| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Oct 2009 : Column 19WH—continued
We recognise that land is not a boundless resource, and that population growth and lifestyle changes in both the developed and developing world mean that the
demands on our planet are greater than ever. Sustainability is at the heart of Government policies and actions to build a competitive low-carbon bioenergy sector in the UK. We aim to maximise the many benefits of that to biodiversity, farming, forestry, rural communities and employment, while also managing and minimising any risks to the environment both in the UK and worldwide.
Let me address the other support that the Government will give to those sectors. By December, we will consult on our proposals for a renewable heat incentive. The Energy Act 2008 allows the incentive to provide financial assistance to generators of renewable heat and to producers of renewable biogas and biomethane. Our aim is to make the incentive as accessible, flexible and user-friendly as possible to potential investors in renewable heat at all scales, from industrial to domestic. We intend to introduce the incentive in April 2011.
Gregory Barker: Given what the Minister has said about the term "renewable", does his use of it here mean entirely 100 per cent. renewable, or does he mean low carbon?
Mr. Kidney: In contrast to the renewables obligation, we are considering allowing all forms of biodiesel to be eligible for the renewable heat incentive. That would allow homes that currently use heating oil-about 9 per cent., many of which are fuel-poor-to switch very quickly and at a relatively small cost to a less carbon-intensive fuel when the RHI is introduced. In a sense, the hon. Gentleman is making the point that we have listened to past criticisms and are doing something different for heat. However, there is also a policy priority here. Heat generation is the least well-developed when it comes to the renewable sources that we need to take up for the future.
Gregory Barker: It rather looks as though one hand does not know what the other is doing. We have the sensible adoption of a policy that recognises the low-carbon nature of biofuels, whereas other parts of the Minister's Department either do not have access to the same thinking or are not capable of following the same decision-making process. Why are there two strands of thinking in one Department? I thought we were supposed to be getting beyond such things.
Mr. Kidney: That is a totally unfair characterisation of the position. There are strong policy reasons why we ought to go the extra distance that I have described for a renewable heat incentive in 2011. By that time, arguments such as those we are having today might have brought about change to the renewables obligation criteria, and the two might be consistent by then. At the moment, however, only the renewables obligation is before us. The hon. Member for St. Albans has made the case that there is an anomaly in the legislation that we could do something about. She has made some sensible suggestions for alterations that we might make, which I shall consider. That does not mean that I am not aware that there are differences or that I do not appreciate how we might overcome them.
Anne Main:
I appreciate the Minister's complimentary words. Cooking oil could also be used for district heat and power if we decide to go down the route of ensuring that facilities are built to use that technology. That
could dovetail nicely into what the Minister wishes to achieve, using a source that is infinitely preferable to some of the biofuels that are currently utilised.
Mr. Kidney: I agree, and let me be more helpful. If that step were taken-this issue is still subject to consultation, so let us see what people think-and we designed the renewable heat incentive in that way, it would help the heating oil industry to diversify, with a move towards renewable fuels, by blending heating oil with biodiesel. The industry's technical body, OFTEC-the Oil Firing Technical Association-is currently conducting trials and has operational plants running with a 15 per cent. blend. It hopes to have a 30 per cent. blend available by 2010 and a 100 per cent. blend by 2015. That is exactly the point that the hon. Lady was making.
Mark Hunter: I would like to take a slightly different tack. The Minister has spent the past few minutes talking optimistically about the future for biofuels, which is good to hear. The whole debate has been conducted in a non-partisan manner, and I am particularly grateful that he accepted my earlier point about the 20p duty differential. However, despite his generous offer to forward that to the Treasury so that it can be looked at for the Budget, I am still a little concerned that the optimistic future he talks about could come too late for many of the companies that produce biodiesel-
David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. Interventions are to be brief.
Mr. Kidney: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. As policy makers, how often do we hear dire warnings of disaster if something happens? The Treasury is weighing up the warnings from the sector on the effect of the complete removal of the 20p duty differential next April, and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury have that at the forefront of their minds-it was certainly at the forefront of the Chancellor's mind when I spoke with him about it on Monday evening. With regard to the RTFO, when the 20p differential is due to disappear, the buy-out rate for the RTFO will increase from 15p a litre to 30p, which in our judgment compensates for that loss.
Mark Hunter: Does the Minister understand that most producers of biodiesel from waste products produce between 2,000 and 20,000 litres a day and that the UK's biodiesel production is heavily reliant on that 20p reduction in duty?
Mr. Kidney: I understand that and refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier comments about how that was weighed up at the time of the 2008 Budget, and I have said that that will be taken into account between now and the 2010 Budget.
By December 2009, the European Commission is due to report on the need for sustainability criteria for solid biomass used for electricity and heat generation, thus keeping the thread that I have described about the reporting of sustainability criteria. We are looking ahead, and in April 2010, which is not so far away, we will introduce the feed-in tariffs that will provide support to renewable electricity generators of up to 5 MW. Our consultation proposed including generation from biomass in dedicated electricity plants, combined heat and power plants or for anaerobic digestion. The consultation
recently closed, and we received more than 750 responses, which we are currently analysing. That is a very large number, showing the keen interest in the subject.
We hope that the increased certainty that feed-in tariffs will provide will encourage a wide range of people and organisations, such as householders, community groups, businesses, schools, hospitals, universities and all the examples the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle mentioned, to consider installing low-carbon electricity generation.
Gregory Barker: The Minister has been extremely generous in allowing interventions, and I promise that this will be my last as he is running out of time. The feed-in tariff is a welcome development, although one that the Government were not very keen on initially. Can he confirm that, unfortunately, it appears that the Government anticipate that only 2 per cent. of the UK's total electricity generation will be supported by feed-in tariffs by those methods by 2020, and is not that a pathetically unambitious-
David Taylor (in the Chair): We are wandering a little from the core topic of the debate.
Mr. Kidney: To bring those points together, by December 2010, we are due to bring the sustainability standards applied to biofuels under the RTFO and to bioliquids under the renewables obligation into line with the requirements of the renewable energy directive, and that is where the national action plan that I mentioned earlier comes in.
On the specific points made about recycled cooking oils and recycled ethanol, the use of waste and residues for energy is promising. With our concerns on direct and indirect land use change, it is a clear no-brainer, as everyone has said, to do much more with what we already have and to capture more of the UK's organic waste and residues that currently end up in landfill or, worse still, being disposed of illegally in rivers, as was recently exposed by a court case in Watford that concerned an incident last year in Welwyn Garden City. Instead, that waste should be used for bioenergy, whether for transport, heat or electricity. Next year, we will consult on potentially banning some organic waste from landfill, so that such materials can only be reused, recycled or used for energy generation.
Bioliquids, which are 100 per cent. renewable, are rewarded through the renewables obligation. It is not the purpose of the renewables obligation to support fuels that are directly or indirectly derived from fossil fuels. Therefore, biodiesel produced using methanol derived from natural gas is not eligible for renewable obligation certificates, but it is eligible for support under the renewable transport fuels obligation, given the more limited potential sources of renewable transport fuel.
The Government are keen that our package of financial incentives for bioenergy provides coherent and appropriate long-term signals to the market. With the planned introduction of the feed-in tariffs and the renewable heat incentive, which will join the renewable transport fuels obligation and the renewables obligation, we are looking carefully at how we can best achieve that.
In conclusion, achieving our ambitious targets on renewable energy and on emissions reduction will require the participation of all parts of our society. The Government
are working hard to support the wide range of emerging technologies, such as advanced biofuels and bioliquids, and remain vigilant that the UK's biomass supplies are sourced sustainably. We hope that, in the coming years, everyone from the largest multinational company to the individual householder will play a full and rewarding role in the UK's move to a low-carbon economy.
I have finished my prepared text and do not want to waffle to fill time, and I have taken a large number of interventions, which I hope has been reasonable, so if it is all right with the hon. Member for St. Albans, I would prefer to finish early.
David Taylor (in the Chair): As the Member who has secured the next debate and the Minister who will respond to it are both present, we will move on.
Military Vehicles and Aircraft
10.56 am
Ann Winterton (Congleton) (Con): It is a pleasure to introduce the debate under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor, and I am delighted to have secured it on my first attempt-normally I try for months to secure debates, but on this occasion I was lucky first time.
I wanted to have this debate not least because my years in the House of Commons are drawing to an end after nearly 27 years and I shall not be around when the next defence review takes place. I would like to use the opportunity to pull together matters raised in defence debates I have previously initiated and those to which I have contributed. I will set out a narrative and throw what I hope are constructive points into the melting pot, which I trust will be pursued in the next Parliament when the defence review is taken forward.
I have never regarded defence as a party political issue and have always tried to praise or, at times, constructively criticise both Government and Opposition parties on their defence policies. I apologise to the Royal Navy for not including ships in this debate and hope that the senior service will not be miffed, but Back Benchers sometimes have to focus on a narrow brief rather than take a broad-brush approach to all defence matters. I believe that the issue of vehicles and aircraft offers a clear insight into military thinking and direction, and it is pleasing to note that some of the issues I raised when I began to be more active in defence matters in 2004 are now bearing fruit and perhaps are being taken more seriously in some quarters.
In July this year senior figures from the British military and from coalition countries, together with Ministry of Defence scientists and engineers, gathered to discuss strategy and tactics for countering the threat from improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan, an issue I had raised three years earlier in the House, predicting what would happen based on our experience in Iraq. I pose the following rhetorical question: why did it take three years for the experts to catch up?
I begin with the issue of Snatch Land Rovers in Iraq. General Jackson thought that the aftermath of the Iraq war could be handled with the tactics used in Northern Ireland by sending in Snatch Land Rovers. Once casualties started to mount up and criticism of the vehicle's vulnerability to explosive devices began, we entered a propaganda phase with all the great and the good averring that a small vehicle was required to win hearts and minds and to be able to access narrow streets. Then Snatch patrols were escorted by Warriors through the most dangerous places, which obviously gave the game away in respect of the line that had previously been taken.
However, because of the lack of a suitable vehicle, a bunker-down approach was taken which eventually led to our failure in Iraq. Convoys became so unsafe that they withdrew to their bases, where they were mortared and rocketed, until they withdrew from those places as well. We lost manoeuvrability and tactical advantage and were put on the back foot.
The Mastiff arrived too late to turn the tide of the damage that had already been done, but that is a story in its own right. Why was the first built-for-purpose mine-protected vehicle-the Mastiff-built at the opposite
end of the scale to that which was required? In other words, why was it so large when something smaller like the Ridgback, or something even smaller than that, would have been more appropriate from the outset? It was clear that the Army did not want that design of vehicle at all. It plumped for the death trap Vector, which we thought had been withdrawn from service but will not be withdrawn until next year-too late, sadly, for the last RAF fatality.
The politicians, though, were right to support the procurement of Mastiff, which has been a great success in saving the lives of so many troops.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She rightly makes the point that we did not react quickly enough. Does she blame the Army chiefs or civil servants in the Ministry of Defence for that? Where does she feel the blame lies for our failure to react with the speed that we should have?
Ann Winterton: I am grateful for that intervention. I do not feel that I should blame either of those two bodies; certainly it was a combination of both. The problem so often in the procurement of vehicles, aircraft or whatever, is that the process is convoluted and complex, and there are people such as the hon. Gentleman who campaign for certain projects that affect their own constituency. I think, too, that there is perhaps a mentality in the armed services, because of their loyalty and the way they are trained and so on, which means that they are not always able to think quickly out of the box-except when they are in the field, of course, and that is totally different. I believe that that is why the present situation has arisen, but I am not accusing anyone. I am just making what I hope will be a jolly good case for change in the future.
Just like the Snatch-Warrior combination in Iraq, we recently saw two Mastiffs of the counter-IED team escorting a Brigade Reconnaissance Force convoy of 26 Jackals during Operation Panther's Valour in Afghanistan. The lead Mastiff was struck by a massive IED that would have obliterated a Jackal. This vehicle, like the Vector, is one that I have been critical of in the past.
We ought to remember that the Mastiff was initially purchased for use in Iraq, where there are paved roads, but it has since been deployed in Afghanistan.
Mr. Lee Scott (Ilford, North) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the time has come for the MOD to look at other vehicles that would protect our troops better, such as the Namer, which is manufactured in Israel?
Ann Winterton: I know that my hon. Friend has a great interest in promoting Israel. I am not aware of the attributes of that vehicle, but I am sure that those who are present today will have heard what he says about it.
The sales pitch for procuring the Vector and the Jackal was based on their off-road performance and manoeuvrability, which is fine for special forces and true reconnaissance. However, when it comes to general duties, using off-road vehicles that are not suitably armoured is suicidal. When the Jackal first came into service, there was no intention to add armour, but when
it was later heavily criticised, the usual cycle began of adding to a vehicle armour for which it had not been initially designed.
Of course, young lads, who are always boy racers at heart, love driving the Jackal-that is, until they or their mates are killed or maimed. The Ministry will not reveal how many vehicles have been lost for the good reason that it is the Army's prestigious toy, and the figure is high.
If convoys have to be taken off road, what signal does that send to the local population? The international security assistance force regards the roads as unsafe, but expects local people to use them for business and commerce. The difficult and varied terrain of Afghanistan, with its canals and pinch points, is not conducive to manoeuvrability, and many Afghans have also been killed by IEDs.
Meanwhile, because the UK gave away its mine-clearance equipment from Bosnian days-that is, the Chubby sets and engineering plant-it has had to purchase Talisman, which is due in 2011. There is still no mine-detection vehicle such as we had in Bosnia. That vehicle was called the Husky, which is confusing, as two vehicles are coming on stream with the same name. Even the Rhodesians had mine-detection vehicles more than 30 years ago with the Pookie, which had been developed from a Volkswagen Beetle. We now have to resort to foot patrols using hand-held mine detectors and, believe it or not, we do not have an armoured bulldozer.
Until recently, the problem has been the Army's obsession with the future rapid effect system concept-this partially answers the question of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)-including the futuristic medium-weight vehicle and electric armour, which is far ahead of its time as far as the technology is concerned. The design structure has proved useless for the form of warfare being pursued in Afghanistan.
While not officially a FRES vehicle, the disastrous Panther was part of the overall package. It is highly complicated-one just has to lift the bonnet and have a look. I will admit that I have not done that, but a friend of mine has and assures me that that is so, in case anyone challenges me on that point.
The Panther has been upgraded at enormous cost to try to make it work in Afghanistan. The cost has been £20 million for 67 vehicles, and therein lies the problem. The Army chose unsuitable vehicles that look futuristic but cost a fortune, bearing in mind the cost of loss of the vehicle plus its replacement, and not forgetting death and serious injury compensation.
The Panther is quite a large vehicle, and now is probably top-heavy. If it rolls over, there is no rear exit. There are only side doors, so those inside rely on the air conditioning-not a pleasant scenario to describe. Compare the Panther with the Mastiff and Ridgback, which work on blast deflection rather than blast absorption. If I had £5 for every time I have used those two phrases, I would be a wealthy woman by now. And Mastiff and Ridgback are not written off when they have been hit. They may not be easy on the eye, but they are practical and have saved life and prevented injury on innumerable occasions.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |