Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

The other problem is the silt. The river always looks extremely muddy and that is because thousands of tonnes of sediment constantly swirl up and down the river. The sand banks move about and much of the sediment is always in suspension. If we build a

13 Dec 2007 : Column 381

barrage, thousands of tonnes of sediment will settle—somewhere; the difficulty is knowing where. If they settle in front of the generating turbines, the problems will obviously be acute; if they settle in the sea lanes near the locks, then huge dredging costs will have to be paid, and, in my view, they should fall squarely on the barrage company.

The Port of Bristol is the port in this area that I know best and it has done exceptionally well over the past few years. Of course, other ports are affected on both sides of the estuary and they are at risk, too. They are all most concerned that the locks should be large enough and sufficiently well managed. In my view, the costs of building and operating the locks should be a charge on the barrage and not an additional overhead for the ports. Anything else would be unfair and damaging in terms of both commerce and unemployment.

When the Oldbury power station was built a few miles upstream from the older bridge, a tidal reservoir over a mile long and half a mile wide was constructed to hold the cooling water when the tide goes out. I was told that, after elaborate tests, it was carefully designed to be self-scouring. In fact, it is no such thing, and it has been necessary for a dredger to be there permanently since the power station opened many years ago. That shows the difficulty of forecasting what will happen to the sediment if a barrage is built.

So far as the barrage is concerned, I am a cautious enthusiast. It is potentially one of the biggest and most exciting engineering challenges of the next few decades, and it would change the environment, including that of those who live in the great cities of Bristol and Cardiff and the other towns nearby. We must investigate the problems and, above all, we must decide as soon as we respectably can whether to go ahead with it or whether to proceed with one of the alternatives. Whether by barrage or in other ways, we must harness the massive power of these tides and currents. Industry needs a lead. The Government must get on with the studies and then decide—and the sooner the better. The new ministerial committee has been sitting for nearly three months and I hope that by the end of this debate we shall know what it has achieved so far.

3.09 pm

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, for giving us the opportunity to debate this very important issue. There is no doubt that climate change is the biggest economic, social and environmental challenge that we face, and we must do everything that we possibly can to address it, including creating more low-carbon renewable energy generation. However, the Severn barrage, attractive as it may seem in principle with a claim that it will reduce carbon output by 3 per cent, has some pretty big snags attached to it. The first is economic: it is a very expensive way to reduce carbon and to generate electricity. The sustainable development report’s verdict was that it would not be viable as a commercial investment proposition and could go ahead only if it was provided, run and financed by the Government

13 Dec 2007 : Column 382

on cheap government money. There are many cheaper ways of reducing carbon, including some energy efficiency measures and, indeed, nuclear power. If the Government decide to go ahead with a new nuclear programme and we are going to build 10 or 12 reactors, why not build 14? I refer noble Lords to some very interesting work done by McKinsey on the costs of generating low-carbon energy and mitigating greenhouse gases. It looks at the costs and benefits of more than 120 greenhouse gas abatement options. We have a policy conflict looming in this area. Heads of state recently signed up to the European renewables target which may increase renewable energy generation but perhaps on a very expensive basis. My view is that the touchstone ought to be how we get least-cost carbon reduction rather than an artificial renewables target that may not be least cost.

Perhaps everyone expects that the issue on which I will focus more than others is biodiversity and why the Severn is important. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for going through some of the features of the Severn. Its irreplaceability is on the basis of the extent of its tidal range. This proposal would considerably reduce the tidal range of a large part of the estuary. The estuary is designated under the habitats and the birds directives, and I am proud that I was chairing English Nature at the time that that designation was put forward to government. That was 10 years ago, and the Government have only recently put it forward to Europe for final endorsement. The designation is a sign that the Severn is one of the more important estuarine systems in Europe and, indeed, globally for its salmon rivers, its intertidal habitats and the mobile sandbanks mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, which are some of its most distinctive biodiversity features. It is a globally unique river.

If for reasons of overriding public interest, which is the technical term under the habitats directive, the barrage were to go ahead, I can assure the House from my background of 20 years as a conservationist that it is not possible to create a replacement habitat elsewhere in the country to replace what was lost in the Severn. There have been proposals and suggestions that a replacement habitat could be created in the east of the country, perhaps in East Anglia in or the Humber. I should here declare an interest as chief executive of the Environment Agency, which struggles each year to create about 100 hectares of replacement habitat in response to its flood-risk management programme. I am not sure how the Environment Agency would see 14,000 hectares of habitat being created in East Anglia. Indeed, it would be interesting to hear the reaction of East Anglian landowners and farmers if it were suggested to them that 14,000 hectares of their land should go underwater in the interests of a Severn barrage. Nor should we kid ourselves that it would truly be replacement habitat. Nobody in the world has yet recreated a salmon river or a tidal estuarine system. We should also regard with a little caution the siren words of the Sustainable Development Commission report that habitat creation in the east would be an exciting opportunity in the face of climate change.

The big question is whether we are prepared to allow, as some would put it, a few fish and few birds to get in the way of important measures that are necessary to meet climate change. I shall highlight why the

13 Dec 2007 : Column 383

Severn is important in itself and for government. It is one of the few sites in Britain that is designated to the highest level. It is important not only for the wildlife it protects but because of its signal value in terms of government commitment to protecting the few very high-value wildlife sites when, generally speaking, our biodiversity is diminishing across the board. It is not just a signal within the UK, but also in Europe. We hear very strong mutterings from, for example, Poland as a new entrant to the European Union and we see signs of backsliding in Spain, Italy and Greece against directives such as the habitats directive. If we were to override the protection of one of our few most highly protected sites, it would become open season and any proposition that had to respond to climate change would be capable of overriding these important designations. It would happen a bit here, but it would happen a lot across Europe.

All of this is to be tested in the feasibility study, but I am nervous about the way it was announced. When John Hutton announced it at the Labour Party conference, he did not refer to it in a neutral tone of voice, but said in his statement that he was quite excited about the prospect. That seems to imply that there is already a degree of government commitment to this proposition before the feasibility study had even begun. Indeed, the tenor of the work in the feasibility study seems not to be whether this barrage should go ahead but how it can be allowed and enabled to go ahead. The big problem with high-profile, charismatic and politically led announcements is that they are difficult to back away from. I vividly remember in 1997 appealing to the newly appointed Secretary of State for Scotland to regard the funicular up Cairngorm as the white elephant that it has undoubtedly become since there is now no snow up there, and to use the opportunity of his arrival in post to cancel that high-profile, politically statemented development, but by then it was too late. We must watch that there is not an inexorable momentum behind this proposition so that Governments of any complexion will find it difficult to go back on it.

I urge the Government to consider the barrage and the feasibility study in the context of what could be achieved by investing this scale of finance in cheaper carbon reductions; for example, perhaps in less damaging tidal technologies such as lagoons, in major programmes of energy efficiency, other renewable technologies or cheap nuclear that does not destroy the distinctiveness of this globally important biodiversity resource. I hope that we are not in a position where for the future we are of the belief that we cannot solve the challenge of climate change without junking other environmental resources. For me, that would be very much throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

3.18 pm

Lord Rowe-Beddoe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, for introducing this debate. I declare a passing acquaintance with the Severn Barrage Association and a passing knowledge of the Severn Tidal Power Group.

We are debating today a significantly important issue in an environment in which time is truly of the

13 Dec 2007 : Column 384

essence. On Tuesday of this week, the Secretary-General of the United Nations reportedly said in Bali that,

In my opinion, that statement accurately describes the position of the Severn barrage project.

I was introduced to the project in 1993 when I was appointed to the Welsh Development Agency and shown papers at that time of the study that was created in 1988. Believe it or not—I am sure many noble Lords may know this—the 1988 project was probably Mark V or Mark VI in the historical sequence. The first reference to the Severn barrage was made by a Frenchman in 1911. We are indeed but four years away from its centenary, so to speak. The first government-sponsored investigation was in 1926, which reported in 1933—a speed, one hopes, not indicative of importance. But the economic crash in that decade put an end to the English Stones scheme. This is now the location of the second river crossing.

Between 1942 and 1945, the second government study was undertaken, driven by the energy shortage during the Second World War. In 1965, the focus moved from the English Stones to the Cardiff-Weston location. In 1974, the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology studied the project. In 1978 the third government commission concluded in favour of the Cardiff-Weston location. In 1983 the Severn Tidal Power Group was formed, consisting, as we have heard, of major private sector companies. Then the Department of Energy, which carried out two preliminary studies, published the largest and most detailed study to date in 1988. This still remains the definitive work published through the tripartite players; namely, the then Department of Energy, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Severn Tidal Power Group. With the dissolution of the CEGB following the Electricity Act 1989, a key driver of the project at that stage has still not been replaced.

I could go on and on with historical analysis but I believe that I have demonstrated that a great deal of talk has taken place over many years and that a considerable number of trees have been consumed.

We now know that the report published by the Sustainable Development Commission in October of this year was largely constructive in its approach to the Severn barrage providing compliance with European directives—which is easier said than done, as the noble Baroness has just illustrated—with habitat and species protection being a central condition for a sustainable Severn barrage.

On the other side of the coin, the European Union has severely criticised the UK Government for failing to meet their renewable energy targets. The aim of 20 per cent of electricity being generated by renewables in 2020 is now basically accepted as unachievable unless there is an immediate change in policy. We are often informed that the UK has the best potential energy resources in Europe. We are also more than aware, as has been so eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that the Severn estuary has the second largest tidal range in the world, and we are aware that it has a unique and dynamic environment. The Severn barrage alone

13 Dec 2007 : Column 385

would contribute more than 25 per cent of the UK 2020 renewable energy target. That is more than from all renewable energy projects now in operation.

It is important that this project is seen and promoted within the national context of a co-ordinated plan to harness estuarial power around the United Kingdom, rather than something that may be good for Wales and the south-west. Of course it will be good for Wales and it will be good for the south-west, as the envisaged scheme will bring substantial job creation and economic benefit. With the planned new road and rail links over the estuary, the barrage will create a regional economic powerhouse, integrating the economies of the south-west and Wales. These facts are evidenced by support given to the project by the Secretary of State for Wales, the right honourable Peter Hain, and cross-party support in the other place. It is also supported by the First Minister for Wales, the Welsh Assembly, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington, who unfortunately is unable to be here today, together with many business interests and academe.

In 1988, the project promised the provision of 7 per cent of UK electricity, at an indicated capital cost of £8 billion. Today, these figures appear to be somewhere near 5 per cent and £15 billion—illustrative, of course, of the significant increase in grid demand. The project would reduce UK carbon output by some 3 per cent and would, above all—this is very important—meet the United Kingdom Government’s security of supply objectives, for it is a predictable, renewable energy source. It would have an indefinite life expectancy, as exampled by the successful barrage at La Rance, which has been running reliably for some 40 years. The Severn barrage does not preclude other schemes. There is ample opportunity for tidal lagoons further down the channel and, indeed, for underwater tidal operations, as supported recently by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in this House in reference to the activity off St David’s.

Finally, the devastation caused in the summer of this year by tides backing up the river would be prevented in future by the protection of some 140 miles of coastline from high tides and storm surges. Let us therefore now break this mould of inaction by successive Governments over many decades and address positively and quickly the extraordinary opportunities that present themselves, not only in the Severn estuary, but around all the coasts of this sceptred isle.

3.26 pm

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth on bringing forward this debate. It is particularly timely when we are thinking about climate change. I am very glad that he has kept the issue of the power of the Severn on the agenda.

I should mention my interests in this subject. I live by the Severn and in fair weather I sail on it most days in the summer when I am not here. My husband chairs the Environment Agency’s flood defence committee for the Wessex area. I was given a dinner by the Severn Tidal Power Group, as were several noble Lords, earlier this week.



13 Dec 2007 : Column 386

As the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, so eloquently said, this debate has been going on for a very long time. I think there is complete consensus here that we should harness the power of the Severn. The big debate is over exactly how we should harness it. We should harness it because it is very predictable power and a constant power in its flow in and out. For those reasons, we have to get on with harnessing it. Perhaps the most depressing fact of the past few years is that the Government have really prevaricated over pursuing some studies that could have been going on; for example, into tidal lagoons. When we had the debate in your Lordships’ House with the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, we were pleading the case that this could be piloted, as the promoters wanted, in Swansea Bay. It is taking a pathetically long time to pilot such a scheme. That project, in the intervening time, could have been constructed and could be feeding in to the information that we will need when we come to deciding between the options—because that is what we are going to need to do.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, laid out extremely well why we should be very nervous of even looking at a barrage scheme. I completely concur with her conclusions about habitat loss. If we consider the small amount of habitat that would have been lost with the Dibden Bay proposal, it is quite clear that to replace the habitat that would be lost if the barrage were constructed would actually be impossible.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, spoke of the port of Bristol. If a barrage is to be constructed for very good climate-change reasons, we should also have regard to what will happen if we make shipping more difficult. Will more goods be air-freighted or will they have to take a much longer route to other ports? Some useful tables show what those longer routes would mean.

As I live on the Severn, I see exactly how much that route is used. It is astonishing to see how much freight comes and goes. We must also bear in mind that the size of the ships will alter considerably. When the Panama Canal is reconstructed, with all the shipping that will come from China carrying the goods that we happily import from there, a completely different scale of ship will be required. I do not believe that that has been sufficiently factored into the barrage equation.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the amount of spin that has already gone into this. It is possibly the ultimate spin. When I watched the BBC programme showing days in the life of Her Majesty the Queen, I noticed that she mentioned the barrage and the 5 per cent that could be obtained from it. I wondered where that figure had come from. Was it from the Prime Minister’s briefing?

There is obviously a considerable amount of interest in the barrage, but it would be extremely dangerous if the Government had already come to a conclusion about where the feasibility study is going; it needs to be done on an absolutely level playing field. In an earlier debate about a tidal lagoon it was said that those interested in tidal lagoon promotion had secured private funding and needed only the

13 Dec 2007 : Column 387

backing of the DTI but they had considerable problems in getting the then DTI to agree to meetings to discuss it. It took Defra and the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to get everyone in one room. There is a history of not providing a level playing field.

Possibly my only disagreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is when she speaks of “cheap nuclear”. I do not think there is such a thing.

Another issue that may seem a small detail to your Lordships’ House, although it is not, is the historical elver run up the Severn. Some noble Lords have mentioned the migration of salmon. We do not know whether disruption due to the barrage will cause a complete and catastrophic failure of the elvers.

What do I want? I want a completely fair and level playing field. Although we know we can get 5 per cent electricity from a barrage, that barrage will cost in the region of £15 billion to £20 billion and the Government should be looking at what they can harness from the Severn for that amount of money. I have done only a back-of-the-envelope calculation but perhaps the Minister can do a better one. I think that might provide for up to 150 tidal lagoons. The Minister needs to ask his officials to estimate how much power that would provide. There could be an enormous benefit as there would be less transmission loss. A barrage will send its electricity far greater distances, whereas tidal lagoons could feed through the grid into the local communities, in Wales or on the north and south-west coast.

What will the national grid competition be? The Government say that they will commit to new nuclear build, so we are probably looking at a new Hinkley Point C, if they go ahead with that. We already have a commitment to an onshore wind farm at Fullabrook Down. I support the proposal—I should declare an interest as I chair the economic advisory group for it—for the Atlantic Array offshore wind farm north of Lundy Island. There are a lot of national grid pressures on that area. I wonder whether something centralised like the barrage is even feasible in terms of grid connection. Even if it were, the grid loss needs to be put into the equation.

I hope that the Government will therefore put an extraordinary amount of energy into the feasibility study and make up the time that they have lost to date by dragging their feet on marine energy. I hope that there is a completely level playing field and that the extraordinary habitat represented by the Severn is not lost. However, our drive to solve climate change must not mean that we sacrifice everything else on that altar.

3.35 pm

Lord Patten: My Lords, I am glad to have heard the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, whose objectivity and independence of mind I have admired greatly over the years, as much as I have disagreed with him greatly on his political views.

These islands used to be blessed with the best power source of the Industrial Revolution—King Coal. Now, the slowly exploited potential of onshore and, increasingly, offshore wind can be joined by what might be thought

13 Dec 2007 : Column 388

of as King Tide, at least in the Severn if the barrage is realised. Despite the obvious problems outlined by a number of speakers, the barrage is needed. I line myself up with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, in thinking that it is needed. I have picked “need” as my text.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page