| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
I shall finally say a word or two about the performance of Leicestershire county council. I should state that I am a former employee of the authority pre-1997, although not in planning. For the care with which it consulted the community, the professionalism of its assessment of a lengthy and complicated proposal and the robustness of its submission at the inquiry, it deserves the highest commendation. At the inquiry, the concept of cumulative impact was at the core of every day’s evidence from every witness. I am glad that the council has taken the Department to judicial review. If the council is successful, the Department must take note, so that future greenfield open-casting in Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Yorkshire and elsewhere will finally be laid to rest.
4.58 pm
The Minister for Energy (Malcolm Wicks): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) on securing the debate. I should like to take this opportunity to assure colleagues once again that the Government firmly believe that access to a range of energy sources is essential to ensure security of supply. There will be a continuing role for coal in meeting our energy needs for years to come, provided that its potential environmental impacts can be managed satisfactorily.
We also believe that there is a
future role for UK-produced coal in meeting our total coal needs. This
country still has substantial coal reserves, and they represent an
important national asset that we
must put to optimum use. However, we have to face facts: coal, like
every other mineral, can be exploited only where it is found. For that
reason, we must strike the right balance between the legitimate
interests of the coal producers, the potential environmental impacts of
development and the needs of the community in the immediate area and at
national level. That is not always an easy balance to strike, of
course. It is true both of coal at depth, suitable for underground
mining or coal gasification, and of shallow reserves suitable only for
surface working.
That is not to say that all coal must be worked at all costs or regardless of the impact on local communities. The planning guidance for England clearly states that unless development proposals are environmentally acceptable, can be made so through conditions or offer compensatory benefits there should be a presumption against approval being granted. Similar guidance is in place in Scotland and is expected shortly, I am advised, in Wales.
All applications for new underground or surface mines must be assessed against those guidelines and those that meet them should be approved. I am unable to comment on the specific application that affects my hon. Friend’s constituents, but I understand—and it has been confirmed today—that it has been considered through the full planning process, including a public inquiry and an inspector’s report, which the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government accepted, and that it is now the subject of a challenge in the High Court through judicial review.
I understand that the application is for permission to work some 725,000 tonnes of coal from the site. [Interruption.] Coaling is expected to take about two and a half years out of a total site life of about four years, to be followed by a further period of management of the restored site. Previous unsuccessful applications, which related to areas that include the smaller site that has now been approved, were made in 1990, 1992 and 1997. [Interruption.] The last two were permissions to work 4.8 million and 5.3 million tonnes of coal respectively over a site life of six years. There are other unworked coal reserves in the county.
David Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
Malcolm Wicks: I get the impression that my hon. Friend does not agree with all my facts, and so I shall give him the opportunity to speak.
David Taylor: I said all that in my speech. It would be useful to all present if the Minister could focus on the Government’s attitude rather than facts that I have already mentioned.
Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend gave his speech, and I hope that he will allow me to give mine.
The
Government have demonstrated their support for the coal industry by
making more than £200,000 available in coal aid since 2000. Some
£18 million of that was paid to surface mine operators under the
UK coal operating aid scheme to cover production losses during 2001 and
2002. No surface mine has benefited from coal investment aid. Despite
that support, the total UK output fell by 18 per cent. in 2005
to 20 million tonnes of coal. That
included deep mine production of 9.5 million tonnes, of which 9 million
tonnes were produced at English mines, and surface mine production of
10.4 million tonnes, of which only 1.5 million tonnes were produced in
England. Leicestershire’s contribution was a little under 95,000
tonnes of surface-mined coal, down from 412,000 tonnes in 2004 and
almost 600,000 tonnes in 2003. Some 50 direct mining jobs have already
been lost in the county as a result of that decline. The 2005 output
was from a site which is due to close in October this year with the
potential loss of a further 22 jobs.
The main customers for all UK coal production are the coal-fired generators. They consistently stress the importance of reliability of supplies in contract negotiations, but deep mining is inherently higher risk, because of the potential geological and technological problems, and the assurance of steady production from surface sites is vital to give the generators confidence that UK production can continue to help to meet their needs. That is why it is important for everyone with the best interests of the UK coal industry at heart to recognise that the deep and surface mine sectors are not in competition and that they need each other to maintain the critical mass of the industry and to secure its future.
David Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
Malcolm Wicks: I will let my hon. Friend tell me in a moment why I have it wrong, if he will let me continue for a while.
I have already reiterated the Government’s belief that there will be a continuing role for coal in meeting our energy needs, particularly as cleaner generating technologies come on stream, and that UK-produced coal—deep and surface mined—can continue to play a part in meeting national coal demand, provided that it can be worked in an acceptable manner.
I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration, but I have been trying to set out something of a national context to balance the arguments and to try to reflect the views of those who hope for a future for British indigenous coal, as the energy review reiterated yesterday. I can understand, too, why he would be frustrated, but given that the planning controversy is now subject to judicial review in the High Court it would not be right for me to comment on the rights or wrongs of the case or of any other planning controversy. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that.
David Taylor: I understand perfectly well that the Minister will not be able to comment on the planning merits or otherwise of the Long Moor application. However, when he says that open-casting is an important economic contributor to employment, does he recognise that the presence of an open-cast site in the vicinity of an area that is being restored environmentally and rebuilt economically can be a hurdle and a weight around the neck when it comes to trying to attract new firms with high-tech, highly skilled and highly waged jobs? They will look at a despoiled area that has been wasted by minerals working. Open-cast mining has a net negative effect on the local economy.
Malcolm Wicks: I recognise that there have been job losses in the county as a result of closures, which will be of concern to my hon. Friend. I also recognise, of course—it is plain common sense—that with any plans for any community or area, the pros and cons of different industries can be argued in terms of the impact on the labour market and job opportunities. I hear what he has said, and it is his constituency and not mine. There can be different uses for any area, and one use might help or hinder other job opportunities and economic development. I understand that.
I reiterate the point that it would not be right for me to comment on the particular proposal. It is actually a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government and not my Department, the Department of Trade and Industry—I think that I am answering this debate because of the coal mining issues. I am at pains to say that if we are serious about British indigenous coal having a future, there has to be some balance between deep mining and surface mining, but that it is not for me to make a judgment about whether it is appropriate in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency or not.
Colin Burgon (Elmet) (Lab): I am aware after reading Coal UK that the Department has scheduled a meeting with open-cast coaling companies later this month. Will the Minister assure us, as this might cause wider reverberation on the Labour Benches, that there will be no slipping away of support from MPG3? Many of us are engaged in a struggle to implement it and if we see any backsliding by our Government on the issue, we will be—how shall I put this—severely disappointed.
Malcolm Wicks: I assure my hon. Friend that we are trying to strike the proper balances. I am not quite sure exactly what that meeting will entail, but we meet a wide variety of energy interests and hear a variety of views about surface mining, its future and its non-future. That is as far as I can go. There are no plans to change the policy and the practice.
David Taylor: The Minister is being most generous in giving way, and he knows that I genuinely hold him in the highest regard in his departmental role. On the Floor of the House yesterday, I acknowledged the welcome role for coal that the Secretary of State spelled out in his statement, but I said that, in the long time frame for the investment needed for carbon-capturing clean coal, a greater role for coal in generation is likely to be dealt with only through the expansion of imports and of open-cast mining, the second of which is unacceptable to local communities.
Malcolm
Wicks: That, of course, has been the burden of my hon.
Friend’s remarks. The question is whether it is unacceptable in
the wider economy and among all local communities. The figures that I
have given, not least for Scotland, show that surface mining now plays
a significant part. We have to get the balance right. I am not talking
about Leicestershire, as I have been at pains to stress, but we have to
get the balance right if we are serious—I think we want to be
serious—about British indigenous coal having a future.
The other challenge with the energy infrastructure, whether it is onshore or offshore wind farms, future power stations, or even the infrastructure that we might need for carbon capture and storage, is to have a body of Members of Parliament who will agree to things and not simply object to them. My role in such debates is often to hear objections to wind farms or whatever it might be, but if we are to have the necessary energy supplies we must think through the investment needed in Great Britain as a whole. That is not a comment about surface mining or about Leicestershire, it is a general comment.
David Taylor rose—
Malcolm Wicks: Does my hon. Friend want to have another go?
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): Order. I take it that this is an intervention and not another go.
David Taylor: It is an intervention.
I said
earlier that this is not a matter of nimbyism. North-West
Leicestershire has produced hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal over
a lengthy period. In north-east Leicestershire, there remain 800
million tonnes of coal, which I hope will be extracted by a technology
that we do not yet fully comprehend. No one is trying to avoid making a
contribution towards the national need for energy, but open-cast mining
in greenfield locations,
unless it is to do with the restoration of previously despoiled sites,
is unacceptable, particularly for places such as Long
Moor.
Malcolm Wicks: I do not know why I should have confused an intervention with having a go.
Mr. Mike Hancock (in the Chair): You invited him to do so.
Malcolm Wicks: Quite so. It was a mistake, Mr. Hancock, and I apologise.
We have had a reasonable debate. I understand my hon. Friend’s strength of feeling and that of his colleagues. I hope that they appreciate my difficulty, but I cannot comment directly on the case.
Judy Mallaber: Do I take it from what the Minister said earlier that at the meeting that he is to have with the open-cast companies he will reassert that MPG3 remains the Government’s policy?
Malcolm Wicks: I do not quite know what that meeting is about. I shall probably attend. Perhaps I can write to colleagues about that meeting. As for the matter before the House, no changes have been planned. I hope that with that reassurance we can draw the debate to a conclusion.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Five o’clock.
| Index | Home Page |