Tag: Alan Brown

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many meetings he has had with HM Treasury to discuss the potential effects in Scotland of a carbon price support exemption scheme in the last year.

David Mundell

I have had a number of meetings and discussions on the important issue of opencast restoration and in particular the proposal for a carbon price support exemption. These have included discussions with colleagues from HM Treasury, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Scottish Government and Local Authorities.

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

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much has accrued to the public purse in tax receipts from the extraction of coal from open cast mines over the period 1995 to 2015.

Damian Hinds

There are no taxes levied specifically on open cast coal mining. This activity is subject to the UK’s general taxation regimes such as VAT and Corporation Tax. However it is not possible to say how much revenue these taxes raise from open cast mines, as the number of companies involved is below the Government’s threshold for disclosing tax liabilities.

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 (a) the merits and (b) compatibility with European requirements of a carbon price support exemption scheme in Scotland; and by what process evaluation of that scheme was conducted.

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.

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

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate his Department has made of the potential supplementary income generated from the proposals of 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.

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

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to paragraph 2.260 of the 2015 Budget, what alternative options his Department has considered to address the environmental liabilities associated with unrestored opencast mines in Scotland; and for what reasons each such option was not chosen.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.