many farmers find that the livestock movement control can mean an almost indefinite ban on the transfer of any animals off the farm if they regularly bring new animals on.

The ban on moving livestock for 20 days after animals had entered a farm from another premise or market made sense during the Foot and Mouth crisis. By limiting the number of times animals could be moved, one of the causes for the rapid spread of infectious disease was eroded.

But 14 months on, we have to question why the measures remain in place.

My Liberal Democrat colleague in the Lords, Lord Richard Livsey, has been at the forefront of the debate over the 20-day rule. Earlier this month he put down an amendment to the Animal Health Bill which would end any movement restrictions 8 weeks after an outbreak. With cross-party support the amendment was included in the Bill but fell when Government Whips in the Commons ensured that it was thrown out.

Since that time Margaret Beckett has announced her departmental risk assessment and cost benefit analysis. The final decision, when taken in February, will occur two years after the first outbreak of Foot and Mouth.

Of course, it is vital that any change to the movement regime does not increase the likelihood of infectious disease. But I am concerned about news that some farmers feel that the only way they can survive is to break the law by moving their animals before the 20 days are up. Clearly, the prospect of compromising biosecurity on British farms has become that much more real.

Although I cannot condone anyone breaking the law, I do understand that the movement ban has obviously added further pressure on many farmers. The Government cannot divorce itself from farming by issuing directives and rules without fully discussing with the industry the likely and on-going impact they are having.

I believe that a way forward can be found which is flexible enough for farmers to carry on with their work, but which does not weaken biosecurity controls.

North of the border this is already happening. In Scotland, where the Liberal Democrats are in charge of rural affairs, Ross Finnie MSP has introduced a system which accommodates farmers’ needs and also biosecurity requirements. Separation authorisations are in place, which enable new animals coming onto a farm to be kept apart from those already present. As a consequence, new animals are subject to the 20-day rule, while others within the same business are not affected. The Scottish Executive is able to check farms to make sure the system is working and so far there have been no problems.

This approach could be rolled out to the rest of Britain.

Rather than waiting until February, DEFRA should engage in a dialogue with the farming and wider rural community now.

I do hope that DEFRA will realise that it is in everyone’s interest that more rapid progress is achieved soon and I will continue to press Ministers on this important matter.

Originally posted on 30/04/03

ARTICLE FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY MONITOR

If we left our rural areas without any form of intervention – financial or regulatory – it would not be long before much of the British countryside was turned over to the vast and sanitised ranch and prairie land of large agribusiness holdings and our villages into an exclusive preserve of fortress retreats for the better off.

The challenge to legislators is not whether we should intervene but by how much.

The underlying economic reality which has challenged successive Governments for the last two hundred and fifty years at least is the simple fact that people spend a decreasing proportion of their income on food as, over time, their living standards and economic prospects improve. In order for farmers to share in the general increase in living standards they have to produce more food (otherwise they would become a peasant underclass!).

Therefore farms have to become larger and small farmers are inevitably forced from the countryside. Records of debates about agriculture and the rural economy for the past couple of centuries are often dominated by those who bemoan this trend and who refer wistfully to a lost Golden Age – a time usually twenty or thirty years before.

Perhaps sadly the various rural romantic movements, back-to-the-landers and others have ultimately been steamrollered into submission by these fundamental economic realities.

The reported comments of the Prime Minister’s “Rural Recovery” Tsar – Lord Haskins – that “Farms will get bigger and that is a good thing” could be seen as merely a continuation of the same trend and a recognition of that inescapable reality.

But I am no longer convinced that that is true.

The requirements of both the World Trade Organisation and the challenges of the eastward expansion of the EU, but, above all, the overwhelming need for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) means that farmers face an accelerated timetable to lose their production supports.

A reformed CAP would provide ‘decoupled’ payments to farmers based on a proxy for their historic subsidies.

This is where the Liberal Democrats have consistently argued that farmers should not simply receive payments “for being farmers” but be paid in recognition of the ‘public goods’ they provide.

The pursuit of a competitive British farming industry which could survive, subsidy-free, in the ‘cold winds’ of world markets would involve the sacrifice of the British countryside. It would mean scrubbing hedgerows, draining wetlands and ponds, refusing public access to rights of way, destroying historic features and scheduled monuments, showing no respect for vernacular and local traditions, sanitising the biodiversity of the countryside and breaking many of the remaining links between farming and its rural community. We must therefore recognise that we, as a society, in fact have a far reaching interest in what happens to and on the factory floor of our food producers and that, it is for these very public outcomes we should pay our farmers.

In my own constituency in West Cornwall and Scilly many of the field boundaries are scheduled monuments, the intricate network of footpaths and stiles are a primary source of recreation, planning controls quite rightly restrict what farmers can do to their buildings and the maintenance of diversity of wildlife depends to a large extent upon the actions of farmers.

We cannot ask them to compete on the world market with farmers who have absolutely no restrictions or regulation at the same time as requiring them to absolutely respect the restrictions we place on them. Therefore decoupled payments cannot arrive without a contract of “strings attached” which recognise society’s wish to have these desired public outcomes.

Driving forward reform which maintains rural traditions, a scale and style of farming and a family farm structure which is integrated into the rural community is something we should aim for because that is what the public want.

But we cannot prop up our farmers and rural communities irrespective of the cost? And that is why a further intervention is now necessary to redress the imbalance in commercial power between thousands of independent primary food producers and a small number of large supermarket chains and food processors who have effective monopolistic power to dictate price and conditions.

The Sir Don Curry “Food and Farming” Commission proposals published last year represent a welcome collection of policy proposals to make farming more profitable but they look like remaining statements of hope rather than Government action and ambition.

News that a post-war record 15,000 farmers and workers left the industry last year may be a cause for celebration for some but for those of us who recognise that we’re at a watershed of the future of farming this represents a challenge to see whether we can maintain the structure of agriculture, successfully challenge the monopoly of the supermarkets and guarantee a stable base for the maintenance of a balanced, accessible and successful future for our rural communities.

I was born and brought up on a farm in my constituency. I know that farmers want clear signals. The majority see themselves as food producers. I am not suggesting that they all retrain as countryside managers, but they have to recognise that, if British farming is to survive, they need to enter into a contract with society which enables them to carry on doing what the majority have done for centuries anyway and that is to respect their own environment and traditions.

Andrew George MP 30th April 2003

Please Note: This article was originally posted on 01/09/03

AN INVITINGLY OPEN GOAL

Being invited to write an article on the performance of DEFRA is the political equivalent of being invited to score an invitingly open goal.

In the circumstances it would be churlish not to hammer the ball in the back of the net with a great deal of gusto. DEFRA is certainly earning its place in Government departmental history as one of the most calamitous of all. Whether it can be entirely put down to incompetence rather than misfortune could be a matter for debate, but the one universal political reality which might constrain an opposition politician from being totally and nakedly opportunistic, is the gruesome reality of having to design a route plan out of this mess.

But let’s briefly remind ourselves of the disaster that is DEFRA.

For a department of rural affairs it can boast that more farmers have left the industry or been put out of business recently than at any equivalent time since the Second World War. Listening to some of the less than guarded comments coming from Government spokespeople you could be forgiven for believing that this a cause for quiet celebration rather than hand wringing (Lord Haskins – Tony Blair’s Rural Tsar – “Farms will get bigger and that is a good thing”).

Since coming to office, the Department and its predecessor has been angling for solutions to the Tory legacy of a declining fishing industry. Although it would be hard to criticise Elliot Morley’s sincerity and knowledge, one could perhaps only congratulate him for achieving “managed decline” rather than the “mismanaged disaster” which preceded him in the Tory years.

Four years ago the Agricultural Select Committee strongly recommended that the Government actually have a fishing policy – a long-term strategy and vision for the industry, which the Department has promised but never delivered. And, in a theme which I suspect will become more apparent, it has been the Prime Minister’s intervention which has got things moving. The Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit is at least now holding talks about producing a long-term fishing strategy. Not before time.

As for the environment, the Department seems to have made sure that it is a sub-ordinate after-thought to be considered after other Government departments (Transport, Department of Trade and Industry, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) have done what they like with it. Whatever environment is left is for DEFRA to take responsibility for!

Ministers have managed to consult the public about genetic modification before it has completed its scientific trials, thus creating a debate in a vacuum which it could later dismiss at will and has spun the debate so badly that it has generated more suspicion and doubt that it had hoped.

The Rural Payments Agency and farmers’ administrative systems are beyond a joke and its response to the challenge of implementing a new regulation to stop the burial of fallen stock on farms, was to forget to introduce the regulation to Parliament, whilst at the same time browbeating farmers about their lack of response to a Government proposed scheme for the collection of fallen stock.

The fundamental problem with DEFRA is that it lacks vision and executive clout. The fusing together of two Government departments no doubt created some administrative burdens which had to be overcome (different pay scales and conditions of service for staff, etc) but that is no longer an acceptable excuse for the chaos which still goes on

Whilst I have no reason to question Margaret Beckett’s sincerity or commitment to her brief, the Prime Minister has made her a Chief Executive with all of the executive power of a junior manager. His Rural Tsar – Lord Haskins (the real Secretary of State) – has now taken responsibility for all rural and farming strategy and the Prime Minister’s decision to ask his Strategy Unit to draw up a Government fishing policy smacks of impatience. The unceremonious removal of Environment Minister Michael Meacher as the Government approached the crucial last stages of deliberation on the genetically modified seed decision belies the claim that Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett are agnostic.

Even the Department’s accounts are a mystery to Ministers let alone officials.

This country needs a strategic Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: one which sets the environmental agenda across all Government departments; one which projects a future for agriculture and rural areas and one which is prepared to set long-term strategic goals, rather than be buffeted around by events and piecemeal short-term decision making.

The big questions which the Department should be tackling is whether we have the strength in this country to avoid our countryside being inevitably turned into a landscape of ranch and prairie and whether provision of rural housing can be managed to give locals a real chance, rather than whether its advice and grant making facilities are provided by an arms-length quango, rather than by the Department itself.

DEFRA has to face up to a few big questions rather than supply managing the process of taking lots of little ones.

Andrew George MP Article to Parliamentary Monitor 1st September 2003

Related articles

• Bovine TB

• Ploughing ahead

• The Minister and the fish market