UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 221-ii

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

WELSH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Energy in Wales: follow-up

Tuesday 23 January 2007

MR NIGEL HUGHES, MR LES WATKIN, MR CLEM LLEWELYN

and MR GARETH JONES

MR RHYDIAN DAVIES, MR RICHARD NUGENT, MR JAMES POYNER, MR GERWYN LLEWELLYN WILLIAMS and MR JOHN ANTHONY

MS GAYNOR BALL, MS SUZANNE DE CELIS,

MR RORY FRANCIS and MR GRAHAM BRADLEY

Evidence heard in Public Questions 93 - 217

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Welsh Affairs Committee

on Tuesday 23 January 2007

Members present

Dr Hywel Francis, in the Chair

David T C Davies

Nia Griffith

Mrs Siān C James

Mr David Jones

Mr Martyn Jones

Albert Owen

________________

Witnesses: Mr Nigel Hughes, Chairman, Opencast Coal Committee of Wales, Mr Clem Llewelyn, Secretary, Opencast Coal Committee of Wales, Mr Les Watkin, Treasurer, Opencast Coal Committee of Wales and Mr Gareth Jones, Senior Regional Industrial Organiser, TGWU, gave evidence.

Chairman: Good morning. It is the intention of the Welsh Affairs Committee this morning to pay tribute to the late Peter Clarke, the first Children's Commissioner for Wales, and, indeed, the First Children's Commissioner in the United Kingdom, who gave evidence several times to this Committee, by holding a minute's silence in his memory. [Silence was observed for one minute] This is the second session of the follow-up inquiry into energy in Wales. As I explained last week in the first session, this is being undertaken for two reasons: first of all, the publication of the Stern Report and the Government's response to it, particularly in relation to climate change, is something that we wanted to revisit. Secondly, whilst we took some evidence in the main inquiry on coal, we felt that it was important to recognise the importance of getting more detailed evidence on surface mining and also on deep mining. For the record, as I indicated last week, I wish to declare that I was associated with some of my constituents in opposition to a planning application at Park Slip Opencast, an application which has now been withdrawn. I also wish to declare that I was the official historian of the National Union of Mineworkers (South Wales Area) in the 1970s and in the 1980s I was Chair of the Wales Congress in Support of Mining Communities. Does any other member wish to declare anything?

Mr Martyn Jones: Chairman, I have been a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union since 1973.

Q93 Chairman: Welcome, this morning. For the record could I ask you to introduce yourselves, please.

Mr Jones: My name is Gareth Jones. I am a senior regional industrial organiser with the Transport and General Workers' Union based in Swansea.

Mr Hughes: My name is Nigel Hughes. I am chairman of the Opencast Coal Committee of Wales and also the branch secretary of the Margam site with the T&G.

Mr Watkin: My name is Les Watkin. I am the treasurer of Opencast Coal Committee of Wales. I am also a chairman of Nant Helen opencast coal site.

Mr Llewelyn: Clem Llewelyn, secretary of the Opencast Coal Committee of Wales, senior steward and secretary of the Selar Opencast site.

Q94 Chairman: Thank you for the memorandum, Transport and General Workers and the Opencast Coal Committee of Wales. In your memorandum, the Transport and General Workers states that "security of supply, security against the volatility of freight rates and exchange rates, and a reliance on limited port capacity", those are major issues for you. Can you provide the Committee with more detail of these perceived advantages?

Mr Jones: We believe that indigenous coal primarily offers security of supply as opposed to imported coal. I cannot give any detail on freight rates or exchange rates but that obviously has an impact - exchange rates in particular - on the price of imported coal.

Q95 Chairman: In your memorandum you identify several obstacles to the further successful development of the opencast coal industry; for example, increases in the duty of off-road diesel. Other than planning issues, which clearly in your evidence and in other evidence is very important, which we will come to shortly, what more can you tell the Committee about the obstacles which you have identified for the potential development of opencast?

Mr Jones: I have made reference to the duty on diesel. I have also indicated that it amounts to what we perceive to be a double taxation, in effect, but the primary obstacle as we see it is planning. I am advised that the powers that we are considering impose a presumption against opencast as it currently exists in Scotland. We believe that was illogical and, indeed, disadvantages coal as opposed to other sources of energy. We primarily view planning issues as the main obstacle.

Q96 Mr Martyn Jones: Celtic Energy's memorandum to the Committee maintains that "coal mining is still a vital part of the South Wales economy ... there are still at least 1,000 people at work directly in the coal industry, with perhaps an equal number indirectly employed. These jobs are well paid and skilled. Their loss to any community would be dramatic". Would you like to comment on the importance of the coal industry in terms of employment throughout Wales and its contribution to the wider economy?

Mr Jones: The information that we have, and this was made available at the public inquiry for the Ffos-y-fran application, was that in the region some 3,000 jobs are associated with coal production and, indeed, Aberthaw Power Station as well. That was a significant number of people employed directly and indirectly as a result of coal extraction in Wales.

Mr Hughes: It has a major role to play. We have a Welsh plant on our doorstep currently being fired by foreign imports of coal. We believe that the Welsh coalfield has a major role to play in that. As Gareth has suggested, that is a big obstacle for us. The demand is there but, when it comes to planning applications, we seem to be spending millions of pounds on applications before we can dig a particular tent pole out of the ground, so that is a major concern for us. We can only mine coal where it is. A lot of these communities in Wales have been built around the coalfield through generations.

Mr Llewelyn: Most is around our area - Nigel in Margam, Les in Nant Helen, myself working in Selar at the top end of the valley - and, as we have found in the past, since the demise of the mines there is no other employment coming up to the Valleys; in fact, there is nothing further than Cardiff. Although we are grateful for jobs coming into that area, we have to look after the employment in the Valleys. Yes, rightly so it is a well-paid job. It is not very favourable to a lot of people but it pays and it not only involves, as Gareth rightly said, men actually working on the site, but it involves the lorries, the trains with Aberthaw Power Station which is unique to us and it is essential that we keep jobs in the southwest Wales area.

Mr Hughes: We have just secured the East Pit application at the top of the Amman Valley and for the 200 vacancies that have come out of that we currently have in the region of 2,000 application forms. They are well-paid jobs. We would all like to work for the call centres or in office work but, unfortunately, in the areas that we are from mining is a big part of these communities, very deep mines or opencast. For every one employed on these sites there are two employed outside, or possibly three involved in processing and the whole community revolves around these areas.

Q97 Mr Martyn Jones: Is there any potential for jobs in my part of Wales, northeast Wales?

Mr Watkin: I live in Ystradgynlais which is the top end of the Swansea Valley. There is a little village called Ystalyfera. If you ever travel to Ystalyfera all businesses are boarded up, even the High Street in Swansea is boarded up through lack of jobs in the Valleys. I work at Nant Helen and currently there are 70 well paid jobs at Nant Helen. The coal we extract cannot be extracted by deep mine because of the geological conditions and coal outcrops.

Q98 Nia Griffith: The environmental health officer in my local authority has explained to me that if an industry wants to locate near to a housing estate then he will write a report on the potential health effects on the housing estate, but he is not notified when people want to put housing in an industrial area. For example, a new estate is built up and suddenly they complain about the noise. Do you think there is a case for people thinking is this good coal under here before they give planning permission for brand new housing estates because we might want to get that coal out later and we might find ourselves having put up brand new houses right next door to an ideal opencast site? Are we creating a problem for ourselves?

Mr Hughes: What we find is, even though we have these sites currently operating, people moving into the area, even though they have paid for land searches and followed the right procedures when they bought their property, have never been aware of the possibility of a site being extended or the lifespan of the site. That never comes to light, even though the mineral is there. The other thing is in relation to health screening. The company we work for is Celtic Energy and because of the allegations that have been made over many, many years on health, that is an issue I take very seriously. We have introduced a health screening programme on all Celtic Energy sites and all employees and the subcontractors coming in are screened. I have been involved in the industry for over 36 years. I have worked in opencast and I have worked in deep mining and I can honestly say that I am a non-smoker. I have a health screening programme every two years with the company I work with now and I have yet to see any dust form in my lungs. I am quite willing for this Committee to look at any of that any time they want to. That is all I have done throughout my working life.

Q99 Mr Martyn Jones: Going back to Celtic Energy's memorandum, they refer to estimates that coal's contribution to energy regeneration: "could fall between 15 and 20% over the next 10 to 15 years". They say that: "its effect on jobs and the local economy will be major and should not be underestimated". Do you agree with this?

Mr Hughes: Yes.

Q100 Mr Martyn Jones: Moving on to the Transport and General Workers' memorandum which notes that "imported coal means exported jobs" and goes on to say that "everything must be done to ... minimise the amount of imported coal used in electricity generation", is the amount of imported coal used in electricity generation in the UK increasing or decreasing, and what is the direct effect on levels of employment in Welsh mining?

Mr Jones: My understanding is that the levels are increasing. The direct effect I do not know, but what I do know is that there are millions of tonnes of coal, not just in Wales, but available to be mined in the rest of the UK, and as long as the planning requirements are met then we should be exploiting those resources and maximising the opportunities for employment in the South Wales coalfield.

Mr Hughes: The difference between our extraction of coal and foreign extraction of coal is that ours is priced very, very heavily and the simple reason is the health and safety aspect. We have an excellent health and safety record and that comes with a price. That price is transformed onto the product that we produce. If you look at the coal coming into this country by Third World methods there is no health and safety, it is mined by children, accident rates are through the roof; you have only got to go on the internet to see that. I am the health and safety officer for South Wales. It is a job I take very, very seriously, but it comes with a price and that price is transferred onto the product that we produce.

Mr Llewelyn: We feel strongly about that and have done over the years that there is coal in this country. We could be self-sufficient for our own power station for the next 300 or 400 years. There is scope not only for opencast, but we strongly feel that there is scope for all the mining industry to carry on so that we can be self-sufficient. We have already had warnings in what happened last year with the gas coming from Russia. I work in production and Aberthaw asked the other day if we could produce more coal because 800,000 tonnes of Russian coal had not turned up because they refused to send it because they were selling gas at a better rate. This is what we fear will happen one day, that once you get rid of the indigenous industry then we will definitely be held to ransom on our energy.

Q101 Mrs James: I want to turn to skills and training. Energybuild's memorandum refers to a: "dearth of people with the required skills to immediately take up employment underground and on the surface". Do you agree with this assessment?

Mr Jones: I know there are representatives here today from Miller Argent who have applied to extract coal at Ffos-y-fran and to say that people do not have the skills in South Wales is an insult to the communities in South Wales. I know that both Celtic Energy, as the current main employer, and Miller Argent are totally committed to training and providing people with the opportunities to enhance what skills they already have and, indeed, to acquire new skills. That is a commitment from both employers and I am sure that would go for the deep mines as well.

Mr Hughes: What we have done at Celtic Energy through the union at all sites is we have managed to get the company to take on apprentices. The schemes are excellent. All locations now have these apprenticeships for fitters, electricians and welders; all these skills are being regenerated around these sites. The site I currently work on at Margam has three apprentices all coming from the local area. It is excellent training; only the best.

Q102 Mrs James: You have already mentioned Miller Argent. In their response to the DTI's Energy Review they said: "If the coal industry is forced into a decline in the short term and then expected to suddenly come into production five to ten years later ... it will be too late. The skilled workforce and expertise of the coal industry will be lost with little hope of getting it back." They believe that there should be a "critical mass" that we maintain otherwise the industry could fail. What is your view?

Mr Jones: My view would coincide with that.

Mr Hughes: There is a demand for the product we are producing and, as I said, we have a price on that because we adhere by strict legislation in relation to health and safety. That is passed on to the product. What we are finding is with the Welsh coalfield, whether it be opencast or deep mine, there is a demand for the product. Here we are through many, many years of desecration from the Tories bringing down the coal industry, and now gradually what we are seeing is a big turnaround of indigenous coal, and not only in major plants like Aberthaw; we are now seeing local communities, because of the price going on gas and oil, reverting back to indigenous coal. The evidence is there.

Q103 Mrs James: You have talked about the new skills and the new training opportunities. I come from an area where there was an opencast site and I have lived with an opencast site and family members have worked there. What about the men who leave the industry for whatever reason - maybe when a site closes and another site opens elsewhere - are there opportunities for retraining for them?

Mr Llewelyn: We are the forgotten people. Whenever you see somebody close a factory or the other day when the call centre was closed in Pembroke, we as opencast workers do not receive help. We are self-sufficient, we always have been; we go and look for jobs elsewhere and that is why we want to maintain it. It is my fortieth year in the industry this year and it is nice to know that it could have a future for the younger people coming in after us. The work is there for us. The work is in the Valleys to keep the Valleys and what we are looking for is that continuation. That is why we were formed in the Seventies to fight for the continuation of employment because in those days we were going from contract to contract. We have stabilised that. We have fought hard over the years and we are getting now where lads have self-esteem; that they know for a fact instead of working for three or four years they have got a better future and this is what we are trying to achieve. Not only that, but we can see the danger that is going ahead of us that one day when we switch that light on it is not going to be there and we will have had it from this country.

Q104 Mr David Jones: Mr Jones, I would like to turn to health and safety. In your memo you told the Committee that in the seven years of your association with the industry you have not encountered a single opencast worker who has suffered a respiratory illness as a result of working in an opencast mine. However, the Committee has had its attention drawn to a study carried out by the Cardiff Institute of Society, Health and Ethics on the proposed extension to the Margam opencast mine, which I am sure you are familiar with, and in that study there is a conclusion that, "there is sufficient uncertainty regarding the negative health impacts to apply the "precautionary principle" which would not allow opencast mining to proceed in ... close proximity to residential areas". That is a fairly wide difference of opinion. What have you got to say to that conclusion from the Cardiff Institute?

Mr Jones: I disagree with their view. Obviously the issue of dust/noise is a material consideration when planning applications are submitted. Those were always considered in the two public inquiries that I have been involved in - the East Pit extension and the Ffos-y-fran Land Reclamation Scheme - that was given consideration and the public inquiry came out in favour of both applications after considering the health impact. That report I understand was commissioned by the Anti Opencast Lobby - they have the right to do that and that is not a problem - but there is an equal amount of, if not more, evidence suggesting that there are no respiratory concerns associated with opencast mining.

Q105 Mr David Jones: You are very critical in your memo also of the extension of buffer zones from 200 metres. Do you not think those are applied for the very good reason that opencast mining is a dirty noisy activity?

Mr Jones: I disagree. Buffer zones can always be considered. I am not against buffer zones as they stand, but to have mandatory buffer zones set randomly by any authority without considering the implications of that particular site is wrong. Each application should be considered on its merits and the buffer zone, if appropriate, applied to that particular application. That is the point I am trying to make.

Q106 Mr David Jones: Do you think it would be reasonable for residents of neighbouring residential developments to be very concerned about proposals for new opencast mining in their vicinity in terms of noise, dust and general pollution?

Mr Jones: Yes, and those are the very issues that are raised at planning, at public inquiries and are considered by the relevant authorities when application is granted or otherwise. They are concerned with visual impact, noise, dust concerns and they are concerns that should be taken seriously. We totally support the rigorous planning procedures that apply not just to opencast coal but all other applications as well. It is right that employers are accountable and should be made accountable so the process is a rigorous one and it should be a rigorous one. I think having set buffer zones, as an example, is wrong. I think each application should be considered on its merits.

Q107 Mr David Jones: Could we turn to a memorandum received from Miller Argent which notes that: "opencast mining sites can be dangerous places to work and visit ... therefore safety is of paramount importance". You said in your memo to the Committee that the health and safety, both of your members and the neighbouring community, was your principal concern. To what extent do you promote health and safety both at and in the vicinity of opencast sites?

Mr Jones: Obviously as employers they have statutory obligations in relation to health and safety. In my organisation 90% of our work is health and safety related. We are there to promote health and safety in the workplace and to ensure that our members are put at minimal risk when they attend work. That includes exposure to noise, exposure to dust and all the other inherent dangers associated with the construction industry as well.

Q108 Albert Owen: You mentioned, Mr Jones, a short time ago about the planning system and you have identified in your submission that this is: "the greatest impediment to opencast coal production". Is the problem one of just delays and timescale, or is it of restrictions and controls? There is a slight contradiction in what we are hearing. You want a strict planning system and a rigorous one, but then you say there should not be these controls.

Mr Jones: First of all, I do not think that there should be a presumption against it but I know that it is being considered. You need to speak to some of the operators within the industry - Miller Argent, in particular, and I do not think Celtic Energy are here today - but they will be able to answer what effect the delays have because there must be an economic effect, I would have thought. Certainly it is a frustration for us because when we have the unemployment rates that we have in Merthyr, for example, and the Ffos-y-fran Land Reclamation Scheme has the opportunity to employ up to 600 people in an area that desperately needs those jobs, then we are frustrated by that.

Q109 Albert Owen: I understand the economic arguments; everybody has made those in their submissions, all I am saying is, is it the length of time whereby companies get fed up and move on because of the planning process or is it the actual restrictions that everybody has to adhere to?

Mr Jones: I think the restrictions are appropriate. Each application has certain criteria. Inevitably at the end of any planning application or inquiry, and our experience is that it inevitably goes to public inquiry, there is inevitability about any application associated with opencast going to a public inquiry. That is the legal situation that something has to be done, we understand that, but I cannot give you the answer on the impact that it has financially. We think that the restrictions that are applied are proper because it holds employers to account and we can only support that.

Q110 Albert Owen: We will be asking the employers. Do you have any other comments on the planning system?

Mr Llewelyn: You have to adhere to planning but, as workers, it is stretched and what we are fearful is that there will be that gap and we get unemployment and it takes then a year, two years, three years to go through the system and that means that some of our members - this is what we try to alleviate - are unemployed, which is vastly devastating and is a great loss to the area.

Q111 Albert Owen: It is the length of time.

Mr Llewelyn: Yes, there is that.

Mr Hughes: The site I am on has just applied for an application to extend. To give you some sort of an example, we waited over two years and by the time the company approached the environmental people to carry out the environmental study on the application two years went by before we actually got a site. How can a company operate and look after its employees and its order books for planning for the future? It is a crazy situation. It just drags on and on and on.

Q112 Albert Owen: Is not the onus on the employer to get consultants to do it well in advance?

Mr Hughes: Yes, but, like I say - I do not want to pick out each individual - we have been involved as a committee on several applications on different sites within South Wales and what we are finding in the process is this dragging on and dragging on and it does not seem to be coming to an end.

Mr Llewelyn: Before the public inquiry we fought hard for the extension in East Pit. After it went to the planning officer, et cetera, it was passed. Then, as the Assembly called it back in that was another 12-14 months before it went to a public inquiry and this is what we are seeing, that our lads are unemployed for another 12-14 months and further. I am sure that Miller Argent will give evidence that there has been a lot of suffering over this and, yes, we have opposed these companies in the past but they should start earlier so that when one ends they are ready, but then something always crops up which delays it and they go back and it goes from one to the other, further out. Because we have a Welsh Assembly that was added on and they can recall it and call it in and it ends up in a public inquiry. What we try to explain to people, and we have got the company to do this, is the money they spend, which is a lot of money, to go to a public inquiry we hand them to put into a fund. Like with Glynneath, they did not go to a public inquiry; there was a million pounds set up for the Glynneath community and that was what happened because they saved that on a public inquiry.

Q113 Mrs James: I wanted to ask a supplementary question because in the question about skills and training you referred to this continuous moving on and you have just mentioned it again and I thought it might be helpful to the Committee if I asked each of you how many years you have been in the industry and how many sites you have worked at.

Mr Hughes: I have been in the industry for 36 years. I have worked in deep mine and opencast, I have worked on every aspect of the job starting from a very young age, from underground progressing to opencast. I have worked at every level of the opencast industry and I have seen major changes over many years, changes that Gareth rightly says are for the good environmental-wise. You touched upon noise. There are very strict restrictions regarding noise. What we are finding is that when the company goes off and buys certain equipment it has to meet criteria in relation to noise levels. If it does not meet certain criteria they do not purchase it. Every bit of kit on-site is looked at. Noise is a big issue. Speaking as a family man, if I thought the industry was doing any damage to any child's health or any person's property that I have been involved in over 36 years, I would not be sitting down here defending it.

Q114 Mrs James: How many sites have you worked at?

Mr Hughes: I have worked with all the major contractors. Over 36 years I have probably worked with five.

Mr Watkin: I have been in the industry since the early Seventies. This is my third current site. The first site was Maesgwynne at the top of Glynneath bank. There I progressed to East Pit where I spent a good number of years and at present I am at Nant Helen where I have been for quite a number of years.

Mr Llewelyn: I started off in Maesgwynne in 1967, then I went to Tairgwaith, then I went back to Maesgwynne, then I went to Drym, then up to Maesgwynne, then to Nant Helen. I am now currently based at Selar, but I cover all the three sites.

Q115 Mrs James: Quite a lot of different jobs.

Mr Llewelyn: I am an old man now. I have been around a long time.

Mr Hughes: What we did as a union, before privatisation, was over many years we all worked for contractors and when a contract ended we did not have the opportunity to move on to another site; there was a different contractor there. What privatisation has brought to the coalfield where Celtic Energy is concerned is if a site is on run-down and there are applications coming available on other sites we do have this flexibility and this tendency to move men to try and secure a longer employment. From the trade union perspective, we have more or less covered every avenue we possibly can to keep our members in work and also bring in training skills, as I touched on earlier, in relation to apprentices. I think over a period of time we have done really well as a trade union. All sites are 100% union members. Health and safety and environment are a big part of that.

Q116 Chairman: Mr Llewelyn, you referred in your earlier evidence to opencast workers as the "forgotten people". In your evidence you give the impression that you are a little besieged. Would you characterise the Opencast Coal Committee of Wales as a trade union, or as a campaigning organisation, or a lobbying organisation? The reason I ask that is we now have the DTI setting up a coal forum bringing everyone together. To what extent does the Committee try to build relationships with other trades unions, with other organisations, to make the case for coal?

Mr Llewelyn: As I said earlier, we were formed in the Seventies and from the trade union we are self-funded by our own members to fight for the industry, to progress and to keep the industry growing. We have made inroads over many years, mainly through the Transport and General Workers' Union. We have touched on approaches in the last few years because we do believe that there is room for all mining, but obviously we have not touched much with the NUM although we have made inroads. We have collieries now in Scotland that we liaise with and they are having similar problems up there and we have tried to organise happenings in England where they are not as fully organised as us in Wales.

Q117 Chairman: Is there a Welsh coal forum? Is there a body that brings together everyone where they discuss the case for coal and how it can be developed?

Mr Hughes: We have attended two energy conferences over the last two years, ourselves with the T&G, where they have brought in members from coal, from nuclear, representatives all energy generators, and we attend conferences in Leeds every year where we bring in all the opencast sites from Scotland, England and Wales to discuss what problems they are getting, what problems we are getting, and some of them have been highlighted here today. As regards this Committee - Clem has touched upon it - yes, we are here to look after our members as a trade union, but this Committee is fully recognised by the Transport and General Workers' Union and also we will lobby on behalf of all members to try and secure as much work as we possibly can.

Q118 Chairman: Perhaps this is a question I should pose to Mr Jones really, that you are part of a wider trade union movement, you are part of the Wales TUC, you must have relationships beyond particular companies. Do you have a dialogue? Do you think about having a forum in Wales that brings together all of the interested parties?

Mr Jones: Yes, as an organisation we think that we have led the debate in Wales in terms of energy. We have had numerous conferences where we invite people from all walks of life in terms of the energy debate. BNFL have been invited to attend our conferences as well as NUM members and coal producers as well, so we are in constant dialogue via the good offices of the Wales TUC as well. It must be said that the Opencast Coal Committee, whilst they are T&G members, is an autonomous body. it is not a T&G committee.

Mr Llewelyn: I also attend the energy forum assembly. I have been twice to the St James' Hotel with the First Minister and all other aspects of energy are to be found there. I do attend when they appear.

Q119 Chairman: I recall about 30 years ago that there was a proposal for an energy union in Britain. Is that being discussed currently?

Mr Jones: The current discussion amongst the trades unions is the merger between us and Amicus. We are the two dominant unions within the energy industry and that is including coal, nuclear and gas-fired power stations. If that is an energy union, then we will be that union.

Chairman: Can I thank you all for all the evidence you have given, for the openness and the frankness of your evidence, both written and oral. If you feel that there is any other matter that you wish to raise with us, we would be very pleased to receive further written memoranda. Thank you very much.

Witnesses: Mr Rhydian Davies, Director, Energybuild, Mr Richard Nugent, Director, Energybuild, Mr James Poyner, Director, Miller Mining and Director of Miller Argent (South Wales) Limited, Mr Gerwyn Llewellyn Williams, Chairman, Unity Power Plc, and Mr John Anthony, Co-Director, Unity Power Plc, gave evidence.

Q120 Chairman: Good morning. Could you please introduce yourselves?

Mr Davies: Rhydian Davies of Energybuild, running the Aberpergwm mine in the Neath Valley.

Mr Nugent: Richard Nugent, Co-director with Rhydian for Energybuild, running the Aberpergwm deep mine and some associated opencast.

Mr Poyner: James Poyner. I am a director responsible for the mining activities of the Miller Group Limited and I am also a director of the joint venture company Miller Argent (South Wales) who are the developers and builders of the Ffos-y-fran project in Merthyr Tydfil.

Mr Williams: Gerwyn Williams, Chairman of Unity Power Plc.

Mr Anthony: John Anthony, director of Unity Power which is the owner of the Unity mine in the Neath Valley.

Q121 Chairman: I begin by asking you all a question about the future prospects of the coal industry in Wales. The Secretary of State, the Right Hon Peter Hain, said in the Western Mail on 4 January that, "there is now a good future for coal mining, deep mining as well". Do you agree with his assessment for the future?

Mr Davies: From my own personal opinion, yes, I think he is right in his assumption there. However, it must be taken into account that training for youngsters to attract them into mining and keep them going in mining because, as my colleague mentioned earlier, it is not a short term training course in a mine - it is four years to train an electrician or a fitter to work underground - and although we have 45 men working with us underground, we have five apprentices and they have been there for three years. That is what has to be taken into account and that was the point that my colleague, Richard, was trying to point out under the training and the Mines Rescue.

Q122 Chairman: We will come on to that in a moment.

Mr Nugent: I think the decision by RWE Npower to opt into the Large Plant Combustion Directive has given new lifeblood for coal in Wales on the basis that most of the coal in Wales that we as operators are working in is in the anthracite field as opposed to steam coal. The station at Aberthaw is built and designed to burn Welsh coal. I am sure that ultimately the supply balance between imported and indigenous is always going to be there, but there is not a lot of that type of coal available in the 300 million tonnes market for coal. It is mainly steam coal and the indigenous reserve in Wales is suitable for that station. I think in light of RWE's decision that should be supported by more directives to isolating areas of coal in Wales that can feed into that station.

Mr Poyner: I would agree with what Richard has just said. We have always believed that there is a future for coal in Wales. Whether it is a good future depends on continuity of access to the coal reserves and the market conditions, but certainly the way the industry has developed, particularly in recent years and particularly as a result of RWE installing FGD at Aberthaw, then we also believe there is a good future ahead of us.

Mr Williams: Yes, the Secretary of State is absolutely correct as far as we are concerned. When we talk about coal in Wales, I do not think anybody really has a handle on the amount of coal that there is in Wales because the exploration previously carried out has been dependent on British Coal or small amounts of shallow exploration taken on by private companies since the privatisation of the industry. When we talk about coal in Wales I think we totally underestimate the resource there is in Wales. There are huge resources of coal. A lot has been said to be unmineable but that does not mean that the energy cannot be extracted from that coal. There is a good future for deep mining in the reserves we have already quantified and we think there is a major role for coal in sustainable development. Underground mining can look after economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainable development.

Q123 Nia Griffith: Turning to a couple of technical questions, the responsibility for making power stations cleaner with clean coal technology is obviously primarily with the generators, but what discussions do you have as producers with the generators and is there likely to be any knock-on effect on the demand for particular types of coal?

Mr Williams: We are in very frequent communication with RWE, but as well as the existing generators we believe that there is a role for modern stations to be built in South Wales. These stations to comply with existing emissions legislation do not have to be your ultramodern technology; they can be standard proven technology, fluidised bed with good back end (as we call them) clean-up systems on them, so as well as talking with the existing RWE, the power station owners, we do believe there is a secondary role for the construction of smaller stations strategically placed throughout South Wales and that is our interest.

Mr Nugent: As operators there is not a lot we can do. Coal is coal and as we take it out of the ground and put it through a beneficiation plant, it is fairly simple technology. I think the decisions that RWE have taken, for instance, are led by government and government through subsidy or enhanced grant aid or whatever. So we, as mining companies, mine coal, that coal is suitable for, in this case, Aberthaw Power Station, but we cannot mine clean coal. The clean coal is the way in which it is burnt. It is more to do with the emissions standard than the feedstock.

Q124 Nia Griffith: Absolutely. That is why I said it is the actual power stations.

Mr Poyner: Yes, coal is coal, but not all coal is the same. In fact, we do engage with the power stations with regard to the different qualities of coal that we are able to produce and together form the most economical and advantageous blend to fit within emission constraints.

Q125 Nia Griffith: That is very much the question I was going to ask which is about the advantages that the South Wales coalfield has in offering diversity of coal.

Mr Poyner: Aberthaw Power Station, which is the biggest coal-fired power station in South Wales - there are only two coal-fired power stations - was specifically built to burn the type of coal with the characteristics that can only be found in the South Wales coalfield. The other coalfields within the United Kingdom cannot supply coal of a compliant specification to be burnt in the Aberthaw Power Station. There is only the coal in the South Wales coalfield that can be provided to burn at a 100% compliant spec at Aberthaw.

Q126 Nia Griffith: When we were at Aberthaw we were told that they would prefer to burn Welsh coal than imported coal presumably for exactly the reasons you have outlined.

Mr Poyner: Because it was built just to do that.

Q127 Nia Griffith: There are two questions then: why is it that they cannot get enough Welsh coal and, secondly, would you like to make any comment on the fact that, as we understand it, as a result of this inquiry last year the actual price now of Welsh coal is actually competitive to that of imported coal? It is actually in a state where it would be less if it were not for certain artificial factors that you put in there binding it to a certain price.

Mr Poyner: I think historically the Welsh coalfields would have been able to supply all of Aberthaw's needs, but due to the advent of the Large Combustion Plant Directive there are certain emissions that have, subsequent to the build of Aberthaw, been introduced and the most significant of these is the sulphur content. The sulphur content of the coal to be found in Wales is quite high compared with the sulphur content of imported coal and because of that they really need a blend of imported coal and indigenous coal in order to bring the sulphur down. In terms of competitiveness, we are now extremely competitive with the price of international coal; in fact we are cheaper, despite the fact of the very weak US dollar. International coal is traded in US dollars and we are actually cheaper, despite the very high exchange rate.

Q128 Nia Griffith: Are there any wider markets that you are able to access because you can blend opencast coal with deep-mined coal? Are there any other markets you can access?

Mr Nugent: There are two big markets in Wales: one is the Aberthaw Power Station and the other is the potential for introducing coal into coke-making and also into blast furnace injection in Port Talbot. Unfortunately, at the moment we are in talks with Corus but it is very difficult to get any answers because of the pending takeover and, of course, I suppose the decisions on where Port Talbot is going once that takeover is complete. There is a potentially large market alongside Aberthaw. The rest of the markets in Wales are small industrial markets, et cetera, but the two major players as far as Welsh anthracite is concerned, or Welsh low volt coal, is certainly Aberthaw and Corus. To touch on the value of coal, the bulk of coal coming into Aberthaw at the moment is coming from one or two mines in Russia and having worked down in Russia there are only two mines in the whole of the Kuznetsk Basin which has hundreds of millions of tonnes of production. There are only two mines that have this particular type of coal that Aberthaw can burn, emphasising the constraints on the design of the station but, therefore, supporting the growth of the indigenous industry again. The indigenous industry died because when coal prices were flat investment disappeared, jobs disappeared, mines closed and we are now trying to bring some back into production; we as a company, other companies as well, but that all takes time and training as well. It is the grant aid schemes that have been applied to the Welsh industry and the UK industry that have certainly helped to galvanise the re-emergence of a Welsh coal industry and hopefully this will come over the next two to three years.

Mr Poyner: I think it is important to emphasise that long gone are the days when deep mines and surface mines were fighting against each other. We no longer see each other as competitors and, in fact, we need each other; there is a mutual dependency now; we need each other in order to maintain the indigenous coal supply - the Welsh coal industry. There is no distinction now between deep mines and surface mining.

Q129 Chairman: I was alluding to that at the end of the last session. Could you elaborate on to what extent you are actually having that dialogue? Could you illustrate how that is happening? Is there is a voice for Welsh coal now?

Mr Poyner: Certainly, the industry itself is so small now that we are in constant contact with each other. My company is a member of Coalpro, which is the Confederation of UK Coal Producers. Together we represent the industry. It is a United Kingdom industry, not an English industry, Scottish or Welsh; it is United Kingdom.

Q130 Chairman: Does anyone else wish to add anything to that?

Mr Davies: My only point, really, is that if Aberthaw had not entered into 3D (?) there, I do not suppose there would have been a lot of hope for coal in Wales. That is my own personal opinion because I have supplied Aberthaw directly or indirectly since 1987 in my own right. The difficulty has been long-term contracts with Aberthaw because they did not know where they were seeing themselves going.

Mr Poyner: There is a very simple reason for that, if I may interject. As I explained, Aberthaw was specifically built to burn the types of coal found in the South Wales coalfield. The particular characteristic that makes it different from the other coals to be found in the UK is the volatile content. So, equally, the coals that are found in the South Wales coalfield are not compliant coals for the other coal-fired power stations in the United Kingdom. Therefore, if there is not the Welsh market there is no future for the Welsh coal industry. Aberthaw is the main market.

Q131 Albert Owen: Can we move on to a more balance energy policy. The Government, for obvious reasons, is looking at alternatives and diversifying into renewable energy, and a number of the memoranda that we have had touch on this. Indeed, Miller Argent states there is a need for diversification. What assessments have you made collectively, or as individual companies, about the potential likely contribution of renewable sources to the future energy mix?

Mr Nugent: I do not think we have had any joint talks on that, other than what has been imposed on us through various dictates from government, et cetera. Currently, the mountain where we are operating has been earmarked for wind farm development. Ultimately, if you build enough windmills you could argue there is sufficient power generated from them to sustain a major part of the energy supply; the problem is it is all about cost. Wind energy, at the moment, is probably the most expensive that there is. It is an interruptible supply because, obviously, if the wind does not blow there is no power generated, and that has its own problems in introducing it to the National Grid. Wales, as a country, as I see it, has the ability to harness alternate energies, but I think they need directing more into the communities as opposed to trying to feed a national distribution system, because as happened in Scotland, there was a Bill introduced for the expansion of wind farms and they forgot to take into account the length of distribution, in peak times, from Scotland down the inter-connector into England. They realised that when you take into account all the losses it was not really a very attractive proposition at all, and they took that out of the Bill. So it does not matter whether you are producing power in John O'Groats or Cornwall, this is now not taken into consideration. It leaves wind power and alternate energies either very expensive to run or very capital intensive, and it all comes back to investment and incentive.

Q132 Albert Owen: Could I ask United Power if they have an assessment on the importance of the energy mix and how they see renewables in it?

Mr Williams: It may be difficult to realise but there is a conflict between renewable energy - wind energy in particular - and the development of new, coal-derived energy stations in South Wales. That is because if you want to establish a power station, whether it is a small, 1 MW power-station or a 50 MW or 100 MW, which is relatively small coal-fired power station, you need to make an application to the Regional Electricity Council, which, in the case of South Wales, is Weston Power Distribution, to reserve electricity export capacity. What is happening is that wind energy companies are making applications to WPD, they are reserving blocks of export capacity and tying the whole system up. A lot of those wind farms or proposed wind farms may not ever get planning permission, which means that at the time they get to the planning permission stage all of the export capacity is tied up. In my view anyway, the application to the Regional Electricity Council for export capacity ought to be tied to the planning process; get planning permission and then be able to make an application for exporting electricity. We find it with gas generation. Currently we are looking as small as 50 MW, which is very small for a coal station; it uses about 3,000 tonnes of coal a week and we have to look at going on to the National Grid in South Wales, which is an immense cost, £2 million, just to connect to the Grid and export 50 Megawatts.

Q133 Albert Owen: Mr Poyner, you said in your submission: "diversification has got to be the order of the day" and "I wholeheartedly support a balanced, mixed energy portfolio". How big do you think the role of coal should be in that portfolio?

Mr Poyner: A good question. The role of coal, obviously, involves the import of coal and indigenous coal. In my view, I do not think it should change very much from what it is at the present day - certainly, between 20 and 30% of the total contribution. I do not think any of us can afford not to be interested in the blend, in the mix, of the energies and the generation types that we will be employing, because I think it is fair to say that one of the major concerns is the projected generation gap that is definitely going to occur. Between now and 2015 approximately 22 GW of power generation is going to come off-stream, and between now and then that has got to be replaced with something, and we have got to look at every possible means. Personally, I do not think that wind has a great deal to offer; I think there are much more worthy renewable sources, but we have got to look at everything.

Q134 Albert Owen: So you are confident that coal can maintain the present levels into the short-term and the long-term future?

Mr Poyner: Absolutely confident, provided legislation is not introduced that will prevent it from playing its part, yes.

Q135 Mr David Jones: You mentioned the generation gap and the need to make up the loss of generating power. How helpful or otherwise did you find the Government's energy review so far as that was concerned?

Mr Poyner: I think it was quite fair. They certainly identified the areas that need attention. I am not altogether convinced that it was helpful in that, personally, I feel that they are still sitting on the fence. We need a good steer and leadership from government, and at the moment I do not think that is coming.

Q136 Mr David Jones: That was the reason I asked the question. You said: "We have got to do something".

Mr Poyner: I was meaning as a nation we have got to do something.

Q137 Mr David Jones: The reason I asked the question was did you find anything in the energy review which gave a clue as to what that something might be?

Mr Poyner: Certainly there was support of nuclear. I personally support nuclear as well. There was certainly a great deal in there that would make the planning system more streamlined in terms of gas stations and gas infrastructure. Sadly, it was silent on the planning difficulties that the coal industry has.

Mr David Jones: Thank you.

Q138 Nia Griffith: Actually, there was not a great deal of space devoted to coal, which was one of the reasons why we particularly wanted to look at coal. We are obviously going to be reliant on fossil fuels for some time to come, whichever way you fill the gap or try to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. To me, there is a bit of an irony between going so far down the gas route, which is a fuel you can use for many other things than making electricity, and with the price rise for gas do you see coal actually taking back over, if you like, some of the percentage which has been taken over by gas in recent years and going back to more sort of production?

Mr Poyner: I think it did just that last year. I agree with you, in many respects it is an abuse of a vastly diminishing resource to burn it in power generation, yes, definitely.

Q139 Mrs James: I want to come to the environmental impacts. Mr Poyner, you say in your memorandum that you do not deny global warming and climate change but that you feel that new measures must be developed to combat this and help the situation. What new measures has your industry itself developed to help sort these problems out?

Mr Poyner: My industry is very limited as to what it actually can do practically. It is more for the generators than it is for the coal users. Having said that, in terms of the plant and equipment that we use in order to extract the coal, there have been tremendous advancements in terms of engine emissions, noise levels, output, fuel economy - all of those are addressed and continue to be addressed. However, in terms of the things that will make a real difference, it is in the way the coal will be burnt, and that is not our industry, it is the generation industry.

Q140 Mrs James: That comes back to the point in the previous question on thinking carefully about how you utilise that coal when we have situations like last year.

Mr Poyner: Yes.

Mr Nugent: It also comes back to how government will help, in the form of whatever - whether it be subsidy or whatever - in that clean coal technology.

Q141 Mrs James: I want to come to state aid, but I wanted to ask another question about the environmental impact of all of you and then go on to the state aid question. PACT (Protecting and Conserving Together) notes in its memorandum that: "coal can only be mined where it is found, but this should not mean that everywhere coal is found it should be mined". Can you outline what this means in your terms, to say how you interpret that comment, and what obligation should be placed on the mining industry as a condition of consent for mining?

Mr Nugent: Coal exists in Wales in a known geological structure that has been proven over hundreds of years. To say coal exists where it exists is just a fact of life. As I think someone pointed out in the previous submission, communities have been built near where coal exists because years ago they were mainly deep mines and the communities would live as close to the deep mines as possible. The whole coal structure of Wales is where it is, where it comes to surface. Just because is under the ground, it cannot be taken out for all sorts of reasons, and there is a commercial aspect to that as well: it may be too deep, the wrong quality, et cetera. At the moment, the Assembly are isolating where wind farms can be attractive and isolating areas where they can be commercially and planning-wise available. There probably should be a more intensive look at the future prospects for opencast coal. Deep mining is slightly different because it does not have the same impact, apart from where you are actually extracting the coal from the shaft or the drift, but when it comes to dovetailing into existing planning legislation I think the planning legislation is there but it needs to be applied to those specific proposals. When you come to larger opencast, like the one PACT is referring to, again, touching on what was said before, I do not think it should go through a planning system where the planning authority then say: "Yes, we will support that" knowing immediately it is going to get called up to go to the Assembly or national government; there should be an interaction with both bodies from day one. Ultimately, that is where the time factor comes in, and that is where the expensive of going through all the process ----

Q142 Mrs James: So there are environmental obligations, really; there are more hoops to go through. Do you think they should be there?

Mr Nugent: I think they should be there, but they should be addressed in one body, and to go through so many systems is where the time element comes in. The potential areas should be evaluated.

Q143 Chairman: Could we pause at that point because you are anticipating a number of questions on planning later on.

Mr Williams: Can I just come in? New technologies in deep mining, particularly related to transport, will allow deeper coal to be mined, whereas previously we were restricted, and they will allow the mine entries for deep mining to be sited away from view (?) in socially and environmentally acceptable places.

Q144 Mrs James: I wonder if we can turn to the issue of state aid. We have concluded as a Committee in our previous report that we need to have a greater awareness of the constraints of the industry and of the investment constraints. State aid has awarded to the tune of £30 million and Coal Investment Aid is now closed to the industry - no more applications. Do you think that the rise in price of coal in the world market means that a further aid programme is unnecessary?

Mr Nugent: Aid comes in various forms and there are several ways in which you apply it. It is the same when we say "coal is coal" but, yet, we are talking about clean coal technology. Clean coal technology needs some form of support - let us just call it "aid" - but in giving that aid it also gives something to industry as well because the amount of capital involvement now, it does not matter whether you are on surface mines or deep mines, machinery is so expensive nowadays it has to be annotated over life of mine, and life of mine is dependent on the market. As is the case, as I said before, with Aberthaw, if state aid or government aid or subsidy or grant is applied to the market, which in turn applies to the development of the coal resource indigenous, then in a way that is transferring aid, because it is something you can finance against. At the moment, we have a capital spend in our next programme of £20 million. You cannot finance £20 million against short-termism. The aid to clean coal technology is taking us into a 10, 15, 20-year lifespan as it is so much easier to get available finance.

Q145 Mrs James: So you do not envisage a time when the price of coal will be so competitive, so advantageous, that we can have state aid at the developmental stage?

Mr Nugent: It could do. There will always be a balance. At the moment it is not possible but I do not think the Welsh coal industry within five years will have sufficient volume to sustain all the markets in Wales. Therefore, there will always be a play against world prices. As I said in my submission, there are other factors there and that is foreign exchange, and it is a massive factor because it is foreign exchange that virtually killed the indigenous mining industry in the UK, never mind Wales, and when prices collapsed that is when presumptions against opencast mining actually were put in place. There was no one to defend it because everyone was just trying to survive. Now, the tables have turned, the dollar is declining, but personally I do not think the dollar will be a feature in the future; I think it will be the euro and the rouble. I traded in international coal for ten years and it was always the dollar, as James pointed out. It does not matter whether you are mining it, transporting it, or whatever, you are dealing in dollars. Therefore, we were related to dollars. Now we are related to dollars and we have contracts that are affected by the dollar/pound relationship, but personally I think it is going to change; I think Russia will bring the rouble into play, and there will be the euro, and once that happens people will demand euros and that will increase the value of the rouble and the euro against the pound. Therefore, that would bring into play what you could be suggesting, and that is that it, maybe, sustains a high price for indigenous coal but there has to be some protection if foreign exchange has an effect, as it did 15 years ago.

Q146 Mrs James: If you like, a guaranteed market for coal?

Mr Nugent: The word "guarantee" is difficult, though, is it not? Maybe aid or whatever could be supplied, looking on yearly, two-yearly or five-yearly forecasts.

Mr Williams: There is a big difference, people need to realise, between the Welsh coal industry and the Welsh mining industry. There are more ways to exploit coal than defining opencast or underground means. The wealthy countries in this world are the countries that exploit their energy reserves. We have huge reserves of coal in South Wales, and the point I was trying to make earlier is we do not really know what we have got. If we can have state aid, perhaps some of that aid could be put towards quantifying the amount of coal we have got and how that resource can be truly utilised in a number of different ways.

Q147 Mrs James: You did mention in your memorandum that you thought there were a number of ways, including research, exploration, et cetera, in which government aid might be required. Do you still believe that?

Mr Williams: Yes, I did. That is right.

Q148 Mrs James: In your submission you identify a number of sectors in which you say government aid is required, including research, exploration and the improvement of transport and ports infrastructure.

Mr Williams: Yes. As I said in the submission, there are many ways coal can be utilised and there are huge resources of coal in South Wales. We are working currently on a programme with an Australian company to extract methane from coal reserves to produce hydrogen from the methane. When hydrogen is mixed back with methane to produce hythane, hythane is a very, very competitive, much cheaper road vehicle fuel, and a 5-6% blend of hydrogen with methane will actually reduce emissions by something like 30% (?).

Q149 Mrs James: Just to come back to that point, have you made any representations to government?

Mr Williams: We are in the process.

Q150 Mrs James: Have you had any support?

Mr Williams: Yes. When I say "support", we have not had financial support but we have certainly had good help and encouragement.

Mr Poyner: It is probably worth making the point, perhaps, that deep-mined coal is more expensive to obtain than coal from surface mines, as a general rule, although, obviously, there will be some exceptions. Certainly, as far as my company is concerned, we have never received, nor sought, any state aid for our projects. Personally, and my colleagues either side of me perhaps will not thank me for saying this, in terms of aid I think that government should give very serious consideration to financing carbon capture and sequestration. That worldwide is going to be the biggest single contribution in tackling the carbon dioxide problem that we have. That is where I would put my money.

Q151 Nia Griffith: Can you see the Government as having a role in doing research and development of that, because it is such a huge ----

Mr Poyner: Absolutely. It is an issue for mankind, and that is what governments should busy themselves with, in my view.

Q152 Mrs James: Just a very quick point, Mr Nugent. You talked about the wider picture in the European context and we know that the European Commission is currently reviewing the Coal State Aid Regulations. Have you any news on that? Have you heard any news?

Mr Nugent: No.

Q153 Mrs James: Nothing at all?

Mr Nugent: No, they are reviewing it.

Q154 Mrs James: No idea about when they are going to complete their review?

Mr Nugent: No.

Mr Davies: No.

Q155 Mr David Jones: Could I return, please, to planning policy and, particularly, the question of buffer zones. We have actually had a memorandum from Celtic Energy which indicates that it supports the concept of buffer zones and separation zones in principle but is concerned that incorrect or inappropriate application of the general policy could have a terminal effect on the industry. Would you agree with that? What is your own assessment of the effectiveness of buffer zones?

Mr Poyner: Personally, yes, I would agree with it, definitely. I would also support separation zones. There is a distinction between separation zones and buffer zones, as I see it.

Q156 Mr David Jones: Can you explain that, please?

Mr Poyner: The terms are to be found in the draft Coal M Tan that was issued as a consultation document in January of last year. As I read that document, a buffer zone is an area that will prevent new development taking place around an existing surface mine, whereas a separation distance applies to putting forward a proposal to open a surface mine, and there is to be a separation distance between a proposed mine and sensitive properties.

Q157 Mr David Jones: In either case it is intended to keep the mining activity away from residential development.

Mr Poyner: Correct.

Q158 Mr David Jones: Do you have any views as to what is an appropriate distance in terms of distance from an opencast site?

Mr Poyner: I think it is very dangerous to generalise, because no two sites are the same. What might be the right distance on one particular site will not necessarily be the right answer for another site. Each site should be considered on its own merits.

Q159 Mr David Jones: Why should different considerations arise from site to site?

Mr Poyner: The topography, for one thing; the different equipment; the existence of major roads, for instance, that could be within the separation distance - roads, railways are issues in themselves. The wind direction.

Q160 Mr David Jones: The prevailing wind direction.

Mr Poyner: Prevailing wind.

Q161 Mr David Jones: Would you accept that there should be wider buffer or separation zones for opencast coal mines than for other mineral extraction activities?

Mr Poyner: Definitely not. What is the difference between them? Why should there be a difference?

Q162 Mr David Jones: Would you not accept that opencast coal mining is perceived as a dirty and unneighbourly activity?

Mr Poyner: I am aware that some people portray it that way. I would not agree to that definition, no.

Q163 Mr David Jones: We have had a memorandum supplied to us by a pressure group called PACT, which observes that a recent study, which I am sure you will be aware of, indicated that eight of the ten unhealthiest regions in the UK are Welsh local authorities, and seven of those are in the South Wales coalfield. Would that tend to indicate that coal extraction is an unhealthy and unneighbourly activity?

Mr Poyner: Not at all, no. One of the major reasons that would contribute to that situation is unemployment.

Q164 Mr David Jones: What practical measures could be taken to ensure that noise and, more particularly, dust emissions do not affect neighbourhood residential properties?

Mr Poyner: In terms of noise, all modern planning permissions are constrained by the noise levels that developers are permitted to emit. Modern day equipment is very heavily suppressed. Contractors, within their mine plan, design baffle embankments, they design their work such that the majority of the whole road is below existing ground level. In terms of dust suppression, the most effective means of dust suppression is water, and most modern sites have very sophisticated dust suppression units running throughout their activities. Also, within Wales it is well blessed with natural suppression.

Q165 Mr David Jones: Does this completely eliminate nuisance from dust?

Mr Poyner: I would be lying if I said that it completely eliminates it. It certainly reduces it to an acceptable extent.

Q166 Mr David Jones: Acceptable in your terms but possibly not in the terms of neighbours.

Mr Poyner: You would say that, would you not?

Q167 Mr David Jones: I am asking a question. Clearly there is, to a greater or lesser extent, frankly of your own admission, a problem with dust emissions from opencast coal sites.

Mr Poyner: Perhaps you misread me a bit there. I was answering your question, literally, will it completely eliminate it? No, it will not. Neither will your car driving along a road. That will create dust, which may be a nuisance to some people. Farming activities create dust, the wind itself creates dust. What I was saying was you cannot eliminate it, but it certainly cuts it down to acceptable, day-to-day levels that are generated from just human activity.

Q168 Mr David Jones: So it is not necessarily unreasonable for residential neighbours of an opencast site to be concerned about dust emissions?

Mr Poyner: No, it is not unreasonable, and without the proper management controls in place it could be a nuisance. In terms of dust, there are two aspects: there is the nuisance dust and the dust that could be damaging to health.

Q169 Mr David Jones: What consultations do you maintain with bodies such as the Environment Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales?

Mr Poyner: Certainly when putting together a planning application we start off with a scoping report where we take on board all of their concerns and try to address them. There are a number of meetings that take place prior to actually submitting the application. Once the application is submitted then those people are statutory consultees and they are involved in the planning process, and it goes through further consultation. Then, depending whether it goes to a public inquiry (which seems to be the common thing in Wales - all opencast coal applications seem to be called in) and if and when planning consent is granted and the site is started, then there is a regular, constant dialogue with those authorities.

Q170 Mr David Jones: Both bodies?

Mr Poyner: Both bodies.

Mr Davies: And a statutory technical working party is entered into, which means that those bodies come monthly anyway. Indeed, the locals, up to seven or eight people, can be nominated to visit the site one day every month. Indeed, at any time that the statutory bodies want to turn up they are allowed to turn up at will.

Q171 Albert Owen: A couple of specific questions on planning. We understand the frustration and we heard it from the pervious witnesses. Indeed, Celtic Energy, in their written memorandum to us, said: "Planning restrictions often form the greatest hurdle to the coal industry", and I know that in your submission Miller Argent said that "the Ffos-y-fran Land Reclamation Scheme ... has been delayed by legal challenges which have cost many millions of pounds". What experience have you had collectively, and, again, as individual companies, of planning delays and what impact has that had on the industry?

Mr Williams: First of all, from a gas or methane coal bed point of view, we have had no problems. We have had something like 28 out of 29 applications approved. They have gone through the necessary channels very quickly, I would say - six to eight weeks. I have given a thought to the Welsh Rural Planning Association, and we get help, if anything, from the planners in that respect. As far as deep mines are concerned, when we have had preliminary talks with planning authorities they have been quite receptive towards the prospect of new deep mines.

Q172 Albert Owen: That is a slightly different tone to the written evidence and the evidence we have heard so far.

Mr Poyner: Perhaps if I explained the situation regarding the Ffos-y-fran application. We started our scoping exercises, our surveys that had to be carried out prior to putting together a planning application, in 2001. The reason why you have to do those is you have to do ecological surveys that cover all the seasons and can be shown to be truly representative. We were then able to submit our planning application at the beginning of May 2003. That planning application was due to be determined by the local planning authority when the Welsh Assembly Government called it in. A public inquiry was then held in September 2004. The inspector completed his report and issued it to the Assembly in November 2004, but that remained a public document; it was not in the public domain until the Welsh Assembly held a planning decision committee in February 2005, and they issued a Minded to Grant Planning Consent letter, subject to us entering into a section 106 agreement. We did that, and by the end of March that agreement was signed and sealed. Then, on 11 April 2005, the Assembly formally issued planning consent. Then there was an objection under the Town & Country Planning Act, section 288, and that objection was taken to the High Court in December 2005. They actually quashed the planning approval but not on any of the planning grounds; the High Court confirmed that it was a robust planning application that had been properly executed, properly addressed and gone through the proper process but they quashed it on a procedural point, a point of alleged apparent bias. The National Assembly appealed that decision, that was heard in the Court of Appeal in October of last year, and in November the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment which overturned the High Court decision. So that means that as we sit today my company has a valid and lawful planning consent, so we can actually start works on site on Ffos-y-fran tomorrow, but the objectors have issued notice to the House of Lords that it is their intention to Petition the Lords to appeal the Court of Appeal judgment, but they were seeking further public funding. We heard last week that, in fact, the LSC, the Legal Services Commission, the body responsible for issuing Legal Aid and agreeing to Legal Aid, have confirmed further funding. So we are expecting the objectors to issue a Petition to the House of Lords appealing the decision of the Court of Appeal. So we are in a state of limbo - do we start or do we not? If we do start we take on something in the order of £50 million worth of land liabilities, plus a further £30 million of capital costs. So we could be there with liabilities of £80 million, and if the House of Lords accepts the Petition, hears the Petition and finds in favour of the Petition, they could order us to stop work. We have a real dilemma, and although they are legal issues they are legal issues that have been raised under the planning process.

Q173 Albert Owen: I did ask for experience and you have outlined that one in great detail, and of course a lot of it was in the public domain; we were aware of it. What I am trying to get at is the same question that I asked the previous witnesses: is it the delays (I appreciate the cumulative costs that you have had as a company) or the process that is the greatest problem for the mining industry?

Mr Nugent: I think all things are relative, and in Mr Poyner's case he is talking about a major opencast site in Merthyr Tydfil. We operate both deep mine and smaller opencast operations, and our last application took 18 months. I would say it is quite simply the fact that there is a lack of resource in planning departments for mineral development. You can understand why. Because of the demise of the coal industry - and I know they adjudicate on quarrying, et cetera - these departments have lost officials to other authorities, because apparently there is a shortage of mineral development planners throughout the country. It is a major issue.

Q174 Albert Owen: If I could just come in there, you mention the different mineral activities. Do you say that coal has been treated differently to any other aggregates, for instance, or any other mining?

Mr Nugent: I do not think it has been treated differently but there is a distinct lack of resource - and obviously I am referring to Neath and Port Talbot where we are - and there is an element of dysfunctionality between the planners and the bodies that they have to gather information from. When you put a planning application in they are supposed to respond in 28 days, and they have the right to extend that - understandably - but it just seems to go on and on. Our site was only a relatively small site, it was on the top of a mountain, there were no adjacent areas of living accommodation, et cetera, but it took 18 months to get through the system - and there was no public inquiry; that was just through the local planning system.

Q175 Albert Owen: Mr Poyner, do you want to come in on the comparison with other minerals?

Mr Poyner: In answer to the specific question you ask, in my view, yes, there is a difference between coal and other minerals. There is a prejudice against coal, there is a different buffer zone specified for coal to other minerals, and there should not be; they should be treated similarly.

Q176 Albert Owen: One specific question, again. Celtic Energy's memorandum maintains that there is a requirement in the TAN (Technical Advice Note) that a Health Impact Assessment and Social Impact Assessment should become part of every coal-related application, which would have a huge impact on development costs "to the point of making schemes uneconomic". Do you agree with that?

Mr Poyner: It is not my particular area of expertise but, as I understand it, all opencast coal sites are subject to an environmental impact assessment, and as part of the environmental impact assessment health is a sub-group of that. Specific health impact assessments are fairly new in their concept and have not been introduced throughout the United Kingdom; they are still finding their feet, and from my understanding it is more of a local authority issue than a site specific issue. Site specifics are addressed in the environmental impact assessment.

Mr Davies: I was going to add that whether it is a small site or a large site, whether it is 50,000 tonnes or 10 million tonnes, it is the same environmental impact assessment you have to do for each company.

Q177 Albert Owen: What discussions do you have with the Mineral Planning Authorities in Wales?

Mr Nugent: Even on a small site we have the ability to scope developments prior to submission, but one thing I would add is that we have got several restoration developments and non-mineral activities from historical dereliction, and the frustration that I do find is that under planning law you look at one specific site; you do not seem to be able to create a lateral thinking to be able to look at an area in its entirety. Personally, that is the most frustrating point about the way in which planning law is applied to a company's development. Of course, with our company we have the associated drift mine as well, which is within the same area. So we have drift mine issues, we have restoration issues, we have operating site issues and it is very difficult to talk about those issues under one umbrella; they have to be area-specific, and people just end up looking through blinkers, and it just leads to problems of coming to conclusions on how best to take the whole thing forward.

Q178 Nia Griffith: I am conscious that the Chairman wants to move us on a bit, as we are running over time. This issue of looking at the whole thing. Can I come back to a question I asked the previous witnesses, and perhaps you heard it. This issue that if you want to build an industry there then, obviously, the local people in the local houses might object, but if you want to put a housing estate there you do not think of the potential. It is like you are saying; you do not look at the potential there. Do you think we should be designating areas, like we do with the Environment Agency and flooding, and say: "This is a potential area for very good coal; this is the buffer zone that will be needed round it, we would be daft to grant planning permission for houses"? Do you think nothing is done to actually make that happen, or do you think people just hand out planning permissions for estates here, there and everywhere and then afterwards there is nowhere left to put a coalmine because you have, effectively, boxed up areas?

Mr Nugent: The main problem is the dysfunctionality between the people who represent various bodies. You mentioned the Environment Agency, the inter-relation with the planning departments, and other consultees on any planning application. I think that dysfunctionality is the fact that there should be a team working together. Response times seem to go on and on and on, and there should be time limits put on the responses from all the consultees that are requested for advice.

Chairman: Could I ask you to start to be a little bit more concise in your answers? I commend you for your thoroughness but we need to move on.

Q179 Nia Griffith: Mr Williams wanted to come in.

Mr Williams: You asked the question of mining, which includes quarrying. Sand and gravel is treated in that way now.

Mr Poyner: The point I was going to make was that I believe the planning system does provide for that right now. We are a plan-led planning system, where, on the local development plans, sites are identified so that the local Mineral Planning Authorities are aware of them. Certainly, the draft coal TAN provides for this so as not to sterilise a strategic reserve.

Q180 Albert Owen: Still on the planning aspects, PACT claim that the whole sort of geological structure of an area is changed and thriving ecosystems that took hundreds or thousands of years to evolve. How do you counter the allegation that opencast comes along and basically destroys the whole environment?

Mr Poyner: I would not agree with that as a statement. No way does it destroy the geological structure. Basically, what it does is it may temporarily change the surface features, but as the site is restored those surface features are put back. In terms of the volume of excavation, it is a drop in the ocean in terms of the geological structure.

Q181 Albert Owen: What about the biodiversity that has taken years to develop?

Mr Poyner: It very much depends on the site in the first instance. Very often, opencast coal sites are put back with a greater potential for biodiversity than ever existed prior to them starting. The majority of opencast coal sites are, in fact, Brownfield sites.

Q182 Albert Owen: Does anybody else want to comment on that?

Mr Williams: As I said, we are not at all involved in opencast mining; we are an underground mining company and our relationship and the response we have had from local planning authorities have been different from that of colleagues.

Q183 Albert Owen: What examples can you give the Committee of previously opencast land in Wales that has been fully and sensitively restored and replanted?

Mr Davies: Maes Gwyn (?)

Q184 Albert Owen: Some of us may not be fully aware of what has gone on there. Could you briefly tell us?

Mr Nugent: It is an area that was restored to natural restoration contours, a mixture of grassland, broadleaf trees, et cetera, but it never was grassland and it will never be grassland; it was on a mountainside and, basically, it is the contouring that has blended into the rest of the valley.

Q185 Albert Owen: I know there are different examples in different areas, but how long do you think that takes, on average?

Mr Nugent: With a coal site, obviously, it is all relative. We are talking about our existing site of two years' production followed by 18 months of restoration.

Mr Davies: Then a five-year aftercare service.

Mr Nugent: Maes Gwyn, I think, operated for ten years.

Mr Davies: It operated under British Coal, and our colleagues could have explained that better than me but I think it was opencast for 30 years. In fairness to Celtic Energy, every site that they have been associated with and they have put back, I would have said, living in the locality, is exceptional work. The work I have seen that they have done is tremendous.

Q186 Albert Owen: Indigenous flora and fauna can survive afterwards?

Mr Davies: Yes, in all different aspects. I was with children one evening looking at the wildlife and I must admit - and that was Celtic Energy then - it was absolutely amazing - the degree that they go into, in fairness to the company.

Mr Poyner: Very briefly, I can think of no finer example than phases one and two of the East Merthyr Land Reclamation Scheme, which actually reclaimed derelict land right in the heart of the town centre.

Mr Davies: Absolutely right.

Q187 Nia Griffith: Can I ask, very, very quickly, Mr Gerwyn Williams, is there anything further you want to tell us, apart from what you have already said, about coal bed methane? Also, do you see any government role there, again, in developing that? Lastly, is there any comment you want to make about the Mines Rescue Service?

Mr Williams: It goes back to what I said earlier, that I think it is a mixture and we need to quantify the resource we have. It is difficult - and John is an international banker (?) - to go to potential investors and say: "Please give us £30 million just to look at what is there". If there is nothing suitable there it has gone.

Q188 Nia Griffith: Do you think there is a role for ----

Mr Williams: There is a role for joint funding for exploration purposes, to establish what the resources are.

Mr Davies: I totally agree with that.

Mr Williams: Secondly, there has been a lot of success with a company called Composite Energy in Scotland recently, which I think proves the point for coal and methane, certainly in South Wales, because Dr Cready, who is probably the UK's expert on coal bed methane, in his calculations put South Wales top of the league for potential coal bed methane production. There is huge scope. For example, when we talked about reserves earlier, we usually talk about those reserves that are left around closed British coalmines. Our petroleum licences in South Wales cover 430 square kilometres, the bore holes that we have from British Coal are about 24 in total, and they prove somewhere in the region of 20 to 28 metres of coal, plus associated sandstones. If you just take 20 metres of coal and take one square kilometre, the specific gravity of coal is 1.35, on average, so it means that in one square kilometre there is something like 27 million tonnes of coal. If you multiply that by 430, it is 11 billion tonnes of coal. Opencast mining and deep miners probably will not be interested in a lot of that, but wherever there is coal, and it might be a very small, thin seam, the energy is there, either in the coal or in the associated sandstone. So we should, I think, be investing money as a nation to look at what we are sitting on. As far as the Mines Rescue Service is concerned, we believe, and the Mines Rescue Service to a degree, that they should be treated in exactly the same way as any other emergency service: the Fire Service, the Police or the Ambulance. At the moment, the only funding they get is via the coal production because they get a royalty on coal production. They do earn money by training people - for example, they trained the Fire Brigade on rescue techniques. If, for example, there was a crash in the Severn Tunnel with two trains the Mines Rescue Service probably would be called out. If there was an incident in Big Pit, which is a museum, the Mines Rescue Service would probably be called out. If there was a terrorist attack anywhere and there were people trapped it is highly likely that the Mines Rescue Service would be called out. So we believe that they should be treated in exactly the same way as the Fire Service, Ambulance and Police.

Mr Davies: I totally agree with the points made; if that is not looked after we have a serious problem.

Q189 Chairman: Can I thank you all for your evidence. I apologise for taking so long but that indicates the thoroughness of your replies and, I hope, the thoroughness of our questions as well. As I said in the earlier session, if you feel there is something additional you want to add, we would be very pleased to receive a further memorandum. Thank you.

Mr Poyner: Thank you for the opportunity.

Memoranda submitted by Protecting and Conserving Together (PACT)

and The Woodland Trust

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Ms Gaynor Ball, Secretary, Ms Suzanne De Celis, Issues Co-ordinator, Protecting and Conserving Together (PACT); Mr Rory Francis, Public Affairs and Press Officer, and Mr Graham Bradley, Casework Manager, Woods Under Threat Team, The Woodland Trust, gave evidence.

Q190 Chairman: Good afternoon. Could I ask you, for the record, to introduce yourselves, please?

Ms De Celis: I am Suzanne De Celis; I am a member of PACT and the Issues Co-ordinator.

Ms Ball: I am Gaynor Ball; I am Secretary of PACT and, also, a resident of Kenfig Hill, which is close to the Margam site.

Mr Francis: I am Rory Francis; I am the Public Affairs and Press Officer for Coed Cadw, the Woodland Trust in Wales.

Mr Bradley: I am Graham Bradley, also from the public affairs arm of the Woodland Trust.

Q191 Chairman: Could I begin by asking a question about the economic importance of the coal industry in Wales. Do you agree with the Department for Trade and Industry that the coal mining industry is of continuing economic significance to Wales?

Mr Francis: I would agree very much with what Lord Truscott said last week, where he said that the energy review found that if opencast could supply energy that was economically sustainable and environmentally acceptable then it should go ahead. The point is, is the industry environmentally sustainable? I would also agree with the House of Commons Energy Select Committee in 1987 that opencast coalmining is one of the most environmentally destructive processes being carried out in the UK. There have to be strong guidelines. The Welsh Assembly has laid down its Coal M TAN, and we would say very clearly that the industry has to meet those requirements, and it would be quite wrong to set an arbitrary figure and, effectively, fix the planning system to allow that much coal to be produced. To do that, in our view, would be to do the absolute opposite to what the Stern inquiry was calling for in terms of greenhouse gases.

Q192 Chairman: You, maybe, have anticipated some other questions, but could I ask you, from PACT, whether you consider that the coal industry is of economic importance to Wales?

Ms Ball: The Enterprise Minister, Andrew Davies, for the AM, put it in simple words: "Renewable energy is critical to our future energy needs, and Wales is leading the way". That was in the Western Mail on 18 October. I think Wales has got the chance and the resources now to promote renewable energy. I know Suzanne has been doing a lot on economics, if I can hand you over to Suzanne to talk about the economics side.

Ms De Celis: I have not being doing a lot on the economics side of it but I will comment. I feel that we are calling the coal industry "the coal industry" and we are incorporating into that the opencast, private mining business, which in Wales, at the moment, is absolutely terrorising communities, like ours in Margam Parc Slip, with their ongoing exploitation of countryside features, amenities, physical access, health and, apart from that, our wellbeing which is affected by the ongoing situation. Asking me about the economics for Wales of the coal industry, that died out with the deep mines in the 1980s. Communities now affected by opencast exploitation, we joined forces with our parents, with our families, with our neighbours, to fight the closure of those pits. They were closed, people had to move on, people did move on, and now 20 years later the same people are being attacked, and it feels like a sort of frontline onslaught, sitting with an opencast in your distance, slowly coming on. It is as though there is some sort of attack coming up.

Chairman: You are anticipating questions that are about to be asked.

Q193 Mr Martyn Jones: Figures provided by the Coal Authority to the Committee show that by the end of 2005 800 people were directly employed in the mining industry, out of which 345 were employed in opencast operations. How do you answer the point made by Celtic Energy that "these jobs are well paid and well skilled. Their loss to any community would be dramatic ... such loss from within opencast mining would be every bit as severe as those lost from deep mining"?

Ms De Celis: Three hundred and forty-five jobs in the whole of South Wales?

Q194 Mr Martyn Jones: Eight hundred people in mining, and 345 in opencast.

Ms De Celis: In Celtic Energy. Three hundred and forty-five jobs in three sites that Celtic Energy have. If you would like to compare that with one new solar factory that has emerged in Cardiff, which employs 300 people, I would say, although I am not an economist, that if you invested in solar for the economics of South Wales and jobs it is a far better investment, both economically and environmentally, because it does not destroy hectares and hectares of land, cut people off from their services, their footpaths and their physical ability to exercise. So, economically, the social and health and environmental costs are never put into the price. When the people here from the deep mines and the opencast mines are putting forward their private businesses they never have to weigh it up against social costs; there is never a cost-benefit analysis taken up. So on the economic side of it, locally, we do not know of many, if any, skilled jobs; I think it is two in Neath and Talbot where I am living, which is not exactly marvellous for the economics on the job side of it. If you take into account the lack of ability for us to move on and invest in our properties - we live in a rural site - we cannot go on and make our plans to have extensive leisure, tourism or whatever we have been told is important to Neath and Talbot because of the opencast situation. So, economically, I would say although the coal is there, although private companies will always want to use it and make a good reason for it - we heard the DTI saying that imports have not impacted on the economic development or supply - although it is very nice to have an intimate relationship with coal, and be patriotic towards it, when you are facing communities with the destruction of an environment and the worry about health, which is just as bad as having harmful health - in fact, it is worrying about it which may be unhealthy - I just feel there is no economic case for further opencast mining.

Chairman: Could I stop you there. You are anticipating so many of the other questions. Please be concise in your answers, or I will interrupt you much earlier.

Mr Martyn Jones: I think you have answered my second question.

Q195 Mr David Jones: PACT's memorandum has been very forthright in its views as to the effect of opencast mining on whole communities in every respect, but particularly in respect of the generation of dust and noise, blasting, vibration, and so on. I think you were present for the earlier evidence session and heard what the unions and the operators have to say about it. There is also a memorandum from the DTI which concludes that "... recent regulations on dust and noise suppression, and traffic management requirements which can be a condition of consent, mean that the potential impact of [opencast] developments on local communities can be much better managed than was the case in previous decades." What are your views about that?

Ms Ball: We can only speak from personal experience, on our experience at Margam and Parc Slip. We have seen it move like a scar down our valley, from the privatisation from British Coal, when Celtic Energy took over, and when they had the current planning application it was on condition they put in a drift mine. Immediately they had consent it became opencast. We have seen it move down the valley. I notice the DTI mentioned about restoration within three years from a working site. It has been 12 years now since any restoration was done at all in our area, and they are now getting dangerously close to the next chunk of our green wedge, which is our breathing space, green gym - whatever you want to call it. As far as the dust issues are concerned, we think the threshold is far too high anyway. Whatever we complain about it is all within legal limits. It does not matter what we complain about.

Q196 Mr David Jones: When you say the "threshold", are you referring to buffer zones?

Ms Ball: No, we are actually referring to the monitoring.

Q197 Mr David Jones: To the level of dust generated?

Ms Ball: Level of dust generated. Nuisance dust is not the problem but there is no legislation at all for small particulates below PM 10s.

Q198 Mr David Jones: What are your views on buffer zones? You have heard both the unions and the operators, again, castigate buffer zones and they want to increase buffer zones for opencast coalmining. What are your views?

Ms Ball: We say 500 metres would be preferable to 350, which is what the Coal M TAN has said for Wales. Five hundred metres would be preferable. Even 500 metres is no level of protection. A lot of emphasis is put on the Newcastle study. That was testing only children for asthma levels and it was done at 1,000 metres to 750 metres away from the local gas site, and yet it found small but significant effects on children. We are now within 250 metres of a working site.

Q199 Mr David Jones: I would like you to expand on the health issue because Celtic Energy's memorandum claims that independent research has been unable to prove any direct link between opencast operations and the health of nearby communities. You take the contrary view. You have mentioned the Newcastle study. Do you have any other evidence?

Ms Ball: Just on the local issue, local headmasters gathered evidence and it might not be scientifically mind-blowing or whatever but that evidence was taken from local schools, stretching from the area which has been with opencast longer, which is Cerrig (?) down to the sea. What actually came out of that was that the children who were carrying asthma pumps, the children were affected by asthma, it actually fell as you came down towards the coast away from the site.

Q200 Mr David Jones: That is anecdotal evidence. Do you have any independent, scientific evidence?

Ms Ball: There is more evidence emerging from countries like the USA; there is more and more evidence emerging from Europe all the time. The Swedish secretariat has got numerous pieces of information on particulates. The Harvard study is a six city study which proved without a shadow of doubt that lowering pollution levels reduces mortality.

Q201 Mr David Jones: Would you be able to send a memorandum to the Committee detailing these studies?

Ms Ball: Yes.

Mr David Jones: Thank you.

Q202 Nia Griffith: If I could come back to you on the issue of the 250 metres, do you see any new flexibility with something like 500 metres? It might depend if you are on the other side of the mountain; there can be very significant differences according to where the wind direction is and whether there is a mountain. Topographical differences are very important, and I can appreciate that you feel that 250 metres is very close, but 500 - there could be some flexibility in that.

Ms Ball: No, the problem is the smaller particulates can travel great distances. Take Chernobyl: who would have thought that North Wales would be affected by particulates travelling in the air? This is what happens with small particulates - they can travel great distances. Three miles has been quoted as the safe distance for the very small particulates. Buffer zones as well, again, leading into our site, when the proposed extension actually puts no buffer zones between the housing and the next extension. So what will actually happen is the prevailing winds (we were talking about prevailing wind with the last body of people) will blow any pollution straight on to the community.

Q203 Nia Griffith: Obviously, you are talking about specifics. The question is, really, is it possible to have an opencast site property sited, which can be used and which does not interfere with ----

Ms Ball: Certainly, if it is three miles from communities.

Q204 Chairman: Can I move on now to the threat to ancient woodland, which I suspect is a question to the Woodland Trust. You identify 35 ancient woodlands across Wales which, you say, have come under recent threat. What sorts of developments and schemes have been involved in those threats?

Mr Francis: As we say in the evidence, the greatest number, ten, are from road schemes; 7 from utility services; 5 from minerals (and that includes Coed Hafod Heulog, of course), 6 from housing development, 9 from others, and those include things like golf courses, roads - very much a variety. I have to say that we were surprised when we became aware that Coed Hafod Heulog was under threat from the extension of Margam, because the Welsh Assembly Government have adopted a very far-sighted policy in planning policy in Wales; it recognises that ancient woodland is a habitat that has not just a very high biodiversity value with more threatened or endangered species than any other habitat in the UK but it is also within human timescales and it cannot be recreated because there are a whole variety of species in there which are very, very slow to colonise. Most ancient woodland in Wales has been there since shortly after the Ice Age, 9,000 years, and it was interesting what the gentleman was saying previously; there were examples of restoration of the topography but I do not think that anyone would claim that they could restore or indeed trans-locate an ancient woodland. We were surprised that the company thought it in their interests to put in an application which would totally destroy an ancient woodland at Coed Hafod Heulog.

Mr Bradley: Can I add one thing? The fact that we quoted 35, those are the cases we know about; there may be many more. Across the UK there are many more that we know about, so we are sure it is a much greater number.

Q205 Chairman: Is it your view that, in the light of what you have just said, existing planning regulations can be relied upon to protect ancient woodlands? Are they appropriate for the purpose?

Mr Francis: I think we would agree with what they say. It is a fairly recent change. The planning policy (Wales) came in in 2002 and being a fairly recent change I think the planners and developers are still becoming aware of it. People know what SSSIs are. There are still a lot of people that do not realise how and why ancient woodlands are so special. On paper we would agree with that, and so far there have been a number of cases where we have said "Such-and-such a case is a big test case for the new policy". Thankfully, there has not been a big case of destruction of ancient woodland since the new regulations came in - Coed Hafod Heulog certainly would have been - and of course we do not know what any new application would mean.

Q206 Chairman: In your memorandum you say: "ancient woodland is home to more threatened species than any other habitat in the UK". In the written evidence from Celtic Energy, it claims that opposition to opencast development sometimes extends to "identification of species which have never been near a site, let alone affected by such a development". Can you comment on that difference of opinion?

Mr Francis: Certainly I have never come across an example of that. I do understand that the Countryside Council for Wales have even looked into doing genetic analysis on newts in particular areas in order to be able to say - it is possible to say - a Great Crested Newt from a certain area is going to have more genetic information in common with Great Crested Newts from the same area rather than one from Scotland or the North of England. It is possible to do that, so it is not easy to fool ecological, biological specialists. I have certainly never heard of that happening myself.

Mr Bradley: An earlier witness said that the environmental statement has to be done over a period of a year or longer, and it is one of the things that elongate the planning process. Because I cover a wider area than my colleague, there are plenty of cases where even if the expert has been on a site and looked at it from the point of view of bats or something specific, he has missed something on that particular day or week. The local knowledge was never invited, and somebody else comes along and says: "Yes, there is this here" and it is there protected, and so on.

Ms Ball: The environmental survey which was carried out in 2004, when this proposed extension first came up, was done by Humphreys Rowell Association, which apparently is a well-known body of people that are employed by companies like Celtic Energy. The first thing we noticed about the environmental statement was they give five grid reference numbers. I am not geography trained but I know that grid reference numbers cannot be odd numbers (?). There were five grid reference numbers there. There was no survey done on bats; otters, an inadequate survey done; badgers - "move the badgers". (I think they said something like they were going to "encourage the badgers to move" - persuade them out of their holes Can you imagine: "Would you mind moving?") The birds as well, it was the wrong time of year when they did the bird survey. With the result, residents and local experts got together to do their own surveys, which they produced, sent those in, which made Celtic Energy do another survey and, again, they identified more things in the second survey. Still inadequate, the Countryside Council of Wales was still not convinced with it. They have done three submissions of that environmental survey. The same with maps. Maps did not have housing on them. You talked about housing, Ms Griffith. There are two new housing estates that have been built recently; they were not included on the maps at all when they produced maps. So they leave off, and it is the same with the environmental statement. The last survey they did on otters was taking place now, and they are 40 metres away from the wood now. Otters are shy; it is well-known that they do not come close to noise - they do not like noise. They are nocturnal as well, and their forages are nocturnal. They found evidence of a footprint and they have had to acknowledge there are otters using the river. The point I am making is that unless the local people catch on to these things and do their own surveys, that survey would have gone ahead, and it was inadequate.

Q207 Mr Martyn Jones: Celtic Energy has provided the Committee with a memorandum which says that once coal extraction operations have been completed, sites are restored to high standards, with a strong commitment to protection and enhancement of scientific and ecological value of the land. So Celtic Energy says: "The company is proud of what it has achieved at sites such as Parc Slip, Nant Helen, Derlwyn, Incline Top, Kays & Kears, Brynhenllys and Selar". Do you acknowledge the success of these and other restoration schemes?

Ms Ball: No, we do not. I have brought a folder along, if you would like to see it later, on Parc Slip. Parc Slip themselves admit that the areas that are not rich in biodiversity are the areas that are never touched by opencast mining. They made a statement: "Semi-mature native species as well are moved off the other site and trans-located; rescued from opencast operations. However, the majority were largely unsuccessful". There were marsh fritillary butterflies in the last operation; they tried to move those but the species died out. There were supposed to be marsh fritillary on the next phase; they have tried to say there are no marsh fritillaries, yet plants are there and it is a known area for marsh fritillary.

Q208 Mr Martyn Jones: I am from North East Wales and we do not have any mining left, but we have had some areas of opencast, and visually they look pretty good to me. In fact, I challenge people to find out where they are. They were quite small schemes.

Ms De Celis: You have to bear in mind you can never restore a heritage site. If you had a historic farming building or a community, as we had at ----

Q209 Mr Martyn Jones: I am not suggesting they are, but I am talking about visually. I do not want to get into debate about what you want to talk about. I am making the point from my personal constituency.

Ms De Celis: If you are talking about restoration and looking at it visually, you could not notice unless you had known the area first.

Q210 Mr Martyn Jones: It can be done visually. I do not want to get into a debate. You have already made the point.

Ms Ball: I disagree with that. At Parc Slip, for instance, the soil is very poor. So native species, broadleaf species, are still stunted; they have not grown. The species that the actual opencast restoration holds are far less than the species that are not touched. If you want to walk along concrete paths. Quite honestly, I prefer walking in the country.

Q211 Mr Martyn Jones: I am just saying from my experience, in my constituency, it appears it can be done. I am not saying Celtic Energy ----

Ms Ball: It was not Celtic Energy, it was British Coal.

Mr Bradley: May I say, on the Newbury Bypass, if you now go and look at the woodlands around Newbury Bypass they look just like they probably did before the road was built, but the species there have died away and it does not have the same rich biodiversity. So, for the visual landscape, I accept what you say, but the species have been taken away and never to return.

Mr Martyn Jones: I am a biologist, so I am sure that is probably correct; I am not denying that but the point I was trying to make is it can be done visually. You have got other points to make; you have made those points.

Q212 Mr David Jones: You are not suggesting that environmental considerations, which will always arise, should on every occasion be allowed to stand in the way of economic progress? Is it not the case that there has always got to be a balance struck between preserving the environment and safeguarding and improving the economy of this country? Sometimes it may be necessary to sacrifice habitats for the good of the economy of this country.

Mr Bradley: I cannot take a great deal of issue with that, but it is the evidence that people use in reaching that compromise decision. There are habitats that are degrees of habitats, for the sake of argument, and at the top of the peak is ancient woodland, as we put in. There are also rare minerals that you cannot find anywhere else, and you have to look for the compromise.

Ms Ball: Can I say there is no compromise on that. Braizens (?) are protected, renuits (?) are protected; we are not protected - the people are not protected themselves. We feel that legislation is far too weak to protect local people.

Q213 Mr Martyn Jones: I can anticipate the answer to this one as well! The Woodland Trust's memorandum says that "new planting can in no way compensate" for the loss of ancient woodland. You have already answered that, in a sense. Given that Celtic Energy's paper notes that "new habitats can be created so that they are every bit as good as, if not better than, those lost temporarily", can you explain the difference between the two assessments?

Ms Ball: We have mountains now where we never used to have mountains. They have been there for 12 years.

Mr Francis: Quite simply, you cannot substitute X with Y. Native woodland once covered most of Wales, most of England. What we have got left is only about 2% of the land area; even of what we had in the 1930s we have lost nearly half of that. If I was to take you (and I would not have to because you are a biologist), we would see assemblages of plants which would show us very clearly that that woodland was special. You cannot recreate that. Yes, you can do very interesting things; you can put lots of things that people would like - a shopping mall - but it would not be compensation, and something irreplaceable would have been lost. I think the Welsh Assembly was quite right to put a special emphasis on an asset which is irreplaceable. It is not just the woodland either; ancient hedgerows which have been there for centuries are very well worth protecting and cannot just be written off. The industry, at the end of the day, if it wants to be sustainable, has to show that it can work without causing long-term irreparable damage.

Q214 Mr Martyn Jones: To ancient woodland, as it were?

Mr Francis: Yes, and other habitats as well, and, most particularly, people.

Q215 Mr Martyn Jones: The other Mr Jones made the interjection that it is this balance. Would you say that there is no economic benefit that the country as a whole could get that would justify getting rid of not all ancient woodland but a proportion of it?

Mr Bradley: An earlier witness actually said that they simply did not know how much coal there was in South Wales at the moment. That is something that has to be borne in mind in answering that question, because if there is far more coal at a particular site (being site specific now) why should that be extended and cause such harm, both to the environment and the local neighbourhood?

Mr Francis: We have to put our evidence together - as everyone does - before seeing everyone else's evidence. I was very heartened, I have to say, that nowhere in the huge amount of evidence that has been put on the opencast site do any of the companies say that the Assembly's policy on ancient woodland is completely indefensible and should be got rid of.. There seems to be an acceptance there that the principle is important, and I welcome that, and I think it is the way we should look forward.

Q216 Chairman: I hope that we have covered all the points. If you feel there is something that you wish to add, please say that now.

Ms Ball: I would like to bring up one thing. Our MP, Madeline Moon, actually posed some questions to Parliament because we are fed up with the Newcastle study being brought up every time there is an argument over opencast. It is an outdated study and it is brought up. It is an outdated study; there is far more recent evidence than that emerging from all over the world. She asked the question: "To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment has been made of health effects on people who live close to opencast sites and where differences have been observed in health effects during different seasons of the year." Caroline Flint replied: "No assessment has been made since 1999", and then she goes on to talk about the Newcastle study. The point we are making is, with new evidence emerging from all around the world, why is that the only evidence that is brought up whenever there is a proposal for opencast? Why use an outdated study?

Ms De Celis: Could I come in on that, please? Why do they not do proper scientific evidence and surveys at the start of an opencast, during an opencast and at the end, at specific sites? It is not a very good situation where people complain and people worry about health concerns, and they are told: "It's all within guidelines, or limits of legislation". There has never been a local study done on any scientific evidence, and people just do not believe it. People are made to feel it is all inevitable, it is all going to come anyway, and that, in turn, leads to them feeling "We don't count". They take away our footpaths, so we cannot walk, we cannot exercise, and yet it is all "acceptable" and all "the minimum" and it is all "within guidelines, thresholds and margins". Whatever we feel, whatever we worry about, it is all respectable and under the law. This does not help us to feel healthy.

Ms Ball: The other thing is an independent study, such as the Cardiff University study, health impact assessment, is always tried to be discredited. That assessment did not just talk about dust, as Celtic Energy was saying, it talked about whole other health issues; complete health: physical, mental well-being. With Bridgend we are one of the worst areas in Wales as far as health is concerned, and Neath/Talbot as well. Surely, to take away our last little chunk of green wedge is wrong. Montgomery has come out as one of the best areas for wildlife in Wales; we have come out as one of the worst areas. Why take away green wedge land that we can use for enjoyment and for nature?

Ms De Celis: Could I just add to that? When the gentlemen were talking before and they were making the point that the valleys needed the jobs from the opencast site, I cannot speak about the valleys, I only know locally that they are not giving any benefit to the local economy; there must only be the benefit going to the wider spin-off jobs. These spin-off jobs, if they exist, we are never given any facts or figures on them. Probably they still exist from the import, the transport and the removal of the coal. The DTI made a point in their evidence on the 16^th that the dust in transport was the same for the people there as the dust for people living near opencast sites. Well, that is an absolutely ridiculous impression, and they need to come and stay a considerably longer time at the sites where people are trying to live, like we are, to know that that is not possible. The DTI said, also, the restoration normally begins after three years of working. It is 12 years since they started working at Margam Parc Slip but there is not a sign of restoration. They have made extension application after extension application - thank goodness that the system is dragging it out and making them put in new and better surveys. The industry, of course, would like it be slapped through regardless of all environment, health and social costs to their profits. The economic state of the country does not depend on coal; they even said it was small themselves.

Q217 Chairman: I did ask you at the end if you felt that you wanted to add anything to your earlier replies because I did cut you off earlier. I am cutting you off now with a request that if you feel there is something else that you wish to add do not add it now but please write to us. In response to one question, Ms Ball, you suggested that there were other studies in other countries. We would be very pleased to receive those studies.

Ms Ball: Okay.

Chairman: Thank you very much for your evidence.