Environmental Protection and Green Growth

David Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s role in government. Obviously, the decisions that we made in government paved the way for Mitsubishi and Siemens to think about relocating here. We do not want to drive energy-intensive industries or jobs overseas, because in many cases such industries are contributing directly to green development—for example, the steel that is pressed for offshore wind turbines that are manufactured in the UK. Companies in these industries want transparency so that there is a level playing field, showcasing the best and exchanging knowledge so that they can reduce their costs and their environmental impact. We pay tribute to the companies that have already done that work.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

I represent the seat that holds the birthplace of industry, and, some would therefore argue, the birthplace of global warming. These things are probably best done locally. Some local authorities have incredibly good partnerships with businesses. My hon. Friend will be aware that Ricoh, the technology company, has its European headquarters in my constituency. It is a fairly energy-intensive company, but it puts over 90% of its waste product back into the industrial process, internally or with partners. That is an example of where an energy-intensive business can do a lot for the environment as well.

[Mary Creagh]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for that contribution. I agree that it is very important that these companies now look through the whole of their manufacturing processes. I will deal with the role of waste in a moment.

In July this year, the Aldersgate Group, a collection of charities with large companies such as BT, PepsiCo and Microsoft, commissioned a report that provided an independent analysis of the impact assessment produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on mandatory carbon reporting. Taking just one of the options—option 3—Aldersgate found that DEFRA had overestimated the total costs by up to £4.6 billion and underestimated the benefits by £980 million. It said that DEFRA’s impact assessment had ignored wider behavioural change, product and service innovation and other strategic advantages from carbon reporting. It also states that DEFRA underestimates the benefits to companies over time, because the DEFRA model assumes that once companies have reduced their emissions in year one, they will not reduce them again over the following nine years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) said, large companies such as Ricoh and Tata get very good consultants in every year to see how they can drive down their costs and environmental impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I am sorry, but I really must make some progress.

We will shortly publish our White Paper on water, which will set out how we want to reform the water industry and address the need for resilience to drought and climate change. A few weeks ago I stood on the bed of the River Kennet, which was as dry as the carpet in the Chamber. It is one of the “rivers on the edge” identified by the World Wildlife fund and is one of the most precious ecosystems in the south of England, although there are many more. Many Members represent constituencies where there are serious concerns about the decline of river quality. We will explain in the water White Paper how we seek to address the problem. We will consider not just the narrow issues involved in that particular stretch of water, but the entire catchment. We will take account of the calls on water, the loss of water from those precious ecosystems, and how we can manage the situation in future.

[David Wright]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Benyon]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will make a bit of progress. Many other Members wish to speak in the debate.

We are implementing the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which was mentioned earlier, and creating new marine conservation zones around our coast. Let me tell those who talk of the checklist that may have found its way into the motion that that item is flagged as a red, and is very much ongoing. We are adhering to the timetable that was set by the hon. Member for Ogmore when he was a Minister. We are determined to complete the task, and to create an ecologically coherent network of conservation zones around our coast.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I have already said that we will address that in the near future in the water White Paper. We are determined to comply with directives, because that is what we all have to do, but we are also more ambitious, in that we want our aquatic environment to be restored. That legacy will be difficult to achieve, but we can achieve it. We can secure huge improvements in biodiversity and ecosystems by just making some changes. It is not easy to change abstraction when large numbers of people rely on the water in question for their daily lives, but this can be done, and it will be done under this Government.

[David Wright]

What discussions has the Minister had with Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers about the use of grey water produced in urban environments? That is of key importance. The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) made a good point about the level of water abstraction in the UK, but what we are not very good at—whereas other countries in the European Union and around the world are good at this—is using grey water in the built environment and recycling it.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

David Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

Would it not be simpler to remove the Agricultural Wages Board from the list? Rather than coming up with a new scheme or initiative to transfer powers to the Low Pay Commission under new clause 7, we could leave the Agricultural Wages Board out of the Bill and it could continue to do the excellent work that it has done for many years.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

He does not—perhaps a glaring example of what the reality will look like.

My second example is Steve Leniec, from near Wantage in Oxfordshire, who is paid a craftsman’s rates and whose concerns are about the downward pressure on farm workers’ wages, which abolition of the AWB will drive. The House knows that unemployment is high at the moment, and his perfectly reasonable and understandable fear is that wages will slowly drop when the AWB is abolished.

[David Wright]

My hon. Friend is talking about wages being gradually eroded, but the wages of the 40,000-plus casual workers, who change jobs more rapidly, will fall very quickly indeed. A large proportion of people working in the countryside will quickly take a pay hit if this body is abolished.

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is precisely the concern being expressed by many people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am getting a little concerned for the health of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) because when he speaks as he did tonight and as he did in the health debate, he seems to be in a certain amount of pain—perhaps the fence he has been sitting on in all these debates is causing pain to his nether regions. Clearly he is trying tonight to give the impression to his rural constituents that he is supporting them, while giving succour to the abolition of the AWB. He has to make a clear decision about whether or not he supports this move. His new clauses are seriously flawed, as was shown by some of his arguments. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) that the hon. Gentleman made a better argument for the AWB’s retention than he did for his new clauses.

I have a problem with the new clauses. The hon. Gentleman said that he had had discussions with the Low Pay Commission, but subsection (1) of new clause 7 would require some form of legislation to amend the LPC’s remit. This is not simply a matter of transferring functions to the LPC, because we would be changing its role and nature greatly. Subsection (2) simply bemuses me. It states:

“The Low Pay Commission shall establish an advisory board of employer and employee representatives from agricultural and related industries to make recommendations to the commission in fulfilment of its duties under the Agricultural Wages Act 1948.”

That sounds very much to me like a description of the AWB. Why do we need to move things to the LPC, given that subsection (2) basically retains the function? If there is a need for the AWB to protect rural workers, we should leave it as it is.

The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to take this approach to save money. I believe that the AWB costs £272,000 a year, which is less than half what the new special advisers appointed by the Deputy Prime Minister cost—we will keep an eye on the Tory Ministers throughout the coalition Government. So we are paying a small price to protect rural workers and rural communities. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to support rural workers in his constituency and the rest of the country, he should support our amendments 32 and 39. They make clear the need for, and importance of, the AWB, not only for workers, but for rural economies.

[David Wright]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has talked about agricultural workers, because this is not solely an urban/rural issue. Many people who live in towns such as Telford, which I represent, go out of the town to work in rural areas. So this is not just about sustaining the rural economy; it is also about urban areas.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point; places such as Telford are surrounded by large rural areas. It is ironic that Conservative Members keep telling us that they are the champions, supporters and voice of the countryside, given that a second Conservative Member has only just arrived for this very important debate. That tells me loud and clear that they will protect certain parts of rural communities but not others—the most vulnerable. May I say, as a former trade union official, that it would be the first time in history if something like the abolition of the AWB led to an increase in the wages of rural workers? It is therefore vital that the AWB is retained.

If the hon. Member for St Ives wants to prove to his constituents that he really cares about their needs, all he needs to do is vote for amendments 32 and 39 and encourage the rest of his party to do so. I assure him that at the next general election the Labour party in his constituency and in other Liberal Democrat rural constituencies will remind constituents of exactly what the Liberal Democrats did. As with a lot of things that this coalition is doing to attack working people in this country, this could not be done without the support of the Liberal Democrats.

--- Later in debate ---

In less than a month’s time, our nation will pause and reflect on the bravery of our armed forces. Getting to grips with the failings in the coronial system is an opportunity for us all to reflect and pause together as parliamentary representatives to support the bereaved families of our service personnel.

[David Wright]

I wholeheartedly support the hon. Gentleman’s amendment and congratulate him on tabling it. Does he agree that this is part of an evolving military covenant issue whereby we ensure that we fulfil our duty as parliamentarians to the people who serve our country in the most difficult circumstances at the front line and those who support them?

[Andrew Percy]

I do, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. We all want to honour the military covenant; there is no doubt about that across the House. We might sometimes disagree about how best to achieve that, but I think sorting out our coronial system is key to it, and appointing a chief coroner, as agreed on a cross-party basis previously, certainly honours the covenant.

Some polling has been undertaken on this issue, so I can inform the House what the public appear to think about this important matter. Recent polling conducted by ComRes tells us that eight out of 10 people believe the way we treat bereaved armed forces families says a lot about our values as a nation. A further 85% say that families deserve as much support as we can possibly give through the system, while three quarters agree that Britain owes a great debt to the families of those who sacrifice their lives in the service of the country. Furthermore, more than three quarters say we must support the families of deceased armed forces personnel in order to honour the memory of those who have given their lives. That is something that I am sure is shared on all sides.