← Back to House of Commons Debates
Called-in Planning Decision: West Cumbria
08 December 2022
Lead MP
Lindsay Hoyle
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
HousingClimate
Other Contributors: 23
At a Glance
Lindsay Hoyle raised concerns about called-in planning decision: west cumbria in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Speaker expressed dismay at the Government's failure to follow convention regarding oral statements, emphasising that Members need proper advance notice of statements and detailed written information. He indicated that proceedings would continue despite the irregularity.
Lisa Nandy
Lab
Wigan
The shadow Secretary of State criticised the decision to reopen Woodhouse colliery, stating it contradicts environmental goals and lacks long-term economic sense. She highlighted declining global demand for coking coal and the mine's projected increase in emissions.
The Secretary of State defended the decision based on the Planning Inspectorate’s report, emphasising that the development would support steel production necessary for renewable energy projects. He stressed the need for coking coal and argued against the notion it undermines climate objectives.
The MP questioned why Labour opposes local jobs and UK supply chain, suggesting they favour importing higher-emission coal from elsewhere.
He challenged the decision's alignment with climate goals, citing criticism from the Climate Change Committee and questioning the relevance of coking coal to UK industry needs. He asked about measures for accelerating net zero pathways and criticised the consistency in overriding Planning Inspectorate recommendations.
Lee Anderson
Reform
Ashfield
An ex-miner and net zero champion, he criticised Labour's abandonment of coal mining communities. He referenced Edward Miliband's previous stance against importing coal for Drax power station from places such as Russia and Colombia.
Jon Trickett
Lab
Normanton and Hemsworth
Asked the Secretary of State to review planning policies in light of the United Nations' concern about multinational corporations harming ecosystems. He questioned whether the current framework adequately protects wildlife, ecosystems, and biodiversity.
Welcomed the decision and congratulated those who campaigned for it. She emphasised the importance of maintaining certain industries and materials for national resilience and strategic capabilities, particularly steel.
Kerry McCarthy
Lab
Bristol East
Challenged the Minister's claims that this is a green measure by pointing out that net zero does not account for actual burning of coal. She highlighted recent controversial decisions regarding fracking and oil extraction in relation to environmental standards.
Supported the Government’s commitment to net zero by 2050 and rapid phasing out of coal for power production. He clarified the distinction between metallurgical coal used in steel-making processes versus coal for energy generation.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Emphasised economic benefits, including job creation and reduced dependence on imported products from countries with lower environmental standards. He criticised those who complain about poor regions but oppose steel jobs.
As an environmentalist, she argued that the 'net' in net zero is key to this decision, emphasising responsible mining on UK shores and future economic benefits for northwest England. She praised the region's heritage, skills, and potential for advanced industries.
Clive Efford
Lab
Eltham
Asked whether 85% of the coal would be exported, questioning the environmental impact based on the former COP President Alok Sharma's comments. He sought clarification regarding greenhouse gas emissions benefits.
Bob Blackman
Con
Harrow East
Stressed that overriding the planning inspector’s recommendation would be irrational given the careful consideration by both the Cumbria planning committee and the independent inspector, who recommended approval for its economic benefits.
Wera Hobhouse
Lib Dem
Bath
Critiqued the decision as a backward step in fossil fuel use. She pointed out that most coal is intended for export rather than UK needs and called for reform of the planning system to prioritise net zero over fossil fuel industry interests.
Bassetlaw
Praised the leadership and pragmatism shown by Michael Gove regarding the coalmine decision. He argued that mining to high environmental standards in the UK would cut out the need for transportation halfway across the world and would not have a negative effect on net zero ambitions.
Luke Pollard
Lab Co-op
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport
Questioned whether approving a new coalmine in the midst of a climate crisis could enhance or damage Britain’s reputation as a global green leader, citing COP15 discussions on keeping coal in the ground.
Supported Michael Gove's decision by stating that there is likely to be a need for coking coal for decades to come and it is better if it comes from a net zero metallurgical mine, which would create high-paid jobs in Cumbria.
Claire Hanna
SDLP
Belfast South and Mid Down
Expressed concern over potential extraction decisions similar to the coalmine approval in Northern Ireland, emphasising the importance of devolved decision-making authority.
Called for evidence-based policymaking and highlighted the importance of British mining and manufacturing revival as a result of the coalmine decision.
Richard Burgon
Lab
Leeds East
Argued that investing in renewables and housing insulation is the real way to secure good jobs and solve energy crises, rather than opening new coal mines.
Commended Michael Gove for his bold decision to create high-skilled jobs in Cumbria, emphasising the strategic importance of sourcing materials locally instead of relying on economic competitors.
Questioned whether the Secretary of State's decision respects climate experts' opinions and argued that opening a new coal mine would be counterproductive to UK climate action and international reputation.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Confirmed that all steps have been taken to protect the environment, health and safety will be paramount, and local people living nearby have been closely consulted.
Government Response
The Secretary of State defended his decision, citing the inspector’s report which supports the need for coking coal for steel production. He argued that this mine is uniquely positioned to be net zero and essential for industrial decarbonisation. Gave detailed responses, emphasising reliance on inspector’s report and environmental benefits. He highlighted plans to defend green belts and safeguard biodiversity through policy changes. He also acknowledged the importance of economic benefits for regions like northwest England. Emphasised the need for colleagues to look at the full inspector's report before making judgments. He reiterated that the decision was based on evidence suggesting that coking coal will be necessary for decades and it is better if sourced from a net-zero mine.
Shadow Response
Lisa Nandy
Shadow Response
The shadow Secretary of State questioned the logic behind licensing a coal mine until 2049, citing declining global demand and environmental concerns. She called the decision 'climate vandalism' and urged for more ambitious progress on green steel.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.