AIRE VALLEY (ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION) (Hansard, 17 May 1978)

§ Mr. Albert Roberts (Normanton)

I came into the House at 8.30 yesterday morning, so I am not feeling too enthusiastic about starting an Adjournment debate, but it is a duty which must be done. I apologise to the Minister for keeping him here until this time.

The subject is very important. The River Aire is a sparkling river at its source, but as it flows on to Bradford, Leeds and towards the East Coast it is a very polluted river, though not half as polluted as it was 20 or 30 years ago. There are many people in the area who are interested in conservation and environmental matters.

I want to see certain action taken and to prevent some other things being done. I am raising this matter because to a large extent it involves opencast mining and I feel that the Department of the Environment does not have sufficient powers to deal with this matter. I should like to see more done to prevent opencast mining.

The Department of the Environment has certain responsibilities, and an increasing number of people are becoming interested in the well-being of their environment. I have been appalled at what has been done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and I have had terrific pressure from 741 people inside and outside my constituency and this area that something should be done. This is why I want to alert the Department of the Environment.

Where I live and was born and bred we have had an opencast mine for 14 years, and we are still being threatened with more. Some people may disagree with me, but I maintain that if one disturbs first-class agricultural land and restoration follows, the land is second-grade. It will not grow root crops for at least 10 or 15 years.

A new opencast site which is almost ready to start is called Gambelthorpe. The inquiry has been held and it is intended to take 12 acres—part of Temple Newsome, which is a public park within the city of Leeds. This park, which has been bought by public money, is almost 1,000 acres in size. Obviously this matter has caused a great deal of concern in my constituency. I have already been informed that, if action is not taken by the Department of Environment, there is likely to be "action".

I want to read from the conveyance, because the park was taken over by the city in about 1922. I shall quote one paragraph: All coal, iron stone clay and other mines and minerals within and under the premises hereby assured with a power to the vendor and his successors in title and assigns and his and their present and future lessees to search or win, work, carry away and dispose of the same, but by underground workings only. What is contemplated is permission being given by the Secretary of State for Energy to do opencast mining inside Temple Newsome.

It is high time that someone was alerted to this. If Leeds City Council does not take cognisance of this, it is betraying the public. I hope that the Minister will at least take back the message to the Secretary of State for Energy and mention that I have raised this point.

On the question of opencasting, we are threatened on this particular site. It has been going for about 40 years and it will last for another 13 years. Surely, when we talk about opencast coal we should face the fact that we do not really need it. Despite this, the NCB is still striving to get the 15 million-ton target—to raise it from 12 million tons. In doing so, it is 742 to a large extent destroying the environment of our district.

The impact of opencast mining on local communities and their environment is something that will take a long time to get over. There are plans for 13 more sites in this area in the Aire Valley from Leeds to Castleford, which is six miles long and five miles wide. It is the only open country between the two conurbations. This work has been going on for two generations, destroying the good things of life, taking away public footpaths.

It can readily be understood why so many people and societies in my constituency and in the Yorkshire and Humberside area have written to me on this issue, asking me to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister. There is no need for such devastation. I know of the powers possessed by the Secretary of State for Energy. There is, however, no immediate need for coal. Things would be different if there were a state of emergency or if hostilities had broken out. Then, no one would object to the workings. People have lived for 40, 50 and 60 years surrounded by opencast workings.

Our power stations have over 17 million tons of coal, which is 1.5 million tons more than they had last year. In addition, the NCB has arranged with the CEGB to stock a further 5 million tons. All this is unwanted coal. This means that by the end of the financial year the CEGB will probably be carrying stocks of coal that it does not need, valued at £250 million, paid for not by the NCB or the CEGB but by the taxpayer. It will cost £25 million a year in interest charges alone. Demand for coal has fallen because of the recession in the steel industry. As a result, coal is accumulating.

Why does the Secretary of State for energy want to increase opencast mining production from 12 million tons to 15 million tons? The coal miners are aware of the situation. This action will put the coal industry in the same position as the steel industry. It is like an albatross round the neck of the industry. The Financial Times of 15th May said: The Government will subsidise the sale of coal to power stations next year if, as seems likely, too much coal is produced for the available market … the subsidies could run into tens of millions of pounds. 743 The Government are almost trying to bribe the CEGB to take extra coal. People in my area are heartily sick of opencast mining.

Coal is a strategic reserve. We do not need it now or next year. If we need it in 500 years' time, it will be there and we can get it. Why are we taking the coal out now when it will cost the taxpayer millions of pounds? This move will mean the closing of some pits which are nearing exhaustion and perhaps of others that are not as profitable as some. There is no reason for opencast mining. I ask that we should start to run it down.

The Countryside Commission has taken an interest in this issue. What we want, after 40 years of opencast mining, is a linear path between Leeds and Castle-ford in the Aire Valley. We have the "ings" and we want two lakes. We could have a wildfowl reserve. The environmentalists are well organised in Yorkshire and they have made it clear that they want to see those features developed. However, they cannot do that without the help of the Department of the Environment. They do not have the power to proceed without that help. They admit that they have problems when they put forward schemes for the protection of the amenities that are so important to our well-being.

I make my plea in the early hours of the morning that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and ensure that we get co-ordination and co-operation between the Departments of Energy and the Environment. That is what we want, and at present we do not have it. There are many who feel that in the present circumstances they are bashing their heads against a brick wall. I hope that something can be done in the near future.

We have a tremendous amount of coal and we cannot sell it in the EEC. The stocks are piling up and yet we are destroying first-class arable land. We are destroying part of our heritage and parts of the countryside. I hope and trust that my hon. Friend will give me some consolation and some guarantees that will have some teeth.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) for giving me the opportunity to consider the environmental problems arising from mineral working, especially in the Aire Valley. I understand and sympathise with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend's constituents, partly because my area, which is a similar metropolitan area, suffers in much the same way. Like his area, the Greater Manchester area has suffered most of the environmental disasters that other parts of the country worry about.

I, too, have a river that is not as clean as it might be. Both our areas have suffered from the motto "Where there's muck there's brass." It is significant that I have received deputations from Greater Manchester and other areas where there has been opencast coal mining as well as a deputation from my hon. Friend's area.

As a Minister in the Department of the Environment, I have to weigh the real local environmental problems against the national need for mineral working. Coal is not the only problem. There are the problems created by aggregates—for example, sand and gravel and the other requirements that come from the Aire Valley. We cannot have schools, factories, hospitals, houses and roads without aggregates. The construction industry cannot function without them. Similarly, our energy requirements cannot be met without coal.

It has been the policy of all Governments for many years to ensure that the legitimate requirements of industry for minerals should be met from our own resources wherever possible. Unfortunately, mineral operations frequently give rise to harmful environmental effects. I am conscious of that. I have responsibility for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty as well as most mineral planning, and invariably minerals are found in those areas. It is the responsibility of the local planning authorities and of the Government to ensure that the industry keeps the harmful effects to a minimum, but we cannot eliminate these problems entirely if we are to continue to exploit our mineral resources.

745 My hon. Friend has not mentioned sand and gravel workings specifically, but decisions affecting such workings are made by the relevant planning authority—in my hon. Friend's area the county council. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has thought it best to leave such matters to those who know the locality and who know best.

With regard to the planning applications that have been granted, there is some fear that the restoration might take the form of filling with spoil from coal workings. However, the permission which has been granted does not envisage this kind of restoration at all but rather the creation of a water amenity area. I understand that, if there were any proposals for filling with colliery spoil at a later date, a fresh application for planning permission would be required.

Let me turn now to the question of opencast coal working in the area and explain the procedure involved in the giving of consent for such working. National Coal Board opencast coal working requires authorisation by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. It is the current practice that when this authorisation is given the Secretary of State for Energy also gives deemed planning permission for the development, a power derived from Section 2 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958.

However, a public inquiry is held into applications for authorisation whenever there is objection from a local authority or a person having an interest in the land. The inquiry procedures are similar to those for planning appeals and the same considerations have to be taken into account. In particular, the Secretary of State for Energy is under a specific duty to take environmental considerations into account in reaching his decision.

Last September, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and I, together with senior officials of the National Coal Board, met representatives of West Yorkshire County Council and Leeds City Council to discuss the problems of opencast coal mining in this area. The NBC's representatives fully accepted the need for the local authorities to be consulted about the Board's forward planning. It was clear that, even before the meeting, the Board had maintained a 746 close working relationship with the local authorities.

However, it has to be recognised that the Board's current plans are subject to changes for a variety of reasons and that if the Board tries to indicate too far ahead where working might occur there is a danger of causing unnecessary blight. This happens a great deal in advance planning. I welcome the involvement of the Board in the environmental impact study which has been made, and I am sure that this kind of consultation and discussion provides the best basis for the tackling of these very difficult problems.

Since the meeting that I had with the local authorities, the decision to authorise opencast coal mining at Gamblethorpe under the procdure which I have already described has been announced. The decision letter from the Department of Energy refers to the NCB's general policy approved by the Government, of increasing annual production of opencast coal to 15 million tons per year and the particular need to maintain supplies to power stations and industrial users when an existing site in the area is worked out.

I should perhaps add at this point that the need to increase the level of production and the advantages of opencast coal working were explained in the 1977 report "Coal for the Future", but this, of course, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Energy to what he has said about his feeling that the 15 million tons opencast target is too high a figure, the point that he has made about the very high stocks that are there at present and the necessity, in his view at any rate, for the coal that is needed to come from deep mines. But I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that, interested as I am in the effects of opencast coal and of deep-mine coal, it is a matter for the Secretary of State for Energy.

On the Gamblethorpe decision, there is reference to support for the proposal on the ground that failure to authorise would mean the loss of some 300 jobs directly plus probably another 1,000 jobs indirectly, as well as to objections to the proposal based on environmental grounds.

There is reference to the inspector's conclusion that the adverse effects of the 747 working would be mainly temporary and do not outweigh the need for coal. The inspector, as my hon. Friend knows, recommended that the application should be granted subject to adherence to a programme of work designed to minimise the environmental impact. The letter makes it clear that the necessary measures will be embodied in the conditions attached to the deemed planning consent.

I understand—my hon. Friend has also mentioned this—that action groups of local residents who are opposed to opencast working have suggested that the area should be designated a linear park. I have consulted the Countryside Commission on this matter. It recognises the area's recreational potential and has expressed willingness to help in principle. But further action is dependent on the public consultation which, I understand, the local authorities will be initiating this summer. The help and advice of the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy and all the agencies with which my Department is involved will be at the disposal of the authorities.

We recognise the particular difficulties involved in striking a balance between the national need for the exploitation of our mineral resources and the environmental problems which this can cause. Later this year, we shall be giving our response to the recommendations of the Stevens Committee on planning control over mineral working and the Verney Committee on aggregates.

We are encouraging and assisting the regional working parties set up by local planning authorities to study the pattern of supply and demand in relation to aggregates, and I am grateful for the assistance given by the industry to these working parties. I am confident that this 748 information and the information made available by the NCB will assist local planning authorities in devising appropriate and realistic policies for the exploitation of aggregates in their structure and local plans.

My hon. Friend asked for increased co-ordination between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy. An example of this is the meeting at which the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and I met the local authorities. I appreciate that there is much cynicism among local authorities and the public. The county councils are responsible initially for planning applications for all other minerals but the Department of Energy is responsible for opencast coal. We recognise that there is a feeling against us. We are examining that.

The Department of the Environment is alert to the problems of opencast mining. We appreciate that the areas where opencast coal is available are the areas which have suffered for many years from both opencast and deep mines. The tips are an illustration of that. My Department does much to help local authorities to remove these eyesores. We are spending £18 million this year, much of it in the northern areas, on this.

I undertake to examine what my hon. Friend has said about the legal position at Temple Newsome park. I shall draw the attention of both my right hon. Friends to that. I welcome any debate of this kind. The House takes too little interest in pollution and the environment. Despite the late hours that I have kept, I am glad that there are two Adjournment debates on environmental matters this week.