Open-cast Coal Sites (Restoration)

Debate between Madeleine Moon and Matt Hancock

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

That is exactly the issue at hand for the mines that are reaching the point at which they need restoration. The liability lies with the company, but, as we have heard from the many testimonies today, getting it to act is too difficult. That is the challenge that we face.

I turn now to the future, because the question that we all want to answer for our constituents is how we can solve this problem.

[Mrs Moon]

Celtic Energy is saying that it was given a 10-year exclusion from having to carry out any restoration because it paid a higher price for the licence. In 1994, the Government said that it did not have to put money aside. Is the Minister saying that it is wrong, and in fact the price it paid implied that it had to put more money aside rather than put no money aside?

[Matthew Hancock]

The expected cost of future restoration was taken into account in the amount that the companies paid at the time for the right to mine.

We will work with all parties on this. I look forward to working with Treasury civil servants and, I hope, Ministers, but also with Members in the House today, with the Coal Authority, which has an important role to play, and with devolved Administrations and local government. I confirm the offer of the meeting that we discussed earlier this month. I will ask the Coal Authority to make sure that it makes itself available to Members to discuss, in particular, the detailed issue of having the often highly specialist expertise needed within mineral planning authorities to tackle these problems.

I want to turn to the Hargreaves proposal, which was recently discussed in Westminster Hall. The suggestion is that if available resources at unrestored sites orphaned by failed companies could be mined and sold exempt of carbon price support payments, sufficient revenue could be generated to restore the sites to a good standard. The proposal is unusual because it suggests using a tax exemption to pay for a cash obligation. Employment creation and retention and the offsetting of tax generated are cited as additional benefits, above and beyond the core environmental question.

We are working with the Treasury on whether there can be exemptions from the carbon price floor. The Treasury has the lead on the carbon price floor because it is a tax, but that issue is worth considering. The CPF exists to enable us to meet our climate obligations, and it is an important part of our armament for tackling climate change. We have capped the carbon price floor—we have fixed it, so to speak—but I am happy to look at that and to continue to discuss it with my hon. Friends.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Madeleine Moon and Matt Hancock

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

T3. Britain has a crisis in finding young people willing to study engineering, yet I have received an e-mail about a 19-year-old who has been offered a place on a pathways to apprenticeships engineering course. He will get access to £30 a week living allowance, but he will lose his unemployment allowance and he cannot access student grants. He may well not be able to take up the course. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is joined-up action across Departments for young people who want to study crisis employment subjects?

[Matthew Hancock]

I recognise the problem that used to exist. The introduction of traineeships has tackled that. It is now possible for someone to go on a traineeship while still receiving their jobseeker’s allowance, because we have tackled the 16-hour rule for traineeships. If the hon. Lady writes to me about the individual case, I will make sure it is taken into account.