Energy and Climate Change CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Rt Hon. Peter Hain MP

Strike Price

The Chairman mentioned in I think his first question to me a figure of “£170 per kilowatt hour”; in fact this should have been megawatt hour.

Moreover, the Committee might have noted, I was puzzled as to the origin of this figure which I did not recognise. I had never seen it before. In fact, contrary to assertions made by Committee Members, there is no figure of £170 per megawatt hour in Hafren Power’s submission to the Committee. They do show a chart which compares levelised costs and refers to an illustrative figure of £160 per megawatt hour. Perhaps this is where the confusion lies. As mentioned in the chart footnotes, the Hafren Power calculation of levelised cost uses highly conservative assumptions, and the calculation for all other energy generating sources in the chart uses highly liberal assumptions. But this is not Hafren Power’s strike price. This will be at the same level, if not lower, than offshore wind, on a gross strike basis—with of course a negotiation to come. When you factor in the massive savings on flood damage and defence costs, their net strike will be much lower still.

Habitat

Barry Gardiner questioning me said: “The new proposal is only for 60% less than that but that is still 27% of a loss of habitat”. The correct figure is actually 20%. Later, Kate Jennings (and still later Martin Spray) referred to “the 27% to which Barry Gardiner referred”; again this figure should be 20%.

I would add that sea level rise is predicted to destroy 10–20% of the intertidal habitat in any case.

Tidal Fence

In further answer to Alan Whitehead’s question, if you do not funnel the water through holes in the caissons, you will lose a lot of potential electricity. A tidal fence, simply a line of tidal stream devices, on the same site would generate one twentieth the electricity of the barrage.

Lagoons

I am supportive of the proposed Swansea Bay Lagoon for Swansea where it is appropriate but not for the Severn; additionally, the Swansea one would be the size of 1000 football fields, and would produce just 0.4 terawatt hours per year, 40 times less electricity than the Barrage.

Wind Power Comparison

In response to Dan Byles’ question can I add to my reply that, most importantly, electricity from the Barrage is predictable for centuries in advance. Electricity from wind is intermittent and unpredictable, even if it makes an important contribution.

Bristol Port and Dr Elizabeth Haywood

Simon Bird referred to “a meeting with Hafren with Elizabeth Haywood, Peter Hain’s wife [my italics] back in the summer” as if the fact that she is my wife was at all relevant; this I am afraid is another instance of Bristol Port’s tendentious, aggressive and misconceived approach to the Barrage. She is Chairman of Hafren Power’s Regional Committee. This is a matter of public record and hardly a surprise since she is listed in Hafren Power’s evidence to your Committee as playing that role. She has an independent professional career including as Wales CBI Director long predating our marriage in 2003, and I strongly resent this reference especially since her role has been unpaid during the nine months or so since she has been involved. For that reason I did not think to declare her role at the outset. Nor was I aware I needed to record my Chairmanship of the Severn Barrage APPG. But I am more than happy to record both now if that is in order.

Furthermore, I suggest that it would be in Bristol Port’s interests seriously to engage—company to company—with Hafren Power rather than to continue whipping up an anti-campaign. There will be benefits to the Port from the Barrage, as indeed I outlined.

Fish Friendly

In response to Christopher Pincher’s question, again I did not recognise his attribution to Hafren Power and indeed upon checking I can confirm that Hafren Power did not say that their turbines would result in 100% survival. They said their goal was 100% survival of all fish and marine animals.

Martin Salter’s language was, I regret, highly rhetorical and he grossly exaggerated the problem. He also took no account of the fact that, according to the Environment Agency, fish stocks especially of Salmon, have been in decline to the point where in some areas fishing has had to be banned or severely restricted.

Furthermore, scientific evidence produced by Dr Robert Kirby (who has monitored the Severn Estuary for many years) shows a serious decline in all fish stocks; he also has important evidence on birdlife. I am informed that he may have sent a memorandum summarising this evidence to the Committee; if so I would urge that it is studied carefully.

The key point is this. As I indicated in my evidence, there is no question that the Severn Barrage will change the nature of the Estuary, albeit very significantly less than earlier project designs. But wildlife—especially birds and fish—in and around the Estuary has been continuing to change anyway, mainly due to global warming. Last Autumn I saw a presentation at Swansea University which demonstrated this clearly and which I am sure that the Committee could draw upon if desired.

For me the question then becomes: what are the advantages of the Barrage set against any possible wildlife disadvantages? And the answer in my view is absolutely clear. As I described in my own evidence there will be huge benefit to the UK as a whole, and South Wales and the South West especially, from:

(1)a massive renewable energy contribution to meet the UK’s legal obligations unlikely otherwise to be met;

(2)increased energy security and for over 100 years the cheapest energy in the UK;

(3)combating climate change;

(4)huge private investment and jobs;

(5)flood protection;

(6)extensive habitat compensation; and

(7)new opportunities for upstream ports especially Port Talbot, but including Bristol and other South Wales ports.

Furthermore, although I defend the right and indeed the obligation of fish, bird and other wildlife groups—or for that matter Bristol Port—to advance their sectional interests strongly and to gain maximum possible protection (which Hafren have offered), I do not believe they should be able to exercise a veto on the Barrage by persuading decision-makers that their own interests trump those UK-wide interests as listed above and described in my evidence. The UK’s interest should be paramount.

If for instance only 1% of fish passing up and down the Severn were to be damaged, would the Angling Trust agree that was an acceptable price to pay for the massive benefits of the Barrage? Or a figure of 5% or even higher? I invite the Committee to consider whether a balanced policy would be to recommend the Barrage goes ahead but only with maximum protection and where applicable habitat compensation for bird and fish life.

January 2013