§ Mr. Bill Etherington (Sunderland, North)I should like to offer you my belated public congratulations on your being honoured, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know from our discussions in the Tea Room, I do not have a high regard for the honours system. If more people like you were honoured, I might begin to have a rather different attitude.
I was interested by the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Schools at the end of the last debate when he mentioned the O-turn. I have heard of the U-turn but now we have the O-turn. I regard Government policies as being more of a Q-turn; they go around in circles and have a let-out for themselves with a little squiggle. That is true of this debate.
Before I run away with myself, to which I am prone, I ask hon. Members to keep their contributions short, as I shall. That will give everyone with an interest in the subject a chance to say what they have to say. Unfortunately, we are not too good at that in the House. I have often sat long and patiently, wanting only a few minutes while people have rambled on for 25 minutes saying what could have been said in five. If that is a criticism of both sides of the House, so be it.
This is an important subject that causes great concern to all constituencies that have the continuing problem of opencast mining. I am fortunate, because although there is one opencast site in the local authority that covers my constituency, there is none in my constituency because the mining would be too deep for current technology. The Permian bed that covers the coal measures under my constituency makes it an impossible task.
You are well aware of the problem, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because your constituency has more than its share of such problems. It is interesting that when such matters are debated, we find the normal divide in British politics: those who have the problem on either side of the House want to do something about it; those who do not have the problem are often not very interested or are willing to advocate a process that makes other people's lives miserable. It is a case of not in my backyard.
There is considerable interest in the subject throughout the country. As one of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), I appreciate that he has a great problem. I know what it is like. Luckily, in the village where I live we had a narrow escape a couple of years ago. There was not enough coal in a pit heap to make it viable and it was decided not to take the mineral beneath it before the site was landscaped. I was eternally grateful.
Next Thursday in the Jubilee Room, there will be a meeting of the Biddulph Action Group organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). Many things are coming together. That campaign is not from my constituency but from the miners parliamentary group, which is concerned about the issue. I know that many other mining Members who do not belong to the miners group have the problem, including some Conservative Members.
Opencast coal mining is absolutely unnecessary. We have it only because certain groups of people are doing very well financially from it. No benefits accrue to the population in general. If I was still burning coal, which 318 fortunately I am not, and went to a coal merchant and said, "I hear opencast coal is cheaper, can I have some?", I would not get a reduction. All coal is the same price for domestic consumers. The opencast market is a scandal and disgrace.
At one time in the north-east, both Northumberland and Durham county councils had sound policies of considering opencast output as a percentage of deep-mined output. It was rightly felt that, as deep mining capacity was reduced, so should opencast capacity be. Over the years, we have heard all sorts of arguments about the necessity for opencast coal, such as how it was needed to be blended with deep-mined coal. In the north-east that is no longer true because there are no deep mines left in County Durham: only one survives in Northumberland on a wing and a prayer. There is tremendous opencast mining output and no sign of it reducing.
I remind hon. Members who have studied the subject, and I see that there are some here, of the Flowers commission in the late 1970s, which recommended that opencast mining should be gradually phased down to—I use its term—a tick-over level. Some tick-over. It seems to me that it is going on at a fair speed and shows no sign of reduction.
At the time of the Flowers report, legislation from the Department of the Environment stated in effect that a need for coal would be a consideration when local authorities decided whether to grant planning permission for opencast mines. I know, for example, that at that time I appeared at no fewer than six hearings where applicants had appealed to the Department of the Environment after the local authority had decided to turn down their applications. On all six occasions the appeals were turned down. The late Nicholas Ridley later overturned one of them, but five out of six was not bad.
However, that was not the way in which the Government preferred to work because they changed the guidance and introduced mineral planning guidance 3, MPG3, one of the worse items of legislation ever. I call it legislation because, in effect, it is legislation. If local authorities do not abide by it, they face great cost disadvantages should they be unsuccessful against the applicant for a licence.
MPG3 stated that it would be assumed, without any sort of analysis, that opencast mining was a good thing. An application for a licence would be refused only if the local authority thought that there were pressing environmental reasons for doing so. Overnight, that changed the emphasis. The operator previously had had to prove a need for coal and the desirability of the site. Suddenly, the deal would go ahead and it was up to local authorities and anyone else who opposed such a move to prove environmental grounds.
The statistics after that new guideline was introduced show a quick change and that many more opencast appeals were successful. As a result, councils initially were reluctant to take operators on because they knew that they had little chance of success on appeal. They would not only have to bear the cost of the hearing but pay operators' damages for loss of trade—talk about one-sidedness; that is appalling.
Two years ago, we had the cataclysmic deep mine closure programme. We were told that regardless of price, there was no market for a vast amount of coal. I should have thought that if there was no market for coal, opencasting would be gradually phased out. That has not 319 been the case. What is happening is what we always believed would happen. Evidence has been given over many years to the effect that opencast coal would replace, not supplement or assist, deep-mined output. That is precisely what has happened.
I understand that MPG3 has been modified slightly, but it does not appear to have altered much. No consideration is given to need. Anyone can approach a local authority, say that he wants to mine coal and present his plans. The coal may never be disposed of—the firm could go bankrupt—but there is no procedure for monitoring.
We should like a return to pre-MPG3 times. I should have thought that, if there were a need for opencast coal, operators would not have too much difficulty in proving it. I know that previously, they had some difficulty, which is why they lost so many appeals. That showed that the system was working.
I do not speak a great deal on environmental matters because I am not an authority on them, but I know a little about markets. I know that for every employee in the opencast sector, five people would have been working in the deep-mined sector. Taking into account all the mining communities, the ratio would be about seven or eight to one. The coal costs the same but the difference is between employing one or eight people. That, it appears, is no longer the issue; the real issue now is why are deep mines continuing to be run down and closed with a subsequent reduction in manpower?
The situation will get worse because more gas and nuclear-powered stations will undoubtedly come on stream, despite what the Government say to the contrary. There will therefore be less demand for coal. Unless something is done, we shall end up with no deep mines, and the bulk of our coal will come from opencast sites, for as long as they last—I understand that we are now down to the final 20 or 25 years of potential supplies. Some might be pleased about that; it is only a pity that we had to lose so many deep mines and import coal to bring that about. In addition, we have lost an industry and the skills of tens of thousands of people. There are 3 million people unemployed, but the scandal continues.
I am now going to say something a little unusual. I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Coal Industry Bill when the industry was being denationalised, which was another disaster. Members of the Committee were heavily lobbied by the National Farmers Union, and I found that it had a fair case. It will want to know what is being said today so I shall make my remarks loud and clear. I am prepared to help the NFU as a decent and responsible Member of Parliament and I want it to reciprocate. When it has heard what I have to say on its behalf, I hope that it will seriously consider changing its attitude about access to the countryside so that when I and others go for a walk we do not face an obstacle course. Members of Parliament are reasonable and we try to help people; it is not unreasonable to ask the NFU to reciprocate.
One of the problems that farmers have, as they have made clear for a long time, is that the land which is returned to them is not satisfactory for agricultural purposes for a long time, if ever. They say that, following statutory reinstatement of the land, a period of five years is not the end of the matter and that some work might still need to be done afterwards.
Almost 15 years ago, there was an arrangement between farmers and landowners and what was then the National Coal Board. It was called a post-release 320 rehabilitation scheme. That sounds good—it reminds me of the miners' rehabilitation centres. "Rehabilitation" is an interesting word. Under the scheme, land would be examined after a given period, and any remedial work required would probably be done by the landowner if he or she so desired and paid for by the coal board. It appears, however, that that did not happen very often.
One has to ask why the land is not returned to its original condition. Is it because it might affect profit margins, or because it might make opencast mining less attractive? When all is said and done, deep mines, which could produce more cheaply than opencast sites, have been closed.
Wearmouth colliery in my constituency was heading towards producing coal for £1 a gigajoule. Coal was mined in a 7 ft high seam, the highest that had been worked for about 90 years. However, it was closed because it was said that there was no market for its coal, even at £1 per gigajoule.
I have done my bit for the NFU, and I hope that the Minister will consider the matter seriously.
§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to a farmer on his own side. He mentioned the need to reinstate land. Will he say a word or two about the apparent failure of opencast operators to deal with the problem of ground water from opencast sites? A substantial site at Blindwells in my constituency is about to stop work in October or November this year. We have been advised by the Coal Authority that the mining operators are not going to be required to continue pumping the water out of the site, which means that when the water table reaches its original level the surrounding areas will be severely affected by badly polluted ground water. What on earth can be done about that?
§ Mr. EtheringtonI thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. He will be well aware that we tried to get something done about that when the Coal Industry Act 1994 was being passed. We were given all sorts of assurances but no specific legislation. The same is happening with the Environment Bill, which is currently going through its final stages. In other words, we are no further forward—it is all promises but no legislation. I am sure that until we have a change of Government things will remain the same because such legislation would mean interfering with commerce. We all want commerce to do well and we all want wealth to be created, but not to the exclusion of everything else.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse)Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way. Before I call another hon. Member, I hope that the House will take note of the hon. Gentleman's generosity in leaving time for others. This is a short debate in which there is a great deal of interest. I hope that speeches will be kept short to enable as many hon. Members as possible to speak.
§ Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark)I must apologise to the House and the Minister because I might have to leave before the debate ends. I undertook another engagement before I knew that this debate was to be held. I shall, however, be here for most of it.
321 I join the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The honour has given great pleasure to your many friends of all parties.
That, however, is the only point on which I agree with the hon. Gentleman. His thesis was that opencast coal was unnecessary. My thesis is to the contrary, but I believe that we must deal properly with its environmental aspects.
A few old Labour party workhorses were trotted out and exercised today. The Labour party was hostile to opencast mining because it was largely run by the private sector whereas the nice, benevolent British Coal looked after coal miners and provided safe jobs. I do not think that those arguments are relevant any more.
I regret that while we are—quite properly—talking about the environment, the Opposition seem thus far to be dressing up the environment to use it as an argument against opencast coal. That would be a disservice to a fine industry and those who work in it. We must spell out the fact that surface-mined coal is provided at a low and predictable cost whereas deep-mined coal is high cost and carries an even higher risk factor.
§ Mr. AlexanderIf the hon. Lady wishes me to give way I shall do so, but it will extend the time that I take. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways.
§ Ms WalleyI shall be brief. How does the hon. Gentleman believe that the true and full cost of opencast coal mining can be measured? He talks about economic appraisal and opencast coal being cheaper, but has he taken into account the blight on property and, for example, the effect of dust on health? How does he ensure that the true cost is known?
§ Mr. AlexanderThe hon. Lady makes an absolutely fair point. That is why the debate is relevant. Such equations must be considered, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give reassurances on those points when he replies.
If I may, I shall continue my thesis about the benefits of surface-mined coal, and point out to the House that surface-mined coal, as I am sure many Opposition Members are aware, can be blended with deep-mined coal, which has a higher moisture content. With that blend, it is more acceptable, more manageable. It reduces the high chlorine content that exists in many seams of deep-mined coal. It has one tenth of the average amount of chlorine of deep-mined coal. It is has a low ash content and a high calorific value, particularly in the north-east and in parts of Scotland. Those are all environmental considerations. Surface-mined coal is part of the overall equation that we are discussing. It is not helpful to the argument and to one's knowledge to rubbish it as an aspect of the mining industry before reaching a conclusion.
§ Ms Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. AlexanderJust once more.
§ Ms RuddockIt is an extremely simple question. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the sulphur content? Is it not true that opencast coal often has a much higher sulphur content than deep-mined coal?
§ Mr. AlexanderThat may be so. I make no apology for the fact that I am listing the advantages of surface-mined coal. We should recognise that the properties of surface-mined coal improve the handling characteristics and the saleability of deep-mined coal. We now have acceptable blends for shipment abroad; we still export a lot of coal. If we make our deep-mined coal more acceptable to people who buy from us, we are helping the industry as a whole.
Sometimes, when deep-mined coal cannot be washed further, the addition of surface-mined coal will make it saleable. In Nottinghamshire, for example, each tonne of high-chlorine deep-mined coal needs to have about I tonne of opencast added to it to make it acceptable to purchasers. If the implications of the comments of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North were followed through, they would cast a grave burden on the acceptability and the saleability of the coal, which is Britain's coal and which we are trying to sell to people in this country and abroad. It will harm British industry and British jobs if we go down the hon. Gentleman's route.
We are still competing against imported coal. I shall not go into the arguments about how the imported coal is acquired, as those are yesterday's arguments, but the fact is that we are still in competition. There are certain commercial facts about opencast that cannot be denied, the first of which—this deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley)—is that those who are involved in its extraction will say that it is far cheaper to extract coal from the surface rather than from deep mines. I should have thought that that logically follows and does not need a great deal of proof.
The second point is that we must produce coal to sell abroad. The third and vital point—I am astonished that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North did not concentrate on this—is that the coal industry and the surface-mined coal industry provide a great many jobs in various communities. Those are very important points. I have the honour, with the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), of representing a north Nottinghamshire seat, and jobs are important in coal mining areas. It is a dirty and a dangerous job, and we should accept that it has already suffered a great deal from contraction. Opencast is a key element in the objective of sustaining a large economically viable United Kingdom coal industry. It is a significant contributor to the bottom-line profits of the rest of the coal industry and hence the maintenance of jobs in it.
To my hon. Friend the Minister, I say, as do other colleagues here, that it is important that the new guidelines for MPG3 should work with the grain and ensure that coal from the surface is economically and environmentally acceptable. The environment is extremely important, and the environmental effect of opencasting on local communities is a matter of great responsibility for my hon. Friend and, indeed, for MPG3.
We must accept that the Coal Industry Act 1994 imposes such a duty on developers, which they accept. They in turn must ensure that they mitigate the worst effects of their operations on communities, and planning authorities must ensure that they do. Local people must accept that surface mining is about not just profits and shareholders but jobs in communities. There are many examples of former opencast coal mining operations being restored to great benefit in our communities. There is one not far from north Nottinghamshire, the Rother Valley 323 country park in south Yorkshire. There are excellent examples of environmental attraction once coal surface mining has been concluded.
The call for opencasting to be closed down because there is surplus of deep-mined coal elsewhere is shortsighted. It has merit in the short-term, but to close down a significant part of the coal industry cannot be a good long-term proposition. Competitive disadvantage, if my earlier thesis is followed, will certainly be brought about from short-term expediency. One cannot just turn on and off surface mining like a tap. It is a five-year programme, and that is why the environmental aspect of it is so important. We must remember that the employers, the major contractors, have invested £1,000 million in their surface mining activities. It is not a fringe activity. They employ 15,000 people, directly and indirectly, often in areas that have suffered drastically from coal mining closures.
Planners must give opencast a fair wind. It can do without the hostility of some hon. Members and some people outside. It must be allowed to produce low-cost indigenous coal, which will enable the industry to thrive and continue to export. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that more drastic constraints will put that at risk, as will the ideological opposition of some Opposition Members. I hope that my hon. Friend will resist going down that particular route.
§ Mr. Gerry Steinberg (City of Durham)I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your knighthood, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on securing this debate on a subject which is so vital for my constituency.
Mine is not an ideological argument, but a purely practical argument about the horror that my constituents have to put up with. I have long campaigned against opencast mining, which has expanded with increasing alarm in my constituency, because of the horror that it brings. As well as being directly related to pit closures, which have destroyed our pit communities and led to high unemployment, it has had a dreadful impact on the environment in my constituency.
First, heavy lorries thunder through villages and local communities from the early hours of the morning, past residential properties and the main pedestrian walkways where parents are often taking small children to school. The increase in the number of heavy lorries is making conditions intolerable for residents and exacerbating the dangers that pedestrians have to endure all the time.
Secondly, there has been widespread damage to the landscape, which is visible to both commuters and visitors to the beautiful city of Durham from virtually every main approach as more and more opencast sites are agreed. Both tourism and local industry have been increasingly affected. The open countryside is being ravaged, conservation areas are being damaged and the dust and debris resulting from mining operations threaten the local flora and fauna.
Thirdly, there is the dust and nuisance that people have to endure. Residents are inevitably subject to dust and diesel pollution. Last year, residents of Bowburn in my constituency had to put up with opencast mining at the R J Budge (Mining) Ltd. site at Whitwell, which is approximately half a mile from their homes—less than that in some cases. There have been significantly greater dust deposits in their gardens, and many more cases of asthma, particularly among children.
324 There are no guarantees that the implementation of dust control measures can avoid the hazard. Moreover, there is no control over exhaust emissions from the plant. Dust pollution is far more than just a nuisance. In a recent answer to a parliamentary question from me, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health accepted that an independent advisory committee had confirmed research findings showing an association between opencast mining and the increase in asthma.
§ Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton)The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) may not still be present when I make my speech. My hon. Friend speaks of the effects on health, welfare and the environment in his constituency; will he now condemn the hon. Member for Newark for not taking those effects into consideration?
§ Mr. SteinbergI said at the beginning of my speech that my reasons for objecting to opencast mining were not ideological, but motivated by a desire to protect my constituents from environmental damage. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) gave purely ideological reasons for supporting an industry which is making millions of pounds for certain people. When he speaks of ideology, he should look to himself rather than Opposition Members. Many thousands of people's health, as well as their everyday lives, are being dramatically affected.
Opencast mining is detrimental to the quality of life. It affects both the environment and the general morale of local communities. The effect on those communities is traumatic. Former mining villages in my constituency are only now recovering from the scars left by the industry. In recent years, the area has been subject to considerable environmental improvements, including the reclamation of former colliery sites and the creation of new industries, jobs and recreational facilities. The establishment of new mining operations in those areas is a dreadful retrograde step—and it could go on for 30 years.
As well as the new applications, there are the "while we are here" applications. For example, R J Budge started work on the Whitwell site on 1994. In January 1995 the firm applied for a variation to build an additional 20 m mound on the same site because there was not enough room to pile up all the overburden. By April, less than a year after coaling had started, RJB admitted that it had already extracted 100,000 tonnes from the site, although the permission granted on appeal was for only 250,000 over five years. RJB has also warned that it is seriously considering opencasting an area twice the size of the existing site, across the road from it, although the initial application stated that it was not viable. If the site is agreed it will be operational in my constituency for 30 years, which would be catastrophic.
R and A Young's original application and permission at Cocken Lodge, Leamside, was to extract 36,000 tonnes. It produced 90,000. The site grew and grew; permission was given for the extraction of a further 46,700 tonnes, but 60,000 were actually taken out. A further extension was granted to extract 324,000 tonnes, and then another 65,000. R and A Young later returned with another application, this time to opencast a further 670,000 tonnes. After appeals and High Court action, the site is now being mined by R J Budge, which is exactly what it wanted.
Opencasters cannot be trusted: that is the lesson that we must learn from today's debate. At this moment, there is a threat of another application at Park Hill and Old 325 Quarrington in my constituency. The strength of local opposition is enormous. At a public meeting about a month ago, hundreds of people expressed their determination that the application should be refused. The proposed work would constitute an unjustifiable intrusion into open and highly visible countryside; it would be a major cause of pollution, and would seriously damage amenities that local people have a right to expect.
There are 260 houses within 250 m of the proposed site. It is incredible that the firm should want to apply for a site so close to those houses. The applicants themselves accept that there would be an adverse impact on nearby residents, but they are going ahead with the application. Given the sheer numbers of residents affected, the pollution caused by dust, diesel, noise and traffic and the inevitable severe visual intrusion, allowing the application would constitute a huge departure from the county structure plan.
I am sure that the application will eventually go to appeal, but what will happen then? In a recent parliamentary answer, the Minister acknowledged that nationally, since 1985, a staggering 40 per cent. of all opencast sites which had been run on appeal against the wishes of the community had been in County Durham. The north-east bore an amazing 57 per cent. of all such planning consents approved on appeal. That is an appalling statistic, not just for the people of Durham but for those in the north-east generally.
The hon. Member for Newark constantly claimed that the industry brought many jobs into the area, but that claim is not substantiated. I am not aware that more than one job has been created by RJB on the most recently approved working site in my constituency for a so-called local—that is, someone living within 10 miles of the site.
On 15 November 1991 The Journal, a local newspaper, carried the headline, "Appeals inspectors 'swayed by misleading employment claims'—Opencast bosses fail to deliver promised work". It was reported that
hundreds of jobs promised at controversial opencast coal sites have not been delivered",including Stobswood where 500 jobs had been promised and 76 people were employed, Plenmeller where 120 jobs had been promised and 26 people employed, and Chester House where 160 jobs had been promised and 101 people employed. A British Coal official admitted that job predictions had not been met, but attributed that to technological advances. As I said, one cannot trust the opencasters. Moreover, potential and existing jobs are threatened by the new ugly opencast sites which have developed, particularly in my constituency.In an amazing and shocking confession, the Government have acknowledged that they have blighted Durham with unwanted opencast sites; they have also been forced to accept the growing body of evidence of health risks associated with such sites. Those facts alone must force a rethink of the Government's disgraceful attitude to opencast sites, not just in my constituency but throughout the country.
§ 12.9 pm
§ Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet)I, too, congratulate you on your honour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which has brought much pleasure to all of us in west Yorkshire. It is also 326 appropriate that you should be in the Chair for this debate as over many years you have contributed so significantly to our debates in the House on mining, especially in relation to opencasting. Having said all that, I am bound to honour your admonition to be brief, so I shall not repeat things that I have said on previous occasions.
It is clear that there are some circumstances in which opencasting is acceptable and sensible, and others in which it is not. In my constituency, we have clear examples of both those positions. In the south of my constituency at St. Aidans, there is a huge site which was derelict, an eyesore and dangerous. Opencasting was the only practical way of solving that problem and of creating good countryside and a good environment for local people. It produced a great deal of community gain in terms of cash, as well as the long-term benefit that will come to the environment. In such a situation, opencasting makes sense.
Further north in my constituency, in the sensitive green belt area between the town of Garforth and the conurbation of Leeds, one finds a situation in which opencasting cannot make any sense. At Austhorpe, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), and at Garforth, communities are capable of attracting high-quality inward investment, both in commerce and in industry. There are established communities and a crucially sensitive area of environmental green belt. The problem that we face in such a region is that individual applications for opencasting are made and each case is considered on its own merits without any real strategic overview of what is right for the region.
My hon. Friend the Minister will rightly point out that mineral planning guidance No. 3 states that there should be local minerals plans which highlight where opencasting is appropriate and where it is not. Around the country, a number of local minerals plans make precisely that sort of judgment. That does not help us in Leeds, however, where no local minerals plan is in place and where the process of obtaining such a plan is inevitably some years away as the whole exercise is bound up with the unitary development plan inquiry, which will take years.
In that region, we faced an application from one company, H J Banks, for a site on the line of the A1-M1 link road. Inevitably, there will be sterilisation, so the company has made a very short-term application. Against the wishes of the local communities and of the Department of Transport, which feared that the site would delay the building of the road, the company received planning permission on a one-off basis. The moment it has that application and is into production, however, it comes forward with another application for another site nearby which will enable it to continue its mining even though that site has nothing to do with the line of the road or sterilisation and is on green fields. A further three, four or potentially five applications are known to be already on the table or in the pipeline for consideration. The problem that we face when we come to a planning inquiry is that each of those applications is considered in isolation and we do not have the protection of a local minerals plan.
MPG3 stresses the importance of the concept of sustainable development. The real core problem for constituencies such as mine is that it is unclear what sustainable development actually means. In Garforth, it must mean the attraction of modern high-quality investment which is coming on the back of the excellent 327 communications and the skilled work force. In that region, unemployment is not high. The region is expanding and attractive and many high-quality companies are seriously considering locating there. If sustainable development means anything, it must mean that, for that region, we should promote a planning environment which attracts and is helpful to that programme. We should not put in opencasting which, whatever safeguards are put in place, will produce some measure of dust. One company which has built a £20 million factory in my constituency says that opencasting causes problems for the purity of its product.
The real core of the problem that a constituency such as mine faces is that if one does not have a unitary development plan there is no opportunity for a strategic overview to be taken of what is right for that region.
§ Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. BatistePerhaps I may finish this point; then of course I shall way to the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency suffers problems not dissimilar to those in my own.
Between Garforth and the Leeds conurbation, a number of opencast applications are coming forward which clearly do not fit into the pattern of development of that region. It must be right for a strategic overview to be taken. Such an approach cannot be taken within the time frame of these planning applications because the local minerals plan inquiry is caught up in the unitary development plan. It must therefore be right for the Minister and the Department to call the applications in and inject a strategic overview into the structure.
§ Mr. GunnellBecause the hon. Gentleman represents a marginal seat, he was able to get the Secretary of State for the Environment to visit his opencast site. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the cumulative effects of application after application in the same region. Was his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State taking note of what he had to say about that, and would the Secretary of State be prepared to see the cumulative effect of sites in nearby constituencies which are not marginal and therefore not of such interest to him in the next election?
§ Mr. BatisteI am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment came to my constituency to consider the situation and to discuss with local action groups and local representatives the issues that are involved. If I have been more successful in attracting Ministers to consider problems in my constituency than the hon. Gentleman has, that is perhaps just a fact of life, but—I say this without making party political mischief between us—the issue that the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) faces in his constituency and that which I face in Elmet are not dissimilar. Both of us are exposed to a position in which there is no local minerals plan in place, a number of opencast applications are either on the table or in the pipeline, and some opencast mining is already under way.
What I am saying to my hon. Friend the Minister is specific not just to my constituency, but to the hon. Gentleman's as well; exactly the same issues would apply. When the Secretary of State was in my constituency, I specifically made the point that this issue affected the whole of the green belt around the south of Leeds, where sensitive green belt regions have been designed to maintain the separation of different communities, where 328 communities are able to attract good quality investment, and where opencasting is not suitable in terms of the sensible economic development of those regions.
I therefore say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, within the context of MPG3 and with all sensible economic planning criteria, in regions such as ours, a strategic judgment must be made as to whether applications should be granted. They should be based on a strategic overview of what is right for that region, rather than put forward one by one, whereby individual companies chip away at a local authority and its unwillingness to spend large sums of money fighting cases through inquiries.
In the situations that I have described, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to make it clear that, for that particular region, he will call in applications so that a strategic overview can be injected by the Government.
§ Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton)I should like to address local issues which could involve your part of Wakefield, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as well as my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). We have the same problems in relation to opencast mining. The problems relate not only to mining on derelict sites, which have been mentioned, but to planning applications. For instance, an inquiry is imminent on the Sharlston opencast site.
When we discussed mineral plans and extraction in Committee on the Environment Bill, where the Minister led for the Government, I spoke of problems to which I should like to refer again today to try to impress on the Minister the importance, when considering applications for opencast mining, of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) about the environment, health, noise and dust pollution as well as the nuisance of lights. The Minister must attend to those matters in relation to applications and appeals.
The Sharlston application is from a Mr. Banks and would involve opencast mining in a green belt area. I invite the Minister to view that rural area because it would be a crime to blight it with opencast mining, and the people responsible for the applications should be treated as criminals. It seems that the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) would defend such developments. Houses and communities are situated less than 200 m from the proposed site; if that is the kind of development that the hon. Gentleman thinks should go ahead in that environment, I have little sympathy for his constituents.
§ Mr. AlexanderWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. O'BrienI am reluctant to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but as I have mentioned him I will certainly give way.
§ Mr. AlexanderPerhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman by giving him the positive assurance that that was not what I said. I argued that surface-mined coal should not be rubbish and that in considering planning applications the Minister should be extremely sensitive about the very implications that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
§ Mr. O'BrienThe hon. Gentleman did not say that in his speech, but I accept his points.
329 I impress upon the Minister that it is a question not just of planning applications but of the problems which develop from them. In the Oulton area of my constituency there was opencast mining in the past. Because coal can now be mined at a greater depth, there is an application to carry out new opencast mining on that Oulton site. That is also a crime against the community. The Minister must take opencast mining seriously.
In Committee on the Environment Bill I said that we do not want rape of the countryside in Sharlston. People in that area are totally against the application. They take the view that the closure of the deep pit at Sharlston followed by an application for opencast mining creates problems and is an added insult to the people who lost their jobs in that area. The Minister must consider a number of issues.
I should like to develop other matters, but as a large number of hon. Members want to enter the debate I shall be brief. I ask the Minister to consider the Sharlston application because it could be used as a barometer, as an example of refusing planning applications for coal that is no longer needed. The problems for the environment from such a development can be envisaged. I invite the Minister to come to Sharlston, look at the site and let me have his observations about what he thinks is right or wrong about an application to develop opencast mining there.
§ Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham)I also shall be brief. Opencast mining is clearly a controversial activity, but there is no reason, when debating it, for logic and truth to go out of the window. I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who is no longer in her place, said that deep mining was an environmentally friendly way to extract coal while opencast mining was an environmentally damaging way to do it. That is patently absolute nonsense.
§ Ms Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)I have a duty to defend my hon. Friend, who is not here at the moment. She did not say what the hon. Gentleman attributes to her. She asked how the total costs of opencast mining could be evaluated, taking into account social and environmental costs. I do not remember her making any comparison with deep-mined coal.
§ Mr. AtkinsonWe have to take the logic of the hon. Lady's remarks to their conclusion. If she takes into account the environmental costs of one form of mining, opencast mining, I assume that she must take into account the costs of deep mining. It is manifest nonsense to say that deep mining is environmentally friendly, as some hon. Members have hinted. Anybody who was brought up in the north-east of England, as I was, and who saw the smouldering pit heaps and the legacy of disease and injury that were caused by deep mining would not say that. We can argue that opencast mining has considerable advantages and that, when the work is finished, the land is generally restored to an extremely high standard. The risk of injuries, accidents and dangers to health of the people in the opencast industry is smaller than it is to those who work in deep mines.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) said that opencast coal was not necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) 330 made some good points about that. It is manifest rubbish to say that such coal is not necessary. Opencast coal is needed to add to the coal from deep mines to make the deep mines viable. If the hon. Member for Sunderland, North wants to shut Blenkinsopp colliery in my constituency or Ellington colliery in Northumberland his proposal is the way to do it.
§ Mr. EtheringtonThe hon. Gentleman accuses me of talking rubbish. That is fine, because he is an expert on the subject. I do not mind such comments from him because they are obviously authoritative. If land is as well restored after opencasting as he says—he has many more farmers in his constituency than I have in mine—why does the National Farmers Union not agree with him?
§ Mr. AtkinsonI can say from first-hand experience that the land in my constituency that has been opencast and restored is in some cases better than it was originally.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Farmers will vote Labour next time.
§ Mr. AtkinsonChance would be a fine thing. I do not think so.
Plenmellor, which is being used for opencast mining, was mined in the past. The land was potholed, had shafts and was dangerous. It will be restored to open moorland. We need opencast coal. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North spoke about sulphur. I suspect that she is wrong; I think that opencast coal has less sulphur than deep-mined coal. The advantage of opencast coal is that it can be mined completely clean and its calorific value can be determined exactly. Power stations do not blend coal themselves, but buy ready blended coal, so if it was not available here they would buy it from abroad.
It should be borne in mind that, for about every 100 tonnes of material that is mined underground, only 60 tonnes is coal. On average, there is 40 tonnes of spoil, which has to be tipped in the countryside.
I do not see how, if the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) took a walk down the Durham beaches, where colliery waste has been thrown for years, he could argue that properly controlled opencast mining is as environmentally damaging as existing deep mines.
Through MPG3, the Government have done a great deal to tidy up and strengthen the planning laws relating to opencast mining. For a start, they have removed the qualification of national interest, which was a great step forward. Before that, opposition to opencast applications could easily be overridden because of so-called national interest and objections to importing coal. The Government are putting in strict controls so that opencast coal mining happens only in areas where it is suitable or where it improves derelict land. That point has not been mentioned either.
The land surrounding opencast workings on the site of the old Orgreave colliery will be restored to a much better standard at no cost to the public purse. If the site had not been opencasted, the work would have cost the taxpayer £10 million or £15 million. There are environmental benefits of properly controlled opencast mining.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) since there is not a mineral development plan in his area. He should have one. Most of the country is covered by such plans. Indeed, most county councils or local planning authorities consider 331 whether opencasting is possible and where it can be carried out to benefit the mining industry without causing untold environmental damage that affects nearby residents. I congratulate the Government on their stance and on their new rules and regulations in MPG3.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)It is very interesting to listen to some Tories complain about opencasting in their areas and about the fact that they are likely to get more opencast applications. With odd exceptions, most of them were there in 1992, shutting the 31 pits with the President of the Board of Trade—who is now, so I am told, Deputy Prime Minister. Most of them went into the Lobby to shut the 31 pits despite the fact that almost every Opposition Member who spoke on the issue said that it would result in more opencast applications in every coalfield in Britain. Now they are crying and whining and whingeing because what has happened is exactly what we forecast.
It is a scandal that the President of the Board of Trade is being promoted when he helped to shut the 31 pits and took part in that—I shall use my words carefully—very smelly deal with R J Budge. There is no doubt that when the President of the Board of Trade knocked that £100 million off R J Budge's contract, he knew that Mr. Budge would make a load of money out of opencasting. Every one of us who work and live in those areas know that an opencast application is a licence to print money. That is the reason for MPG3. This Tory Government wanted to assist their friends, many of whom put money into the Tory party, including Mr. Budge. It is a classic example of the Tory party liaising with others to line their own pockets in return for ensuring the closure of deep-mine pits.
It is an affront that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) was on about rubbish. The hon. Gentleman went on to tell us—I think that this is what he implied—that he wanted to opencast Ellington colliery. It is under the sea. I do not know whether they have some new equipment that I have not heard about.
§ Mr. AtkinsonWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. SkinnerNo. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he wanted opencast instead of deep mines and he referred to Ellington colliery. I think that I can rest my case.
§ Mr. Atkinsonrose—
§ Mr. SkinnerThe hon. Gentleman has had his chance. Sit down. I know that he voted for Major. Now he has his problems he should not land them on us.
We want to get back to the main question: the blight of the coalfield areas. We know only too well that if any opencast applications were made near Chequers, they would be turned down. The truth is that, with rare exceptions, most opencast applications are made in areas from which spring—in the main—Labour Members of Parliament, including the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. He knows about the subject as much as anybody else.
The Government do not really care. They are not bothered about the outcome. That is why there has been a host of applications recently—to line Mr. Budge's 332 pocket so that he can hand over some more money to the Tory party. That is all part of the scene. That is why we have to get back to what can be done.
I am not one of those people who say that, when I worked in a colliery, there were no environmental hazards. Of course there were, but they are now developing deep mines such as those at Selby and Asfordby which are not like the old-fashioned pits in Durham, Derbyshire and Lancashire. Although they are not environmental hazard free, they are very different from those that we knew and worked in.
In the run-up to the general election, knowing that the Tory Government are not going to do anything to help us, we have to impress on our Labour Front-Bench team the kind of policies that we need for the future. First, we have to tackle this opencast business and get back to what we used to have. I remember a policy of no more green-field sites. We also used to have a policy which was in line with the Flowers commission—allowing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, opencast mines only to tick over. That meant that they hardly mined anything at all.
In Government, Labour party energy policy should be to take the remaining pits back into public ownership and then control opencasting. Mr. Budge and his friends would no longer exist. That is the only way. We can play around with MPG3 as long as we like, but we have do something more dramatic.
I will finish on this point because many hon. Members want to speak: there has been an aura around Mr. Budge and Arkwright in my constituency. Everybody is saying that this wonderful new authority is shifting a village from one side of the street to the other, that it is all benevolent and that it wants to do it for the good of the community. I have to tell the House that it is the biggest con trick of all time.
R J Budge closed Arkwright colliery and the methane came pothering out into the village and nearly blew it up. The villagers banded together, with my help and that of others, to take British Coal on. They took it to court, issued writs, and were on the verge of making money out of British Coal when what did it do? It said: "We've got a wonderful idea. We'll opencast all of Arkwright, we'll shift your village and you'll all get a house apiece." It saved itself all that wonderful compensation.
The whole thing was a con trick from beginning to end. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North for giving me an opportunity to put that on the record. Those Arkwright people are really being shifted against their will. They had no option because they were frightened to death of the methane exuding from the old colliery. Now that we have had this debate, it is very important for our Front-Bench team to understand that we need dramatic answers. Pottering about with MPG3 and other such matters is important and I do not disregard it, but we have to take back control to ensure that we can be masters in our own house.
§ Mr. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood)I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the strong opinions of people who represent coalfield communities because there is no doubt that, over recent years, they have had a tough time. Coalfield communities aspire to a better future and that is what this debate is all about.
333 In principle, I am not against opencasting, with one big proviso: it has to lift the landscape, enhance the environment and clear up areas of contamination and dereliction. There are some good opencast schemes. I draw the Minister's attention to the Moorgreen site in Nottinghamshire—the site of a derelict colliery which has been opencasted and will be replanted forming part of the new Greenwood forest giving people access to a better future; the recreation of Sherwood forest. Opencasters are not interested in such sites because they are small and difficult. They want the big, new green-field sites.
One can contrast Moorgreen and Robinettes just to the south. Robinettes is a mature landscape—the landscape of Lawrence. It is the area where Lawrence was born, where he roamed and where, I suspect, he did other things as well. The Erewash canal runs through it and the village of Cossall lies within it. It is an important site, yet British Coal tried to destroy it. I am pleased that the local campaign group succeeded and that the county council turned down the plan.
I know that RJB (Mining) will come back with another application. The company will be more sophisticated in that it will change the name in the application. Instead of calling the site Robinettes, the company will call it Shortwood Farm, but it is the same application. The company will do that because it believes that it can make money not out of a small derelict site, but out of a big green-field site.
I point out to the Minister that the average cost of opencasting is 80p per gigajoule—that is what the opencaster is aiming at. I hope that the Minister realises what is happening now in the deep-mining industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) talked about the new pits. Coal is being produced at Selby at £1 a gigajoule, and at Asfordby and Welbeck the figure is £1.20. As a result of the restructuring and because many of the overheads have gone, costs are coming down. I tell the Minister straight that, within two to three years, the cost of deep-mined coal will be lower than the cost of opencast.
The real costs of opencast are far greater than the figures suggest. Opencasting destroys landscapes, it destroys the environment and it puts people's health at risk. We need, as we have said before, a more sophisticated way in which to establish the real costs of development. The real cost of opencasting is that it ravages the community. I am no apologist for the deep mining industry. It is bad, tough and rough, but it is getting better.
§ Mr. Mike O'Brien (Warwickshire, North)The problem is not just what happens when there is opencasting, but the threat of planning applications for opencasting which hang over the community for years.
§ Mr. TippingOpencasting blights the area before and afterwards. We must look for a real energy policy—an energy policy with the deep coal industry as its cornerstone. Unless we have such a policy, I despair about the future. The cost of a new deep coal face is about £30 million. It is clear that, in 1998 and beyond, the new private owners will go for opencasting rather than capital investment. We must get a grip of the situation and give people a new and better future. They have had a tough time and they deserve better.
§ Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone)I want to deal with the two arguments put by the hon. Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for Newark (Mr. Alexander). They argued that opencast mining was advantageous to the country and to the local community provided that high-quality restoration followed. I dispute that argument.
The Flowers report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) referred, was produced in 1981. It spoke in terms of opencast being taken to tick-over level; opencast coal was not required in the amount that the hon. Member for Hexham suggested was required for technical reasons. The amount required for technical reasons is extremely small. If the hon. Gentleman had read the 1993 report produced by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, he would have seen that the evidence given to the Committee by the Coalfield Communities Campaign suggested that the amount required for technical reasons could be cut to less than 10 million tonnes. That suggestion was made when 60 million tonnes of coal was deep mined. The Minister will be aware that the Select Committee recommended that opencast mining production be cut to 10 million tonnes.
In 1994, opencast coal production had reached 16 million tonnes and the total amount of coal produced in the United Kingdom was 48 million tonnes. In other words, the proportion of opencast coal has increased to one third of the total produced in the United Kingdom.
On restoration, I invite the Minister to visit the Redbrook site in my constituency. It was used for opencast at the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s. It was a long-term project. The site has been restored, but the land is blighted. It is now just pasture land. There is no arable farming, the woods have not been returned and the streams do not meander as they used to do. It takes up to 100 years after an opencast mine has ceased operation for land to return to the state that it was in before opencasting started.
Will the Minister confirm that, in a letter sent from his Department to RJB (Mining) just after privatisation, 110 opencast sites were identified in an area stretching from Derbyshire to the north-east? Will he confirm that figure? Will R J Budge be able to put in planning applications for sites that have been turned down before privatisation? If so, we in the mining communities can expect many more sites to be proposed for opencast mining.
I suggest to the Minister that there is now a need for insurance and bonding because some schemes may leave great holes with which the local authority will have to deal. R J Budge has already created such a problem at the Orgreave site, which was the subject of a debate in the House on 16 May. Several issues should be considered. I ask the Minister to ensure that he reviews opencast mining and to ensure that it is cut to tick-over level, as suggested in the Flowers report.
§ Ms Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on obtaining this debate, which has been extremely interesting and important. No Labour Member underestimates the nation's need for energy or the inevitability of hard decisions, given that no conventional energy source is unpolluting.
335 Opencast mining, however, should be a last resort and not a first resort. The industry should be recognised for what it is—noisy, dirty and destructive—and its economic worth, in terms of jobs and national need, should be judged accordingly. It should be an industry that is developed only when it can clearly serve the community's interests and that means the interests of the whole community.
Instead, opencast has been developed as a further expression of the Government's privatisation programme and of their hatred of the National Union of Mineworkers. Of course there are circumstances in which opencast can be tolerated. In some areas, it has a long history and the local community may have found an accommodation. In other areas land with a legacy of dereliction may be appropriately mined as opencast as a prelude to clear-up and restoration. In too many areas, however, as this debate has shown, the effects of opencast on the local community have been appalling.
Much opencast activity could have been avoided. In most cases, the same quantity and type of coal could have been mined from deep mines. When the Tories came to office in 1979, total coal output was 137 million tonnes, of which only 14.5 million tonnes—just 10 per cent.—was from opencast. Today, the proportion from opencast is almost one third, albeit that total coal output is down to 48 million tonnes.
Deep-mined coal production has been massively reduced by direct Government intervention and they have set in train a parallel strategy to promote an increase in coal from opencast mining. They gave guidance to local planning authorities in which they made it clear that
it would be against the national interest to refuse permission for coal extractionby opencast mining. That judgment was reinforced by a series of further measures that, rather than being a response to the changing needs of modern communities, led to opportunities for making private profit by a few of the Tory party's friends.Opencast mining is one of the most environmentally destructive activities in the United Kingdom today. It has immediate effects on the surrounding neighbourhoods and long-term effects on the landscape. It is Labour's view that, in most circumstances, the damaging effects of opencast far outweigh the economic benefits, and nothing that has been said today will change our mind.
The immediate effects on communities have been graphically outlined by many of my hon. Friends, not least by my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). The nuisance of noise, blasting, excavation, vibration, dust and the intrusion of heavy lorries all blight local communities, let alone property values. The long-term effects are more difficult to evaluate. Opencast leads to the permanent loss of mature countryside, and although restoration can grass over an area, it cannot bring back the natural contours.
It would be wholly wrong to believe that such concerns are limited to the ranks of city-dwelling green groups, or even to members of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I was born and brought up in a south Wales valley. Yes, the miners were hard men, but they loved their countryside and knew every path and contour of the mountains. They loved nothing better than walking on the hillsides or digging their back gardens.
That is why opencast mining such as that found on the Selar Farm site near the village of Cwmgwrach in west Glamorgan is such an abomination. It splits the 336 community between those so desperate for work that they are prepared to make the compromise, and those desperate to defend the natural heritage. People should not have to make such choices.
Labour is committed to environmentally sustainable development. While recognising the need for jobs, Labour in government will operate a presumption against opencast mining, and permit it only where it would be to the benefit both of the local community and of the local environment. I hope that, in that aim, we might satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), because I believe that the green-field sites will eventually be excluded. Labour in government will reverse the process, although we shall do so within a comprehensive energy strategy that puts the needs of the nation, of local communities and of the environment into the same equation.
The Minister is the one who must answer questions today. Can he explain how the revised guidance will make any difference? What does he say about the Sharlston application described by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien)? Will the provisions in the Environment Bill, inadequate though they are, apply to opencast and the issue of polluting mine water? What is his answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) about Blind Wells?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) asked, will the Minister put on record his response to the idea of bonding? Surely if our holidays can be safeguarded we should be able to safeguard our communities. Surely we cannot allow R J Budge to continue to do what he did in Sheffield, where he put restoration into the hands of a separate company and then allowed that company to go bankrupt.
The Minister must answer those questions today, and we must learn to protect our environment and our communities from the destructive activity of opencast.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford)I have had more invitations than a tourist bureau to tour the country, and I would certainly be interested to look at some of the sites. Indeed, I have already agreed to visit some areas.
We had one small interlude with a bit of dramatics—pantomime, perhaps—from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who reminds me of the three ugly sisters in one go. In general, though, there was a balanced debate in some areas with some Members, and there was acceptance on both sides—[Interruption] I must tell the hon. Member for Bolsover that his teeth are still slipping. Positive points were made on both sides and there was recognition, but not by all hon. Members, that there has to be a balance.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on initiating the debate and on allowing various Members to put various points. I shall read the report of the debate tomorrow, because I shall not be able to answer all the questions now. Indeed, I shall be able to do no more than touch on some of them.
I understand the environmental concerns that were raised clearly and emphatically by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Letters have come in too. The Government have understood those concerns and taken on board their importance. They have influenced the thinking 337 behind the new guidance published last July, which emphasises that development should be allowed only when it can be carried out in an environmentally acceptable way, or where there are overriding benefits, but it is not and should not be the intention to stop all opencast mining. That point has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) say that opencast can be done satisfactorily from an environmental point of view. The mess can be cleaned up and we can end up with an acceptable, if not environmentally improved, area afterwards. The aim of the guidance is to ensure that the extraction of coal can take place in accordance with the full and proper protection of the environment and within the principles of sustainable development.
The new guidance was not produced rashly. It was drawn up after extensive consultation with the industry, planners, environmental groups and local communities, and it responds to many of the concerns that were expressed. I recognise that some of what has been said, especially by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), was about areas that were mined before the publication of the new guidelines, and I hope that they will at least help in such cases in future.
The guidelines emphasise a development plan led approach, with tests of environmental acceptability for individual projects. We have taken a tougher approach to the assessment of factors such as noise, dust and visual impact, and there is an annex that addresses each one in turn. We are committed to monitoring the implementation of the guidance through the research programme.
We also recognise the conflicting views on the characteristics of the coal, and intend to undertake research, starting early next year, to examine whether opencast coal has advantageous or disadvantageous characteristics. Some of the arguments have, therefore, already been taken on board.
The development plan led approach ensures that decisions on land availability and use are debated fully and openly at local level. That must offer the greatest certainty for industry about where coal extraction is likely to be allowed. Similarly, communities where coal reserves exist will have a clearer idea about where such activities are likely to take place, and over what period. That in part answers some of the questions that have been asked.
The new approach, which responded to many of the concerns raised, has been generally well received. I understand that the industry is somewhat concerned, and is conscious of the restrictions, but I recognise that there are difficulties on the other side, too. We intend to enforce the restrictions.
338 Green belt policy has been mentioned. It is true that there is no bar on making planning applications for development in the green belt. Nor do we intend to introduce a presumption against mineral working in green belts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The simple fact is that minerals can be worked only where they are found, and such workings represent a temporary use of the land. Their extraction need not therefore be incompatible with green belt objectives, but applications for mineral working in green belts should be examined carefully, and development should be allowed only where the highest standards of operation and restoration can be achieved.
Nevertheless, MPG3 does not encourage applications for green-field sites but says that priority should be given to proposals involving the clearance of dereliction. If operators wish to work sensitive green-field sites, they will need to demonstrate that real benefits will accrue from their proposals.
§ Ms Ruddockrose—
§ Sir Paul BeresfordI shall not give way because I have only one and a half minutes left, and I want to touch on a few more questions.
There are some good examples, one of which was cited by the hon. Member for Sherwood. Any hon. Member who happens to know the Rother valley country park, near Sheffield, will know that it represents another example of considerable success.
The importance of development plans has been touched on. That is a key element in meeting the Government's objectives and in ensuring that development and growth are sustainable. In emphasising a planning-led approach, the Government were responding to the concerns expressed that the 1988 guidance was too centrally driven. We believe that a plan-led approach to the supply of land for coal and colliery spoil disposal will provide more certainty for the industry and for the communities in areas where coal reserves exist.
The plans should set out criteria against which individual proposals will be assessed. The guidance makes clear that the criteria should include consideration of employment and other economics effects of the proposals, any environmental improvements or other material planning benefits likely to result, the effect on landscape and local amenity, the effect on the local environment of transporting coal off the site, the cumulative effects of the proposals on an area, the avoidance of sterilisation of mineral resources and the avoidance of unplanned piecemeal working of deposits, which was a matter about which my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) complained. The Secretary of State has visited my hon. Friend's constituency, and I intend to do so as well. I may not have the stature of my right hon. Friend, but I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome me nevertheless.