Flooding

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Following the floods in 2007, the Government commissioned the “Land Use Futures” report, which laid out exactly what has happened this week. The people who produced that report said at the weekend that the Government ignored the report. They should go back, read the report and listen to the evidence. Will the Secretary of State do that and respond properly to the request made earlier by a colleague to look at the Pitt review, which said that the fire and rescue service should have a statutory duty to be the first response? Will she please answer those questions properly?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We did respond to all the recommendations of the Pitt review, apart from those relating to bodies that no longer existed. The reality is that we saw a fantastic response on the ground from the fire service. The issue is: how do we protect our communities, given that we are seeing more extreme weather? That is the issue we are dealing with here.

Flooding

David Anderson Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Environment Agency and everyone in those different services and councils who have worked so hard on the ground and made an enormous difference.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State quite rightly praises the work of the emergency services. What will we do going forward given that fire services in places such as Tyne and Wear are having their budgets reduced by 35%, 1,500 local authority workers in Gateshead have been sacked and the Environment Agency in the north-east faces a 20% cut in resources? How will we manage these situations then? When will he stop putting ideology before practicality?

[Mr Paterson]

We have provided £2.5 million to fire authorities to help on this issue. Under very difficult circumstances—I do not want to make tiresome political points, but we inherited them from the previous Government—we have managed to hold up the investment in flood defence schemes. We are looking at a 6% reduction over the whole spending period compared with that over the previous spending period, which under the current circumstances shows the priority we are giving to these schemes.

Ash Dieback Disease

David Anderson Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

We have brought together scientific experts from all over Europe to deal with this problem. I am not sure that the people dealing with hairdresser regulation are best deployed dealing with tree health. We need to use all available methods to restrict the spread of tree diseases, because there is a very high incidence of several of them, particularly in northern Europe. We should do everything we can do to avoid their coming into this country.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

In evidence to the independent panel on forestry, the Friends of Chopwell Wood, which is based in my constituency, said:

“There is a concern that having ‘saved’ our wood from sell-off we may lose it by neglect and disease”

and that that would be caused by “insufficient staff and funding”. Will the Minister give an assurance that that will not happen?

[Mr Heath]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have not yet formally responded to the independent panel on forestry, but we have indicated that we accept the thrust of its recommendations. I look forward to giving a full response early in the new year on that subject. The future for forestry is very bright, despite setbacks of the sort that I have described today. I repeat that we have not cut back on the allocation of resources. I hope we will be able to mobilise not just scientists, foresters and the voluntary groups for which he has spoken up, but everybody who has an interest in trees in this country, to ensure we have a thriving forest—not only today, but in future.

Bovine TB and Badger Control

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am entirely in agreement with my hon. Friend. We want to see healthy wildlife—healthy badgers in this case—living alongside healthy cattle. We will achieve that only if we drive through the two pilots and extend them across the country, as I have just assured my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski).

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State explain why there was a delay to avoid a clash with the Olympics and Paralympics, and what are the ideal weather conditions for killing badgers?

[Mr Paterson]

My predecessor was very responsible, because the Government had a request from the police and discussed it with the Home Secretary. There was obviously a huge amount of discussion about security before the Olympics and Paralympics. The whole nation wanted the games to be a success, and of course they were the most outstanding success. It was quite right not to burden the police with an extra task, so I think my colleagues were completely responsible.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the weather. We have obviously had the most extraordinarily wet year, which has made it difficult to get out on the land and difficult to get vehicles out. There is also a technical problem, which mainly applies to Gloucestershire. The maize is still standing, and part of what needs to be done is the cutting of maize, because otherwise badgers come and take the cobs. That is rather more a Gloucestershire problem than a Somerset one, but all in all, he must understand the practical difficulties of getting on the land in a very wet year.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George]

I notice that amendment 32 tabled by the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues proposes to delete the reference to the Agricultural Wages Board from schedule 1. The reason that I proposed a compromise position in new clause 7 is that I agree with the principle underlying the Bill. It is important for Governments continually to review the justification for the existence of non-departmental public bodies and for us to reflect on the amount of public money expended by a wide variety of quangos.

Where we can amalgamate responsibilities or find ways in which protective regulations, such as those for agricultural workers, can be incorporated in another statutory body rather than abolishing the body altogether, as the Government propose, it is important that we explore that option. That is what I seek to do in new clause 7. The intention and the benefit of my proposal is that the regulations are kept and enforced, but the overhead cost of maintaining an organisation is reduced as a result of that amalgamation.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House whether he is speaking on his own behalf or whether that is formal Liberal Democrat policy? Will he tell the House how he expects members of his party to vote tonight?

[Andrew George]

I was going to remind the House that the proposal to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board was in the Conservative party manifesto, not in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, and the proposal to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board was not in the coalition agreement. The issue should be subject to discussions between the two parties, as well as parliamentary debate and scrutiny.

It has always been my view that one of the great benefits of a coalition is that it puts Parliament on the front foot, whether the Opposition like it or not, and it strengthens Parliament. It means that issues such as this, which cannot be resolved between the two parties through whatever usual channels are now established within the coalition, are subject to quite proper parliamentary scrutiny, and Back-Bench Members of the two parties in the coalition are able to hold those on the coalition Front Bench to account.

--- Later in debate ---

I say to the hon. Member for St Ives that he and his colleagues were utterly right then, and they are utterly wrong tonight. I say to him, “Pull the duvet back and show who is in charge. Your rural working class are watching.”

[Mr Anderson]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that the hon. Gentleman was correct when he was quoted on 11 November last year in the Farmers Guardian as saying:

“If I thought that by following this policy farm workers would be better paid or have better conditions then I’d support it. But, I think we all know that the opposite is the most likely consequence”?

He was right then, and he is wrong tonight.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I also agree with the hon. Gentleman, as his peroration was, in fact, an argument in favour of our amendment, not his new clause. I therefore say to him that he should by all means press his new clause to a Division, as if he does so the Government Front-Bench team will have to consider whether it supports him. However, if he is not minded to do so, I urge him to support our amendment, as it will do exactly what he has previously argued is right for poor rural farm workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

I was referring to the wages order, not the wages themselves. The Agricultural Wages Board structure is gold-plated. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the reality is that a lot of agricultural wages order measures go way beyond what is laid down in statute for any other walk of life or sector of employment.

[Mr Anderson]

rose—

[Gavin Shuker]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

For once, I agree with whoever is shouting from a sedentary position. Of course no Minister can guarantee such things and it would be crazy for anybody to do that, but it is our firm belief that the overall employment situation in agriculture and in the fresh food sector will be enhanced by the abolition of the wages board.

The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives to transfer the powers and duties of the Agricultural Wages Board to the Low Pay Commission would mean the continuation of a dual regime, with consequent duplication of effort for employers. A transfer of the wages board functions to the Low Pay Commission would mean that there was still a separate employment regime for agricultural workers. There would be no removal of the regulatory burden on businesses and we would not achieve the simplification of legislation that we believe is necessary.

Moreover, if the Low Pay Commission were to be given powers to set an agricultural minimum wage rate, it would be difficult to argue why the commission should not extend those powers to set rates in other sectors—in other words, to return to the position before 1993. As it is, the Low Pay Commission does not have any statutory powers to set a minimum wage in any sector. It is an advisory body which makes recommendations to Government. The establishment of another advisory body to advise the Low Pay Commission, which the new clause would create, would introduce more bureaucracy, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid.

If the Agricultural Wages Board and agricultural minimum wage regime were abolished, the Low Pay Commission would be asked to consider evidence in the agricultural sector, as it does in other sectors. That evidence would be taken into account when the commission made its recommendations to Government on the rates for the national minimum wage. The national minimum wage rate would thus reflect the situation for agricultural workers. I have emphasised the point about retention of existing contractual rights.

The current evidence shows that for permanent workers aged over 21, well over half were paid well above the hourly minimum wage for the relevant grades in both 2009 and 2010. As in all other industries, agricultural workers with the right qualifications and aptitudes would continue to be able to command a premium. Lower skilled workers who were paid at or around the grade 1 agricultural minimum wage rate would be protected by the national minimum wage requirements. As has been mentioned, the lowest agricultural wage rate is just 2p per hour above the national minimum wage.

The Government would encourage industry representatives to work together to provide benchmarks for agricultural wage rates. As Members know, a non-statutory approach to wage setting works in many other industries, such as the construction sector, and although there are differences between the sectors, there is no reason why a similar approach should not work in agriculture.

I have discussed the matter with the National Farmers Union and urged it to introduce advisory levels of pay annually, in conjunction with the revisions to the minimum wage and annual levels of premium. The current premiums paid for grades above grade 1 are certain percentages above the basic grade. There is no reason why any employer who wants to employ somebody who they classify as a craftsman, a foreman or whatever grade they wish, cannot continue to use the minimum wage as the base for adding whatever premium they consider appropriate. The annual uprating of the minimum wage would be the opportunity for annual changes to agricultural wages.

In Committee and again tonight, there was considerable debate about the position of the Agricultural Wages Board in Wales. I accept that the Welsh Government take a different view. We are continuing to engage with them on the arrangements that should apply to agricultural workers in Wales.

Finally, the future of the board will be subject to public consultation, as required by the provisions of the Bill. We hope to consult before the end of the year. That will ensure that the consultation is widely advertised to meet the requirements of the Bill. Equally important and relevant to points that have been made tonight, an impact assessment and equality impact assessment will be published as part of the consultation.

That brings me to the issue of £9 million being taken out of the economy, which the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said—well, it was broadcast this morning, but I suspect that, like me, she did not actually say it this morning—was per year. The figure of £9 million was one of a number of possible scenarios, but I will not take it back. It did originate from DEFRA, but it was not an official impact assessment. I do not dispute its origin, but the figure was £9 million over 10 years—less than £1 million a year.

[Mr Anderson]

Is the Minister telling the House that the measure will cost workers £9 million, when the AWB cost only £270,000, to quote the figures read out at the other end of the Chamber?

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Gentleman is mixing his figures. Nobody is disputing £270,000-odd as the annual cost of running the board. That is not the reason for abolishing it. The purpose of abolition, as we have tried to say, is to release the industry and free it up to increase employment opportunities.

Forestry Commission

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) for securing the debate. There are people who think that the issue has been resolved, but it clearly has not. This morning’s discussions have shown that.

The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) started his speech by saying that we should listen. I have spent my life listening to what Conservative Ministers have said. I read what they say and, more importantly, I always read between the lines of what they say. I do not need faceless bureaucrats or Government Front Benchers, who perhaps want to extend their already big land ownings, to tell me about heritage. My heritage is the coal mine industry. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that when he talked about the shortage of pit props during the first world war. My grandfather was a miner during the first world war, as were some of my uncles. They were working in dangerous conditions that were made even more dangerous by the shortage of things such as pit props. People were basically failed by the private sector and the Forestry Commission was set to ensure that such a situation did not happen again.

The heritage of the forest is more than just the heritage of the nation; it is the heritage of individual areas. The area of the world that I am massively proud to represent includes a place called Chopwell. In that area is Chopwell wood, which is owned by the commission and has been classed as a heritage site. We did not need people to tell us that because we knew it was our heritage. We believed that that was our land and that we owned it as part and parcel of the work we put into it. Anyone—no matter what their background or wealth—should be entitled to enjoy that country.

People came together to defend their woods against these proposals, including the Friends of Chopwell Wood, the Chopwell Wood Horse Riding Association, the organisation representing Northumbria ramblers, of which I am proud to be the president, and the people who represent the Friends of Red Kites in the North East of England. I am a member of that organisation, which has been involved with the re-introduction of red kites in the north-east of England during the past six years within 3 miles of one of the biggest shopping centres in Europe. The fact that organisations worked together in relation to Chopwell wood and other such places meant that the re-introduction of red kites was so successful. The re-introduction of red kites has been one of the most positive of any such actions that have thankfully taken place in this country over the past two decades.

We should take stock and say, “Where exactly are we?” A lot of people think that this battle has been won and that the Government have seen sense and have agreed that the forest will stay in public hands, but that is not the position we are in today. Let us remind ourselves what the Secretary of State said. First, she said that she had ended the consultation. Secondly, she said that the Government are supporting the removal of the relevant clauses from the Public Bodies Bill. Thirdly, she said that she has set up the review. That is all she has done. She has not stopped the Forestry Commission from being looked at in respect of privatisation and she has not cut off the potential for the whole of the estate to end up in private hands. That might not happen immediately, but it could happen over time.

A great concern of many of the campaigners—I am talking about people who devote their lives to these woods—was that they may well have had to take control and ownership of certain areas of the woods. They were worried that they could not sustain that. They were also concerned that, when they had gone, their children might not have shown any interest in the woods or have been able to manage them. Ultimately, the woods would have gone into private hands. That is the real issue.

The truth is that people do not trust what the Government have said. That comes through time and again. I read the consultation thoroughly and listened very closely to what the Minister has said because people do not believe that the Government will stick to what they are saying. What people believe is based on the Conservative party’s history and the privatisation that people have seen under Tory Governments during the past two decades. Let us think about some of those things.

There was the deregulation of buses. If we had been in the House—some of us probably were—25 years ago, Ministers would have said, “Don’t worry; the public will have control. This will give a bus to every community in this country.” That has not been the case. Monopolies are running the buses and public service comes last. We could have had a discussion about the deregulation of the utilities. There was the “Tell Sid” campaign—tell Sid we are going to become a shareholding democracy. Now the big six utility companies are putting prices up by 9% when people have seen their pay frozen and their pensions held back.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is ranging rather wide of the debate today, which is the future of the Forestry Commission. Perhaps he could bring himself back to that topic.

[Mr Anderson]

I accept entirely what the Chair says, but I am talking about the reality of why people have not got on board with what the Minister, the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Banbury, for whom I have a lot of respect, have said. They have said that people are not listening. People are listening, but they are saying, “We don’t believe what we are hearing because we believe that what is happening is an attempt to dethrone us from where we were.” We have been here before. We were here in 1992, when the previous Tory Government set up a review when there was a rising up when Michael Heseltine, who was mentioned earlier, decided he was going to close 31 of the most technologically advanced coal mines in this country.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I am very sorry, but the hon. Gentleman really must confine himself to the future of the Forestry Commission, which is the topic under debate today—nothing else, just the future of the Forestry Commission.

[Mr Anderson]

Again, I take on board what the Chair says and I acknowledge that he may well not agree with where I am coming from, but the truth is—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. It is not for the Chair to agree or disagree with where a particular hon. Member is “coming from,” as the hon. Gentleman puts it. It is my job to ensure that the debate is about the future of the Forestry Commission and nothing else. The hon. Gentleman will return to the subject of the debate; otherwise he will return to his seat.

[Mr Anderson]

I accept, again, what the Chair says and I hope that he will accept that we have a situation where people worry about what the future holds, because they do not trust what has happened in the past.

Another issue that people are unsure about is exactly where the Liberal Democrats are on this, because they will play a key part in deciding the debate about where this country is going. In the next period, what will they feed into the consultation? What is quite clear on the ground in Chopwell, is that the Liberal Democrats are nowhere to be seen, despite the fact that in part of that area Liberal Democrat councillors represent some of the people who live at the side of the woods. So people have the right to say, “Where are you?” We have been here before. In 1921, under a coalition Government of Tories and Liberals, there was an attempt to sell off Runnymede, of all places. That did not happen.

I come back to the statement made by the Secretary of State. She said:

“I am sorry, we got this one wrong”.

I think every one of us would admire the Secretary of State for saying that and accepting that, but she then said,

“we have listened to people’s concerns.” —[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1155.]

Well, I am very pleased about that, but if she has listened to people’s concerns, and if she has listened to the responses to the consultations, and if she has listened to the 500,000 people who signed up on the website, she will know that those concerns are saying one thing and one thing only: the Forestry Commission, and the 18% of forest lands that are in public ownership and control, must remain. If we end up, at the end of the review procedure, with anything other than that, then clearly she has not listened and has not responded to what the people of this country have said.

The truth is that the people of this country will be watching the Secretary of State, her ministerial team and the Government like a hawk for the next few months. They will be very concerned, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford said, about the make-up of the independent panel. If there are no work force representatives, or representatives from green groups, on the panel, it will fail before it starts. If the terms of reference do not allow the latitude for the Forestry Commission to continue with full control and ownership, it will have failed before it starts.

To the people outside—wake up. Do not pretend that this is all done and dusted and that we had a great victory two weeks ago. We had some success two weeks ago, and it was people power that did it, but we have been here before: reviews have been used to put things on the back burner in the hope that we will forget about it and that it will be slipped through in six months’ time. Do not fall for that one.

Forestry (England)

David Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I am always interested in volunteers. We are looking particularly for those who have a good understanding of the issues involved in the management of forests and woodland. I have named before the House a number of green groups that have a long heritage of protection of our environment, but it is important that we have representatives of the private forest estates, so if the hon. Gentleman has suggestions he should let me have them.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I am sorry that the Chancellor has gone, because I wanted to thank him as well as the Secretary of State for the great boost they have given to Blaydon Labour party over the past few weeks during this fiasco. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for mentioning the great work that is being done by the people fighting to save Chopwell woods. My message to them is, “Don’t stop fighting.” What has happened today is not the end of the story. I want to ask the Secretary of State one specific question. Will there be a representative of the work force on the independent panel? They know what is going on.

[Mrs Spelman]

As I said clearly, the representation on the independent panel will be broad, with as wide a range of views as possible of those who have an interest in our forests and woodlands.

Public Forest Estate (England)

David Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leech]

I am not sure whether to thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but we are not voting on the Public Bodies Bill today; we are voting on an Opposition day motion. I shall go on to discuss how I am going to vote.

Other constituents have sent e-mails suggesting that forests are going to be closed off to the public and surrounded by 10-foot fences, but that is clearly not the case. Unfortunately, the Labour party has been complicit in this misinformation and shameless in its attempts to scare people into believing that the future of our forests is under threat. Instead of participating constructively in the consultation on the future of our woodland, Labour Members simply choose to try to score cheap political points by tabling an Opposition day motion to grab the headlines. That is why I certainly will not be voting for Labour’s motion and why I will support the Government’s amendment, which exposes the disgraceful sell-off of thousands of acres of public woodland by the previous Labour Government without any of the protection being put in place and promised under the coalition Government’s consultation. However, I wish to go on record as welcoming the measured comments made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about staff at the Forestry Commission, which should be added to the consultation process.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people would take the consultation more seriously if it was a genuine debate about whether or not we take these forests out of public control, rather than how we do that, as it is now? The public want this to be about “whether or not”, so that they could tell us not to do this.

[Mr Leech]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I endorse this as a proper consultation, and I hope that everyone who has an interest in this issue will participate in it and put their views clearly on the record.

I will never support the sell-off or leasing of woodland if I think that it will be detrimental to the long-term sustainability of the woodland and its biodiversity, and will threaten the access that people have enjoyed over a long period. What better safeguards will Minister’s introduce to protect the land and access to it compared with those that we already have? These forests will outlive all of us in this Chamber today and the public want to know how long these safeguards will be in place. Can I be assured that, whichever organisation might take on the running of a public forest, these safeguards will remain in place for not only our lifetime, but centuries to come?

Energy and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

David Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

No doubt that will be the case.

Let me say right at the outset that now we are in opposition, I intend for us both to hold the Secretary of State to account and to be constructive. In that spirit, there are some measures that we welcome, which would have been in a Labour Gracious Speech. The help for the home energy efficiency pay-as-you-save proposal is very important and we look forward to scrutinising the measures that come forward on that. The measures on the smart grid are also important, as is reform of the energy market—the work that we started in government. Internationally, we will fully support his efforts to try to get the binding treaty either at Cancun or in Cape Town that we failed to get at Copenhagen, and I will happily share with him some of the scars of Copenhagen if I can be of any help in advance of the Cancun summit.

The issue at the heart of this Gracious Speech, in this area and in many others, is whether the Government can provide the long-term direction that the country needs. In the area of climate change and energy, above all others, the country needs a clear sense of direction. The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives had different positions on some key issues at the election. I suppose we cannot blame them for that, as they did not know they would end up in bed together, but the test will be whether they produce a coherent long-term plan on those areas of disagreement or simply try to paper over the cracks, and thus fail to provide the long-term direction the country needs. We should set three tests: whether the new Government have a coherent strategy to deliver on the transition to low-carbon energy, whether they have a plan to secure a green industrial future for Britain and whether they have a commitment to make the transition fair.

Let me address the biggest challenge of all, which is the pre-condition of all other challenges on climate change that we face—the need to take carbon out of our electricity supplies. Our answer, in the low carbon transition plan we published last summer, which I hope was a plan for a decade, was the trinity of low-carbon fuels—clean coal, renewables and nuclear. On clean coal, I am pleased that the coalition agreement supports our investment and the levy that went through the House, as well as the tough coal conditions that we introduced, which are the toughest in the world.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend raises the issue of clean coal. We must also raise with the Government the immoral cost of importing coal from countries such as China and Ukraine, where thousands of miners are killed every year so that we can get relatively cheap coal. When he was the Secretary of State, he agreed to take forward this issue in the international arena. Will he join me in asking the new Secretary of State to do the same?

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend raised this important issue at the end of the last Parliament. We hope to work with the Government on that, as I am sure it is a cross-party concern. No doubt he will campaign on this issue as eloquently as he does on many others.

We will scrutinise the Secretary of State’s plans for an emissions performance standard. There is concern about whether that will lead to uncertainty in investment in coal and gas, but, again, we will judge the Government on the measures they introduce. There is some urgency on this issue, so I hope that plans will be produced speedily.

On clean coal, I think the Government are broadly in agreement with our plans, but what about renewables, which are the second part of the trinity of low carbon that we need? The Conservatives said in their manifesto that they agreed with our target of 15% renewable energy by 2020. The Liberal Democrats said they wanted a figure of about 40% by 2020, which I think is completely unrealistic. How have they resolved that difference? The new Government do not seem to have a target. They have 15% as a baseline, but say that they want the figure to be higher, and they have referred the issue to the Committee on Climate Change. There is a deeper problem here, because the Government say they want a larger target, but they are not willing to support the measures needed even to deliver existing targets. The Secretary of State made much of our record on renewables. We are the world leader in offshore wind generation, but it is true that we lag behind on onshore wind. However there is one very good reason for that, and he knows it as well as I do—most wind farm applications are blocked by Conservative councils. One might put it this way:

“At local level, Conservative councils are simply not heeding Cameron’s green call.”

Those are not my words, but those of the Secretary of State, writing about Conservative opposition to wind farms, so he knows that is the root of the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

rose—

[Mr Anderson]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

What a great choice! I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson).

[Mr Anderson]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the industrial revolution in the north-east is driven and supported by the regional development agency, another thing that will disappear under the coalition Government?

[Edward Miliband]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that speaks to the attitude, which I hope the Secretary of State does not share, that the only thing that is needed to make our economy work is for Government to get out of the way. I do not think that that will create the economy of the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) on a very fine speech, and I also congratulate everyone who has made a maiden speech today. It was a real pleasure to be in my place, especially to hear the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). I always believed that his father would one day look down on us all—I just did not think that it would happen this quickly.

I was concerned when the Secretary of State opened this debate by talking about consensus. I have been involved in the energy industry for almost 40 years, and if we had had some consensus over those decades we might not be in the mess we are in today. How can we have consensus when the Secretary of State opposes nuclear power, and his party is cautious—to put it mildly—on the use of coal? The Liberal Democrats in my area are completely anti-coal, no matter where it comes from or how it is burnt. Some of the partners in the new coalition are climate change deniers, so confusion is more likely than consensus.

Confusion is the last thing that we need in this debate, because we have had far too much delay already—and I blame the previous Government as much as the current one. My Government, in their 13 years, did not do as much as they should have done. In particular, they did not wake up quickly enough to energy security issues and the use of coal, especially coal from the United Kingdom. However, they did wake up to those issues more quickly than the Government before them, who spent 10 years decimating the coal industry in this country, which is an issue not just in the interests of security of supply, but because we were leading the world in clean coal technology. When we closed the coal mines in the 1980s and early 1990s, that clean coal technology went down the drain along with access to some of the most impressive coal reserves to be found anywhere in the world.

The Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change spent the last year and a half going through some of the many issues, and making good progress with little partisanship. However, we must face up to certain problems. For example, there is a huge skills gap across the energy sector, partly as a result of the privatisation of the industry in 1990s, with companies focusing on shareholder profits and driving costs down, not on investing in training and skills. Another question is where the finance will come from. It is estimated that we need £200 billion in 10 years if we are to meet the challenge facing us. If we compare that with the fact that in the past 20 years £100 billion was spent on upgrading the water system, we can see the scale of the challenge.

We have an opportunity to have the most integrated energy system anywhere in the world, with wind, tidal, nuclear, coal and gas—as long as it continues—and we must get to grips with that as a matter of urgency. We must also recognise that the national grid is not fit for purpose. I notice that the coalition’s document talks about building an offshore grid, and I welcome that, but we also need to put right the problems with the onshore grid. We have a regulator that, by its own admission, is not fit for purpose. Thankfully, it began to realise, with its report “Project Discovery” last year, that it was not doing the business—something that we have all known for a long time—and we need to make it do the business.

I intervened on my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State to make a point that I have raised several times already and will continue to raise—that this country is importing coal from countries where miners are being killed in their thousands every year. China kills six and Ukraine seven miners for every million tonnes of coal it produces. It is a scandal. If it was young, Asian kids stitching leather footballs, we would refuse to let the produce enter the country, but because it is energy, we close our eyes.

I want to raise another matter with the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change: the increase in fatalities and injuries in the UK. Over the past 10 years, as the number of mines and miners has decreased, major injuries have almost trebled and fatalities have risen fourfold. I hope to take that matter forward with the new Secretary of State and energy Ministers.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

I would be pleased to receive a delegation from the hon. Gentleman and others similarly concerned about those issues. I take them very seriously indeed, and I will be keen to address them at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Mr Anderson]

I appreciate that. I realise, from the work that the Minister and I did together on the Energy and Climate Change Committee, the genuineness of that offer, and I will certainly pursue it with him, interested colleagues and people in the mining industry.

In the past five years, there has been a huge step change in the north-east in relation to the opportunities and potential for finding a way forward in an economic way using the new green jobs. We have seen the potential of carbon capture and storage, and along with the university of Newcastle upon Tyne we are developing the potential of underground coal gasification to access some of the billions of tonnes of coal that still lie under the North sea. We hope to build wind turbines on the bank of the River Tyne, using the Narec facility in Blyth, which is developing cutting-edge wind turbine technology. The Secretary of State mentioned the development of electric cars by Nissan, and in my constituency, we are developing the infrastructure to charge those cars.

The reality, however, is that all that is being held together by one organisation—the regional development agency—and when we from the north-east say, “Do not do away with the RDA,” we do not say so because we like quangos or because we want to see civil servants kept in jobs; we say it because the RDA works. It has worked in the development of a low-carbon economy, and it is working in trying to make sense of what has happened at Corus. We believe that, if the RDA is removed, it will have a major impact on the economic development of our constituencies and our part of the country. I urge the Secretary of State to argue with the Treasury that the RDA in the north-east is a special case.

In preparing for this discussion, I looked back to the Queen’s Speech in 1979, because, from the commitments in the Conservative party manifesto, it seems that what it suggests is the way forward for the country now is similar to what was suggested in 1979. That Queen’s Speech read:

“My Government will give priority in economic policy…through the pursuit of firm monetary and fiscal policies.…and increase competition by providing offers of sale, including opportunities for employees to participate where appropriate… Members of the House of Commons will be given an opportunity to discuss and amend their procedures, particularly as they relate to their scrutiny of the work of Government… Legislation will be introduced to promote greater efficiency in local government… My Ministers will work to improve the use of resources in the National Health Service and…facilitate the wider use of primary care… Measures will be introduced to…control…immigration… My Ministers will take steps to…reform…the general law.”—[Official Report, 15 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 48-51.]

There is nothing unusual there. It is what I would expect from a Conservative party trying to get back into power after 13 years in the shadows. However, I did not expect it to be supported in its attempts, unfortunately, by the Liberal Democrats, but it has been. The latter have signed up to a Thatcherite agenda: cuts to welfare; attacks on the public sector; attacks on workers’ terms and conditions; unemployment used as a tool of public policy; attacks on democracy; and attacks on political party funding. We have, indeed, gone back to the future. And what else? There is good news for the bosses: corporation tax cuts; national insurance for employers stopped, but national insurance for employees increased; and a review of the pension age, so that those who have worked all their lives will have to work even longer—it does not matter that they might have started work at 15, because in the near future, they will have to continue until they are 66.

Then there is “freeing up schools”—again, a matter of ideological dogma, with the terms and conditions of teachers and other classroom workers to be put out to the highest bidder—and the privatisation of Royal Mail, with the pensions, pay and jobs in the Royal Mail to be put at risk. Then there is political reform. I was surprised during the election campaign—although I probably should not have been—to hear the Liberal Democrats talking about the link between the trade unions and the labour movement as corrupt. That is an absolute slur on one of the biggest democratic organisations in this country.

The people in Blaydon had a clear choice in the 2010 election, and 7,000 of them made that clear choice when they voted for a gentleman called Glenn Hall, a man who stood firm and true in his beliefs, which were those of the Conservative party. Some 7,000 of my constituents said, “We’ll vote for that,” whereas 61,000 said, “No, we do not want that,” 13,000 of them saying, “We support the Liberal Democrats.” However, they did not support the Liberal Democrats to put the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) into No. 10 Downing street. Unfortunately, Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches have let those 13,000 people down, because they have let the Conservatives back in with an agenda that takes us back to where we were 30 years ago, and we are going to end up in the same situation.

The people who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the north-east of England are now seeing the reality of what the Liberal Democrats have done and the mistakes that they have made. People such as me and other Members will ensure that they continue to see those mistakes. The excuse of the Liberal Democrats is: “It’s all about Greece.” Well, there is only one thing that the Liberal Democrats in this House have shown in connection with Greece—and that is that they want to climb the greasy pole.