You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Daily Hansard
Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is my very great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on the third of three very distinguished maiden speeches this afternoon. I have known the noble Lord for many years through his career in what is now the Country Land and Business Association. No one becomes president of such a body without serving a long and hard apprenticeship and learning in intimate detail the intricacies of what makes the countryside tick and, in what makes the countryside tick, what makes England and the British Isles the beautiful land that it is to live in. We have heard the depth of that experience this afternoon. It has been a great pleasure to listen to it and we look forward to further contributions from the noble Lord on many occasions.

I intend to pick up a subject that is mentioned, not quite as an afterthought, but certainly as part of what I would call the appendix to the gracious Speech, which states:

Of course, I am the world's greatest authority on Africa, so I shall proceed to say nothing at all about it, but climate change ought to be mentioned during this debate. The Prime Minister has said that that is probably the most important issue that mankind faces today. One could probably go further and say that it is perhaps the most important issue that mankind has ever faced. That being so, this is an appropriate opportunity to discuss it.

What interests me is that there is nothing else in the gracious Speech apart from what I would call that passing mention. I cannot help wondering if that is not because Britain is rather fortunately situated vis à vis global warming in the context of the Kyoto Protocol, under which this country is well ahead of its target for carbon dioxide and atmospheric pollutants reduction. That is largely as a result of good fortune, because of the major change in the electricity generation industry during the 1990s, when a big switch was made from coal to gas. That has also happened to some degree because of the industrial run-down. We are well ahead of schedule to meet the targets that the Government set themselves over and above the Kyoto Protocol targets.

That said, we should not be complacent—there is some danger that the Government may be—because in the last recorded year, carbon dioxide emissions rose. That is not in a period including an especially severe winter, which can cause especially large heating bills. That is a problem that we all have to face.

Of course, the solution is not for the United Kingdom alone. The contribution that can be made through the G8 will be great. But in the end, all countries must be involved. At present, the Kyoto Protocol has come into action because of the accession of the Russians. The countries now signed up to the protocols accounted for more than 55 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels. However, since 1990, the world's economies have changed and, in less than a decade, the countries that are outside the
 
30 Nov 2004 : Column 425
 
protocols will be emitting more carbon dioxide than those that have signed up to them. We will not solve the issue of global warming without involving every country.

My second point is that those countries that are outside the Kyoto Protocols are, generally speaking, the less developed countries. That puts an even greater obligation on the signatories, because not only do we have to reduce our own emissions, we must in doing so make room for their economies to grow, or we have to develop new technologies that make that possible. That is a fundamental issue that must be faced.

There seems to be growing scientific consensus that it would be dangerous if, globally, we allowed carbon dioxide to rise above 500 parts per million in the atmosphere. The present level is accepted as being 380 parts per million. The average increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the past century has been about 1.5 parts per million per year. Last year the authoritative recording station for carbon dioxide levels recorded an increase of over 2 parts per million in one year. If 500 parts per million is the acceptable limit beyond which the future becomes very unpredictable, we do not have much time.

It is not a question of whether those targets can be achieved; they must be achieved. Having looked at the possibilities, I think that they can be achieved. The Government have set themselves a target of reducing by 60 per cent carbon dioxide emissions on 1990 levels by 2050. That is not sufficiently ambitious, given our problems in persuading other countries to come on board and play their part. We must also develop technologies which demonstrate that the targets can be achieved in time for countries to introduce them themselves rather than developing existing technologies to fulfil their energy requirements, as happens at present. I think particularly of China, which is building coal-fired power stations at a terrifying rate of knots because it needs energy. Largely, we got out of coal 20 years ago; we need to get every country out of such energy systems, which produce bad emissions.

The Government have made a big thing about adopting wind energy. We have debated the issue often enough in this House. Wind is an unreliable and fickle mistress to have to supply anything, as any sailor would be aware. I am surprised that there is not more in the gracious Speech to deal with other subjects, particularly energy economy. Energy economy is an investment decision for anybody, whether a business or a private individual looking after a house. As the price of energy rises, the incentive to use it efficiently increases. The price of energy may have risen sufficiently to enable the Government to get away with it, but they are not doing enough, particularly in the domestic sector. Fiscal assistance will be required on a much greater scale than at present. Again, nothing in the gracious Speech marks a move in that direction.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned a flaw in the planning system. Having been a planner, I think that I know what I speak of when I say that the system was deeply flawed. One of our problems is that major
 
30 Nov 2004 : Column 426
 
energy producers generate immense quantities of heat which at present goes to waste because of how they are sited. The efficiency of a power station could be increased by 25 per cent to 30 per cent just by using all its waste heat, which at present makes its own contribution to global warming. One could go on speaking about the domestic front; perhaps the subject is too big for me to continue. I shall mention just two further issues.

At present, the Severn barrage is ruled out of court because apparently it produces electricity that is too expensive. But the Welsh Development Agency is discussing with the Wales Environment Trust the possibility of offshore tidal lagoons. It proposes an experimental offshore tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay, which, it says, will produce electricity at between 2 pence and 3.5 pence per kilowatt hour. That is less than half the cost of the electricity supposedly produced by the Severn barrage, which is supposed to harness all the energy of the Severn estuary. The Severn barrage would produce all the electricity that Wales could possibly consume. The Swansea barrage will produce electricity to cover only Swansea. Why is there such a huge discrepancy in output value?

The final issue that we must face is that we will not succeed without changing how we run transport. By that I do not mean moving everybody on to public transport or reducing their opportunity and freedom of movement. If we go down that road, we are doomed to fail. We must change our fuel system. The only clean fuel system that will make that possible is hydrogen. I confine myself to saying that studies in the United States, where a lot of money is being invested in such work, indicate that it will be possible to produce hydrogen at a cost per unit of energy output that is competitive with the present cost of petrol. A side issue is that to do that they will probably require nuclear power. Another question that society must face is whether the risks of nuclear power are greater or less than those of global warming—that is currently described as a no-brainer.

There are enormous possibilities. I shall finish with the following thought. My eldest grandson is 15. By 2050, by which time we must have solved the problem not just nationally but internationally, he will be 60. He and his generation will have the burden of carrying out the tasks necessary to bring that about. They can do that only on the foundations that we lay, but there is nothing in the gracious Speech to lay any foundations at all.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, it is an honour yet again to be still here and to be able to take part in the debate on Her Majesty's gracious Speech. I, too, join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington on his forthright and competent maiden speech. I am also delighted to welcome another voice for the countryside on these Benches.

As usual, I must declare an interest as someone who tries to farm and as the unpaid president of the British Association for Biofuels & Oils. I have been involved
 
30 Nov 2004 : Column 427
 
in the food industry all my life, as have generations of my family on both sides. Last weekend I was checking my records, and it was amazing to think that 20 years ago I was receiving £160 a tonne for malting barley. Today, 20 years later, I am lucky to get half that figure; in other words, £80 a tonne. When I started farming I inherited a workforce of 17. Today I am farming a bigger acreage with just three. Both these sad statistics show how farming has changed and how dramatically.

Last week's gracious Speech for the first time since Her Majesty's Government came to power made a reference to rural policy. It stated:

In the past, rural issues have failed to get even a mention, other than two years ago with that daft idea of a Bill to ban hunting with dogs.

It is odd to think that during the week of Prorogation the main topics before both Houses were same-sex partnerships, smoking and hunting. I cannot help but believe that while we are still technically at war our parliamentary masters have a very odd list of priorities.

Although the UK agricultural scene has slowly moved on from the worst crises of BSE, foot and mouth and a thoroughly wet autumn, any prosperity is hard to discern. The return on working capital still remains inadequate for the levels of new investment required. I am more than aware that farmers have the reputation for crying wolf, but their problem is very real and inhibiting reinvestment.

Farming incomes are lagging way behind the rate of inflation. Forty years ago, to buy a medium-sized tractor one needed to sell 23,000 litres of milk or 11 prime cattle or 144 prime lambs. Today, the farmer would need to sell at least twice that produce to buy the same machine.

Defra policy documents in the past have just been expensive paper. In the gracious Speech, we heard:

I am sure that we all welcome such an aim, especially when, currently, under New Labour, quangos are costing the taxpayer £22.74 billion a year. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to some of those quangos in her powerful opening remarks.

Ever since I joined your Lordships' House 14 years ago I have been beseeching both main parties to produce a realistic rural policy and not one that will simply try to paper over the cracks. Everyone involved in the food industry from the prime producers to the ultimate consumer needs to be involved. I believe that this is now more urgent than ever before, especially as the single farm payment rears its head with all the uncertainties that are bound to ensue.

We already produce around two-thirds of all food consumed within the United Kingdom. I believe that more should be done in terms of ensuring that
 
30 Nov 2004 : Column 428
 
consumers know the source of their food and, more importantly, the standards under which it is produced. The UK's standards are, indeed, second to none.

We are very fortunate in being so well fed—indeed some would say too well fed—and thus able to pay attention to wider environmental issues. Today's pensioners can well remember when it was otherwise; for example, ration cards for tiny amounts of basic foods which we can now all take for granted and in any quantity. It is worth reflecting that 40 per cent of the weekly wage 40 years ago went on food: today that figure is just 16 per cent.

Farmers are in fact feeding the nation with half a million hectares, which are set aside, wasted, idle and out of production. How, under the new regime, can this land be put to work? One obvious use is for biofuels, but there are biofuels and biofuels. Defra bureaucrats currently seem to have an infatuation with specialist biomass crops and seem even to have cast a spell over my normally unemotional friend, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.

He has just announced a further £3.5 million of sweeteners for biomass. In public and private debates, I had believed naively that the biomass role had been properly evaluated, especially due to the time taken for a biomass crop to come on stream in comparison with the fuel use from a nine-to-11-month growing crop such as sugar beet, wheat and oilseed rape.

However, energy from biomass crops costs a lot more than energy from fossil fuel. It may be three, four or even five times as much. But even the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, does not know how much more. So far, approaching £100 million has been spent by Defra on these specialist crops, willow coppice and miscanthus, with absolutely nothing to show for it except a failed power station. Of course, I am referring to ARBRE. Until the cost of energy from those crops is known and the gap with fossil fuels known and bridged, I fear that Defra's dalliance with willow, grass and waste is doomed to fail.

Liquid biofuels for road transport are different. Biodiesel and bioethanol come from existing crops. They use known technology and have been fully costed. We have the half a million hectares of set aside available now for cereal, root and oil seed crops with a potential to produce close to 1 million tonnes of road fuel. That must be useful with crude oil now at around 50 dollars per barrel. Our current energy requirements are prone to unknown market forces, all from increasingly unstable parts of the world, with no long-term supply guaranteed.

Biofuels must be the answer. Even Downing Street has been inquiring into the role of biofuels. Logic and farming realities are behind that. My BABFO colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I were delighted to have worked hard with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to get the enabling legislation for a renewable transport fuel obligation into the Energy Act 2004.

As long as I live I shall always remember the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, uttering the words, "I accept the amendment". The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on thanking the Minister literally brought tears of joy to
 
30 Nov 2004 : Column 429
 
my eyes as he proclaimed the happiness that would spread throughout the farming community and environmental lobby for cleaner air.

What is now needed is the Government to put their full weight behind a renewable transport fuel obligation. The oil companies may well be against that because they may fear a loss of control over feed stocks, but surely the national interest should take precedence over such a sectional interest.

Late last night I received the summary of reports submitted to the Commission setting out targets from 17 countries for the EU biofuels directives. The UK target is pathetic at 0.3 per cent. That is an utter disgrace in comparison with all the other countries whose targets are around 2 per cent.

A target of 5 per cent biofuel use by 2010 is achievable using existing resources. If set now, it would be a real boost to the agricultural sector as well as providing ancillary jobs. The necessary long-term investment could be planned and Treasury proposals for enhanced capital allowances brought to fruition.

On behalf of a whole range of concerns, but particularly environmental and agricultural interests, I hope that the Government will introduce a renewable transport fuel obligation forthwith and set a realistic target of 5 per cent for 2010.

Here is such a wonderful opportunity, which I pray the Government will seize before once again we are overtaken by our European partners.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page