 The final item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 1-2246, in the name of Alec Rowley, on UK Government carbon price support exemption for opencast coal sites. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would be grateful if those members who wish to speak in the debate could press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Alec Rowley to open the debate. Seven minutes, please, Mr Rowley. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to those who supported my motion and enabled us to debate to take place tonight on what I believe is an issue of the utmost importance for my constituents and for communities across many of the former coal field areas of Scotland. In my own constituency, I have at Crossgates and Muir Dean opencast site and at Kelty, the St Nynian site, and to the west, near Oakley, there is Blair House. For the first two of these, there was thankfully a bond in place when ATA's resources and then Scottish Coal both went into administration, which meant that at least a level of restoration would be carried out, but there is scope for a better level of respiration, even where there is some restoration that has been able to take place. In the case of Blair House in Fife, the drawn-down of the existing bond is critical to funding a viable restoration, and the council is still advancing on that. Initial claims for repayment have been rejected by the Royal Sun Alliance. Further legal advice has been sought on the next steps and actions, including the possibility of court action being considered. Fife Council, like many local authorities, is supporting the proposed carbon tax. My focus today is to raise awareness of the massive environmental nightmare that has been left scarring many parts of Scotland's countryside. I still cannot understand why those companies, namely ATA's resources and Scottish Coal and their directors, have not been under investigation and are not being brought to task for their role in this environmental disaster. However, the point of this debate is to support the proposal for a carbon price support exemption. I am pleased to say that the chancellor has signalled his intention to work with the Scottish Coal task force to deliver a solution for the restoration. The Scottish Coal task force under the leadership of Fergus Ewing has confirmed its back-in to the CPS exemption and is willing to work with the UK Government to design and deliver such a scheme. Although there is still work to be done, that is a step in the right direction for many sites that have absolutely no solution or a very poor solution. Blair House is the best fife example of whether there is no solution without CPS exemption support unless bond funding is resolved. Across Scotland, there are a lot of sites like that. Indeed, the extent and seriousness of the problem cannot be understated. It is on an unprecedented scale some 3,500 hectares of despoiled land, a backlog that represents years of neglect that will take years to sort. Multiple dangerous, unprofiled and uncontrolled water bodies sites that are too large and must defence, let alone secure. Beyond the general flood and the site degradation, costs of essential pumping, monitoring and basic security will represent an on-going cost that most likely will have to be met by local authorities. There is an absolute need to look for a solution and look for a solution now. The problem has been around for two years since the failure of those companies, but communities have put up with the blight for even longer. Problems is worsening as sites flood and aggregate. Dangerous, dangerous and risk are therefore all to see and therefore harder and harder to ignore. The task force has met and been supported by all key departments and stakeholders and no solution or potential solution has been around until now. We should be clear that the CPS exemption is the only solution on the table. The only way to fix a problem of this size is to take a large proportion of the capacity that caused the problem, albeit other operators, and direct that capacity to solving this problem. A problem of the scale needs game changing solutions. Whatever solution is found needs to result in a large part of the current industry capacity being applied to the problem. There is no shortcut or quick solution. The CPS exemption will be a catalyst to focus effort and attention away from greenfield sites to brownfield projects that will deliver restoration. There are two main benefits from finding a solution now First, industry capacity is ready and available today to deal with the solution. Oil and gas price claps have pulled down already weak coal prices. Greenfield projects are reducing the number and operators will focus only on a very small number that are still profitable. It is therefore the ideal time to focus efforts on brownfield sites. Not only is the capacity available but the brownfield sites offer the lifeboat to the industry to see if the coal price recovers. Second, unless that lifeboat can be found then the capacity will decline and disappear fast. Jobs and skills will disappear. More importantly, mining equipment will be sold abroad. The capability to restore these sites will decline. A huge amount of mining capacity will be required to deal with this problem. Even then it will take years. Time and wise, it is a perfect conversion of one, the need for restoration in jobs. Two, the availability of huge capacity to deal with the problem. Therefore, the current market conditions means that the CPS exemption offers a rate and level of restoration that no one previously thought possible. Hard graves have tackled some of the sites but by their own admission due to the shortage of funds they have only scratched the surface. The proposal has the baton of industry, the baton of all affected local authorities. We need to take action and I hope that this Parliament can unite to push the UK Government to agree to sign up to this scheme. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate speeches of four minutes or so. I call Patrick Harvie to be followed by Adam Ingram. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I congratulate Alex Rowley for bringing that motion to the chamber. I do not doubt for a moment his commitment to those of his constituents, both his current constituents and those that he represented in his previous role within Fife Council. I do not doubt his commitment to their interests, those who are living with the environmental wreckage of this destructive and deeply irresponsible industry which has been allowed to thrive in this country for too long. I am bound to say that I do not agree with his conclusion about the carbon price support exemption and I will explain why. This is an industry like many others involved in the extraction of mineral resources which has behaved with a breathtaking irresponsibility over many years. I am happy to walk away with the proceeds of that economic activity but abandoning the liabilities, the environmental and social liabilities that have been built up. Sadly, all too often we see those assets then coming back into active use to enrich some other company that comes along but those liabilities falling on the public, the public who live with the results of destructive activity which are not being restored and the liability that falls on the public purse in terms of funding that restoration which does take place. Here we are again with both Governments, sadly, seeming to want to continue that destructive activity, not just in the Scottish Government's decisions but also some reserved functions such as the approach to rail track access, which if it was priced fairly, would ensure that this industry was paying a great deal more to take call on to the railways and effectively we would see an end to opencast extraction. Some people would clearly not welcome that. Some people look at any kind of economic activity which we are over-reliant on, over-dependent on and say, well, jobs are involved there so we must sustain it. We must sustain those jobs. I will in just a moment and I do find it tiresome how often those who point out the fundamental unsustainability of certain industries, including fossil fuel extraction, seem to be the ones blamed for pointing out that unsustainability and arguing that a change is necessary, not just the state of this industry in its own right but also the likely closure whether next year or in a few years time of Longannet, which will deprive the opencast coal industry, of a great deal of its market. We do not need the coal any more because it is not economically, environmentally or socially beneficial to use that in energy generation. It fails every test of modern energy policy, security of supply, low-carbon and affordability. Neil Findlay. Living in a former coal field area, I have been involved in a whole range of major land use issues in my area and I have objected several times to opencast coal applications. Does he accept that there are specific occasions where it is relevant and appropriate to opencast in order to clean up former industrial sites where that is almost the only option? Patrick Harvie. I cannot agree that in order to fund restoration we have to carry on making the problem worse. That, I believe, is what will happen. I will wind up in just a moment if we pursue the policy that is being suggested. Let us face it, we should be unsurprised that it is coming from an industry proposition from the people who want to see this business continue. Hargreaves has suggested this CPS tax exemption. If that is the policy that we pursue then we will create even more incentives for otherwise marginal projects to be developed and for continuation of opencast extraction where we need to see an end to it. I know that it is not popular in all parts of the country, particularly those that have been left dependent on a dying industry, but we need to recognise that this industry is dying if we are going to begin to have the frame of mind that takes us into the development of alternatives. We should be looking at alternative economic uses of these sites, alternative sustainable economic activities in the areas that have become over dependent on this unsustainable one, but simply digging ourselves deeper into the hole that we are in now will make the problem worse, not better. Like RSPB who has sent a briefing about raising their concerns about the CPS exemption, I would argue that there are alternative approaches looking to see the decline of this industry but using public funds to fund the restoration rather than consenting additional opencast extraction as a means of doing that. I welcome the opportunity to debate those issues, but I have to part company on the conclusion. I thank Alex Rowley for securing this evening's debate. I very much support the general thrust of his arguments and observations that he made this evening. That said, I did take some issue with the terms of the motion, in particular the reference to the limited success of the Scottish Coal Industry Task Force, and damming with faint praise came to mind there. From my perspective, the task force has been a great success, bringing all the relevant stakeholders together to ensure, first of all, that the employment crisis created with 700 people thrown out of work was effectively tackled. I think that the failures in planning and regulatory regimes were addressed to prevent the mistakes of the past being repeated. Finally, solutions have been found to restoration of abandoned opencast sites. Clearly, the latter is still a work in progress, but without the task force I doubt that anything of substance would have emerged at all. The subject matter of this debate is a vital constituency interest of mine, given the scale of opencast coal operations in the Ayrshire coal field, which historically has produced over 50 per cent of all opencast coal in Scotland. Consequently, the adverse environmental impact of the collapse of the two coal companies, ATH and SRG, is of a similar scale. In financial terms, East Ayrshire has been left with a notional bill of £161 million to restore former opencast sites to a state agreed with planning, consent and total restoration bond coverage amounts to only £29 million. Some of the bond providers are making life difficult for the council to call down their full value. In physical terms, what we have been left with is 20 square kilometres of abandoned and derelict land pitted with huge amounts of coal waste, many of which have filled with water. Public safety and on-going pollution threats are of a real and immediate concern. In this context, the CPS exemption proposal from Hargreaves provides the only financially viable plan that will provide the best possible solution for the problem comprehensively and in a manner acceptable to local communities. Indeed, Ian Coburn of Hargreaves, who has done an exceptional job in working up the details of the proposal, has made it clear that local communities, as well as planning authorities, must have a significant say in the approval of any scheme that emerges from the tendering process associated with delivering restoration projects. Finally, I want to welcome the declaration in the UK budget documentation issued today that the UK Government will work closely with the Scottish Coal Industry Task Force to deliver a restoration solution. I hope and trust the CPS exemption route in whatever form, and Patrick Harvie should be aware that RSPB favours the CPS exemption scheme of a different kind to the one that is proposed by Hargreaves. I hope that such a scheme will be taken on by the Scottish Coal Industry Task Force sooner rather than later. I do not know if the minister has any more information that he will be able to share with us in his summing up, but I would certainly welcome his response to this development. I now call Neil Findlay to be followed by Murdo Fraser. I want to reflect on some of the local experience that I have had in my area when I was a counciller. The former pochemic call in my area is undergoing huge redevelopment with the Heartlands project, a project that is bringing hundreds, probably thousands of homes, a school, retail, industrial units and a major motorway junction on to the AMA. It is beginning to make progress after a period of real difficulty during the recession. In the middle of the extraction process of opencast on that site, the contractor at that time, Fentons, went bust. We did not suffer from the catastrophic impact of that that we are seeing in Fife, Midlothian and elsewhere. A new contractor came in immediately, and there was continuity in the excavation of the high-quality coal that was there. Work went on largely without a blip. Had that not happened, we might have had the same problems. That was largely avoided by the skill, diligence and abilities of the local chief planning officer, who I believe is advising the task force, Chris Norman. What he did was he negotiated a very significant and a very tight bond that meant that when the hole being excavated for the coal was at its deepest, the bond was at its largest. Therefore, had no new contractor come in, the bond would have covered and fully restored the site. The contractor squealed at that point. They squealed that they wanted to draw down cash from the bond in order to keep their company going. We were under a lot of pressure on the council at that time to give in to that. We refused to do that because we knew that the consequences if the contractor then went bust after taking down the bond would have meant exactly the scenario that we see in Ayrshire, Fife and Midlothian. That was a very significant negotiation that went on in order to ensure that that bond was very, very tight. I think that there are lessons to be learned from that. The point that I made to Mr Harvie, which I think he may have misunderstood, is that on that site, in order to remove a burning bing that had been there for decades that was causing the silver in people's houses to tarnish and God knows what was happening to their lungs and to their breathing, in order to get rid of that contaminated land, the water, the flooding, all sorts of problems on that site, opencast was the only option. It was almost the only game in town. You may shake your head all you like, Mr Harvie. That was the reality of this situation. How on earth can the only solution to environmental destruction be more environmental destruction? The method in which they were using to deal with the burning bing was to extract, fold the bing into the hole that was there, to extinguish it, to put the burning bing out and then restore the site. It was actually a very technical process, but it was actually one of the few options that was available on that site. Had we not went down that route, I think that we would have still had such a huge environmental disaster on our doorstep. All I say in this debate is that we should learn from what's happened in Westlodiant. Excellent practice went on by the local authority, avoiding the disasters that have happened elsewhere. I don't particularly want to comment on the issues around the CPS exemption and all that. I don't know enough about it. All I'm saying is that where we've had disasters in Scotland in some areas, we've also had very good experience of local authorities acting very responsibly. All those who represent areas where mining has taken place are fully aware of the issues facing the opencast industry. Following world prices for coal have put huge pressure on domestic producers. Moreover, as we move increasingly towards a low-carbon energy system, demand for coal domestically is going to reduce. Just last week, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee took evidence about the future of the Longannet power station in Fife. It may close as early as March next year, but in any event it is clear that the plant has no future beyond 2020, primarily as a result of EU emissions directives and carbon pricing. Longannet is still a major buyer of coal from Scottish producers. This creates a headache for our remaining coal companies, among them Hargreaves, who announced last week that 85 jobs are at risk at sites across the country. Hargreaves, based in Durham, have been operating at sites in Fife and Ayrshire, taking over following the collapse of the mining company's Scottish Resources Group and ATH Ardvark in 2013, which Alex Rowley referred to earlier. There is a related issue that Alex Rowley highlighted in the motion this evening in relation to the restoration of existing opencast mines. We are all familiar with the legacy that has been left by previous mining operations sites in Fife and Ayrshire, where companies have gone into liquidation, insufficient funds, having been put aside to allow these to be properly restored, leaving local communities with the dismal prospect of ugly, unrestored sites on their doorstep, potentially for many years to come. Hargreaves have estimated that the remediation of 35 km2 of land could take five years to complete. That work would involve the creation and safeguarding of 1,000 direct mining jobs and 1,500 indirect jobs, but it can only be done if we continue to extract coal from these sites to pay the cost of restoration. The problem is at the moment that the sums simply do not add up. That is why Hargreaves has submitted a proposal to deck and treasury for carbon price support to free up the necessary resources. If successful, the CPS exemption would allow for full restoration of existing sites and an extra 1 million tonnes of coal extracted per annum. That could be done at no net cost to the taxpayer by generating additional fuel duty and predicting existing jobs. The Hargreaves proposal has been submitted to the Scottish Government's coal industry task force, of which I am pleased to be a member. Last year, I wrote to deck with my support for those proposals, which are under consideration in the UK treasury. Hargreaves have worked hard to gain cross-party support for what they propose. Of course, it is very easy for us in this Parliament to be calling upon the UK Government to forego tax revenue, but I hope that Treasury and Deck look upon that favourably, and today's announcement from the Chancellor provides some encouragement. I am aware that the proposals from Hargreaves do not command unanimous support. There have been competing proposals, and there is skepticism in some quarters as to whether the CPS exemption will deliver the benefits that Hargreaves set out. Nevertheless, action does need to be taken. The danger is that without some intervention there will be no restoration of these sites, there will be a loss of jobs, we will lose the skills involved in the industry for good and future generations will still have to live with a legacy of inaction. I hope that we will see progress in the matter, either along the lines of the Hargreaves proposal or in some other manner. I hope that this debate is helpful in advancing that agenda. I close by commending Alex Rowley for bringing it to the chamber. I now invite Fergus Ewing to respond to the debate. Seven minutes or so, please. I, too, would like to congratulate Alex Rowley for bringing this matter to the debate and recognise the strong constituency interest that he has. Like Mr Ingram, I find myself in agreement with most of what he said this evening. The coal task force was, as he set out, set up in the aftermath of the insolvency and administration of Scottish resources, Scottish coal as it was, and ATH. The purposes of the task force were two-fold. First, to seek the re-engagement of as many as possible of the several hundred employees who lost their jobs. Many of them are in parts of Scotland, where there are simply very few other alternatives, if any, and none at the level of remuneration that the employees enjoyed. The first task was re-engagement of the employees. The second task was to find an approach to tackle the considerable problem of restoration of the cold-out site. Those were the two objectives. Mr Ingram has referred to the work that the group has done. I have been pleased to be the co-chair along with Russell Griggs of the group. It has been the largest task force that I have ever chaired, and I have chaired quite a few. I have been very grateful for the contribution of Mr Rowley, of Mr Ingram, of Sandra Osborne, of Aileen Campbell, who is here this evening, of Murdo Fraser, of Willie Rennie, who is not here this evening, of Willie Coffey, of Cathy Jamieson. I mentioned that and the names that I hope I haven't omitted inadvertently, because it has been a cross-party effort. We have, I think, largely put politics aside. I can't think of any of the eight meetings of the task force where party politics is interposed or been relevant, really, and that, I think, has helped to drive forward some of the solutions and achievements that the task force has reached. One of them was to see the re-engagement of 500 people from Hargreaves in just under a year. That's a terrific achievement, given the difficulties, Presiding Officer. I also pay tribute to the other players that the companies involved, Keir, Banks and others who have played a part, and other service companies such as Caterpillar and Terex, who, to some extent, are dependent upon the continuation of this work, and the whole indirect jobs that are dependent upon the sector, up to several thousand jobs, as Mr Finlay referred to, in calling communities. There is a whole network of subcontractors and jobs that are dependent upon the continuation of the work. We had a heavy onus of responsibility, but we managed to play a part in seeing that happen. We voted £200,000 to ticketing issues. We persuaded the ORR to cut its increase in freight charges from £4 to £1 a ton, a great achievement, after we gave the ORR a very significant cross-examination on the task force. Local authorities have made progress in calling up bonds, and they have had successes. It's difficult work, Presiding Officer, and they've achieved that success. Success by working together and leaving the politics aside. The task force, rather than fold, continued because of the new emerging series of problems that are caused by the low-world coal prices model Fraser rightly referred to. The place is considerable further economic pressure on the operators, and, in my opinion, unless addressed by a solution such as is on the table, may lead to the termination of the open-cast sector in perhaps two or three years' time. The proposal that was put by the industry and was adopted unanimously by the task force is that there should be an extension to the existing exemptions from the carbon price support mechanism, the carbon tax. It should be very narrowly defined. Restoration projects would be subject to competitive tender and an open process. The proposal uses coal that remains on or adjacent to the sites to subsidise the cost of the restoration scheme. Extraction of coal would be considered where the extraction creates value and the net cost reduction for a restoration scheme. The coal authority would have oversight, therefore, and provide ballast and an element of control mechanism, which is necessary for such a scheme. The proposal would cover all sites that were left with unfunded restoration liabilities. The definition of often sites needs to be carefully considered, but no sites that should not attract exemption support are inadvertently supported. The starting premise for the objective of the scheme would be to deliver restoration to the level that was consented at the time of failure of ATH and SRG. I am very pleased that, in page 97 of the red book that is associated with the budget announcement today by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the UK Government has made the following statement. It says that it will work closely with the Scottish Coal Taskforce and Industry stakeholders to explore alternative options for addressing the environmental liabilities associated with unrestored opencast mines in Scotland. That is a possible step forward. Therefore, it is one that I welcome in the spirit in which it is offered and the spirit to which I refer that has been pursued, the one that I have followed in the opencast taskforce. The statement does not actually refer to the UK Government agreeing in principle that there should be the exemption that is sought, but be that that as it may, let us hope that that is what is in their mind. Having become aware of that today, Presiding Officer, as the Minister for Energy and the Scottish Government, I will therefore make quick immediate contact with the UK Government to seek a meeting with the Exchequer Secretary, Priti Patel, to press for adoption of the solution that has such cross-party support here in Scotland. I will do so and be able to relay to her the broad-based support of all the main parties in Scotland. I am very pleased to do so. I want to say that, if this proposal does not, or some version of it, is not adopted, then I am very concerned for the future of all of the people who are working in these calling communities. I have met many of them. I have met their representatives. I have discussed this with their union representatives for whom I have the greatest respect. They are terrific people. It has been an honour to meet them. I want to do right by them. I, with the support of colleagues in the main parties in Scotland and working with party spokespeople, will do everything that I possibly can to see this exemption being granted. Calling and restoring go together. Those voices on the fringes who say that you can have restoring without calling, I am afraid, do not understand the reality of it, as has been set out both by Mr Rowley and Mr Fraser. Fortunately, that is a minority view. I am delighted that, in this debate, we have heard very clear, and I think a virtually unanimous view, that we have managed to work together, those of us who display some vestiges of common sense and rationality, to work together, to help those who deserve our help, that elect us here to help them to stand up for their interests and not regard their work as dispensable on the altar of some ideological view. I will do everything within my power to further the very good work that those of us who have taken part positively in this debate have displayed this evening. I will put every possible effort into it, and I guarantee every member in this chamber that that is what I will do. That ends Alex Rowley's debate on UK Government carbon price support exemption for opencast coal sites. I now close this meeting of Parliament.