Coal Tip Safety and New Extraction Licences

Ben Lake Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Michael Shanks]

First, I should say that I am not the Chancellor. Such questions are rightly for the Chancellor at Budgets and spending reviews. However, I will say, as the Minister responsible for the Coal Authority, that we will look at this. The £600 million figure that was given was a provisional estimate, not a programmed budget. It was based on the very limited information that was available in 2020. A considerable amount of work, particularly on the mapping of these sites, has been done subsequently, and £180 million was given as the realistic amount of funding that could be used to protect communities now.

This needs to be based on evidence. Bandying around bigger figures does not necessarily improve the quality of the programme. The figure at the moment gives a signal of how seriously we take it, but also of the practical funding on the ground, to deliver what we think, based on more detailed information, the actual programme that is necessary. But of course we will always look at requests.

I want to reflect on some other things that have been established. The Disused Tips Authority for Wales will prevent unstable disused tips from threatening welfare. That is an important step forward, and will bring together some key people to deal with the matter. The Mining Remediation Authority, formerly known as the Coal Authority, is one of my Department’s partner bodies and is also playing an active role—in working partnership with the Welsh Government, in an advisory role—to ensure that a risk-based inspection and monitoring programme is in place, which has not been the case in the past.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

The Minister mentions the Mining Remediation Authority. I commend it for the work that it has commenced to address another hazard of our mining legacy: that of metal mines and lead pollution in particular. Does the Minister think that the work we are doing on coal might serve as a template for dealing with the historic legacy and problem of lead mines? Sadly, many of them are located in my constituency.

[Michael Shanks]

That is a very interesting point. I am sure that the Mining Remediation Authority, which I think I am meeting next week, will be delighted to hear the hon. Member’s praise, although perhaps it is also listening to this debate and wondering slightly how it is going to deliver another piece of work. The hon. Member’s point is useful, and I will take it back to colleagues. To date, the MRA has carried out 3,500 inspections, with the higher-rated category D and C tips continuing to be inspected on a six-monthly or annual basis.

Let me turn to the question of licensing. The Mining Remediation Authority currently serves as the licensor for most coal extraction in Great Britain. It is the owner of the UK’s unworked coal reserves. Our manifesto was very clear that we would not grant new coal licences, so we will amend the MRA’s licensing duties. The MRA takes the view that removing coal from tips that are made up of coalmining waste does not fall under the licensable activities defined in its legislation.

Extracting coal from tips does, however, require planning consent, which has to address all the environmental impacts individually. Most coal tips are owned by local authorities or private individuals, who under current legislation are responsible for maintaining their safety and stability. Local authorities have the primary responsibility for tip washing and reclamation schemes, through their planning and enforcement powers. We acknowledge the suggestion to make this type of coal extraction a licensable activity under the MRA, which would allow for a licensing prohibition, but our view is that the current planning policies around the regulations set by devolved Governments already provide robust frameworks.

We are a Government who believe in devolution. We created devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland because we believe in devolving power to those authorities, so they are closer to people and to individual circumstances. It is right that we take their lead on these questions. Their firm view is that they can bring into effect the aim of the Welsh Government and the UK Government to make sure that extraction of coal is a thing of the past. Their view is that their existing powers do that.

Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities

Ben Lake Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Michael Shanks]

I am, and I am always happy to have more conversations with Ofgem about its regulatory role. If the hon. Gentleman has specific things he wants to raise, I am happy to follow up. I will not give way again, as we have very short time.

While it is absolutely right that communities should have a voice in this, should be able to scrutinise planning applications, should be able to object and should be able to understand how those objections affect the proposals, it is also right that we recognise as a country that we have to build infrastructure and that it has to be built somewhere. That is vital for our energy security and for the future of our country.

The grid has suffered from decades of under-investment. The legacy means we are constraining the amount of cheap, clean power we have in our system. Upgrading and expanding the electricity grid is not optional. The reason I challenge some of what the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said earlier is because a number of his proposals were not in the previous Government’s plan for the future of the energy grid. It was the previous Government who said that we need a great British grid upgrade, and they outlined many of the plans that are now being delivered across the country. Undergrounding was not a feature of those plans either.

It is critical that our current grid, which was largely built in the 1960s and was not designed to handle the type of power generation or electricity demand we have now, is upgraded. In 2023, the previous Government estimated that four times as much transmission infrastructure would need to be built by the end of the decade as had been built by 1990. This is not a Labour Government plan; it is the previous Conservative Government’s plan.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the role of NESO, and I want to reflect on the point that he and other hon. Members rightly make that strategically planning the future of our energy system has been a significant failure. The truth is that decades ago, under the previous Labour and Conservative Governments, we should have more holistically planned the future of our energy system to make sure we get the most out of it, and to make sure that we are building the least possible amount of network infrastructure. That work was not done, so NESO is now leading the strategic spatial energy plan to make sure that, across the country, we have a holistic view of what our future energy system should look like.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I will not give way; sorry.

That will also include a centralised network plan so that we have a network that fits generation across the country, and so that we build as little as possible while still getting the most out of the energy system.

In the minute or two I have left, I want to say that we recognise the point about community benefits. Because of the network infrastructure, electricity is flowing through communities that do not necessarily understand the benefit they get from it. First, cheaper power in the system brings down everyone’s bills, so it is in all of our interest. Secondly, we have recognised the problem, which is why we have introduced community benefits for households directly affected by transmission infrastructure—the first time we have done that as a country. There is money off bills for people who have infrastructure in their locality, and there are also community benefits for substations and other infrastructure. That is currently commonplace for onshore wind and solar, but not for network infrastructure. We want to change that so there is a direct benefit from this infrastructure.

We need to be honest about the scale of the challenge we face as a country. We cannot meet future electricity demand without building grid infrastructure. I am sorry to say that means it has to be built somewhere. There is no magical third place where we can build infrastructure. We want to work with communities to make sure it is done with them, wherever possible, and so they benefit from it, but ultimately the whole country benefits when we have a functioning grid that delivers cheap, clean, secure electricity to people’s homes and businesses.

I have 20 seconds left, but I am very happy to meet the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, as I am genuinely happy to meet Members on both sides of the House. It is important that we do this with communities. I want to hear their concerns and questions. That does not mean it will always be possible to do exactly what every community wants, but I am happy to have those conversations. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk for securing this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Budget Resolutions

Ben Lake Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the Chancellor did not make an announcement on personal tax thresholds, which, for some Conservative Members, was unexpected and reflected the difficult inheritance of the new Government. Labour Members are proud of the minimum wage, now called the living wage, which has been one of the most successful policies in the history of this country—and even some Conservatives claim credit or support the measure as a policy innovation.

There is no doubt about the burden on the hospitality sector, because if the living wage goes up for people employed in it, that is a business cost. We have to acknowledge that. What those businesses fundamentally need are customers who have some spending power to use their disposable income in those places. The rise is not without benefit, but I recognise that it is painful.

The future for this country, however, cannot be as a low-wage, low-productivity economy that does not give people the living standards they want. I have been on television many times talking about the stagnant wages of the last Government. I want wages to be higher. The doubling of the employment allowance in the Budget recognises the burden on those types of businesses, which can now employ up to four people on the living wage without any national insurance liabilities at all. We have to have a system that accommodates those burdens, but fundamentally this Government are in favour of higher wages, and we are not going to pull away from that in any measure.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

The Secretary of State is right to emphasise the importance of a well-funded public sector and well-provisioned public- sector organisations to economic growth. He will also be aware that questions remain about how much additional support public-sector organisations will receive to cover the additional costs of employer national insurance contributions. Does the Secretary of State expect or anticipate those employers to be compensated in full for those additional costs?

[Mr Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate point that is considerably outside the remit of the Department for Business and Trade. He is right to put that issue on the record. There will be opportunity for clarity in that space. I understand why, for his constituents, he will want to ask that question in the Budget debate.

As Members’ interventions have shown, the Budget is not just about a set of policies that will be to the advantage of larger businesses; they will also be important to our smallest start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as for our oldest, biggest family firms. We have committed to hardwiring the views of small businesses into everything we do, and we have already started to do that. That is why in September, together with the Federation of Small Businesses, we announced robust measures to tackle late payments with a new fair payment code and tough, new rules on company reporting.

At the same time, we are reforming the British Business Bank to free up precious capital for SMEs to expand, to create new jobs, and to take ideas from design to development. The Chancellor’s Budget gives the green light to my Department to invest over £1 billion over the next two years so that the British Business Bank can widen access to finance for small businesses across the country. That includes over £250 million each year for small business loans programmes, like our start-up loans and the growth guarantee scheme.

As hon. Members will know and have asked about during the debate, while we are raising national insurance contributions, we have mitigated the impacts for small businesses by doubling the employment allowance to £10,500. That means 1 million small businesses will either be paying the same or less in national insurance contributions than they do now. That is why the Federation of Small Businesses has said that the

“Budget shows a clear direction in business policy now for the whole of this Parliament to target support at small businesses…prioritising everyday entrepreneurs working in local communities in all parts of the country.”

Through this new support for SMEs, the stability afforded by our new industrial strategy and the resetting of our trade relations, we are showing unequivocally that the UK supports business, wants to partner with business and is open for business.

That pro-worker, pro-business approach is already having a significant impact. Last month, hundreds of the world’s biggest firms and investors, from Blackstone to the BW Group, Haleon to Holtec, lined up at our international investment summit to back Britain and back this Government’s growth mission. That summit resulted in £63 billion of private investment commitments, more than double the amount secured by the previous Government last year—and in just 100 days. It will see billions of pounds flowing into our tech, digital, manufacturing and life sciences sectors, spurring growth in all four nations of the United Kingdom and creating almost 38,000 new jobs in the process.

We saw something else at that business and international investment summit: a ringing endorsement of this Government’s restoration of stability for the UK economy. IFM Investors said that it was

“very encouraged by the new government’s commitment to a long-term pro-investment mindset.”

Ørsted, a global leader in green energy, stated that the main reason it was investing more in the UK was because of our green energy targets. It recognised us as

“a government who wants work with business to enable the investments required.”

M&G went one step further. It said:

“The UK has a clear national mission to drive economic growth and back wealth creation across every region of the country.”

It welcomed our efforts to

“put the UK back on the investor map, showcase market opportunities and reinforce how business and government can work in partnership.”

Let there be no doubt, despite the dust the Opposition are trying to kick up, this is a Budget with stability at its core, which sets a course for growth and rebuilds Britain. The former Prime Minister’s response baulked at the wave of new investment this Budget ushers, but he could not be more wrong. While we are restoring economic stability and going for growth, we are keeping debt on a downward path. Indeed, on the back of the Budget, the IMF has said that it supports the reduction in the deficit over the medium term, including by sustainably raising revenue. It recognises what we on the Government Benches know to be true—the principal way to drive economic growth is to invest, invest and invest.

May I remind the Opposition that we have tried their way? All that did was stagnate wages, stifle growth and put the public finances into a £22 billion black hole, with nothing to show for it. We cannot cut our way out of a hole; we need investment to lift the economy up. Having endured the last Government lurching from crisis to crisis, the British people voted in July overwhelmingly for change. They voted for a Government that would set Budgets to serve their long-term interests, not serve the news cycle or election cycle. They voted for stability, for growth and to fix the foundations. That is exactly what this Budget delivers, and I commend it to the House.

Post Office Governance and Horizon Compensation Schemes

Ben Lake Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

In recent weeks, I have met with a number of constituents who are former sub-postmasters and who have explained the terrible impact that this scandal has had on their lives. Although they were not convicted by the Post Office, they had to pay large sums of money for shortfalls that frankly did not exist. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government’s expectation is that those people will be compensated not only for the money they paid, but the financial and personal harm that this scandal caused in their lives?

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is definitely what we are trying to do. No one should be in a worse position than they were in before the scandal happened. Where we can provide additional compensation, we will be able to do so, and that is what the process is set up to do.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Ben Lake Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is right that Alan Bates has said he will not accept his OBE until Paula Vennells’ CBE has been withdrawn. That is another good reason for her to hand back her CBE, because it would allow Alan to be recognised, quite rightly, through the honours process.

My hon. Friend raised a good point, and we are keen to ensure that anything we do is UK-wide, not just England-based, so I am sure that those conversations will take place. The conversations we have had with the Lord Chancellor have really only happened today. We need to get to a position that would resolve this situation and meet the requirements of the advisory board and others across the House. I am sure that that conversation will be going on between the Lord Chancellor and his counterparts in other parts of the United Kingdom.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

In recent days, I have been written to by many constituents expressing their horror at the extent of this injustice and, indeed, their outrage that honest, innocent sub-postmasters such as Mr Noel Thomas were not only convicted but imprisoned for a crime they did not commit—indeed, a crime that had not in fact happened. Those constituents will be glad to hear about some of the actions the Minister has outlined to accelerate not only the exoneration of those who were wrongly convicted but the payment of compensation.

The Minister referred to those who are impacted by this scandal but who might not have been convicted themselves. One sub-postmaster in my constituency paid up for a shortfall that had not actually occurred, because of the pressure and the fear of conviction. Do we have firm information about, and a grasp of, how many sub-postmasters and former sub-postmasters might find themselves in that position? Is it not now for the Post Office to reach out to those individuals to ensure that they come forward for compensation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points. Yes, as I say, we are keen to exonerate more people more quickly; that is exactly what we intend to do and what we have been looking at today, and we hope to give more information as quickly as possible. We want there to be quicker, easier exoneration and also easier compensation. That is exactly the opportunity that the scheme for overturning convictions delivers. People can take a more detailed assessment route, where it takes time to compile and respond to a claim, or they can simply move past that system and take a fixed award of £600,000, which is available to anybody who has an overturned conviction. That should encourage more people to come forward.

In terms of other people who had shortfalls but have not been convicted, there is the Horizon shortfall scheme. Some 2,417 people applied to that scheme within the timescale. About another 500, I think, applied after time, but they have still been accepted into the scheme. Anybody in that position should have access to compensation. One hundred per cent of the people in the original cohort—the 2,417—have had offers, and 85% have accepted, so we are making significant progress. All postmasters should have been communicated with and written to, but if the hon. Gentleman is aware of any postmaster affected who has not been, I am happy to work with him to make sure they can access compensation.