Paddy Tipping enquires into coal mining subsidies

Paddy Tipping has received a written answer on coal subsidied

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial support he made available for the deep coal mine industry in 2004–05; and how much such support he has made available in the 2005–06 financial year.

Malcolm Wicks (Minister of State (Energy), Department of Trade and Industry) replied:

Some £21.4 million of Coal Investment Aid was paid to UK deep mines in 2004–05.

A further £35.7 million remains available, of which we expect to pay claims of about £24 million in 2005–06

In general, I oppose the use of public money to perpetuate unprofitable businesses, but energy is one of the few areas where it is possible to make the case. There is growing global pressure on the earth's energy resources and the UK will no longer be self-sufficient in oil, gas or coal. Therefore there are national strategic considerations as well as financial ones. Given the rising cost of energy, we should be conserving UK reserves as far as possible. Unfortunately most of the North Sea oil reserves have been used at the point in time at which oil was at its cheapest in real terms. Now with soaring oil prices, we are being forced to import at much higher prices than we sold our own for. Will the same occur with coal?

The DTI have produced a report UK Coal Production 2004-2016.. This projects UK coal use as being likely to fall or at most stay steady. The key behind this is the high sulphur content of the UK coal - which makes it unsuitable due to emissions targets. However, North Sea gas production is depleting rapidly (more so than expected), and worldwide supply is struggling. I suspect that this report (written in March 2004) significantly underestimates the likely rise in gas prices. They offer two scenarios, one in which gas remains at the same price in real terms in 2016, in the other it has increased by 30%. In actual fact since March 2004, gas has gone up nearly 25% already, in less than 18 months.

With this in mind, we are probably going to be digging up every last scrap of coal and burning it, regardless of sulphur content. It would therefore seem prudent to keep the UK coal industry running, and to invest in clean coal technologies. That said, the longer the finite coal reserves can be eked out, the better. We are sitting on a resource which will only grow more valuable - to ourselves and to others.

Paddy Tipping continues Gedling development battle

The campaign over Top Wighay and Gedling colliery continues with a
lengthy speech in the Commons by Paddy Tipping.

In essence, Gedling Borough Council are planning a large housing development at Top Wighay (against massive local opposition), but to do nothing with Gedling colliery - a brownfield plot.

His reasons for opposing it are well put, and worth reading in full on the link above.

Paddy Tipping campaigns on public sector pension reform

Paddy Tipping pressed the issue with the newly appointed John Hutton recent debate

"I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post and remind him that public sector pension reform is one of the big issues facing him. Does he accept that the trade unions recognise that change is necessary—indeed, inevitable—but that they are reluctant to discuss the detail and the timetable for work? Given that, will he hold some meetings soon to see whether there is a chance of finding consensus on this real problem?"

The short debate contained little real meat - unsurprisingly John Hutton wanted to resolve the situation satisfactorily, but no detail was gone into.

In the last session Paddy Tipping put forward EDM 579 which sought the annullment of the 2004 amendments to the Local Government Pension Scheme and collected a massive 252 signatures.

I don't know exactly what Paddy Tipping is objecting to in the legislation (which is a very good illustration of why he ought to have his own blog) but this is what I think.

Public pensions are suffering the standard problems of defined-benefit (final salary) schemes - they are getting increasingly expensive, as this news item describes The shortfall in public sector pension schemes is £690bn, far greater than official figures indicate, a leading actuary firm has said.

From my back of envelope calculations: for someone who retires at 60, a standard 1/60th per year final salary scheme is probably worth about a third of their salary - ie if they earn £24,000 then they are getting an extra £8,000 put into their pension in return for £1,600 or so of their own contributions. (Not taking into account any rise in seniority during career, which would increase the pension's value still further). That's how much it is likely cost to fund it, and that's how much it ought to be valued at when comparing salaries with other jobs that don't offer a final salary.

Given the problems of an ageing population, it seems inevitable that the retirement age will need to rise, probably to 70 over the next 40 years, and no financial sleight-of-hand will change this. It would therefore seem sensible to raise the retirement age for public sector workers. That said, increasing the age at which an employee is entitled to retire is clearly a change to their terms of employment, for which they should receive some compensation. Alternatively, the retirement at 60 option could simply be closed to new joiners.

Tighter weapon regulation backed by Paddy Tipping

Hucknall Today reports on a killing in which a mentally ill man had used a crossbow and samurai sword to kill a neighbour, who he irrationally believed was trying to harm him.

The weapons do not currently require a licence, and had been mail ordered without any checks being carried out on the purchaser.

Paddy Tipping endorsed the following comment by the judge

"I must record my concern that it is possible for such weapons to be bought in this way without any licence being required and without even any paper records of who purchased them."

Another MP, Graham Allen, went further and called for their inclusion in forthcoming legislation to restrict the sale of replica firearms and to increase the minimum age to buy a knife from 16 to 18.

This seems fair enough, but legislation to restrict items, based on the fact that someone who was mentally ill could use them to cause harm, requires some careful consideration. Given that the average DIY store contains a huge variety of implements which could be just as lethal as a sword, it seems unlikely that they wouldn't be able to find a substitute - unless all these are restricted too. Clearly the benefit must outweigh the expense and detrimental effect to law-abiding owners. To achieve any significant benefit, it seems that a outright ban would be necessary, for example in this case, Boyer had not been diagnosed as mentally ill, so would still have been able to acquire the weapons, even if a licensing system had been in place.

The papers also point the finger at Hollywood. For example this
Telegraph article tells us:

Boyer ordered the weapons for less than £150 and started to watch violent films to learn how to use them.

Not having sat through the trial, the following is obviously speculation, but it seems highly unlikely that Boyer wasn't already watching the named films such as 'Kill Bill' - given that these are popular mainstream titles. I would further question the level of expertise that you can gain by watching a Hollywood beat-em-up, and whether someone would require any specific knowledge at all in order to inflict a fatal injury to an unarmed victim with a sword. There are echoes of the 'Child's Play' frenzy, when tabloids cited this film as a contributing factor in the murder of a child, in spite of expert witnesses contradicting this at the trial.