My Lords, first, I have to say to the last speaker that I did not like that word “even”; this Government have introduced the highest targets of any country in the world. They have led the world in the most remarkable way and we should thank them for it—but that makes the argument against coal mines even stronger.
The Climate Change Committee is very careful not to overstep its mark. Its job is to advise on alternative methods and on the aims that we need to set the targets. Very rarely does it say that a particular measure is unacceptable. Indeed, in dealing with the question of new oil and gas, we have been very clear that the Government have to take into account the geopolitical position: you cannot just talk about the whole issue of the environment, because we are at war in Ukraine. We have a country determined to squeeze freedom out of Europe. We are concerned in all sorts of areas and we have to make very difficult decisions, so I hope my noble friend will remember how careful the Climate Change Committee has been in looking at these issues.
6 pm
When we came to the coal mine, we were very clear: it is totally unacceptable. I will just remind the House of the facts. The company West Cumbria Mining has its headquarters in Sussex. It is owned by a company that appears to have very close relations with what many people would consider rather unusual tax places. It is not a company that has done much actual development of coal mines; it tends to get planning permission for coal mines. So, first, we have to recognise that this is not a British company based in west Cumbria; it is a company backed by Australian, Singapore and other interests.
We then move on to what the company has said. It has said that this mine is for coking coal. That may be true for 15%, maybe even up to 18%, of its production. All the rest cannot be used in the United Kingdom, even if the British steel industry did not move to a greener future. Therefore, the argument that by producing it here we somehow stop it being produced in the United States and exported here is just not true. What happens to the 80% or 85%? As the noble Lord said, we have no control over that at all—but we know that it will not be sold for coking coal anywhere in Europe, because the rest of Europe is not going to use coking coal. The only thing it can be sold for is precisely what the Government have said it will not be used for.
Defending their decision, the Government have talked constantly as if it will be 100% coking coal, therefore proving that they do not believe in having new mines for coal used for generation. The Government have been quite clear about that: no new coal for generation. Therefore, to allow a mine that will produce 82% to 85% for generation is wholly against the Government’s policy.
The one thing I thought unfair in the noble Lord’s explanation of his amendment was that he did not go back to the fundamental problem. This is, of course, Mr Gove’s fundamental problem, which is that nothing in our present system of planning permission insists that planning decisions must be made in the context of our statutory commitment for the removal of all our emissions into a net-zero situation by 2050. There is nothing that includes the Government’s statutory obligations for 2030 or 2035, which is why the Climate Change Committee has said that one of the first priorities for the Government is to amend the planning Acts so that this becomes a necessary precursor to decisions.
It is arguable that the Cumbrian county council would have made a different decision if it had the support of the Acts. It is certainly arguable that Mr Gove might have made a different decision were it not for the fact that, because we do not have it in the Act, we would be in a long series of legal arguments with the people who claim that there is no planning reason for him to have turned down what the independent inspector put forward. There is a lot of argument about the independence of the inspector, and I think the Government have to look very carefully at when people feel that they should excuse themselves from making decisions of this kind—but that is for another place.
I say to the Government simply this: you cannot ask the Indians and the Chinese to move away from coal if you are providing the means for an extension of coal; you cannot say that that is what they missed out. Let us remember Mr Alok Sharma in tears when, at the very last moment, they removed from the last words of the Glasgow agreement the particularity about reducing fossil fuels. As chairman of their independent advisory body, I say to the Government that there is no doubt whatever that allowing this coal mine undermines our international ability to lead the world to a solution which alone will stop the existential threat of climate change. The reason I rise to speak now is to say to my noble friend—again, I hope he will accept that this is a genuine matter to be answered in that way—that this is the most serious issue that he will have to look at, and in it is held the Government’s credibility.
Just as I began by complimenting the Government on their leadership, the standards they set and the targets they have put forward, I have to say that if they want to uphold that, they cannot allow any new coal mines, and they must find a way to stop mining which will increase the emissions from the most damaging means of generation. We do not have time to wait while this all works its way through. This is an emergency. When you deal with an emergency, you do not light an ancillary fire. You do not do something which manifestly
runs wholly against everything else you have said, and against everything the Minister has said in defending the Government’s policy throughout the passage of the Energy Bill.