House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Jan 1991

Column 669

short-term employment for construction workers, and local employment once the plant is in operation. Up to 550 workers will be employed by PowerGen during the construction phase and National Power will need about 350 workers.

Consultations have taken place not only with local authorities, but with the National Rivers Authority, which will need to approve the proposals before a licence can be granted to permit the two generators to extract water from and discharge water into the Humber. Other consultations have been undertaken during the drafting and preview stages of the Bill. Where necessary, the proposals in the Bill have been amended to provide appropriate safeguards as requested by interested parties, or appropriate undertakings have been given. The following organisations have already been consulted as a result, and there has been no further correspondence from British Telecom since December 1989. The Yorkshire electricity board has said that none of its apparatus will be affected and British Gas has said that no gas apparatus will be affected. The British Coal Corporation confirmed on 23 January 1990 that it was content. As for Anglian Water plc, an undertaking to Anglian Water Services Limited has been agreed and an executed document is awaited. The Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Associated British Ports, Humber Oil Terminals Trustees Limited, Associated Petroleum Terminals (Immingham), and the National Rivers Authority have all been consulted. None have any objections.

Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley) : Private Bills go through a certain procedure ; there are advertisements in the newspapers that the Bill is proceeding through the House and the public are advised of how they can gain access to its proceedings, but I know from my experience of local government that the vast majority of the public in the affected area may be unaware that the Bill is going through the House, and even if they are aware of it they are at a loss to understand how to go about voicing their concerns about it. I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that the national interested parties have been made aware of the Bill, but perhaps the general public are unaware of its implications. I know of at least one previous Bill whose effects were unknown to the public.

Mr. Knapman : I am surprised to hear that, because among the bodies that I have stated have no objection are Glanford borough council and the Labour-controlled county council. I should have thought that they would not have reached their decision before ascertaining local opinion. If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that those councils, most of whose members belong to his party, have not taken the opportunity to find out what public opinion is, something is wrong. I do not believe that he thinks, on further reflection, that that is so.

Dr. Michael Clark (Rochford) : Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from trying to circumvent normal planning procedures, were it not for the Humber Conservancy Act 1905, if the promoters of the Bill had applied for planning consent in the usual way it would have been granted to them? It is only because of the 1905 Act that my hon. Friend has had to bring the matter to the House today.

Mr. Knapman : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The 1905 Act was passed to extend and amend Acts of 1852

Column 670

and of 1899 which conferred further powers on the commissioners. The original Acts were passed to draw a uniform development line in the river beyond which tidal works could not extend. The purpose of the 1905 Act was to protect the river regime and navigation on the river. It conferred powers on the commissioners to dredge the river and to carry out other works to assist and improve navigation. So the commissioners can exercise certain powers but not others. The 1905 Act mentions private Acts of Parliament being required, which is why we are here tonight--so my hon. Friend was absolutely correct. The Humber Conservancy Acts were enacted to confer powers on the commissioners for the protection of the river regime and of navigable waters. Subject to the provisions of the 1905 Act, no person may make or form any recess, dock bed for boat or barges, basin, pier or jetty, landing place, quay or embankement wall or other works on the foreshore or bed of the Humber between the river lines and high water mark. The only way in which the prohibitions in the 1905 Act can be overcome is by the promotion of a further Act of Parliament--hence the need for this Bill and this revival motion.

The House has already given approval to the laying of pipes in the Humber-- when it approved the July 1972 Act. Unfortunately, that Act gave approval for pipes which are longer than necessary for the current power station developments. So the design of the 1972 cooling waterworks cannot be optimised. Further, Associated British Ports would require the 1972 works to be lowered should it be required at some future date to dredge the river as part of its statutory duties. Indeed, the 1972 Act was designed to give the then CEGB powers to lay pipes in the Humber for a much larger 4,000 MW power station and it laid down in some detail the length of the cooling water works permitted. The Act allowed for two works extending from the shore into the river in a north-easterly direction for a distance of new fewer than 530 yds or486 m and terminating in an intake of 780 yds or 715 m, terminating in an outfall.

The Act allowed these intake and outfall works to be moved vertically and laterally within the limits of deviation but regrettably it prohibited any substantial alteration, including any substantial reduction in the lengths of the pipes. By comparison, under the 1989 Bill the longest specified intake would be only 390 m and the longest specified outfall only 290. As a result, the obligations of the 1972 Act would require the companies to build pipes that would extend and intrude further into the river Humber than is required, and longer pipes would involve the companies in much greater construction costs. In addition, section 35 of the 1972 Act gave consent, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, for the works if they were commenced within five years of the passing of the Act. Those powers have now expired.

National Power and PowerGen intend to build combined cycle gas turbine stations which, like any other power stations, need cooling water works. National Power is building a station of 650 MW and PowerGen two stations of 450 MW each. These stations will use indirect cooling works and will need much less water than if they used direct cooling methods such as those proposed under the works in the 1972 Act. The system of indirect cooling ensures that there is less environmental impact on the river Humber than would result from direct cooling works.

The indirect cooling system will involve water being passed through the condensers and cooled by air using

Column 671

cooling towers with the same water, which is then recirculated. Only the water evaporated in the cooling towers and a small quantity of purge water is required to be replaced, therefore. So the combination of indirect cooling and combined cycle gas turbine technology means that requirements for cooling water are significantly reduced. The Killingholme development will require only about 5 per cent. of the water used for direct cooling at existing power stations.

Mr. Redmond : I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I cannot understand why he is promoting this Bill. I could find no reason why he should in the Register of Members' Interests. How did he come to draw the short straw and end up promoting this Bill?

Mr. Knapman : The answer is that I am a man of many parts and many talents.

Dr. Michael Clark : It is important that we fully understand what my hon. Friend is proposing. Will he confirm that the 1972 Act contained proposals for various works which were considerably longer and deeper than the works proposed in this Bill, and that due to the wording of the 1972 Act those works cannot be contracted, shortened or made smaller in any way? This Bill will enable the works to be diminished as compared with those proposed in 1972.

Mr. Knapman : I can confirm all that my hon. Friend says. The outfalls anticipated in the 1972 Act are approximately double the length of those that are now proposed. That is good environmentally and commercially and in every other sense. It is therefore difficult to see why there are objections to the Bill.

Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian) : I am becoming confused about the hon. Gentleman's proposals. Perhaps he could assist. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is presenting a revival motion to the House.

Mr. Moss : That is correct.

Mr. Eadie : If the Bill is approved, it will require a Second Reading. Is that correct?

Mr. Moss : That is correct.

Mr. Eadie : That assists the House to some extent. I do not quarrel with the way in which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) presents his case, but he gives the House the impression that the revival motion is it, so to speak.

Mr. Knapman : I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means is presenting the motion, and I am trying to show hon. Members who object to the Bill the folly of their ways. The Bill has absolutely nothing to do with coal or with the choice of fuel. I fear that it is a mundane Bill dealing with certain types of inlets to and outlets from the Humber to the power stations which are already being constructed. I should love to talk about coal and about the paper produced by the Labour party which says that we should rely almost entirely on coal, but if I did so I should immediately be ruled out of order.

Mr. Eadie : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to say how the debate

Column 672

should be conducted and to lay down strictures? He is certainly entitled to articulate his opinion and his interpretation of the motion that he presents, but it is for the Chair to determine the conduct of the debate. I seek guidance on the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : The Bill has not yet been debated in the House. As the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) says, we are debating a revival motion and comments must be related to that. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is introducing the motion, and as the Bill has not yet been debated in the House, I thought it right to give him reasonable latitude to explain the background to the motion. That is why I am giving him more than the customary flexibility.

Mr. Knapman : I am grateful to you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : It is not often that I smell a rat in this place, but I smell one now.

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes) : The hon. Gentleman used that line during the debate on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill.

Mr. Haynes : Yes, because I smelt a rat then too. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is also involved in this. There are a number of faces in the House which are familiar to such debates. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) mentioned PowerGen. Is he aware that, in its magazine, PowerGen said that it would get this approved by August last year? What have these familiar faces been up to? My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) was right when he said that the hon. Member for Stroud had drawn the short straw. He is pouring out a load of rubbish and we have to put up with it.

Mr. Knapman : The hon. Gentleman is right in only one respect--that he has to put up with it.

The Bill is in five parts, but I shall not take the House through all of them in any detail. Hon. Members may be grateful for that, but of course on Second Reading I may be forced to speak at some length. Part I deals with the preliminaries and gives details of the phrases used in the Bill. Part II details the works involved.

[Interruption.] If Opposition Members had spent 10 minutes reading part II of the Bill, they would not be so excited.

Schedule 4 details all the works that National Power would be given power to construct and provides for three intakes and three outfalls of modest length compared with the long ones proposed in the 1972 Bill. Schedule 5 details the rights given to PowerGen to construct works. It has similar rights for works Nos. 7 to 12.

Part III gives the power to acquire land. That is entirely normal and largely in accordance with the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Part IV is the crux of the matter. It contains the protective provisions for other bodies which are interested in the Bill and which have made no objection whatever. Under schedule 25 is the Humber Bridge board and under schedule 26 is Associated British Ports.

Mr. Redmond : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Knapman : The hon. Gentleman is likely to make his own speech, but I shall give way to him once again.

Mr. Redmond : The hon. Gentleman has said several times that the people who were consulted have no

Column 673

objections. When did the promoters of the Bill meet the various bodies to discuss amendments to take account of objections? Has PowerGen or National Power given any money to meet certain requirements of objectors?

Mr. Knapman : Not to my knowledge, for the simple reason that until the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) objected to the Bill no one else had objected to it. Of course it went through the other place and therefore the question of objection does not arise.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Will my hon. Friend confirm that no one objected because the battle about the type of power station to be built and whether it should be gas fired, oil fired or nuclear powered is over? A decision has been taken and those with coal mining interests who seek to delay proceedings on this revival motion only deprive the whole of the north-east, and Humberside in particular, of badly needed power. Power stations have to be justified, but that argument is over and it is pointless to talk about cooling water which all power stations have to use.

Mr. Knapman : My hon. Friend is right. Not only would other forms of power station require greater amounts of water to be abstracted from the Humber, but in 1972 there was something of a storm when an oil-fired station was proposed. Subsequent happenings led to proposals for a gas- fired station. In early 1991 people are still fighting the battles that were fought in 1972 and no doubt the Opposition are still fighting many of the battles of the 1930s. As I have said, part IV of the Bill is the crux of the matter. It contains the protective provisions and touches on the intervention of the hon. Member for Don Valley. It mentions the Humber Bridge Board and Associated British Ports and more recently the British Coal Corporation. That is a summary of the Bill.

The progress of the Bill is as follows. It was promoted successfully through the other place, despite a challenge from the Coalfied Communities Campaign. It is important to note that it did not allege that the proposals in the Bill were in any way defective, but said that the generation of electricity from gas would have a consequential effect on its members' welfare. That objection was defeated in Committee in the other place on 10 May 1990. Therefore, the Bill was placed before an unopposed Lords Committee on 24 May and received its formal Third Reading on 18 June. The House of Commons received the Bill on the same day. It was formally tabled and blocked, as I have described.

I see no reason why the Bill should have been blocked, as my hon. Friends have said, and I hope that with the information that I have given the House will see its way clear to pass this revival motion. 7.30 pm

Mr. George J. Buckley (Hemsworth) : The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) said glibly that there was nothing dangerous or difficult in the Bill as it related to the generation of electricity. I beg to differ. We cannot ignore the fact that these power stations will be powered by gas. The suggestion that they might be powered by nuclear energy caused quite a stir. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) made strong representations on that.

Column 674

Mr. Moss : Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Secretary of State has given clearance, under the Electricity Act 1989, for two power stations burning gas to be on the Killingholme site, and that this motion has nothing whatever to do with nuclear power?

Mr. Buckley : As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) said, the Secretary of State was acting illegally because, under the European regulations, it was illegal for him to give permission for power stations to generate electricity by gas. I suspect that the Bill has been delayed to allow the Government the opportunity to persuade the EEC to withdraw its reservations about using gas to generate electricity.

The hon. Member for Stroud said that if we delayed the Bill or opposed it so strongly that we defeated it we would deprive the north-east of much- needed energy. However, my understanding is that the north-east is quite well endowed with electricity and that the shortage of power is in the south. The Government and other organisations have urged us to reduce our electricity demands, so it is more likely that we shall have over-capacity than shortage of capacity in electricity generation.

We had a long debate on another private Bill concerned with the use of the Humber to import large tonnages of coal. The Humber is becoming an increasingly important and busy estuary to the extent that there may be danger to shipping . I do not suggest that the power stations have anything to do with shipping, but they do have something to do with the use of the Humber estuary, which is important.

The situation is not as clear as the hon. Member for Stroud claimed. He spoke about depriving the Humber estuary area of much-needed employment. I could understand it if an hon. Member representing that area made that point, but I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Stroud made it. While it would not affect his constituency, the project would affect my constituency and those of other hon. Members, and, in particular, it would affect employment in the area.

Conservative Members may dismiss, off the cuff, our arguments in favour of the use of coal as a major generating source. However, although the project may result in a few jobs for the area, our constituents will lose jobs because of the change in the generation of electricity from solid fuel. Conservative Members should understand that we make our points on the basis of the interest of our constituents. There is no joy in our constituents losing thousands of jobs while the Killingholme project creates a few jobs, whether in short-term construction or long-term generation.

Mr. Knapman : I repeat that the Bill is not about which type of power is used to generate electricity. It is purely about pipes into and from the Humber. That is the point of the Bill. Therefore, employment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is not affected by the Bill.

Mr. Buckley : It has a direct effect on the constituents whom I represent because the proposed power stations will be powered by gas rather than solid fuel.

In a debate on energy and generation, we should talk about the consequences of using gas as a major producer of electricity. It could have economic, employment and balance of payments consequences. The short-term thinking by the Government and the promoters of the Bill,

Column 675

on behalf of PowerGen and National Power, leads them to say that there are no significant consequences in converting to the production of electricity by gas.

Mr. Eadie : It is remarkable that attempts to circumscribe the debate have been made. My hon. Friend is showing the impact of the Bill. Does he agree that there has been a change since the Bill was first mooted and since the first attempts to push it through the House? I recall telling the House in a previous debate that , when I met the Norwegian commanders in NATO, I asked them what would happen if a conflict broke out in the North sea and what consequences it would have for the oil and gas installations. They told me that the installations could not be defended. As a strategic aspect is now involved, because we may soon be involved in a war in the Gulf, the situation has changed since the House last addressed the subject.

Mr. Buckley : I take my hon. Friend's point. The impact of the Bill will be more far-reaching than the hon. Member for Stroud has suggested. He is talking about inputs and outtakes of water from the Humber and short pipes and long pipes. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) spoke about drawing the short straw rather than the long pipe, and the hon. Gentleman is suffering from that. I do not want to lumber the hon. Member with this, but he is not wrestling with the short pipe.

Mr. Dickens : PowerGen and National Power have given undertakings to honour their contracts as large buyers of British coal up until 1993. Subsequently, they expect to be major buyers of British coal as long as negotiations lead to a commercially sensible conclusion. I do not see why that should end. British Coal would still be the biggest supplier to those organisations.

Mr. Buckley : I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which is relevant to the argument that I am advancing on behalf of my constituents. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting, however, that the two power stations could be built within a three-year contract? That is the contract that British Coal has with National Power and PowerGen, and it is linked to a certain tonnage of coal. I accept that my constituents have an interest in investment in British Coal

Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield) : Perhaps my hon. Friend will remind the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) that evidence was given to the Select Committee on Energy by the Central Electricity Generating Board that it would like to import up to 10 million tonnes of foreign coal through the ports on the east coast.

Mr. Buckley : We are, of course, talking about gas. A Bill dealing with the importation of coal has passed through the House and the consequences for the coal industry of that measure will be considerable. We are talking about an alternative fuel--gas--that will offer security and continuity of supply. Perhaps gas will not provide the guarantees for which some Conservative Members hope.

Some of the gas supplied from the North sea is coming from the Norwegian sector. If power stations are turning towards gas, the increased demand will be met by the

Column 676

Norwegian sector, not the British sector. Conservative Members have tried to talk down the consequences of the Bill, but we must consider the long-term consequences if the Government decide that gas-fired power generation is something that should be expanded. What would be the consequences for gas supply if we started building gas-powered generating stations along estuaries? Given the Gulf crisis, much of our imported supply would come from politically vulnerable areas. In the long term, much of our gas supply might have to come from the Soviet Union, for example, which has had recent experience of

Mr. Moss : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how we are to be supplied with gas from the Soviet Union when there is no pipeline across the North sea.

Mr. Buckley : The hon. Gentleman's intervention illustrates the limited knowledge of Conservative Members. Europe is linked to the Soviet Union by a major gas supply pipe.

There is a shortfall in electricity supply in the south-east of the United Kingdom, not the north-east. A gas supply link between the United Kingdom and Europe would be a requirement if gas-fired power stations were situated in the south-east. It would be convenient to be linked to a major supply of gas from the Urals, for example. Another major supply of gas would come from Algeria, which is another area of political difficulty, especially when we consider the long-term supply of gas, which will have a significant effect on future energy supplies generally to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Moss : I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He is saying that with the Gulf crisis, or a Gulf war, we shall not have enough gas in the short to medium term and that we shall have to import it from the Soviet Union through a non-existent pipeline or import from Algeria by sea, presumably in liquefied form. Is he not aware that it was said in evidence to the Select Committee on Energy that there is about 10 GW of capacity from the known reserves of British Gas and that that could be used to produce electricity over and above the current demand of the country as a whole through the civilian subscribers to British Gas?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We are dealing with a revival motion, and hon. Members must address their remarks to that.

Mr. Buckley : I strayed from the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was concerned about the long-term consequences if two power stations are dependent on North sea gas for their power generation. That is relevant to the energy policy that is being outlined for the future. I see that the sponsor, the hon. Member for Stroud, is receiving another briefing from his adviser, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark). I understand that the hon. Member for Stroud was prompted earlier in the debate. It is good to receive expert advice from Conservative Members who are mindful of the problems that we face.

Mr. Moss : It is good advice.

Mr. Buckley : It may be good advice.

The Bill seeks to amend or change earlier proposals. It is--

Column 677

Dr. Michael Clark : The 1972 legislation contained a proposal to build a 4,000 MW oil-fired power station. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about employment in his constituency. I understand also that the coal lobby wants to ensure that as much coal is burnt as possible. It is proposed now that there should be a maximum of 2,000 MW of gas-fired generation. That is only half of that which was proposed in 1972. I accept that the 1972 proposal was based on non-coal-fired generation, as is the current proposal. I repeat, however, that the current proposal is only half the non-coal proposal of 1972. It is possible that that is the reason for a Labour-controlled local authority in the area in question being in favour of the proposal. Less electricity will be produced than that which would have been generated if the 1972 proposal had been implemented, and there will be more scope for more coal to be burnt elsewhere.

Mr. Buckley : I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy for the expert information that he has given to the House. The hon. Gentleman has given support to my argument. The need to increase generation in the north-east is not as valid as Conservative Members have claimed. I accept that the 1972 proposal of 4,000 MW has been reduced by 50 per cent. That means that an increase in energy supply is not justified in terms of the 1972 legislation.

Mr. Redmond : The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) lost me in his intervention. He suggested that a reduction from 4,000 to 2,000 MW would be beneficial because that would enable us to burn more coal elsewhere. I oppose the carry-over motion because of the impact that the Bill will have on the country generally. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that there is no national power policy or energy policy. We are living from hand to mouth, and that is why my hon. Friends and I are concerned about the future. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell the House whether he agrees that there should be a national energy policy to replace the prevailing market forces.

Mr. Buckley : My hon. Friend emphasises the main point of my argument, which is that the Bill represents a slipshod approach to Britain's energy supply problem on which the Government have no short-term or long-term policy. We seem to be basing our requirements on imported energy. That is ludicrous when one considers the abundance of energy to which this country has had access over the past decade. We were in the forefront of developing nuclear energy, and we had the bonanza of North sea oil, together with an abundance of coal reserves and North sea gas as well.

As to North sea gas reserves, which are fairly extensive, if we substantially increase our consumption from that source, we shall increasingly come to depend in the near future on other sources of gas supply.

Although I acknowledge the points made by those who support the carry-over motion, the effects will be more far reaching than the length of a pipe into the estuary and the amount of water that will flow through it. The stations will have an impact on long-term thinking about this nation's energy's supplies.

Mr. Michael Brown rose --

Column 678

7.51 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory) : It may be helpful if I intervene briefly atthis stage to give the Government's general view of the Bill and of the revival motion in particular. I promise my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that I will not speak long enough to exclude him from contributing to the debate.

The works authorised by the Bill will form an integral part of two new gas- fired power stations that are to be constructed by National Power and PowerGen on Humberside. They are among the first of a new generation of gas -fired stations that offer certain efficiency and environmental advantages. Such stations are quicker and cheaper to construct, and the Government see no objection to them on environmental grounds. In fact, in terms of global warming, there may be advantages in generating electricity, at least in part, by burning more gas.

As the House may know, a gas-fired power station produces virtually no sulphur dioxide and only about one quarter of the nitrogen oxides and about one half of the carbon dioxide emissions for the same electrical output as an equivalent coal-fired power station. As we believe it probable that there will be an increase in global atmospheric temperatures due to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is obviously important that we find ways in the years ahead of stabilising and perhaps reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Dr. Michael Clark : I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister must take a neutral stance in respect of the Bill, but is not he being slightly unfair when he says that the Government have no objections to the stations on environmental grounds? Would not it be fairer to say that, on environmental grounds, the Government welcome the burning of gas rather than coal?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : This is not my Bill, but I will indicate my position at the end of these remarks. As the environment has been mentioned several times, I thought it proper to give just an outline of the Government's attitude. I have already indicated that, in terms of protecting the global atmosphere, the burning of gas offers certain advantages over other fossil fuels.

Mr. Redmond : The technology is available to reduce toxic emissions from coal-fired stations, but a softly-softly approach is being adopted because of the cost of adopting it. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on the part that gas could play in the Bill, in respect of long- term requirements and a national energy policy. I understand that the price of coal has been pegged in relative terms to inflation in order to maintain a market for coal within the generation game. However, the price of electricity to the consumer has shot up, and it now bears no relation to the generators' costs. What is being done with those profits? Why are they not being ploughed back into energy generation by coal and into developing methods for reducing toxic emissions? That would produce genuine good, and create real competition between the various forms of energy.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : Each form of energy generation offers its own balance of advantages and disadvantages. One advantage of gas over coal is that it produces less carbon dioxide for every unit of electricity. However, I

Column 679

agree with the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) that it is important that British Coal finds ways of burning coal more cleanly--and we fully support any efforts made in that direction. I may say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) that the global environment is not the only consideration, and that gas offers other advantages. It can be piped direct to the power station from the source, without the requirement for road or rail transport of fuel or of the resulting ash.

Mr. Eadie : The Minister is merely repeating the brief that we have all received from PowerGen about the advantages of the proposal. Given the question put to him by the hon. Member for Rocford (Dr. Clark), the Minister has a responsibility and a duty to be objective. The hon. Member for Rochford tried to compel the Minister to declare that the Government really prefer gas-generated energy. In the interests of objectivity, and in order that the House may be properly informed, the Minister will surely agree that if flue gas desulphurisation equipment were installed in coal- fired stations, that would make them environmentally friendly. Does the Minister agree that it is not for British Coal but for the power station operators to decide whether flue gas desulphurisation is to be installed?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing me of being hostile to coal in principle. I do not have an absolute preference for gas. Nor do I disapprove of coal, in principle. However, it is a fact of chemistry that burning a unit of coal produces more carbon dioxide than does an equivalent unit of gas. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there are technical and chemical ways of extracting sulphur dioxide from coal emissions, for example--and we are most anxious to promote that technology.

I am unwilling to go into too much detail about the substance of the Bill. If the revival motion is approved there may be an opportunity for us to debate the issue at greater length at another time. Also, the Government see no objection on efficiency grounds--indeed we envisage certain advantages--to building some additional gas-fired power stations, because combined cycle gas turbine generators will operate at about 50 per cent. efficiency, compared to 38 per cent. efficiency from the best coal-burning power stations available at present.

Mr. Michael Welsh : I thank the Minister for giving way. Is it efficient to have a gas power station, which may operate well, if a couple of pits have to be closed, leaving coal which can never be removed as the shafts are completely filled in? In the long term, is that efficiency, or is it bad planning?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I am unwilling to get into a general debate about the coal industry--an industry which I am most anxious to see prosper --because we are debating a revival motion. However, I look forward to debating the future of the British coal industry with the hon. Gentleman at some future date.

I must return to the point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has already approved the application to build these two power stations on Humberside. Therefore, it is obvious that we should also approve the application to provide the ancillary works. In

Column 680

the light of that, the Government hope that the House will approve the revival motion to enable the Bill to proceed to a Second Reading at another time.

8.1 pm

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) : I do not wish to keep the House too long. We welcome the Minister's commitment, and the Government's full support, for British Coal becoming more environmentally conscious through clean coal burning, although I think that that is the first time that I have heard that said. Perhaps the new Minister could explain to British Coal why, for the past few years, it has received no more than 1.5 per cent. of the research and development budget of millions that the Government have put into nuclear and other energy industries. Perhaps he could also explain why last year, when the Grimethorpe project sought help from the public sector, as directed by the Government, and received about £5 million from a Scandinavian company which later pulled out, the project was on the brink of collapse. It was one of the most advanced projects for clean coal burning in the world. I hope that the Minister, in his new post, will consider these issues, because they have worried many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

I am also interested to hear that the Government see no objection to this development. I wish that we were discussing this matter after having had a debate on the Government's intentions for energy. Once again, we are debating a private Bill from a troubled area of Britain. We must have spent more time debating Killingholme than any other place in Britain. Tonight we are again discussing Killingholme and its effect on a national energy strategy, but we have been unable to discuss that strategy. I do not want to go into too much detail tonight because if the carry-over motion is approved we shall want to consider the absence of a national energy strategy and its effect on the present proposals. However, I must point out that I find it difficult to talk about a car exhaust without referring to the internal combustion engine, and I should have thought that most people would have the same problem.

The Killingholme Generating Station (Ancillary Powers) Act 1972, which referred to outlay pipes from a power station which was to be built on the site, stopped the development. Therefore, we must in some small degree discuss developments on the site.

I speak on behalf of the Labour party when I say that we are reluctant to give our approval to the Bill, as it will enable the construction of two gas turbine generating stations without the House having given due consideration to the implications of increasing gas generation of electricity.

World supplies of gas are plentiful at the moment--we all know that--but they are finite. More important, in the short term, Britain's supplies of gas are limited. At current levels of consumption, United Kingdom gas will last between 25 and 40 years. If we allow gas to become a major generator of electricity, adding another 30 or 40 per cent. to present United Kingdom gas demand, we shall soon find ourselves dependent on gas imports--whether from Norway or the Soviet Union, we shall have to wait and see. Norway has a wide choice of alternative purchasers for its gas. Germany has taken an option on the Troll field and it is likely that we shall be considering repairing the existing European pipeline and building another and importing our gas from Russia.

Next Section

Home Page