§ 6. Mr. Barry JonesTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on opencast mining.
§ Mr. HowardThe Under-Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—announced on 15 July the Government's intention to review the current planning guidelines on opencast coal which are contained in minerals planning guidance note 3. That review is under way and revised guidance will be published for consultation in due course.
§ Mr. JonesWhy should the Government propose 80 million tonnes per annum of opencast coal mining while proposing the closure of 31 deep mines, with the loss of 100,000 jobs? Why should my constituency, especially the township of Buckley, have fairly extensive opencast mining while it is proposed that the Point of Ayr colliery, 10 miles away, will be closed? I warn the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his Government should not plan to destroy more trees, more hedges and more meadows when he could keep open many of our mines and prevent the march towards mass unemployment in the colliery areas.
§ Mr. HowardThe hon. Gentleman will appreciate that most aspects of his question are matters for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The land use planning aspects of opencast mining are taken into account before permission is given. As I said in my original answer, we are reviewing the planning guidelines.
§ Mrs. CurrieIs my right hon. and learned Friend aware that opencast mining in my constituency is of tremendous benefit, not only because we can thereby obtain coal at one quarter of the cost of deep-mined coal—which makes it the cheapest mineral available to us in the world—but because we can thereby clear hundreds of acres of derelict land and return it to a use and a purpose that will generate more jobs in future than the pits underneath the ground have ever done?
§ Mr. HowardMy hon. Friend is entirely right in drawing attention to the environmental advantages that can frequently follow opencast mining. She makes an important point.
§ Mr. SkinnerCan we be assured from what the Secretary of State said about redrawing minerals planning guidance note 3 that fewer opencast applications will be accepted? Is the Secretary of State aware that the amount of opencast coal has gone up to about 18.5 million tonnes, which is equivalent to the production of 17 to 18 pits? That equates to about 17,000 to 18,000 miners. If the review of the pits is to mean anything, surely opencast production must be severely reduced.
§ Mr. HowardI understand the hon. Gentleman's points. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy has already made it clear that opencast mining is on a downward trend. I cannot anticipate the results of our 868 revision of planning policy guidance. We shall take all the land use aspects of opencast mining carefully into account in the review that is under way.
§ Dr. SpinkIs my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Canvey island in my constituency is threatened with coal dust from the transshipment of coal from the proposed jetty? In such a sensitive environment as Canvey island, where we already have problems with oil, with gas storage and with being below sea level, that additional environmental hazard is unacceptable.
§ Mr. HowardI am sure that my hon. Friend and many of his constituents have drawn that point to the attention of the local authority which has powers to deal with such matters. I am sure that he will want to pursue it with the local authority.
§ Ms. ShortDoes the Secretary of State agree with the Council for the Protection of Rural England that opencast mining is one of the most environmentally destructive processes carried out in the United Kingdom? Is he aware that, contrary to the impression that he has just given to the House, there has been a doubling of opencast mining in Britain since 1979 and that there are currently many applications from British Coal and from private companies? Will he give an undertaking that the review of planning law will produce more stringent conditions so that opencast mining is not allowed unless it is beneficial to the local community and is not environmentally destructive and unless the site will be restored to a decent condition? If that is not achieved, we will see the loss of our coal industry, the despoliation of our economy and the destruction of our countryside.
§ Mr. HowardI congratulate the hon. Lady on her new responsibilities. I hope that they prove rather more long lasting than her previous responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench.
As for the hon. Lady's three questions, the future course of opencast mining is on a downward trend, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy has made clear. The hon. Lady is right to assert that in many cases opencast mining has environmental disadvantages. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) pointed out a moment ago, in many cases it can have environmental advantages. The land use aspects are carefully taken into account in the planning process and the hon. Lady will understand that I cannot anticipate this afternoon the outcome of our review of the planning policy guidance note.