---

Madam Deputy Speaker : No, I call Mr. Mullin.

Mr. Mullin : I am grateful for my hon. Friend's contribution. In his previous incarnation, he had a long association with the coal industry. He is an expert on the problem we face, and I am sure that he will be listened to with respect inside and outside the House and wherever the problem is discussed.

At about the same time as I corresponded with the National Rivers Authority, the NRA issued a press statement, which began : "The Northumbria region of the NRA has expressed concern at the problems likely to occur if minewater pumping ends."

The statement went on to call for an assurance from British Coal that pumping will continue until a course of action that will prevent pollution has been agreed. As far as I am aware, no such assurance has been forthcoming ; only a promise of at least two weeks' notice before the pumps are turned off.

Meanwhile, the buck is being passed. When, on 17 February, I asked the Department of the Environment what steps had been taken to assess the impact of the closure of the pits on the pollution of the River Wear, the reply that I received was, "None"--it was a matter for British Coal and the NRA to assess the likely damage. The Minister added :

"Arrangements have been made between British Coal and the NRA for effective liaison over proposed pit closures."

I asked the same question again on 28 April and received more or less the same replies. The Secretary of State added :

"I have not discussed this specific matter with the National Rivers Authority or British Coal."

By now it has become absolutely clear that, although liaison is taking place between the NRA and British Coal, its results are far from satisfactory.

In a letter to me dated 16 June, Mr. Hyde said :

"British Coal did provide us with a report in September 1992 predicting what they thought would happen. This only concerned itself with the quantity of water and said nothing about the final quality."

As to suggestions that the NRA would accept responsibility for pumping should British Coal withdraw, Mr. Hyde stated :

"This is not the case . . . the NRA considers the responsibility for dealing with the potential pollution lies with British Coal." This appears to be wholly at odds with British Coal's position. I spoke yesterday to Mr. Malcolm Colley, technical manager of the NRA. He told me that, although co- operation had improved, British Coal had still not supplied the NRA with detailed plans of the underground

---

Column 327

workings that would assist with assessing the likely damage. Apparently, it is citing commercial reasons--a reference, no doubt, to impending privatisation.

As for the pollution that would arise from switching off the pumping, British Coal still refuses to acknowledge responsibility. According to the NRA, the issue may have to be tested in the courts. This morning, I received a fax from Mr. Colley. He says that the NRA is due to receive a further report from its consultants next week. He expects it confirm the original findings

"that discharges of minewater to the River Wear upstream of Durham would occur within about six months if the pumps protecting Easington colliery were switched off."

British Coal is still promising 14 days' notice, but that is its best offer. No one knows what will happen after that. Mr. Colley concluded :

"The NRA has kept the Department of the Environment fully informed of developments and will look to the Department to ensure that minewater pumping continues."

So, despite protestations to the contrary and vague talk of liaison, it is with the Minister that the buck stops. What I want to hear from him tonight --it has not been evident so far--is that the NRA will be given all the backing it needs to make British Coal live up to its responsibilities. I should like to know what discussions he has had with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry who have responsibility for British Coal. It needs to be made absolutely clear to the management of British Coal that their attitude so far has been unacceptable.

The letter from the chairman, dated 11 February, is positively misleading. Who, reading it, would guess that there was a problem at all ? All Mr. Clarke does is attempt to discredit Dr. Younger, who has been entirely vindicated and but for whom we might never have known about the problem until it was too late.

I hope that the Minister will not give us a lot of blather about the need for British Coal and the NRA to liaise. They have been doing that for the past nine months, and the results so far are not satisfactory. If the NRA had been satisfied with the co-operation it was receiving, it would not have felt the need to issue public statements calling for assurances from British Coal ; nor would it have told me, as it did today, that the NRA is looking to the Department to ensure that pumping continues.

I am looking for some sign from the Minister that he acknowledges that there is a problem and that ultimately it is up to his Department to do something about it. Above all, what I and the people of Sunderland seek is a cast-iron guarantee that pumping will continue for as long as necessary to prevent the destruction of the River Wear ; and that, if necessary, the Department of the Environment will pick up the tab.

During the past five years, the people of the north-east have lost their shipyards, their coal mines and a large slice of their manufacturing industry. We do not also want to lose one of our greatest natural assets-- the River Wear.

12.3 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry) : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, Sout(Mr. Mullin) for raising an important issue. Along with hon. Members representing neighbouring constituencies--such as the hon. Member

---

Column 328

for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington)--he has expressed understandable concern about the possibility of water pollution from coal mines that have closed down, damaging the River Wear. That is clearly important, and we take it very seriously.

Coal has been mined in the north-east coalfield since Roman times. Early coal mines were small, and used either shallow mine shafts or adits to access the coal measures. As technology improved, mines became larger and were able to exploit deeper reserves. At this stage, natural drainage became inadequate, and mine pumping was necessary. At the time of nationalisation, when 186 Durham and Northumberland collieries were vested in the National Coal Board, output was around 35 million tonnes a year. Since then--first because of the depletion of the easily accessible reserves in the west of the coalfield, and latterly because of the loss of markets--production has declined. In recent years, British Coal's deep- mined production in the north-east has fallen steadily, from 10.5 million tonnes in the late 1980s to 7.5 million tonnes in 1991-92. The total capacity until the October 1992 announcement was about 12 million tonnes a year ; the closure of Vane Tempest, Easington and Westoe has reduced capacity to about 8.5 million tonnes.

It is important to view the matter in the correct context. Many mines in this country have been abandoned. Some are the remains of activity that took place centuries ago, and a much smaller proportion are the result of mineral extraction in the 20th century. Let me give hon. Members some idea of the scale involved. British Coal alone holds details of approximately 10,000 abandoned mine workings. Since 1947 and nationalisation, it has abandoned some 900 mines, of which roughly 700 were closed before 1979. Those closures have not brought about the dire situation described to us this evening by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South.

The historical perspective makes it clear that many more mines have been abandoned in the past than are likely to be closed in the foreseeable future. What we are discussing tonight is not the closure programme, but the action being taken to overcome one of the side effects of Britain's industrial past.

Pit closures are, of course, a matter for British Coal. British Coal has decided that it no longer wishes to operate Vane Tempest/Seaham and Easington collieries, and has advertised both pits for licence to the private sector. I understand that those collieries are protected from ingress of water by pumping operations at a number of sites. Cessation of pumping would cause groundwater to rise over time. British Coal is maintaining pumping arrangements until it knows whether a private sector licensee is available. If so, the future pumping regime will be open for negotiation between British Coal and the buyer ; if not, British Coal will consider what action to take. It has undertaken to keep the NRA informed of its intentions. It is, of course, British Coal's responsibility as the mine owner and operator to ensure that water pollution does not occur as the result of mining operations. In the case of closures in the Durham coalfield, British Coal has taken a very responsible attitude, altering existing pumping arrangements at the NRA's request and consulting other parties in particular, the National Rivers Authority. In the course of discussions, British Coal has, I believe, provided a great deal of useful data.

---

Column 329

The stretch of the River Wear on which this debate is centred was graded class 1B in the NRA's 1990 river quality survey. That means that it is water of high quality--although not the best

quality--suitable for drinking, water abstraction and high-class fisheries, and with a high amenity value. More recent sampling confirms that the river's quality has been maintained at that level for some time. There is a major abstraction point for drinking water at Lumley, near Chester-le- Street.

Minewater is currently discharged into the Wear via a number of pumping stations between Vinovium and Lumley, all of which are designed to protect Easington colliery. Those discharges are subject to consents granted by the NRA and are monitored for quality. The river also relies on the minewater, in certain parts of the year, to support the minimum maintained flow at Chester le Street. There are thus a number of reasons why the NRA should be concerned to investigate the anxiety that has been expressed about possible discharges of polluting mine water into the river, and changes in the pumping regime.

The NRA has acted with a measured and rational response. Initially, an independent firm of consultant mining engineers was commissioned to report on the matter, with the remit of establishing the gravity of the problem and the need for further action. Subsequently, a second, more detailed, report has been commissioned, aimed at determining more precisely the extent of any pollution, the time scale involved, and the likely location of discharges. However, as it is difficult to predict exactly what will happen to groundwater levels if pumping rates are changed, the NRA is planning to drill five boreholes at strategic points in the area.

Mr. Etherington : The Minister mentioned the vast closure programme since nationalisation. I take it that he is aware that, notwithstanding the vast number of collieries that have been closed in the north-east, the water table has remained constant because of the pumping arrangements. Worry about the water rising has led my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

As yet, we have not had a satisfactory response on that point. Given that there is conflicting evidence from learned people, it would be preferable if the Department would instigate a hydrologist and a geologist to investigate the matter and make a report.

Mr. Baldry : The country has a perfectly good water regulatory authority--the National Rivers Authority. The NRA and British Coal are quite capable of working together to carry out the surveys. I repeat : this is not an unprecedented situation. The peak year for coal production was 1914. Pits have been closing, year after year, for a long time. The situation on the River Wear is not unprecedented. Everyone is anxious to ensure that pollution does not occur. British Coal has a responsibility, as the mine owner, to ensure that that does not happen. It is being assisted in that by the NRA. The NRA is drilling five boreholes at strategic points in the area, which will allow it to monitor what is happening to water levels and to water quality underground. That will also help it to validate and amend where necessary the computer prediction model that is using. In that way, it should be possible to make a cautious, but informed, assessment of what is likely to occur, and it is expecting that the second report, due very soon, will give even more

---

Column 330

information. That report will be publicly available to the many interested parties, and will, of course, be discussed in detail with British Coal, local authorities and those interested parties, including Members of Parliament.

I think that everyone will agree that the important factor here is that much has been put in hand that is intended to anticipate and avoid any possible pollution, and to identify what measures need to be taken. The responsibility for deciding what action is necessary to avoid pollution is in the first instance for British Coal, in consultations with the NRA.

British Coal and the NRA have been discussing this for some considerable time and have studies in hand to establish the likely extent of the problem. It is, however, for British Coal to consider the implications of stopping pumping. It knows that it is an offence to cause pollution, and the NRA has powers to prosecute whenever it considers that this has happened.

The hon. Member for Sunderland, South seemed to suggest that, when British Coal is privatised, statutory control will be weakened. However, we have made it absolutely clear that, when it is privatised, its liability to ensure that pollution does not occur will continue. The Government will ensure that British Coal's current

responsibilities on the physical legacy of mining will continue after privatisation.

Mr. Mullin : The problem is that British Coal does not accept that it is responsible. It cites the Water Resources Act 1991, which exempts pollution caused by mining. At the very least, its argument may have to be tested in court. I telephoned the Minister's office earlier today to make sure that he understood the question to which I seek an answer. Perhaps he will reach that answer in the last few minutes of the debate. The question is, what will the Department of the Environment do if British Coal does what it says it will do, which is to give 14 days' notice before turning off the pump?

Mr. Baldry : That question falls ill from the lips of a Labour Member, because in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, a Labour Government passed considerable powers to the National Coal Board, which became British Coal. British Coal has responsibilities, and it must carry them out. No mining organisation can ask the taxpayer to pick up the bill for its mining operations. British Coal management know full well their statutory responsibilities, and we have made it clear that those responsibilities will carry forward on privatisation, that such liability will continue, and that British Coal's current responsibilities on the physical legacy of mining will carry forward.

The consequences of mine closures are complex. It is clearly an offence for mine owners, such as British Coal, to cause pollution of water courses, regardless of whether a mine is active or abandoned. I do not think that there is any dispute about that, and there need be no argument about it. Responsibility for avoiding pollution rests with the discharger. Discharges from active mines are covered by the system of discharge consents that are operated by the NRA. We are aware of the issues that have been raised about the legal provisions causing discharges from mine workings. The question was referred to in last year's report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on freshwater quality, which recommended

---

Column 331

"that the Government consider ways of remedying the apparent absence of legal powers to require owners or former operators of abandoned mines to prevent pollution".

We are considering the framework of legal responsibility for pollution from abandoned mines.

The NRA, for its part, is carrying out a number of studies into particular pollution control issues. One of these is currently reviewing the problems presented nationally by discharges from abandoned mines. Many such mines were abandoned centuries ago in circumstances somewhat different from those that we are debating. Liability in respect of abandoned mines is similar to that of contaminated land. In March, my right hon. and

---

Column 332

learned Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced a review of the powers and duties of public authorities relating to contaminated land. That review is well under way, conducted by an interdepartmental group of officials under the charirmanship of my Department.

We are not discussing the situation in Durham as though British Coal had already decided to close--

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker-- adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

---