| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Uranium Enrichment Technology (Prohibition on Disclosure) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]
That the draft Contracting Out (Functions relating to Broadcast Advertising) and Specification of Relevant Functions Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Designation of Public Authorities) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115(3)(Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)),
That the draft Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]
Question agreed to.
PETITIONS
Post Office Closures
7 pm
Mr. Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): I rise to speak this evening not only as the Member of Parliament for Romford but as a local resident of the Rise Park community in my constituency. The residents of that community are appalled at the prospect of the local post office being closed. Hon. Members will be aware that a review of local post offices is taking place across the country, but people in the Rise Park community are particularly concerned that their post office will be one of those that is likely to be closed.
During the past few months, local residents have campaigned to save their local post offices, particularly the Rise Park post office that I have mentioned. I shall present to the House this evening a very large petition, containing no fewer than 1,519 signatures from the residents not only of Rise Park but of the Marshalls Park, Gidea Park and Collier Row communities in the Romford constituency. Signatures have been collected by local residents, by members of the Havering Road Methodist church in Rise Park, by parents from the Rise Park junior and infants schools, by local shopkeepers and by many other concerned local people. The petition
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1381
is also supported by the local councillors for the Pettits ward, Councillors Joe Webster, Alby Tebbutt and Ray Morgon. The petition reads as follows:
The people of the Rise Park area of Romford declare that the Rise Park Post Office is threatened with closure by Post Office Ltd. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons does all in its power to keep the Rise Park Post Office open.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
Mr. Rosindell: I rise to present a second petition. It is yet another petition relating to the prospect of the closure of local post offices in my constituency. This petition has been signed by no fewer than 1,166 local residents from the Ardleigh Green area of Romford, which comes under the Hornchurch postal district but is very much within the Romford constituency. Ardleigh Green is a small community containing many elderly residents who depend heavily on the services provided by the Ardleigh Green post office, and on the services of all the local shops that would be badly affected if the post office were allowed to close.
This petition is the result of a campaign that was launched by local residents in January, and it has received support from people across the communities of Ardleigh Green, Gidea Park, Nelmes, and the County Park area of my constituency. It has received particular support from members of the All Saints church, Squirrels Heath, and from many parents of the Ardleigh Green infants and junior schools. The petition is also strongly supported by the local councillors for the Squirrels Heath ward, Councillors Michael White, Eric Munday and Eddie Cahill. The petition reads as follows:
The Petition of the people of the Ardleigh Green area of Romford declares that Ardleigh Green Post Office is threatened with closure by Post Office Ltd. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons does all in its power to keep the Ardleigh Green Post Office open.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
Planning (Fareham)
7.5 pm
Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con): The petition that I shall present is from more than 1,400 residents of the borough of Fareham.
The petition of residents of Fareham, in Hampshire, declares
That local people and their councillors should be given a much greater role in decisions about how many homes should be built in their area and where those homes should be built.
That the views of local people should carry much greater weight than those of the Deputy Prime Minister.
That decisions on planning should be taken in line with local plans and local development frameworks and should not be overridden either by unelected regional bodies or the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons amend the law relating to planning so as to increase the role of local authorities and local residents in implementing housing policy
And your Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1382
Carbon Capture and Storage
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
7.6 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney): I am particularly pleased to have secured this debate on a day on which we have been considering the Energy Bill, as I believe that the topic, carbon capture and storage, holds the key to one of the most important issues underlying debates on the Bill throughout its stages.
Most people accept that one of the greatest problems that we all face on the planet is that we are producing too much carbon dioxide, and that we must tackle it. The simple solution is to reduce massively the amount of CO 2 that we create, but it is easier said than done, given our patterns of life and our dependency on certain technologies that create CO 2 Therefore whatever one's political stance, it is unlikely to be achieved quickly. Without downplaying the need to avoid creating CO 2 emissions in the first place, we also need to consider dealing with the CO 2 that is emitted. I am talking about capturing the CO 2 from both coal and gas-fired power stations, and other major industrial sources, and storing it deep underground.
Will it work? We already know that we can store CO 2 deep underground for 10,000 years or longer, in depleted oil and gas reservoirs in the North sea and all over the world, which held the materials that we have extracted, naturally and securely, for millions of years. That is already happening at Weyburn in Canada. But further immeasurably massive capacity exists to store CO 2 in the saline aquifers deep beneath the sea bed. That is already happening in the Sleipnir gas field in the Norwegian sector of the North sea. It complies with the OSPAR regulations, and there have been no leaks.
That process is also being piloted in Texas where, for example, it is thought that the Frio geological formation could store between 200 and 350 billion tonnes of CO 2 —30 years worth of the 7 billion tonnes that we create through human activity each year. Scientists there expect that the CO 2 plume might spread a few hundred metres over tens of thousands of years, but do not see any risk of a large and dangerous escape from naturally sealed reservoirs. Let me emphasise that I am not talking about just dumping CO 2 in the deep ocean, as was once suggested.
Carbon capture and storage is safe, but do the public think it safe? The Tyndall centre for climate change research in Manchester carried out a survey and found, first, that nobody had ever heard of CCS, but when it was explained, although most people said that they would rather see a move to renewable energy and improved energy efficiency, they thought that it could solve a problem in the next few decades as part of the solution, and they preferred it to nuclear power. CCS could provide a bridge for the CO 2 emissions problem to 2050 and probably well beyond, but there is clearly much more applied research and development to be done before CCS becomes a fully commercial solution.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services, in answer to my oral question last week, said that it is difficult to envisage CCS becoming viable before 2020. But his Department's
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1383
report, "Review of the Feasibility of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UK", which was published in September last year, said:
"earlier deployment could occur to tie in with the pattern of electricity plant replacement. In addition CCS in combination with Enhanced Oil Recovery"
—about which I shall speak shortly—
"could be implemented from about 2010."
But that will only happen—even the 2020 deployment will only happen—if the Government get fully behind CCS now. The lead-in times are necessarily and inevitably long, and the investment needs to be attracted.
Why do we need to bother with this? A huge expansion in renewable energy generation and energy conservation is, rightly, the cornerstone of Government energy policy as set out in the White Paper. But there is still a big problem. A graph produced by the Department shows that even if we meet the difficult 20 per cent. renewables target and implement the White Paper's energy efficiency policies, according to the latest DTI energy predictions—published in May—the carbon dioxide emissions reduction target will go off track in 2010, and the 60 per cent. reduction sought by 2050 will not be achieved unless something else is done. There will still be a gap.
As a short-term fix, we could close all the coal-fired power stations and substitute gas; but I think that many of my hon. Friends would be rather concerned if we did. There seem to me to be only two options: it is CCS, or a new generation of nuclear power stations. We may eventually need both, but for various reasons we must have more than just the nuclear option available. Because of the long lead-in times, we shall have to make a strategic decision fairly soon. The Prime Minister said that only last week, although he only mentioned the nuclear option. I want to demonstrate that there is another option, although CCS is not as well known as nuclear power and does not yet have established political and industrial support.
In deciding how to fill the emissions reduction gap, we must look at the impact on energy policy and on other existing and planned energy sources. Let us consider renewables first. The Government recognise that if we invest in new nuclear power now, investment in renewables would be killed off. So the White Paper creates a window for renewables. If we have no other option, however, it could be quite a small window.
Investment in nuclear power is incompatible with investment in renewables. Because of the huge capital cost, the start-up cost and the low operating costs, once the investment in nuclear power has been made it will keep renewables out for a long time. It is inflexible. No one will close a nuclear power station early once the investment has been made. Nor should we forget that the huge cost of nuclear clean-up has made it uneconomical. We know the costs to the taxpayer attached to that part of the Energy Bill which we have just passed: £48 billion. We need to keep the nuclear option open, but we must not proceed yet.
There are some who fear that CCS will just prolong fossil fuel generation, to the detriment of the development of renewables. CCS is actually a bridge in
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1384
the long changeover to a low-carbon fuel economy, giving renewables more time to be nurtured rather than being snuffed out. It is flexible by virtue of its cost structure. We could abandon it in favour of more renewables if we wished.
We also need to look at the implications for coal and gas. For reasons of reliability and security of supply, we will have to continue a balanced energy policy—including fossil fuels—for some time, especially as we cannot be certain that we will achieve the 20 per cent. renewables target. It is equally vital that we comply with CO 2 reduction commitments and future targets.
I represent a coastal community which I do not want to disappear under the sea, but CCS squares the circle. We still have plenty of the gas that has given us cheap energy and enabled us to meet our Kyoto commitments, although we will become a net importer in a few years' time. Most other countries are not in such a strong position on the percentage of indigenous gas used for power generation. Huge reserves of gas remain in the world—we will source piped gas from Norway and Russia and liquefied natural gas from all over the world. CCS enables us to use that gas and deal with CO 2 emissions. I do not know much about coal, but CCS is probably its only long-term future.
What about the cost of CCS? The costs are comparable to the published costs for most low-emission options that are not entirely straightforward, such as offshore wind, and they are estimated to be comparable with those of nuclear power—the difference is 1p per kilowatt-hour at most. The DTI report, which I mentioned earlier, said:
"Current costs for CCS are estimated to add 1–2.3p/kWh to the cost of electricity",
but costs can be brought down to 0.2 to 1p per kilowatt-hour, if CCS is combined with enhanced oil recovery. The injection of CO 2 into depleted reservoirs can enable more oil and gas to be recovered and enhance the usable quality of the oil, extending the life of oil fields in the North sea, which would bring economic benefits such as jobs and tax revenues for public spending.
Much of the infrastructure, such as pipelines, already exists and could be re-used, and we could avoid some of the environmental challenges associated with decommissioning. Again, there is only a certain window of five to 20 years in the time scale towards the depletion, abandonment and decommissioning of the oil and gas infrastructure in the North sea. We should not and must not miss the opportunity, but the market will not deliver EOR alone, and the Government must take a strong line on CCS to send out the right signals to the industry.
We hear that hydrogen fuels are the fuels of the future, and fuel cell technology for transport must form part of the strategy for CO 2 reduction, but where will the hydrogen come from? Fossil fuels are the most likely source, but CCS will be needed to deal with the CO 2 produced in making the hydrogen.
In conclusion, the DTI recognised the important role of CCS in the White Paper and its subsequent report. The technology will need to deliver and prove that it can deliver, but if we are to develop it further, we need a Government policy steer and some support. We must fill that emissions reduction gap, and CCS can deliver a three-way win.
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1385
First, CCS offers a win on security of supply. It squares the fossil fuels that we will need to keep the lights on with the vital CO 2 reduction targets. It could enable a more gradual transfer from self-sufficiency in oil and gas to imports, and we could derive valuable income internationally from the massive storage facility we have in the North sea. Secondly, CCS offers an environmental win. It reduces CO 2 emissions dramatically and provides time for renewables to develop unthreatened by a commitment to a long-term alternative. Thirdly, CCS offers a political win. It would be more acceptable to people than the sudden switch in lifestyle demanded by some of the more radical green alternatives to deal with CO 2 and climate change, which mainstream political parties find it difficult to talk about, let alone implement. Have we really examined the political implications of authorising a new generation of nuclear power stations? CCS may be an easier choice, although we may need both.
CCS could offer other wins, such as a big global win. It is a workable, near zero-emissions solution for fast growing energy users such as China and India, which seem unlikely to want to give up their enormous coal reserves in favour of renewables. The west alone cannot tackle global warming. We have the opportunity to develop, supply and sell the technology—if we take a lead and derive the economic benefits of being a leader in such an industry. Australia, with its seemingly unlimited reserves of coal and gas, appears to be thinking this way too, and it is pursuing CCS. But to be a winner, we must act now and push ahead with developing the technology. At the very least, we must make the same commitment that is being made to keep the nuclear option open; I am not sure that we are doing so in terms of supporting development work for CCS.
Just as the nuclear option needs to be kept open, so the CCS option needs to be opened; moreover, the CCS/EOR option needs to be exercised in time. The Government should make sure that people have a range of low-emission generation options when those decisions have to be made in two to four years' time. It will be interesting to discover what choice people make.
In answer to another of my oral questions, I was told that CCS is a medium-term solution. The world has a medium-term CO 2 problem, and if we do not stabilise emissions by 2050, it will probably be too late to bother. Either we stop using fossil fuels, or we capture CO 2 and store it. That is not a hard political decision to make.
So I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to recognise the potential of CCS and the policy and political advantages that it has to offer. I am not asking for blind faith in a not fully proven technology, but I am asking him to put his weight behind it, so that it is given an opportunity. It would be terrible if it were the best idea ever that was never given a chance.
7.21 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |