Tag: Alan Brown

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential effect on employment in (a) Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency and (b) Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock constituency of his Department’s decision to not offer assistance with restoration proposals.

    Damian Hinds

    Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential number of jobs created in (a) Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency and (b) Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock constituency of the implementation of a carbon price support exemption scheme.

    Damian Hinds

    Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what meetings were held with third parties who objected to proposals to a carbon price support exemption scheme in Scotland.

    Damian Hinds

    Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment his Department has made of the proposal by the RSPB for the creation of a Restoration Investment Fund in areas with orphaned open-cast mines.

    Damian Hinds

    Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what carbon price support exemption schemes are in operation in the UK coal industry.

    Damian Hinds

    The only carbon price support (CPS) exemption scheme in operation in the UK coal industry is the exemption for coal slurry.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent discussions his Department has held with the Coal Authority and the Department for Energy and Climate Change on proposals for a carbon price support exemption scheme in Scotland.

    Damian Hinds

    Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, for what reasons his Department determined that addressing liabilities relating to unrestored coal mines in Scotland was a devolved matter.

    Damian Hinds

    Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his Department assessed the merits of a carbon price support exemption scheme for (a) Scotland and (b) the UK.

    Damian Hinds

    Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what advice was provided to his Department by independent environmental bodies on proposals for a carbon price support exemption scheme; and what alternative such proposals were made by those bodies.

    Damian Hinds

    Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities and ultimately with the Scottish Government. The Treasury has fully considered the two proposals put to them for addressing the shortfall of land restoration on abandoned Scottish coal mines: an exemption from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) tax and a direct grant from the Exchequer. Following discussions with Hargreaves, the UK Coal Authority, the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and DECC, the Treasury has had to decline both proposals after thorough consideration. The reasons for this include: – Addressing the shortfall in land restoration is not the responsibility of the UK Government. Environmental protection is a devolved matter, and outstanding land restoration liabilities lie with the relevant local authorities. – The proposals are unaffordable in the current fiscal climate. They would also set a precedent that would risk discouraging companies and local authorities from making proper financial provision for the cost of site restoration and future environmental liabilities. – A CPS exemption would be an inefficient means of addressing the shortfall of land restoration, as the money would not go directly towards this aim and it would incur significant administration costs. – A CPS exemption would distort the market by making non-exempt coal less competitive, and by discouraging investment in low carbon power generation. I have written to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism informing him of this decision and I would be happy to consider any other options put forward.

  • Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Alan Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alan Brown on 2015-09-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what (a) representations and (b) advice she has received on health and safety at unrestored open-cast coal mines in the UK.

    Andrea Leadsom

    With regard to the general issue of the restoration of former opencast coal mining sites in Wales and Scotland in addition to meeting the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Natural Resources on 16 July 2015 and a meeting with the hon. Members for Bridgend; Ogmore; Aberavon; and Kilmarnock and Loudoun on 9 September 2015 I have received written communications from other hon. Members and representations of the Welsh Assembly Government and Scottish Government. Officials from the Department’s Coal Liabilities Unit will be travelling to Wales next month to meet with Welsh Government and Local Authority officials, along with those directly affected, to discuss the matter. In the meantime my Department’s Non-Departmental Public Body, the Coal Authority, has provided expert advice to Local Authorities on calculating the level of security required for future surface mine operations to ensure the restoration costs are covered should the mining company no longer be in a position to carry out the work.

    In relation to the health and safety of these sites, this is a matter for the individual Local Authorities.