Opencast Mining (North-West) (Hansard, 2 February 1983)

§ Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe (Leigh)

I hope to be objective and constructive, not emotive, in my remarks, although opencast coal mining is an extremely emotive subject these days.

I sincerely hope that in the future the Minister will consider opencast applications with caution and with greater deliberation after hearing my case against this type of mining at this time. I stress the importance of timing. The debate synchronises with a great industrial recession such as we have not seen for 100 years. That is relevant because, for obvious reasons, a recession means less consumer demand for the vital product concerned.

In my view, it is imperative that in authorising opencast site applications Ministers should seriously consider the present state of energy demand. Here I do not refer to the world scenario, as we have now moved from the oil crisis os 1973 into a period in which the recession in Britain has made its mark in reducing demand for all types of energy.

I begin by illustrating the motivation of Members of Parliament to begin with an early-day motion and ultimately to seek a debate on what I consider to be a vital matter at this time. In my case, it is because I come from the north-west.

In any opencast application, one must decide whether economic necessity outweighs the environmental upheaval. In other words, is there sufficient need for the development to take place at the cost of local harassment? I shall expand a little on what I mean by that. My early-day motion, which was signed by 35 Members, states that it is unnecessary for further opencast mining schemes to be embarked upon considering the huge amount of coal stocks available". Here I declare a vested interest. The early-day motion was couched in those terms, not because I sought to protect the people whom I represent in other sectors of the mining industry and elsewhere, but because there is now a great awareness in our communities, especially those which have been victims of opencast mining schemes, of the enormous and traumatic environmental intrusions into their lifestyle and the quality of their lives that opencast mining involves. I shall pinpoint and highlight two sites, one of which is probably the largest opencast mining site in Western Europe.

The other part of my early-day motion is furthermore, acknowledges the growing realisation and some serious concern by the public, that opencast mining is now environmentally unacceptable as long as sufficient deep coal mine reserves are available. I shall not dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" about deep coal mining. There are about 300 years of deep coal mine reserves. When I read the report about coal and the environment, I noted that there are at least 100 million tons of opencast mining reserves.

The Minister has exclusive authority. He says aye or nay. Regardless of the power of great nationalised industries, regardless even of the will of the House, he has the power to say aye or nay when applications are submitted. Does the nation need coal? That basic question must be answered. Can the energy needs of the nation be met? I have investigated the resources available in both opencast and deep mining. The time has come when the 393 Minister must consider calling a halt to any further new projects for opencast mining. I emphasise that I refer to new projects. I do not attempt to assess or judge how long that halt should last.

I speak with long experience of the mining industry. It is well known that opencast mining is cheap, easily available and not labour-intensive. It creates environmental problems that are now accepted. We must assess the balance that must be struck in economic, financial and fiscal terms, taking account of the National Coal Board's financial position.

I have no scruples about saying that I am fully aware that opencast mining makes a considerable contribution towards balancing the books. What do ordinary people do about the intrusion into their local environment? A proposal is knocking about in Greater Manchester which outlines a massive opencast scheme. It will cover 1,500 acres and take 13 to 15 years to mine. The reclamation scheme involves the largest pit spoil heap in Western Europe. About 850,000 tons of coal can be extracted—coal that has been spilt, is surplus to requirement or has been integrated among pit dirt and shale.

It is easy to agree that such huge, conspicuous eyesores should be removed from the landscape. There is no argument about that. It would be a great contribution to environmental improvement. Should milling continue in an area for 13 years, especially if it is a struggling area? The scheme involves the Bolton, Salford, and Wigan metropolitan authorities, and is the largest of 21 sites envisaged in a 15-mile radius of Greater Manchester.

The Minister must be acutely aware that for 250 to 300 years this part of the north west region has suffered. It has been ravaged by deep coal mining. It has undergone industrial dereliction. The first industrial revolution left its mark. There was the mixed grill of Victorian planning, careless and carefree in the way techniques were applied to win resources, whether in the textile industry, mining, the slate industry or any other industry that happened to expand in that area.

We now face the prospect of two decades of intrusion. What does it mean? What do ordinary people say? They ask questions that need answers. I must tell the House that I have never known such resentment in this part of the world—and I am talking about a whole stratum of the Lancashire region—as there is at the prospect of what could be described and what they see as almost a second industrial revolution in the area, causing tremendous upheaval and interference with their lives.

They ask why, after 250 years of disturbance, they have again to face intrusion on this scale. It is very difficult to avoid memories of old coal owners when they see a nationalised industry coming back to carry out some form of environmental rape in their area. They ask whether local opinion will ever win the day. They wonder whether Parliament takes notice of protests. They ask whether it acts on rational arguments and whether the national interest is weighed against the interference with their local interests and daily lives. They ask how safe it is to mine in this area with a 45° deg incline, one in one. They ask how safe it is in an area with this history. Right in the centre of this massive opencast site there is a vivid memory of the largest pit disaster in the British Isles. There is a sensitivity from one generation here to another where 344 men and boys died. The Minister knows that there is this closeness among the mining community. They then ask 394 whether assurances can be given that residents living within a certain distance of the proposed site will not suffer in health. They would like assurances that the tranquility of many of the old people in the area will not be disturbed and that such an extensive development will not blight house prices for younger residents.

People in the area ask whether the Department of Energy is even aware of what the Department of the Environment is doing. They wonder whether it knows that there are reclamation areas, with £250,000 schemes in this district. They ask whether Whitehall departments co-operate on matters of this kind and whether one Department knows what another is doing.

A previous opencast site developed at Atherton has a notorious history. I disagreed vehemently with the decision made at the time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). The public inquiry inspector recommended against development of the site. All the authorities to which I have referred protested. It is now strongly rumoured that the board intends to come back to develop the one-fifth of the site that remains. That is not action that accords with the Queensberry Rules. It is an unscrupulous tactic.

It is strongly rumoured—there has been speculation in the local press—that use could be made of opencast sites and other mine shafts in the area for the disposal of nuclear waste. I recognise that this is a difficult question. However, with such speculation rife, predominantly in the Wigan area, I hope that the Minister will give an assurance of at least some information to arrest the fear and anxiety that exist. The Minister is respected in the House for his activities at the Department. I hope that he will be able to answer some of the points that I have raised.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) for raising this subject and for the manner in which he has done so. Hon. Members are aware of his long experience in the mining industry. The hon. Gentleman brings to the House not only his local constituency experience but a knowledge of mining, which has been beneficial to the House. The last occasion on which the House had an opportunity to debate opencast coal mining was on 19 March last year, in a debate on the report of the Commission on Energy and the Environment relating to coal and the environment, initiated by the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). That debate covered many matters apart from opencast mining, and the amount of time the House was able to devote to the problems of opencast coal was therefore limited.

I start by reminding the House—it is crucial in this context—of the major conclusions of the report of the Commission on Energy and the Environment relating to opencast coal. The commission concluded that, for those badly affected, the continued effects of opencast operations can add up to a very severe diminution in the quality of life. It recommended improvements in the procedures for restoring sites after coaling has finished. It recommended that planning applications for opencast sites should in future be handled within the normal planning machinery instead of, as at present, within the framework of the Opencast Coal Act 1958. This Act requires the NCB to obtain an authorisation for each opencast site from the 395 Secretary of State for Energy, and empowers the Secretary of State to attach deemed planning consent to an authorisation.

The commission concluded also that the volume of opencast coal produced should be allowed to decline with time, and that in the meantime should not be allowed to rise above the target level of 15 million tonnes per year. The commission also recommended that a series of guidelines should be drawn up by the opencast executive of the NCB and the local authority associations defining more strictly the sites where opencast coal might be mined. It suggested, too, some of the points which these guidelines might cover.

The Government's consideration of these recommendations—this is germane to the debate—is at an advanced stage. We have held detailed discussions with the NCB, the local authorities and many other bodies which have an interest in the CENE report. There have been debates in the House and in another place. I hope that we will be in a position to reply fully to the CENE report very soon. I am sure, too, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is aware of the feelings of many hon. Members that, when the Government's reply to the CENE report is published, the House should have an early opportunity to debate it.

I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the representations of the many Opposition Members who have attended throughout the debate. Hon. Members will appreciate that for the present I cannot anticipate the reply, although I shall try to say a few words to put the points made by the hon. Member for Leigh into a wider context.

Opencast coal, as he rightly said, is a valuable national resource. Its costs of production are of the same order of magnitude as the costs of marginal production at the NCB's best deep mines. Opencast coal makes a substantial profit for the NCB, which offsets a significant part of the board's losses on the uneconomic part of its deep-mined production. I have reminded the House before of the importance of competitively priced coal both in securing the long-term prospects for the coal industry, and in keeping down electricity costs to industry and to domestic consumers. Opencast coal, together with efficient and competitive production from deep mines, has a significance in a wide context of energy prices and policy.

It is sometimes suggested that opencast coal is in competition with deep-mined coal, and represents therefore a threat to jobs in the mining industry. As hon. Members from mining constituencies can confirm, however, the truth is much more complicated. Opencast coal is clean and can generally be used without washing. For this reason it is frequently used to blend with deep-mined coal to sweeten it, as the phrase goes, to make the latter more acceptable for use in power stations.

In some parts of the country, where deep-mined coal has a high chlorine content, the coal can be marketed only if it is blended with low chlorine coals, which are typically available from opencast sites. Some other opencast sites produce coals to special requirements for local markets, which it would not be easy to supply from elsewhere. Other opencast sites produce grades of coal that are in short supply generally in this country. I am thinking here particularly of anthracite from sites in south Wales, and certain of the prime coking coals from the north-east of 396 England. Without opencast production of these coals, demand in the inland market would probably be met by increased imports, and not by coal from NCB deep mines.

There are other cases, too, where opencasting is undertaken in order that coal be extracted before it is sterilised by other development, such as the building of roads.

As hon. Members will be aware, following the rise in oil prices in the early 1970s, and the interim final reports of the coal industry examination, the Government at that time endorsed a target for NCB opencast production of 15 million tonnes per year. The present Government, when they came to power, reaffirmed this policy commitment.

On 13 May last year I said in a reply to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) that there had been no change in the Government's policy on the amount of coal to be extracted by opencast methods but that, in the light of the recommendations of the Commission on Energy and Environment, among other things, the Government had the future opencast production under review. That remains the position, though, as I have said, the Government intend to reply very soon to the CENE report, and to include in that reply their reactions to the CENE recommendations on the future level of opencast output.

I know from what the hon. Member for Leigh has said, and from the letters that I have received at various times from other hon. Members, that hon. Members are very concerned that the views of local people—the people directly affected by opencast mining—should be taken very fully into account in considering whether an authorisation should be granted to the NCB for a new opencast site. It may be helpful if I explain the procedures under the Opencast Coal Act 1958, and how these give local people, and their representatives in both tiers of local government, the opportunity to make their views known and have them considered.

If the NCB wishes to undertake opencast mining at a site, it is required to apply for an authorisation to my Department. It is required to publish notice of its intention to apply for an authorisation for two successive weeks in a local newspaper in the area where the proposed site is located. There then follows a period of 28 days during which objections can be made to the board's proposals. It is common for one or both of the local authorities concerned to object, together perhaps with the owners or occupiers of the land, and a number of local people.

The NCB will often then proceed to discuss its proposals in greater detail with the objectors, to see whether solutions can be reached which would enable the objection to be withdrawn. But if objections are sustained from either of the local authorities concerned, or from the owners or occupiers of the land, the Secretary of State for Energy is required to convene a public local inquiry, at which all the arguments for and against the site can be advanced and examined. The Secretary of State has the discretion to convene an inquiry in other cases; and my Department considers carefully whether or not to recommend that he use this discretionary power, on the basis both of the nature and weight of objections made to the proposed site, and of a personal visit to the site by officials from the Department.

In reaching a decision whether or not to grant the NCB an authorisation for a site, the Secretary of State is obliged to take into account the detrimental effects that the NCB's proposals might have on the environment. To be fair, it is also appropriate for him to take into account the 397 opportunities that the proposed opencasting may offer to make environmental improvements, such as the restoration of old colliery land, or the creation of a void for the disposal of waste.

If I had time I would go into the details of how the NCB has done an outstanding job in seeking to restore opencast sites and new opencast developments. However, I wish to address myself briefly to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Leigh.

The hon. Member is particularly concerned about the possibility of opencasting in Atherton, in areas adjacent to the existing Millers lane opencast site. Can I say at once that I recognise the strength of local feeling on this matter. The then hon. Member for Leigh, Mr. Harold Boardman, brought this very clearly to the attention of the House on 14 March 1978. My own predecessor as parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), explained at that time why the Secretary of State had decided not to accept the inspector's recommendation that the board's application be rejected. The issue upon which the then Secretary of State took a different view from the inspector concerned the need for coal. The inspector suggested that as the date for attaining the target of 15 million tonnes per year of opencast coal production had receded, there appeared to be no great urgency. He also suggested that the NCB might be able to find other sites involving far less amenity and environmental objection.

The then Secretary of State agreed with the inspector that the coal in the site would make a valuable contribution to the 15 million tonnes a year target and to meeting local needs. However, he could not agree that there was no great urgency in the need for more sites, and the inspector's conclusion that the board might be able to find alternative sites with less environmental and amenity objection did not answer the proposition that this site was essential to the achievement of the 15 million tonnes target as, even if such sites were to become available, they would not be able to produce the coal over the same time scale.

The Secretary of State took account of the inspector's comment that if the northern boundary of the site were moved further away from the built-up area, this would achieve a substantial amelioration of the environmental and amenity damage. He therefore authorised opencast working on the southern part of the proposed Millers lane site, while refusing authorisation for the northern part of the site. Subsequently, the metropolitan borough of Wigan brought an unsuccessful action in the High Court to quash the authorisation for the site.

It might help to put the relevance of these arguments to today's conditions into perspective if I point out that in 1977–78, the financial year in which the site was authorised, the NCB opencast production was about 11.5 million tonnes. The 15 million tonne target was achieved, and indeed slightly exceeded, in 1981. NCB opencast production in the current financial year is expected to be around 14.5 million tonnes.

The present position regarding a possible extension to the Millers lane site is as follows. The NCB, in accordance with an agreement with the local authority associations, 398 has drawn up a consultation document for discussion with the greater Manchester council and the other local authorities concerned, about future possibilities for opencasting in the greater Manchester area. I understand that this document mentions that there may be a number of options for opencasting close to the existing Millers lane site, including the northern area for which an authorisation was refused in 1978.

The NCB suggests that these options should be the subject of further discussion with the local authorities concerned. At the same time, I understand that the NCB has been undertaking some further exploration work in the area.

The hon. Member referred to the apprehension that is caused in the area by this discussion of possible future opencasting. I appreciate his concern. At the same time, I am sure that he recognises the value of the NCB discussing forward plans and options with local authorities, even when those plans are still at a very early and tentative stage. Only in this way can the local authorities gain a clear, overall and long-term picture of the impact of opencasting in their areas, and have an opportunity to influence the NCB's plans at a formative stage.

I know that the local authorities attach considerable importance to this. I understand that the next of a series of regular meetings between the NCB and the local authorities in greater Manchester is scheduled for the end of March. I have no doubt that the hon. Member will bring to the attention of the local authorities before then the strong local feeling on the possibility of future open-casting in areas around the Millers lane site.

I stress again that my Department has received no application for an authorisation for an extension to the Millers lane site, or for any other site in the immediate area; nor has it any reason to believe that the NCB will shortly apply for a site. If at some future point the NCB applies for an authorisation, the procedures I have already outlined would apply, with the assurance they give that the views of local people will be considered very carefully.

I would wish to go on, if I had time, but I must just mention the point made by the hon. Member about the specific matter of his local press report on nuclear waste. I firmly believe that these alarmist rumours are wholly unfounded. The hon. Member will know, however, that nuclear waste matters are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

However, knowing as I do the extreme care with which such matters are handled, I should be more than surprised if there were anything behind these rumours. I shall ask my right hon. Friend to contact the hon. Member for Leigh as soon as possible to reassure him on this matter.

The hon. Member asked a question of my right hon. Friend—