---

 
10 Jun 2004 : Column 385
 

House of Commons

Thursday 10 June 2004

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Miners' Compensation

1. Adam Price (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr) (PC): What response her Department has received from the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to her Department's letter on solicitors' charges to coal health claimants. [177750]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The Union of Democratic Mineworkers has stated that its members are not charged. Non-members pay a deferred membership fee. I understand that the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers in south Wales makes similar charges and has pocketed more than £13 million, though that does not apply to NACODS elsewhere in the UK. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain that and ask the Plaid Cymru leader of NACODS to give that money back to the miners.

Adam Price: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Thousands of former miners and their families have been ripped off by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers through its subsidiary company, Vendside. Why have officials in his Department, in statements to the press, defended a practice within the UDM that amounts to little less than corruption? Why do the Government continue to honour their agreement with the union when it is clearly to the detriment of so many people?

Nigel Griffiths: The House will not take lessons from the hon. Member about corruption and creaming off money when the Plaid Cymru leader of NACODS in south Wales stands accused of creaming off more than £13 million for an organisation that has, I understand, about 40 members. What are they doing with the money? The agreement reached with other solicitors and representatives of miners has been longstanding and has generally delivered a considerable amount of compensation, amounting to the biggest public sector pay-out of compensation in history. It has generally
 
10 Jun 2004 : Column 386
 
been delivered fairly; if it were not fair, I would be the first to criticise. The hon. Gentleman should make sure that he joins my colleagues and me in criticising NACODS in south Wales, but he will not, because of Plaid Cymru's deep involvement with it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Does the Minister agree that for the Welsh nationalist MP to raise this matter, it is a case of the kettle calling the pot black? Will he also take into account the fact that there were problems with Vendside? It is true that some involved were directors of the firm. While it seems that we have caught the Welsh nationalist, Bleddyn Hancock, red-handed, does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that all the other areas are clean as well?

Nigel Griffiths: I agree, of course, with my hon. Friend, who speaks with great authority on this issue. The Department of Trade and Industry looks into the propriety of the agreements and keeps them under review. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members for their work in ensuring that this matter is continually at the forefront of debate. I know that hon. Members share a common commitment to ensure that every penny of compensation goes to sick miners, their widows and their families.

Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): I congratulate the Minister on his tough action against solicitors, including those associated with the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. However, is he aware that in many cases solicitors are paying money back to claimants only when claimants have made a complaint? I urge the Minister to have an urgent meeting with the Law Society to press the organisation to ensure that all those solicitors who have taken money return it to claimants, irrespective of whether the individuals—some very elderly and frail—actually complain.

Nigel Griffiths: I certainly join my hon. Friend in pressing the Law Society to ensure that those solicitors—a minority, I understand—who may have double charged, go through their list of clients and pay back any double payment. The Department of Trade and Industry has already paid several hundred millions of pounds in solicitors' fees. We covered their costs and we do not want to see a penny of compensation for miners and their widows coming out of the fund.

Renewable Energy

2. Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): If she will estimate the cost of the additional transmission network necessary to meet her target for renewable electricity generation. [177751]

The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): The transmission issues working group reported in June last year that the overall cost of connecting the additional 12 GW of renewable energy generation for the GB network will be about £2.1 billion. If shared just among domestic consumers, it would add around £10 per year to each customer's bill. A recent study by Mott MacDonald for the Carbon Trust and the DTI suggested that the cost would be in
 
10 Jun 2004 : Column 387
 
a range from £1.4 billion up to an upper bound of £2.1 billion, some of that being required in any event for asset replacement.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is a huge extra subsidy to be paid for by the general electricity customer. When will the Government realise that the policy of vastly increasing wind-generated electricity is technically inefficient and will not solve an environmental problem? Indeed, it will create one by industrialising our rural upland and coastal areas. As we just heard, it will greatly increase electricity costs, which will create fuel poverty for individuals and add to business costs. Does that not show that the waffle that we get from the DTI about the need for businesses to remain competitive in international markets by keeping down their costs is completely hollow?

Mr. Timms: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on every point. There is a need for investment in the transmission network, to facilitate much more distributed generation and to replace equipment that is now worn out. That investment will have to be paid for, of course, but the price is entirely affordable, especially given the environmental benefits of generation from wind and other renewables, and the advantages for security of supply.

The right hon. Gentleman is also wrong about industrialisation, as he calls it. There will be a proper planning process for every wind farm planning application, to ensure that projects that go forward are not environmentally damaging in the way that he fears. However, I accept that we need to address urgently the challenge of climate change. We cannot simply go on burning oil, gas and coke as we have in the past. We need to develop new ways of generating electricity, and wind generation is the most cost effective of the renewable technologies available today. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support it.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South) (Lab): The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has a very narrow view of what constitutes renewable energy. As well as onshore wind generation, there is also offshore wind power and tidal power. In addition, people at the Robert Gordons university in Aberdeen are working on tidal race technology. However, regardless of what type of renewable energy is developed, the grid must be upgraded. I go to many conferences and meetings on this matter, and one of the biggest problems is the lack of grid in areas where it has traditionally been lacking. If a tidal race were to be placed in the Pentland firth, for example, the existing grid from Dounreay would still have to be upgraded. I therefore encourage the Minister to do all he can to ensure that that barrier to the development of renewable energy is removed, so that we can fulfil the renewables obligation.

Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are supporting a range of renewable technologies beyond wind, although wind is the most cost effective at present. I welcome the progress being made in upgrading the network. The first project likely to come forward will be the 220 km upgraded line from Beauly to Denny in Scotland. That is expected to cost £200
 
10 Jun 2004 : Column 388
 
million and to be submitted for consent this autumn. With Ofgem, we have set up an industry-wide distributed generation co-ordinating group to ensure that the issues involved are addressed in a timely way.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) says, it is essential that we address all these matters and enable the grid upgrade to go ahead so as to allow the much more distributed profile of electricity generation that renewable and other developments will make possible in the future. No longer will we have the small number of huge power stations that have characterised the grid in the past. The profile is going to change.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con): Will the Minister join me in congratulating his comrade, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), whose amendment No. 189 to the Energy Bill was accepted in Standing Committee? That success was due to the fact that the amendment won the support of all the Conservative members of the Committee, and of the two members from the minor parties. The amendment will make the Government's renewables targets less unachievable by making it more affordable for energy produced from renewable resources to connect to the grid. Why did the Government and the Minister oppose the amendment?

Mr. Timms: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The arrangements that have applied since the Utilities Act 2000 came into force mean that the primary duty of the regulator is to protect the interests of consumers, through competition where appropriate. The Government believe that that is the right approach. We will return to the subject when the House looks at it again in a few weeks' time.

Mr. O'Brien: Despite the Minister's somewhat pedestrian answer—and given his failure to dragoon Labour Back Benchers to support the Government in Committee—will he give an undertaking to the House that he will not seek to remove the amendment on Report? He has said that he wishes to revisit the matter. Will he seek to put something in its place that delivers the same outcome?

Mr. Timms: I answered the hon. Gentleman's question before he posed it for a second time.

---