| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Knapman : I understand that the power stations use roughly 0.1 per cent. of our proven gas reserves annually.
I wonder why the hon. Member for Wentworth does not take account of the views of the Labour-controlled county council. There have been wide consultations on the Bill. Most recently, the Central Electricity Generating Board, acting on behalf of National Power and PowerGen, sent details of the Bill to 32 interested parties. One was Glanford borough council, which I should have thought might have known what was needed in the area. It replied to the Central Electricity Generating Board on 11 December 1988, saying : "Further to my letter dated 16 November 1989 I am now able to inform you that on 7 December the Borough Council's Planning Committee resolved that Glanford wishes to raise no objections to the proposals contained in the Bill."
Then there is the Humberside county council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has already mentioned. It is Labour-controlled and it has no objection to the Bill. It does not seem to share the Opposition's views. At the time of the revival motion, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said that people would not be aware of what is going on--unaware, presumably, that he was criticising the county council and the borough council, which, in any case, are Labour-controlled. I am sure that he would not wish to criticise his colleagues in such numbers.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-West) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Knapman : Many hon. Members wish to speak. However, I shall give way once more.
Mr. Barnes : There is also the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) did a service in tabling a blocking motion because it enables the Bill to be discussed fully and properly. It provides an opportunity to present in great detail what the hon. Gentleman regards as the fantastic benefits of the Bill. I wait for that to be done so that my colleagues and I can begin to take on board the arguments for the Bill. We do not have to accept Bills on the nod. As has been said, specific arguments must be examined by the whole House. This Bill was never in front of any council.
Column 1036
Mr. Knapman : I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in this matter. He was probably not present at the time of the revival motion.
Mr. Barnes : I was here then. I did not speak, but the same point was made against my tabling a blocking motion. I remember that.
Mr. Knapman : We would have greatly looked forward to the hon. Gentleman staying in the Chamber for longer during the debate on the revival motion. In view of all the interest that has been expressed, I wonder why local constituencies that are represented by the Labour party are not taking a more active interest in the matter. Where, for instance, is the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)? Is he representing the views of his constituents? What are his views? Do some people believe that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe agrees with the Humberside county council, which is controlled by Labour, or does he agree with his hon. Friends that the Bill should be defeated? We do not know because he is not here.
Mr. Hood : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am asking you for some help. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is referring to Opposition Members having no interest in the matter and wanting to interfere in what he thinks is a local county council matter. Am I correct in asking him to provide the House with information about why he sponsors the Bill? Is he being paid for sponsoring it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : It would not be right for me to ask the hon. Gentleman for information but, if he would like to provide it, it would be in order for him to do so.
Mr. Knapman : I have an apology to make. I should have disclosed an interest. The hon. Gentleman asked me about this matter during the debate on the revival motion. I purchased 150 shares in the London electricity distribution company. I might be due for a profit, if I sell them tomorrow, of about £100, but the expenses might outweigh the profit. I am trying not to let that prospect colour my judgment too strongly. What I said about the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe also applies to the hon. Member for Great Grimbsy (Mr. Mitchell), whose constituency can be only two or three miles away from that of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe.
Mr. Michael Brown : I have nothing but the most superb relations with the--Labour--hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), both of whom are excellent constituency Members of Parliament. The fact that they are not here and have not signed the blocking motion demonstrates exactly what my hon. Friend has said. Indeed, it is interesting that the only Humberside Members of Parliament present are my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) and me.
Mr. Knapman : I assure my hon. Friend that I am not trying to do anything to upset the good relations between him and his Labour neighbours. However, the hon. Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe and for Great Grimsby have a constituency interest, because many of their constituents work in the power stations that are now being constructed or will have jobs when they are
Column 1037
constructed. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby is not here. He is not usually short of words, but we realise that he may have other commitments.The borough and county councils, negotiated with the parish councils, about 29 other bodies were consulted, and not one has any objection. It is true that, as a result of consultations, a number of amendments were made, but they were in the form of protective clauses for third parties.
The site was chosen for various reasons, including the fact that it had previously been shown to be suitable for power station development. That has been true since the Killingholme Generating Station (Ancillary Powers) Act 1972, not least because the site lies within an area designated in the Humberside structure plan as an estuary-related industrial area, but there are other obvious reasons why it should be a suitable site. It is an existing area of industrial development. The stations can be built without significant environmental effect. The area is obviously well located in relation to North sea gas. It is suitably located for connection to the national grid system. Above all--this is the crux of the matter--it is close to a source of cooling water. It is obvious that the resources of the River Humber estuary make it the most suitable, convenient and economic source of cooling water for the two power stations. Hon. Members will know that the 1972 Act specified only one intake and only one outfall, but the number of conduits in each intake and each outfall were unspecified. If only one pipe had been constructed, the diameter of each would have been about 3 m or 4 m. Under this Bill, the pipes would have to be between only 0.6 m to 1 m in diameter.
In the 1972 Act, there was a direct cooled system. The heat was rejected directly to a body of water. In an indirect system, such as the one proposed in the Bill, heat is rejected to the atmosphere by evaporative cooling in the cooling towers, and that is required only to replace that which is lost by evaporation and to prevent the concentration of dissolved salts. It is obvious that a great deal less water is required. Under the Bill, the longest specified pipe is only 390 m, and the longest outfall is 290 m long. Those figures are little more than half the length of the pipes that were envisaged in the earlier Act. As a result, none of the proposed cooling water pipes will extend beyond the jetty line or into the main navigable channels.
In response to repeated requests from Opposition Members, I shall now give more detail about the number of works requested under the Killingholme Bill. The Bill provides for six sets of intakes and outfalls, although only two sets are presently required. Subsequent design alterations mean that PowerGen and National Power do not need all the sets at present, although the site is large enough to accommodate further developments. To develop the full potential of the site, both companies may require extra cooling water pipes. The Bill will enable that to be realised without wasting more valuable parliamentary time.
From the environmental point of view, which weighs heavily with my hon. Friends, the pipes will be buried in the bed of the River Humber so that the crown of the pipe is at least 2 m below the existing river bed level. Although the final construction details are to be confirmed by the companies' turnkey contractors, one possible method is to
Column 1038
dredge a trench in the Humber, join the whole length of pipe on the land, and float it out into the river. An alternative method of installation would be to join several lengths of pipes on land and attach them to a frame. The Bill, the substance of which has already been before the House, merely seeks renewed approval for pipes to be laid in the Humber estuary.I hope that the House will feel able to grant the Bill its Second Reading so that National Power and PowerGen can continue with their construction programme without any further unnecessary and costly delay.
7.39 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford) : I am privileged to have the opportunity of saying a few words in this debate. Although I recognise that it is a narrow debate and I shall try to respect that fact, I am sure that you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when such a Bill will have a major effect on another industry and on thousands of jobs, debate on it should allow hon. Members to express their fears about the distress that it may cause to that other industry and to the many thousands of people who work in it.
Clause 29 refers to protection for the British Coal Corporation. That seems ironic, given the fact that the past few years--and even more recently-- have seen the devastation of British Coal. It is worth noting that National Power and Associated British Ports, which are mentioned at length in the Bill, have recently become happy bedfellows.
It is right that the Bill should receive the strictest scrutiny, because the recent history of Associated British Ports leads one to demand such scrutiny. When the Associated British Ports Bill was going through the House, sponsored by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who is now busy chatting to the Whip, both the Committee and the House were deliberately deceived. Indeed, without that deceit, the Bill would never have got through the House.
At the time, two Bills--those relating to the Immingham and the Killingholme ports--were being considered by opposed Private Bill Committees. The Committee requested that the Killingholme Bill should be amended to prevent the company from being sold in less than 10 years. Because that was not acceptable to the company, the Bill did not see the light of day again. However, during the debate on the Immingham Bill, no such assurance was given, and the Bill passed through the House. The Committee issued a special report, which hon. Members will no doubt remember, highlighting the fact that the Bill was acceptable to the Committee only if the Government took action to protect British Coal and the jobs there. The Government have never taken any such action.
Under this Bill, the two power stations will be run on gas. That is a further nail in the coffin of this country's coal industry. As a result of the Immingham Bill, Associated British Ports will now be the happy bedfellow of National Power and PowerGen, because they are to take over 80 per cent. of the company that has been set up to equip and run operations at the port. That fact was never mentioned during the Committee's deliberations.
Incidentally, it was never mentioned in the many debates on these matters in the House by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes--[ Hon. Members : -- "Did he
Column 1039
know?"] Of course he knew. I am not suggesting for one moment that, at any stage during the Committee's deliberations, National Power and PowerGen had any association with Associated British Ports. However, I am accusing Associated British Ports, the sponsor of the legislation and the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, of a complete con and a deceit. I repeat that the House was deceived. Without such deceit, the Bill would never have seen the light of day.During those deliberations, assurances were given by no less a person than Sir Frank Layfield that the major improvements to the port at Immingham
"were not designed specifically in any sense of the word for coal purposes. They depend mainly upon general industrial and other consumers' current needs and the need to eliminate present existing wasteful difficulties and practices. If passed it will have that effect in our submission."
However, that is not the case now--
Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : It never was.
Mr. Lofthouse : As my hon. Friend says, it never was.
The port has been erected and extended purely and simply to allow foreign coal to be imported. That has been done on behalf of National Power, which, according to Mr. John Baker, is to import 50 per cent. of its coal after 1993. The Bill, however, will allow the building of two gas generating plants-- [Interruption.] This is a serious matter, despite the smirks on the faces of some Conservative Members. I am pleased that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) is now in his place. In the past week, the Select Committee has taken evidence from expert witnesses, one of whom told us that National Power is negotiating not only to import foreign coal--we heard that evidence from Shell, with which National Power is already negotiating--but, if the witness is corrct, to purchase foreign coal mines.
What a ridiculous situation when there have been another four, five or six pit closures in recent weeks, including one at Allerton Bywater. About 500 of the 800 men who work there live in my constituency. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is not in his place, because Allerton Bywater is in his constituency, and I should have thought that he would be here to defend it.
Mr. Hardy : I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall that, during Energy questions on Monday, Conservative Members boasted about the enormous sums of money that had been invested in the coal industry during the lifetime of this Government. Have they no thought for the public money that they have invested when they encourage actions that render the investment useless?
Mr. Lofthouse : I share my hon. Friend's views.
The Bill must be scrutinised as thoroughly as possible, I do not trust anything that Associated British Ports has got its fingers in. As I have already said, National Power, PowerGen and Associated British Ports look as if they have a cosy little arrangement. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that National Power and PowerGen will welcome British Coal being run down to a size--which I have forecast in the past few months--of about 10,000 men and 10 to 12 pits by the mid-1990s. They will gladly
Column 1040
get their greedy hands on those pits, if, God forbid, the Government get back into power and the coal mining industry is privatised.Any Conservative Member who supports the Bill supports a measure which encourages the burning of gas at the expense of British coal and sterilises millions and millions of tonnes of coal in Britain--millions of tonnes of natural energy within our own shores. Yet they know full well that, in less than a decade, we shall not be able to meet the demands of power generators in Britain. They will allow us to become completely dependent on our foreign competitors to supply our main source of energy once the gas is no longer there and the oil is not always there any more. Yet hon. Members know that, once a mine is closed and the coal is sterilised, one can never return and mine the coal.
It is nothing short of criminal. The Bill will help to make us dependent for our energy supplies. In my view, National Power and PowerGen are making it clear that they have no great concern for the interests of Britain. All they are interested in is the commercial side of their operation, short- term fluctuations and a short-term buck at the expense of long-term supplies. The Bill goes some way towards helping them to do that.
It is fairly obvious that our pleadings and warnings over many years about the national supply of energy have fallen on deaf ears. How long can it go on before Conservative Members realise what is happening? There cannot be any other reason for running down the British coal industry than Tory dogma. There is no logic in the arguments. One cannot make an economic argument in the medium term, although it can be done for the short term. The only reason is that, throughout recent years and especially since 1984, the Government have been so blinded by political dogma that they cannot see anything beyond their blinkered desire to close down British mines. Britain will eventually pay the penalty for the Government's stupid policies. I assume that the Bill will be accepted tonight. I hope that the Opposed Private Bill Committee will make sure, in view of the cosy arrangements between National Power and PowerGen and Associated British Ports, that guarantees are written into the Bill for British Coal, which is referred to in the Bill. I hope that the deceit which occurred after the Associated British Ports Bill passed through the House will not be repeated. So far, no one has denied or disproved that that deceit took place.
I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member for Rochford, the Chairman of the Energy Select Committee, or the Chairman of the Opposed Private Bill Committee on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. But the hon. Member for Rochford must think privately that he was in some way conned when he chaired that important Committee, in which he had to give the casting vote time and time again. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I believe that, when he considers the evidence given to him, he must think about the decisions that he made on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and that he was conned. I wonder what he would do now if he were chairing the Committee and had in his possession the information that we have now.
My view--I do not expect the hon. Member for Rochford to comment on it--is that the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill would not have passed through the House or even seen the light of day. I hope that the Bill
Column 1041
before the House today will be scrutinised to the highest degree before the Committee and the House allows it to proceed.7.55 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) has sincere, deeply held views in support of the coal industry. He has done so for many years. He knows that I have always been most supportive of the coal industry in the Energy Select Committee, on which we both serve. I spent many of my early years in industry in an associated company within the coal-fired power station industry.
There is no doubt that since the miners' strike the coal industry has responded tremendously well, increasing its productivity by about 87 per cent. The future of that industry lies to a great extent within its own hands. The men on the coal face are responding well. They will always have a strong place in our nation and will always have my continued support. Having said that, we must think about continuity and security of supply. We must think about options. Opposition Members who feel like voting against this Bill may not by so doing put first the interests of the north-east, and certainly those of the whole country, remembering the national grid. Indeed, they may not put first the interests of their own families and of industrial companies in their constituencies. Whatever else happens, we have a responsibility in Britain to keep the lights burning and the factories running. The only way in which we can be certain of doing that is by having a good mix of forms of power stations, so that we can always draw our power generation from sources which are not under threat.
Mr. Allen McKay : It appears that the difference between the hon. Gentleman's views and our views is narrow. He talks about a mix. The Opposition have always talked about a mix of energy supplies. But we have talked about a national mix--not a market mix, which is entirely different. There should be a national energy policy which takes into account the whole system of energy supplies in Britain and eliminates current waste.
Mr. Dickens : That is a different matter altogether. I am not a Minister, so I cannot deliver a national energy policy, but there is some merit in what the hon. Gentleman says.
We must remember that we generate power by natural gas and by coal. and perhaps later by coal gasification. We must consider oil and nuclear energy. Unfortunately, wind, wave and solar energy are not sufficiently advanced to make any great impact on our supply of power.
The Bill concentrates on putting water pipes for cooling purposes into the river Humber. The battle about whether there should be a power station is long past. Permission has been given. If Opposition Members seek to frustrate the Bill, they will simply deny the power stations the cooling water they need, and they will do so merely in an attempt to fight their corner for the coal industry. It is a bogus argument in that sense, because the battle has been won for two gas cycle turbine generators to be built, one for PowerGen and one for National Power. All that we are
Column 1042
discussing is whether we should allow water pipes to pass into the River Humber to take a small amount of water for cooling purposes.Mr. Jack Thompson (Wansbeck) : Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any studies on taking water out of the Humber, putting it through the generating plants as cooling water and returning it to the Humber? There are two power stations in my constituency, both coastal, one at the northern end and one at the southern. It is said that significant ecological changes are taking place in the North sea because of the discharge of water from those power stations. Because of the movement of water in an estuary, I imagine that the effect would be more significant in this instance than in the North sea.
Mr. Dickens : I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point, and I will deal with it later.
As to the type of water extraction and discharges in the power stations to which I have referred, the extractions and discharges required for cooling would be on a significantly smaller scale than those already taking place at coastal and estuary major power station sites, such as those to which the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) has referred.
Cooling is required at power stations to condense steam which has been exhausted from steam turbines at low pressures. The cooling may be direct or indirect. For direct cooling, water is extracted from the source of cooling water, passed through condensers and returned to the source of the water. For indirect cooling, the water passing through the condensers is cooled by air, using cooling towers, and the same water is recirculated. Only the water which has evaporated in the cooling towers and the small quantity of purge water need to be replaced. Purge water is water taken from a recirculating cooling system and returned to the river in order to control the concentration of materials in the water. Normally, direct cooling would be used, but at Killingholme the distance from the water makes the capital cost of indirect cooling systems less than that of direct systems.
Combined cycle gas turbine power stations generate only one third of their electricity from the use of steam in steam turbines. The other two thirds is produced by generators driven directly from the gas turbines. In comparison, 100 per cent. of the electricity generation is from steam turbines in coal, oil or nuclear power stations.
The Killingholme development will use indirect cooling systems. The combination of indirect cooling and combined cycle gas turbine technology means that the requirements for cooling water are significantly reduced. In fact, it requires only 5 per cent. of that for direct cooling at existing power stations, like Fawley, Kingsnorth or Sizewell, per unit of electricity generated. That is important.
On the environmental aspects, the aspects of effluent discharges from power station cooling systems that require consideration are chlorine and temperature. There is no legislation relating to these two effluents since they are regulated by the National Rivers Authority in considering the term of the discharge licence. Some form of biocide is usually necessary in cooling water circuits to deter the settlement and growth of
Column 1043
organisms, such as barnacles and mussels, and to control algae, slimes and bacteria. At present, chlorine is used in one form or another.Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) : The hon. Gentleman is getting very technical. I would appreciate it if he could help the poor lay Opposition Members. Will he explain the process involved with biocides, what they do and how they work?
Mr. Dickens : I will indeed--I shall be coming to that soon. Since chlorine has been used for many years, its use is very well understood, except on the Labour Benches. It has the best balance of advantages compared with disadvantages.
The main disadvantage of any biocide, including chlorine, is that it must be applied to the entire water volume. Biocide dosing is carefully controlled and minimised for both environmental and cost reasons. Power stations therefore operate with chlorine at the limits of detection in the water discharge. The chlorine reacts chemically with organic materials throughout the cooling system and its concentration reduces as it reacts. As stated previously, the dose level is regulated so that it has virtually completely reacted and is only just detectable at discharge. In addition, the purge water discharge will be very rapidly and significantly diluted by river water at the point of discharge. The combination of low concentration, further continuing reaction and major dilution virtually eliminates traces of free chlorine at a very short distance from the discharge point. I was pleased to have the opportunity to explain that.
Mr. Hood : I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for the explanation. I now understand a biocide and its use as clearly as mud.
Mr. Dickens : My hon. Friends understand it. That is why we are prepared to stay late to deal with the Bill when we could have rushed back to our constituencies.
Mr. Jack Thompson rose --
Mr. Dickens : I want to make more progress before giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
The temperature of the water discharged will vary with ambient temperatures. The maximum temperature differential between the water discharge and the estuary will be 7 to 12 deg. C. That will be of interest to the hon. Member for Wansbeck, so I hope that he is listening carefully. The quantities of water discharged from the power stations will be very small compared with the flow of water in the estuary, and dilution effects very rapidly bring water temperatures down to background river levels. It has been found that the effects of heat gain from the sun can far exceed warming effects from cooling water discharges. That is exceptionally important.
Mr. Michael Brown : There is only one problem about that--in the Humber estuary, we are lucky if the sun ever shines.
Mr. Dickens : If we succeed with the Bill, I think that the sun will shine brightly.
At Fawley, where direct cooling is used with a traditional oil-fired power station in a particularly sensitive marine environment, there is no evidence that the
Column 1044
discharge of chlorinated warm water has had any adverse effect on the European Community-designated shellfish waters surrounding the discharge outfall.Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) : The hon. Gentleman is making a number of interesting points. I should like him to go back to the application of biocides. Can he tell us more about the biocides in chlorine, how temperature-sensitive they will be, what effect dosages of biocide would have on wildlife in the Humber estuary, and what measures will be taken to prevent any such discharges?
Mr. Dickens : I am pleased that that point has been raised. That very point has been of great concern to some of the interested parties. Most of them examined closely the point about leakage which my hon. Friend has raised. I mean the hon. Gentleman, of course--I nearly called him my hon. Friend because we went to Japan together. The interested parties consulted included Glanford borough council, Humberside county council, North Killingholme parish council, Anglian Water plc, the Electricity Council, Lindsey oil refinery, Shell UK, British Telecom--I do not know why that is in the list--the Department of the Environment, the Duchy of Lancaster, the local Members of Parliament and the European Parliament, the National Rivers Authority, the North Eastern Sea Fisheries, the port manager of Associated British Ports at Grimsby and the harbour master of Associated British Ports at Hull, British Rail's eastern region, Trinity House, the Crown Estate commissioners, Immingham town council, British Coal Corporation, Simon Storage Company Ltd., Conoco Ltd. and so on. I shall not detain the House by listing the others.
That list of interested parties demonstrates the care and sensitivity of the promoters of the Bill, National Power and PowerGen--the successors to the Central Electricity Generating Board--who have ensured that everyone is in harmony and understands what is intended. We have no complaints.
Mr. Terry Patchett (Barnsley, East) : I am awfully impressed by the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the Bill. In what part of the Humber would he discharge the water?
Mr. Dickens : I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman understands the pipework involved. If not, I will give him a talk on it.
Mr. Dickens : Yes, if the hon. Gentleman wants me to detain the House.
At the moment, entry into the Humber is being sought quite close inshore, just underneath the seabed. It is likely that each power station--hon. Members will be aware that we are talking about two power stations on adjacent sites--will use two pipes. That is what is required. The Bill, however, gives permission for 12 if others are required to deal with breakdowns.
The construction programme for the power stations is worthy of note as it reveals the rate of progress and when those power stations are expected to be operational. The power plant contract for the National Power station was placed on 6 July 1990. The preliminary work started on 2 January 1991 and the main site work is due to start on 1 August 1991. It is hoped that full commercial operation
Column 1045
will commence on 31 July 1993, which will mean that much more electricity is produced for the lucky people of the north-east. The preliminary works contract and power station turnkey contract for the PowerGen station was placed on 1 February 1990. The preliminary works were completed on 13 June 1990 and the main site work started in September. It is hoped that the first module will be fully commissioned and its acceptance tests completed on 1 October 1992. The second module should be fully commissioned and its acceptance tests completed by 1 February 1993.Mr. Jack Thompson : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is something suspect about organisations which make an application and receive permission to build two power stations then having to come to the House for permission to put the pipes in? If the House turns down the application for those pipes, what will happen to the power stations?
Mr. Dickens : I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because we are trying to replace an archaic permission that was given some time ago--a permission given in the event of an oil-fired power station on the same site. Tonight we are simply trying to ensure that those power stations have access to cooling water. It is a purely technical matter and no harm will be done to the Humber, the sea or local residents.
This Bill has been introduced because the promoters could not bring themselves to believe in a million years that some hon. Members would be so bigoted and entrenched for other reasons as to oppose the installation of the pipes. The promoters thought that their request was simple and straightforward. Hon. Members should please note that all we want is to give the people of the north-east and the rest of the country electricity. All we want is permission to put pipes into the Humber for cooling purposes. We shall achieve that today. 8.15 pm
Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley) : I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), and he certainly enlightened me on the technical aspects of the Bill. The sponsor, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), failed to reach such technical heights.
The Opposition intend to oppose all private Bills that seek to facilitate the generation of power until we have a national energy policy, which we need for the benefit of the entire country. If we leave the production of power to market forces, consumers will be held to ransom by the high charges that the power companies will want to impose. Now that the CEGB has been broken and privatised, it is all the more important to ensure that prices to the consumer are reasonable.
I do not believe that the two proposed power stations will benefit the country. I am at a loss to understand why the hon. Member for Stroud has sponsored the Bill. I should have thought that it would be easier for that hon. Member whose constituency is adjacent to the site to act as the sponsor, as he has local knowledge. Perhaps the promoters' experience with the hon. Member for Brigg
Column 1046
and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), however, made them a little reluctant to let him get his hands on another private Bill so soon. We have been asked why we are seeking to go against local Labour- controlled authorities. I can understand why any local authority approached for planning permission for a power station grants such permission, given the number of jobs that that would create for local people. I can understand their keenness for those power stations. I cannot accept, however, that I have no right to express views contrary to those of my Labour colleagues, Conservative colleagues or anyone else. I have a right to my opinion and to express it, even if it is not accepted by others.We are concerned about British Coal and the number of jobs left in that company. I have one pit left in my constituency--I believe that it is a long-lifer, if there is such a thing today. There are many jobs connected with the pit : likewise, the proposed power stations will generate ancillary jobs. I am not bothered about differences of opinion : all I believe is that there is a need for a national energy plan.
The Bill does not meet that need, so I cannot understand why companies should go to the great expense of building two power stations and then come to seek to promote a private Bill, which they should have done when they submitted the plans to the local authority and the Secretary of State. I can well understand the urgency of Conservative Members, the companies involved and the Private Bill Office in seeking to rush the Bill through to ensure that there is no hold-up in the erection of the power stations and the pipework that requires the water to ensure that both come on stream at the same time to start producing electricity.
As far as I am aware, there have not yet been any accurate forecasts of future energy demands. The forecasts always seem to go over the top. I remain to be convinced of the need for the additional generation.
Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) : Will my hon. Friend comment on the quality of management of the companies involved in promoting the Bill, bearing in mind the fact that they have commenced work on building power stations without having gained permission for the effluent pipes, so aply described by the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens)? I also wonder about the quality of management of the companies that will import half their coal from foreign sources, when we have a record balance of payments deficit. Are not the Opposition right to question closely the Bill's merits?
Mr. Redmond : My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and he has made his argument in such a fashion that I cannot enrich it.
There is a question mark over the judgment of the people involved, who seek to erect power stations which they might not be able to use because they failed to submit plans to enable them to receive the necessary water. There is a need for the Opposition to continue to examine the issue in great depth, both here on the Floor of the House and, in detail, in Committee. As a point of order, I wonder whether the Bill is correct. I remember the gerrymandering that went on over the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, which the House approved only to find that it had a slight technical defect which went unnoticed until it reached the other place.
Column 1047
I listened carefully when the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) introduced the Bill. He mentioned that it was also designed to construct lagoons. I tabled a question on 25 January 1990 to ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he intended to give planning permission to PowerGen and National Power to construct a lagoon to provide cooling water for the proposed combined cycle gas turbine developments at Killingholme, and if he would make a statement. The reply was :"If either company wishes to construct such a lagoon they will need to apply for the Secretary of State's consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. When granting such a consent he may also give a direction that planning permission be deemed to be granted under section 90(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. No application for consent under section 36 to construct such a lagoon has been received."--[ Official Report, 25 January 1991 ; Vol. 184, c. 325. ]
I was a little at a loss, because the hon. Member for Stroud said that we were merely talking about pipes to take water from the Humber, circulate it around the cold water towers and pump it back out. I do not accept that. There are some signs that lagoons will be built. Unless I misunderstood or misheard the hon. Member for Stroud, he mentioned lagoons, so I asked him to give way. I do not doubt that the Hansard reporters have picked up the word "lagoons" mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. If we are talking about lagoons, that subject should be within the Bill, which should include the words "pipes and/or lagoons". I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could clarify that point.
| Next Section
| Home Page |