Durham Beaches (Colliery Spoil) (Hansard, 24 July 1986)

§ Mr. Tracey

The practice of tipping colliery spoil along the Durham coast has been recognised as a serious environmental problem by successive Governments for some 20 years. There are, however, no easy solutions which do not pose a threat to jobs.

In recent years tipping has ceased at Blackball and extensive reclamation works removing the evidence of a long history of despoliation have been carried out, paid for by derelict land grant; at Horden and Easington some improvements have been made in recent years by the construction by British Coal of an experimental spoil disposal pipeline funded in part by my Department, and a spoil conveyor respectively. Tipping at Horden will cease by the Autumn and reclamation work funded by derelict land grant will start this year to remove the legacy of dereliction. Reclamation works are also planned at Easington. The Dawdon complex at Seaham is now the most urgent problem in this area. Late last year my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and I met the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) and representatives from the local authorities to discuss the situation in the area. At that meeting the local authority representatives pressed for beach tipping to be brought to an end and for the waste either to be dumped at sea or else taken inland to fill quarries and urged the Government to fund any additional costs involved. We have closely examined these proposals. We are satisfied that the disposal of waste at sea is not an acceptable alternative on environmental grounds. The disposal of waste to quarries inland would present fewer environmental problems, but the site proposed does not have sufficient capacity to take all the spoil that is expected to be produced over the life of the collieries. The costs of transportation are in any event high and could not be borne by the collieries concerned without placing their future in jeopardy, thus posing a serious threat to jobs in an area of high unemployment. We have carefully considered whether these additional costs should be funded by central Government. We have concluded that this would not be in accordance with this Government's commitment to the polluter pays principle. It must be for the industry—and ultimately the consumer—to pay the costs of meeting the environmental standards of the day. In practice these standards have to take into account the benefits that can be achieved and the costs they impose on industry. Clearly the benefits to be gained from the option of disposal at inland quarries could not be achieved without putting at risk the 6,000 jobs in the mines which currently dispose of waste at Seaham. That is not, a practical solution.

We have therefore concluded that a partial solution proposed by British Coal, which would result in a concentration of tipping at the Bankside disposal point, 369W while perpetuating undesirable beach tipping, represents the best practicable environmental option, at least in the short term. This would enable real environmental improvements to be made at a reasonable cost without placing jobs at risk.

This scheme will also provide substantial opportunities for reclamation at Noses Point and around the colliery and this work forms part of the proposal put forward by British Coal. There will also be opportunities to reclaim colliery despoliation away from the immediate vicinity of the mine, for example, the Blast Beach, and qualifying schemes will receive a high priority in the derelict land grant programme in the region. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and I are calling on the local authorities and British Coal to come forward jointly with reclamation schemes for this area in order that we may together improve an extremely despoiled environment as quickly as possible.