| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Yvette Cooper (Pontefract and Castleford): Is my hon. Friend aware of the pressure that the coal industry is under and of the anxieties of miners, whom I represent, in Kellingley and Prince of Wales collieries for their future?
What are the Government doing to ensure that coal gets a fair deal in energy markets and can compete fairly on a level playing field?
Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend for her questions. I am aware of her representations and those of many of my hon. Friends. We are concerned, not least because the main company is--how should I put it?--negotiating contracts, I hope, with the generators to ensure that there is a market for that coal. I understand that those conversations are going on--I should have hoped that they had gone on earlier--and I hope that they can be brought to a successful conclusion to ensure a future for Britain's coal industry.
We are taking action to do what we can to ensure that there are diverse and secure supplies of energy, including coal. I shall give some examples. Six things come immediately to mind. First, the Government are taking strong action to block subsidies to German and Spanish coal. Secondly, we have recently set up a review of the electricity pool--the buying mechanism through which electricity is sold--to ensure that there is a level playing field. Thirdly, we are ensuring that generators have to offer their unwanted coal-powered stations to RJB Mining.
Fourthly, we are encouraging the regulator to prevent generators from passing on excessive costs under the early take-or-pay gas contracts to ensure that there is no uneven playing field. Fifthly, my hon. Friend may appreciate that the Bill removes the advantage that nuclear and imported electricity from France enjoys--it will no longer be able to receive a subsidy, as it were, and distort the playing field. Sixthly, we are working hard to find ways in which to support clean-coal technology. Coal presents environmental challenges and we have to consider technological ways of addressing them to ensure that coal has a long-term future.
Mr. William Cash (Stone):
I am much encouraged by some of the Minister's remarks, but are the Government prepared to amend and investigate the treaty that regulates imported electricity? That serious question goes back to a previous Labour Government. I do not want to make just a party political point, but that question requires some analysis.
On the questions of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) about coal, following my Adjournment debate last week, I understood that there was to be a meeting on Monday or Tuesday between the Minister and representatives of the coal mining industry, but I understand that it has been delayed for weeks. Will the Minister explain why? Exactly how does he propose to handle the important questions of hon. Members on both sides of the House?
Mr. Battle:
On the European rules, the Bill is well within the guidelines, as it were, and practice. We see no problems. The lines have been cleared so that we can ensure that the levy is applied and removes any inconsistencies. It is accepted in the energy market as a whole that the distortion is there; we are removing it. The aim is not to penalise French electricity, but it is unfair that it receives an extra that sources here do not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) asked for and arranged a meeting, and he wanted me and the Minister for the Environment to be
present to ensure that energy, opencast mining and environmental questions were considered together. My hon. Friend the Minister had to go to America for a meeting on carbon dioxide emissions, so he said that he would not be available for the meeting. I was prepared to go ahead with it, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley thought that it would be better for the three of us to meet so that energy policy and the environment were considered together. We acceded to that wish and that is why the meeting has been postponed.
I am available to meet hon. Members individually or together at any time to discuss these important and serious matters. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make representations personally, I shall be happy to meet him.
Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton):
We appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend is collecting knowledge on the coal mining industry and we welcome some of his suggestions to address some of the imbalances in it. May I take up one of the six examples that he raised--generating electricity from gas? We are given to understand that, apart from perhaps the Drax power station, the majority of base load electricity is generated from gas even though in many instances its unit cost is higher than electricity generated from coal. Will he consider that customers of electricity-generating industries are not receiving the best possible value? In addition to making representations on that issue, will he check that matter and whether customers are getting the best value from the way in which the generating industry operates?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. I know that the Minister is trying to be as helpful as possible, but I must point out to hon. Members that interventions must be brief if we are to have a proper debate. Some hon. Members have said that they want to catch my eye later, so we want the debate to flow.
Mr. Battle:
I appreciate that hon. Members want to raise the wider issues and I will respond in that spirit within your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My understanding is that the power stations that go straight into base load are nuclear. The levy will even the playing field because they will no longer be in a position to do that. The real base loaders have been the nuclear generators.
I accept that there is concern about gas. There is an argument about the unit cost of gas versus the unit cost of coal. Some say that the unit cost of coal is lower; others that that of gas is lower. I cannot go into the details now. Last month, the electricity regulator capped the generation costs that can be passed on to the electricity supplier. We must not forget that there are a number of players: the people who dig the coal in the mines, the power stations, the transmission system and the regional electricity supply companies. Those companies will not now be able to pass on to their customers the costs of the so-called sweetheart deals for high-priced, gas-fired power that they signed under the previous Administration. That move was made in response to requests by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and others.
The six key actions that I have described--I shall now add a seventh, on gas--are not just ideas thought up tonight, but actions that have already been taken. We came into office six months ago last Saturday and
we have had to deal with the problems that we inherited. We have taken careful and patient steps to ensure that there is a genuine level playing field. We must ensure that other sources of fuel, including coal, are not treated unfairly and priced out of the market. It is in that spirit that this Bill should help in the short-term, as well as in the medium and longer term.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
The Minister referred to clean-coal technology. Is it his intention to extend the levy to embrace research and development into that technology? He referred to supporting the technology, but he did not say how that would happen.
Mr. Battle:
We have seriously considered that matter. Indeed, when the Bill was in the other place Lord Ezra tried to move a related amendment, but it was ruled out of order by the Clerks and the lawyers who advise us on our proceedings. Lord Ezra's proposal did not fit into the scope of the Bill because it dealt with raising the levy, not with spending it.
One purpose of our review of the non-fossil fuel obligation is to determine what we can do to support clean-coal technology. That means not only connecting what has been happening in the energy directorate, but linking that to what has been happening in science, engineering and technology under the Office of Science and Technology. Research has been and is being funded, but we need to move forward and get that to the market.
It is not generally understood that it will not be the Government who build the first clean coal-powered station, any more than the Government build a particular laboratory. It will be done by a company, and there are some who are already coming forward with practical proposals to use that technology to provide a cleaner way to burn coal. We welcome that and want to respond as positively as we can. Unfortunately, this Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for doing that because it deals with revenue raising, not revenue spending.
Mr. Cash:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is referring to the Bill and its long title. As it is a Government Bill, it would have been perfectly possible for the Government to have adjusted the long title in the light of the difficulties experienced in the House of Lords. I do not know whether there would have been merit in doing so, but I find the hon. Gentleman's argument difficult to follow.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The long title of the Bill is a matter for the Government. It was established at the point of the Bill's inception. I am allowing a wide debate on the subject. If the hon. Gentleman and others have points that are germane to the Bill and its effects, I am sure that they will have the opportunity to put them.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |