---

Coal Miners' Compensation

9. Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) (Lab): If she will make a statement on the progress of coal miners' compensation claims. [182686]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): To date, more than 353,000 payments have been made to former miners and their families under the main health schemes, totalling more than £2.1 billion. We continue to pay out a further £1.8 million a day, and I am grateful to all hon. Members for their help in ensuring that we are delivering the biggest health compensation scheme in history.

Mr. Illsley: I am grateful for that reply, and I congratulate the Government on what they have achieved so far on coal health claims. Has any progress been made in negotiating settlements for those categories of workers who are currently excluded from compensation claims, such as surface workers who contracted chronic bronchitis and emphysema through working in dusty conditions, albeit on a colliery surface?

Nigel Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to update the House on that. Mr. Justice Turner asked the miners' solicitors for evidence to support claims for compensation for surface workers. I made sure that the solicitors had our full co-operation and access to all the British Coal dust records. I understand that the solicitors have identified lead cases, which they intend to present to Mr. Justice Turner next week or the week after. As always, the DTI will meet the full liability to any miner determined by the courts.

Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): Undoubtedly, compensation claims and compensation are flowing through the system. Apart from surface workers, however, there are real problems for miners who worked in small private mines, particularly those who fall outside the qualifying period and who are finding it difficult to have that period disregarded and their claims considered. Will the Minister assure us that those miners will have their claims considered quickly?

Nigel Griffiths: I share with other hon. Members concerns about the small mines. I am happy to say that the claimants' group representing the miners reached agreement with the small mines representatives on their outstanding issues in February. Measures are being put in place to ensure that the necessary systems exist to make full and final offers, and those include amendments to the claims handling agreement, software adjustments to the calendar models and other things. I should appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman and others kept me posted on the impact that that is having on their constituents. We have a common aim.
 
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1002
 

Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab): The miners helped to make this country the wealthy place it is today. Many became ill in the process because of the negligence of the coal board. It is to the Government's great credit that they have secured the largest compensation package in history, resulting in more than £30 million being paid out in Hemsworth alone.

May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to one small group of individuals? The burden of proof is on the miners to demonstrate that they worked in the mining industry. Some are old and their colleagues have died, leaving no evidence around that they worked down the pits and are now suffering as a result. If I write to my hon. Friend, will he look into that problem?

Nigel Griffiths: Yes, I should of course be grateful to hear about that. We want to rectify any outstanding injustice. My hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters and will realise that we need some evidence, although records may not be available. We are going as wide as possible in accepting evidence, but I shall be happy to examine in some detail the case that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Energy Supply

10. Anne Picking (East Lothian) (Lab): What assessment she has made of the security of energy supply. [182687]

The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): We set out our market-based approach to the delivery of energy in last year's White Paper. It worked well to deliver secure energy supplies last winter, and we expect it to continue to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has tabled an amendment to the Energy Bill, which has attracted wide support, requiring an annual report on security of supply for debate in Parliament.

Anne Picking: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the renewables agenda is laudable; however, if the wind does not blow, we are snookered. My constituency has Torness power station, which guarantees a regular supply, and Cockenzie power station, which has the flexibility to kick in and generate when security of supply is at risk—indeed, it is a flagship power station in Britain and Europe for its capacity to do that. Does my hon. Friend agree that security of supply is paramount, even if new nuclear replacement is required?

Mr. Timms: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of security of supply, which is one of the four key goals set out in the energy White Paper. I also agree with her about the flexibility that we enjoy, with coal-fired generation and with an important contribution made by nuclear power stations such as Torness. The White Paper stated that we should not become over-dependent on any one fuel, but I believe that the development of renewables will help us by providing another independent source of power. On that basis, I think that we can look forward with confidence to continuing security in future.
 
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1003
 

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): The Government have used security of supply arguments to justify subsidising nuclear power, but now that energy prices, especially power prices, have recovered strongly, how can they justify placing hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money at risk through a continuing line of credit?

Mr. Timms: It is important that we enjoy continuing security. British Energy is working through a restructuring, which we all hope will be successful, and the Government provided a line of credit to facilitate that process. The European Commission is examining the state aid implications of that and we expect its decision before long. Our approach to British Energy's restructuring is the right one. It provides good grounds for optimism about—to echo my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking)—the security that we need in future.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry, North-West) (Lab): I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the Prime Minister's recent remarks about nuclear energy. Can he confirm that it remains Government policy—as set out in the White Paper—to retain the basic engineering skills in the sector, so that if a decision were made to embark on a new nuclear programme, we would be able to carry it through?

Mr. Timms: I can confirm that earlier this week my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister repeated the statement in the energy White Paper that we need to keep the nuclear option open, including by ensuring that we maintain the necessary skills, because we may well need new nuclear power stations in future. He also pointed out that we had first to overcome two major barriers. First, the economics of nuclear are pretty unattractive at present. Secondly, we need good answers to the question of what becomes of nuclear waste; work on that is ongoing. None the less, I agree that it is important that we keep the option open.

Power Generation

11. Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney) (Lab): What assessment she has made of the future contribution of carbon capture and storage to the power generation process. [182688]

The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): We published last year the conclusions of our "Review of the Feasibility of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UK". We see the technology as potentially playing an important role in the long term, but the report identified a number of major hurdles that still need to be overcome.

Mr. Blizzard: Is it not the case that even if we meet the difficult target of generating 20 per cent. of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020, there will still be a gap in meeting our carbon dioxide emissions target? Is it not vital that the Government act now to develop carbon capture and storage technology in order to bridge that gap? That would be compatible with investment in renewables, but if the Government do not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked at least two questions, which is sufficient.
 
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1004
 

Mr. Timms: The programme that we have set out for achieving our ambitious goals on reducing CO ₂ emissions includes the development of renewables, as my hon. Friend said, big programmes, ambitious efforts on energy efficiency and other initiatives. CO ₂ capture in power generation needs considerable research and development, as it is still rather costly. The USA's FutureGen project, for example, will cost about $1 billion, but will not be ready until 2015. There are important opportunities, but it is difficult to envisage carbon capture and storage becoming viable before 2020.

---