| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
My noble friend Lord Cope explained the awesome natural power of the Severn estuary. He said that we need to update the existing studies. He is right, but we also need to look at issues that we would not have looked at 20 years ago.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has done us a great service by pointing out some of the difficulties, which are considerable. She suggested nuclear power—quite rightly, in my view—but it is a pity that the Government have made such slow progress in dealing with the problem of nuclear waste post the 1999 report of your Lordships’ Select Committee. Nuclear power is only part of the solution. What will happen if a technical fault arises in the whole fleet of nuclear power stations and they are all off the road? We know we need a mix of power sources and should not rely on one.
The speech of my noble friend Lord Patten was very helpful. He touched on the difficulty of industry accepting risk, particularly risk that it is not well able to take. He mentioned the need for certainty in the appraisal and planning process. It is to be hoped that the Government will consult industry about the financial structure of the project, rather than trying to invent it themselves.
I apologise for not responding to every noble Lord. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the issue of the ports that would be affected, in particular Bristol. No doubt there will be many effects, most of which
13 Dec 2007 : Column 403
On stakeholder involvement in the study, it is vital that the green NGOs, if I may describe them in that way, are closely involved in scoping the study. I am concerned that officials have been given until August to scope the study or parts thereof. Why is the scoping taking so long? This is not a case of “Rumsfeldism”, if I may put it that way; before any decisions are made we must have all the questions answered. Certainly we cannot have any known unknowns. Some questions can easily be answered, and some will require detailed research and will take time, but taking eight months to scope the study will be very dear as it will cost about 4 million tonnes of CO2 if the project goes ahead.
It is important that the project is studied from every conceivable angle. It would be disappointing in the extreme to complete the project and then discover some adverse effect that should have been anticipated but was not. I hope that the Minister will not fall into the trap of reinventing the wheel by failing to build upon the excellent work, over many years, of the Severn Tidal Power Group. This does not mean that its assumptions should not be tested—of course they should be tested. Some of its work is quite old and we now have much better analytical tools available. The STC report reminds us that the project runs the danger of diverting our attention from energy conservation—a point made by many noble Lords. Quite so, but the barrage would only be 5 per cent of the problem, and the same could be said of any renewable energy project.
Finally, we can study the economics of the barrage project. We can agonise over selecting an appropriate discount rate. But we, the current generation—the current custodians—will have to pay for the project if it proceeds. However, we will definitely be leaving all sorts of problems for future generations, and they will not thank us for them. We have global warming, rising sea levels, deforestation, depletion of natural resources, loss of biodiversity on a grand scale and nuclear waste. It would be nice to leave future generations 17 terawatts of electricity every year, absolutely free.
4.41 pm
Lord Bach: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, on securing the debate. On behalf of the Government, I thank him very much for initiating a debate on this important subject. The expertise and local knowledge demonstrated this afternoon mean that this debate will be widely read and, one hopes, widely considered. There is a huge degree of expertise in this House on this subject, not least because two speakers were distinguished Members of Parliament— for Northavon in one case and Weston-super-Mare in the other. They had a direct constituency interest in the problems that this proposal raises. We have had
13 Dec 2007 : Column 404
This is an important subject and the debate shows, if anyone ever thought that the big decisions on climate change would somehow make themselves, or would be easy decisions, how wrong they would be. There are conflicting interests all over the place. The difficulty for Government and Parliament is to work their way through these conflicting interests to try to find what is best for our generation and above all, as the noble Earl has just said, for future generations.
I think it is appropriate to begin by setting today’s debate in the context of this country’s wider energy policy. The energy White Paper, published earlier this year, set out our strategy to address the two major long-term energy challenges we face. The first is tackling climate change by reducing carbon emissions, both within the UK and abroad. The second is ensuring secure, clean and affordable energy as we become increasingly dependent on imported fuel. To meet these challenges, the Government have set four long-term goals: first, to put ourselves on a path to cut our CO2 emissions by some 60 per cent by about 2050, with real and substantial progress by 2020; secondly, to maintain the reliability of energy supplies; thirdly, to promote competitive markets here and abroad, helping to raise the rate of sustainable economic growth and to improve our productivity; and, lastly, to ensure, of course, that every home is adequately and affordably heated. Achieving those goals, which are easy to set out, will require a series of changes, developments and decisions over decades to come.
So we need a framework that delivers the necessary changes, and we think that that framework for action is set out in the White Paper. It is based on the principles of competitive energy markets, energy efficiency and a diverse energy mix, with more low-carbon sources of energy. In the gracious Speech on 6 November last, Her Majesty gave notice of the Government’s intention to take forward policies that will help us meet our energy challenges. Bills covering energy, planning and climate change will provide a package of measures to implement the measures in the energy White Paper, strengthening the framework for investment in low-carbon sources of energy and energy infrastructure; ensure that planning supports sustainable development and measures to tackle climate change through an efficient and fair planning process; and set legally binding emission-reduction targets, requiring government to set five-year targets.
As the urgency of tackling climate change and achieving energy security increase, the case for more renewable energy has become more and more compelling. That is why the UK supports the agreement of EU leaders that, by 2020, one-fifth of all Europe's energy should come from renewables, a near threefold increase. We are completely committed to meeting our share. We do not know yet what that share will be but it is clear that, over the next decade and beyond, we will need to increase very significantly the proportion of our energy from renewable sources. The Prime Minister announced last month the launch of a consultation
13 Dec 2007 : Column 405
I hope that our commitment to renewable energy such as wind, wave, biomass and tidal power, is clear. On Monday, as was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform set out new proposals that could see up to 25 gigawatts of offshore wind operating in UK waters by 2020, with the potential to generate enough power for up to 25 million homes, the equivalent of all UK homes. That followed the announcement last month of consent for a 350-megawatt wood-fuelled electricity generation plant in south Wales in Port Talbot. We understand that, when completed, that will be the largest biomass plant in the world. As well as having some of the best wind resources in the world, we are blessed with some of the best tidal resources. Estimates suggest that tidal energy could provide more than 10 per cent of the UK's electricity demand. So it must make sense for us to explore the potential for harnessing that resource.
That brings me to what we are discussing in detail today. Over the past year the Sustainable Development Commission has conducted a study of the potential for tidal power in the UK. It published its report on 1 October, setting out its position and advice to the Government on tidal power. I should like to make clear how grateful we are to the commission for the work it has done. The noble Lords, Lord Livsey and Lord Moran, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, were among those who referred to the commission and what it said. Its comments are subject to praise and to criticism too, but it is an important contribution to this debate. I shall come in a moment or two to some of the remarks in its conclusion. The report is wide-ranging and considers the potential for different tidal technologies, including tidal barrages, tidal lagoons and the emerging tidal stream technologies. It has stimulated much discussion and perhaps even this debate, but its position on the Severn barrage has attracted the most interest.
Two of the report’s key conclusions were that, first, the commission believes that there is a strong case to be made for a sustainable Severn barrage; and, secondly, that such a development may provide an environmental opportunity by linking a compensatory habitats package to climate change adaptation. Of course, the commission set a number of conditions that would need to be met for a barrage to be considered sustainable. Those require any consideration of a barrage to be within a framework that places,
- “high value on the long-term public interest and on maintaining the overall integrity of internationally recognised habitats and species”.
We welcome the commission’s key message that tidal power can be generated in the Severn estuary within sustainable development principles. We are looking at the report and its conclusions with great care.
The scheme with which most will be familiar and the one on which most of the discussion today has centred is known as the Cardiff-Weston barrage. It was studied in some depth during the 1980s—we are
13 Dec 2007 : Column 406
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, did I hear my noble friend say “million” or “billion”? I suspect he meant “billion”.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am used to talking in defence terms. I am very grateful to my noble friend for putting me right. Of course, I mean £15 billion.
It would involve building a 10-mile-long barrage across the estuary, just downstream of a line between Cardiff and Weston-super-Mare, enclosing some 140 miles of coastline and it would take up to 12 years to build and commission from any decision to take it forward. The issues that will need to be addressed to harness the huge resource that exists in the Severn estuary are complex and challenging, but the benefits in terms of low-carbon energy and emission reduction are, to say the least, significant. Therefore, this is an option that we want to explore further. We have announced our intention to carry out a feasibility study, to which every noble Lord has referred.
The feasibility study will include consideration of the environmental impacts that would occur and cannot be denied and the compliance that would be needed with the wide range of environmental legislation that applies to the estuary. The estuary itself is designated a Ramsar site—an international treaty which, as noble Lords will know, provides the framework for the conservation of wetlands and their resources—and a special protection area under the EU birds directive. It also comprises a series of sites of special scientific interest. In August this year, the UK submitted the Severn estuary to the European Commission as a candidate special area of conservation under the EU habitats directive.
Clearly, a barrage would have a major effect on the ecosystems of the Severn estuary. Much of the current intertidal area would disappear and, as noble Lords have heard, sediment flows would change and existing habitats would be modified. It is clear that the full range of environmental impacts must be fully assessed and understood. We have to consider how we might compensate for adverse impacts on protected environment habitats and species. Some believe that they cannot be compensated for; others that that is possible.
13 Dec 2007 : Column 407
The noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Miller, expressed the clear concern about whether there would be a fair and level playing field for this feasibility study. I want to make it crystal clear that we have come to no conclusion about the end result; that study will be carried out openly and transparently. It is very much a question of whether this scheme should go ahead, but the “how” is an important part of deciding “whether” it should. The feasibility study will consider different technical options for tidal power in the Severn estuary, including both the barrage and the lagoons. If any message gets across, it is, I hope, that our aim is to have a proper feasibility study that will lead to the right conclusion.
More generally, the study will look at various options for developing the tidal energy in the estuary, including their impacts, costs and benefits. It will consider in detail the various aspects of tidal development, including economics, which we have discussed, environmental impacts, on which I have touched, and compensatory measures. Your Lordships have also heard about the regional impact; that includes flood avoidance, any effects on the ports and potential socio-economic benefits such as job creation, which should not be left out of the equation. That study is expected to take at least 18 months to two years to complete. Throughout, the Government intend to do the work transparently and to engage the people and organisations that would be affected by any such developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Patten, wanted a little more detail. I will lift the veil slightly, but I ask him to be a little patient as there will be important announcements next month, after the Christmas Recess. However, the study will be led by my department, DBERR, working together with a number of others, as noble Lords would expect. Defra will obviously be an important player and, equally, the Department for Transport will be one. The Department for Communities and Local Government and the Treasury will, of course, be there, as will the Welsh Assembly Government and the south-west regional development agency.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, referred to a cross-departmental working group that has been set up to take things forward; I think he was referring to the ad hoc ministerial committee to which the working group will report. We are currently examining the scope of that feasibility study, as it is important to get right its organisational framework and governance to carry out the study. As I say, we expect to provide more detailed information on the scope of the study next year.
This has been a very important contribution to the debate and to our understanding on this issue. Much of the concern has been from those who are attracted by the idea of tidal lagoons. There is not really time to go into details about those, but changes are to be made to renewable obligation rules that will, as I understand it, potentially make it easier for those who want to see, for example, the Swansea Bay process going ahead. As the Commission said:
“We do not consider that large-scale tidal lagoon development in the Severn Estuary would offer any economic or environmental advantage over a barrage”.
13 Dec 2007 : Column 408
That is to be found in the summary at page seven. The noble Earl reminded us—and this, too, is important—that there is a strong justification for the development of at least one tidal lagoon demonstration project.
I hope that the noble Lords who support lagoons as such will not hold to the view that the Government are definitely opposed to them. We are not. The feasibility study will look at lagoons as it looks at the barrage and, I hope, come up with the appropriate judgment.
We fully recognise, as do all noble Lords who have spoken, the potential contribution that tidal energy in all its forms can make towards our goals. That includes the tidal resource potential that exists within the Severn estuary. We are also very conscious, as noble Lords have been this afternoon, that we have to move ahead and come to a decision. That is what government is about and what the House would expect. However, we need to get it right both for our generation and for future generations.
5 pm
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank very much every noble Lord and noble Baroness who has taken part in the debate. I thank the Minister, but I cannot possibly refer to everyone who contributed because that has already been done in the summations.
I have a couple of points that I need to make before closing the debate. There is the whole question of the impact of sewage in the Severn estuary as the result of the development of a barrage. There is, too, the whole question of the ports of south Wales and Bristol. The Chinese are starting to use 150,000-tonne container carriers, and that will be the shipping of the future. Contributions were made on the environment and, in particular, on the point that it is probably impossible to replace what might be destroyed. Then there is the whole question of improved communications; a railway bridge could be built, even possibly on the second Severn crossing.
There are huge legal constraints, which have been mentioned. I am pleased that the Swansea Bay lagoon project may be supported, but we want to see a working project that can provide us with statistics and information on that system. Furthermore, we must not forget about the Planning Bill now going through the other place, which will speed up the planning process and take away powers from democratically elected authorities, whether that is the Welsh Assembly, county councils in the south-west or whatever.
Perhaps I would be wise to quote my fellow countryman, Aneurin Bevan, who said that Britain was built on coal and surrounded by sea and fish. I hope that the outcome of the feasibility study will be that Britain will be built on alternative energy—the electricity produced—and that we will still have some fish. Some of the threats are to fish and bird populations. The moon keeps going on, so tidal power is guaranteed and can be converted into electricity; it is how we do that, as the Minister has just said, that is absolutely critical. I trust that we shall have a truly independent assessment of all this. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
13 Dec 2007 : Column 409
Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2007
5.04 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22 November be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to set the maximum level of civil penalty for employers of illegal migrants at £10,000 per illegal worker. It is imperative to take steps, as part of the implementation of our immigration enforcement strategy, to bear down on the illegal jobs that encourage illegal journeys. We have made much progress in fostering a more constructive and realistic view of the substantial benefits that the country enjoys from our participation in the globalised world economy and the consequent flow of human capital across our borders. However, it is crucial that irregular migration is prevented and that we contain positive migration within a firm, enforced framework that removes the economic incentive to act unlawfully and provides a cost-effective means of sanctioning those who break the rules.
We need a system that reflects a fair and balanced partnership between the Government and employers in regulating the participation of migrants in the labour market, in which the rights and responsibilities are cleared. We must also ensure that we take appropriate steps to protect vulnerable workers from dangerous and exploitative working conditions. We need to take action overseas, at our borders and within our country to ensure that the system as a whole has integrity. There are many strands to our comprehensive strategy for tackling illegal jobs and illegal journeys. These include tougher checks overseas, strengthening our border controls, mandatory biometric identity cards, a licensing system for employers under the new points-based scheme, an increase in enforcement action, an enhanced checking service for employers, closer joint working with other workplace enforcement agencies and a new system of civil penalties for employers.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |