Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 446
Sainsbury, Rt Hon TimScott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Shersby, Michael
Sims, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Soames, Nicholas
Speed, Sir Keith
Spencer, Sir Derek
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Spink, Dr Robert
Spring, Richard
Sproat, Iain
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Steen, Anthony
Stephen, Michael
Stern, Michael
Stewart, Allan
Streeter, Gary
Sumberg, David
Sweeney, Walter
Sykes, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Thomason, Roy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Tracey, Richard
Tredinnick, David
Trend, Michael
Trotter, Neville
Twinn, Dr Ian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Viggers, Peter
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Walden, George
Waller, Gary
Ward, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Waterson, Nigel
Watts, John
Wells, Bowen
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray
Whittingdale, John
Widdecombe, Ann
Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Wolfson, Mark
Wood, Timothy
Yeo, Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. David Willetts and Mr. Michael Bates.
Column 446
NOESColumn 446
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Barnes, Harry
Canavan, Dennis
Corbyn, Jeremy
Column 446
Cunliffe, LawrenceDavidson, Ian
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Column 447
Evans, John (St Helens N)Hoey, Kate
Lewis, Terry
Mackinlay, Andrew
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
McAvoy, Thomas
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Pike, Peter L
Column 447
Salmond, AlexShore, Rt Hon Peter
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Audrey
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Austin Mitchell and Mr. Ted Rowlands.
Column 447
Column 447
Question accordingly agreed to.Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Column 448
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Bates.]
12.46 am
Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet): I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to raise a subject of vital importance to my constituents, albeit at a late hour and in a very interesting week in politics. It is a subject, as I say, that is of great interest and importance to my constituents, as I believe it is also to yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who is in his seat tonight.
My purpose in seeking the debate is to focus attention on the effect of the revision of mineral planning guidance note 3 this summer on opencast applications in the green belt and to seek clarification of what those changes mean. I am concerned particularly with its impact on the east Leeds green belt, but what I have to say will have wider implications for similar areas.
I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot comment on the facts of individual cases, but I shall have to refer to some to identify the issues of principle that they raise. However, I say at the outset how pleased I am that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed to visit my constituency to see the area for himself that has been affected by a recent spate of opencast applications and to discuss what needs to be done as far as the planning framework is concerned.
It has been clear for some time that MPG3, the planning guidelines governing opencast applications, were out of date and needed fairly radical review. I and many others submitted evidence to the Secretary of State in the consultation process on that review. Many of the ideas that I and others submitted were incorporated into the revision that was announced in July, and I welcome that.
However, the first appeal decision to be made by an inspector under that revision, by H.J. Banks Ltd., related to land at Garforth in my constituency, and my concern is that, if that decision is a valid precedent, the new thinking in the MPG3 revision is not working out in practice as was intended and as I believed at the time when it was raised in the House.
The old position was that, in the national interest, there was a presumption in favour of opencasting. That is clearly no longer true, as there is a massive surplus both of coal being produced and of coal reserves. That presumption was removed, first by a ministerial statement and then, by way of confirmation, by the MPG3 revision. Rightly, there is now no overriding requirement in the national interest that coal should be extracted simply because it is there. The correct test now is principally one of environmental acceptability. But that must carry a special significance for the green belt, where there are especially strong environmental factors. Although it is true that coal can be worked only where it lies, it is equally true that houses can be built only where there is appropriate land available. Now that there is no national priority for extracting coal, there is no more logical reason for treating that activity more favourably than any other kind of development in the green belt. In other words, it should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances.
Next Section
| Home Page |