| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
There is another near certainty: it is very unlikely that a proposal for a Severn barrage would ever come forward without significant government involvement. The basic capital cost for the large Cardiff-Weston scheme would be £15 billion, which would generate the same output as would be produced by just over two conventional 1-gigawatt power stations. At a commercial discount rate, private sector investment is highly unlikely.
We are told by the commission that at a low discount rate of 2 per cent the cost of electricity output would be competitive and that a barrage should be publicly led as a project and publicly owned as an asset—in other words, the project is viable only if the taxpayer underwrites and owns it. That, the commission admits, would require a major rethink of energy policy and a fundamental reappraisal of government involvement in the energy sector and the incentives on offer to support all the low-carbon technologies.
The cost figure of £15 billion is by no means the total; it does not include any allowance for the probable large cost of providing compensatory
13 Nov 2007 : Column 409
The ports in the estuary and the services that they support are responsible for handling around 3 per cent of UK trade. It is estimated that the Bristol and south Wales ports generate over 15,000 jobs between them, with many more jobs held in port-based companies. No detailed studies have been carried out of ship movements in relation to barrage operations.
The commission made two important statements. First, the Government must avoid a “decide and deliver” approach. A number of crucial areas of uncertainty will need to be resolved before a final decision can be made. Secondly, the Government should not rush into a decision; the decision-making process must be transparent. It is alarming that the Prime Minister already seems to be ignoring that good advice. During Prime Minister’s Questions on 24 October, he offered the barrage as the first of the methods by which we would achieve the 20 per cent renewables target by 2020. Then, opening the debate on the Queen’s Speech, he spoke of the feasibility study almost as if it were a decision to proceed.
I take comfort from the fact that BERR has made it clear that the study will assess all the critical questions for which we do not at present have answers, a process that it expects to take several years, with a possible timetable for completion of the whole project, if it is approved, of around a dozen years. Parliament must insist that the undertaking that there will be full and transparent consultations is honoured in full. The Government must not stampede us towards a decision.
6.33 pm
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I hope to speak about rail transport and, if there is time, about the constitution.
We must view the transport legislation proposals in the light of actual needs and see how the legislation will deal with them, if at all. The first challenge to be met is overcrowding and congestion, both on trains and in station car parks. As demand rises, it should be met. We are regaled with the 1,300 carriages that the Department for Transport promises to deliver, once the order has been sorted out, but they are unlikely to be in service until 2011, if indeed that early, and they are needed now. Why the prevarication? In any case, as demand for passenger rail travel grows, even more carriages will be needed by the time the initial 1,300 have begun to arrive.
13 Nov 2007 : Column 410
There is also a need, albeit a second-order one, for a new class of trains for scenic lines where the windows and seats are aligned and the windows are larger. I am impressed with ScotRail’s conversion of some Class 158s to work the far north line to Wick and Thurso with aligned seating, albeit with fewer seats, and greater bicycle capacity. These should be the forerunner of improved passenger services on rural lines throughout Britain.
The development of high-speed lines is essential. Congratulations are in order on the Channel Tunnel rail link, now sensibly described as High Speed 1. More high-speed lines are needed to combat overcrowding and to close down domestic air routes. It is the depressingly slow process of appraisal that is failing us; it could take 20 years, but the lines are needed now. I will certainly be looking for High Speed 2 to link London and Heathrow with Birmingham and Manchester. Direct rail services from Birmingham to Europe must be a priority. Multi-billion pound costs are quoted at us—but then we can apparently find £10 billion a month for the National Health Service in England, so it can be done.
The next focus must be on Crossrail, which is needed in the London area. However, it is clear that more work needs to be done to sort out how Crossrail will enable freight to cross London. While the core route is well thought through, there must be serious doubts about the terminals. Surely these need relocating, particularly from Maidenhead to Reading.
The Channel Tunnel must be used by more freight trains. It is a tremendous strategic asset, but it is underused. Having only one freight train a day is a disgrace. Will the Department for Transport give a commitment to enable more freight trains to use the tunnel?
Finally, attention needs to be given to the franchising process and its suitability for purpose. We are about to see significant new franchises on the east coast main line and the cross-country route. The criticism of all the franchises is that they are too short in duration and too closely specified by the Department for Transport and hence unable to demonstrate entrepreneurial flair or to develop new routes and services. The same short period also affects the training of staff at all levels. Only longer franchises will deliver the value of better training.
These Benches continue to advocate rolling franchises, whereby an effective franchisee has the franchise extended by performing well. At the same time, I accept that a franchise competition is necessary when the network is reorganised—such as, for example, the reorganisation that led to Arriva winning the new cross-country network franchise. The treatment of good franchise performers needs to improve. Surely a system should evolve that weights the refranchising appraisal of a good operator.
Those are some criteria for railway improvements. However, bar the Crossrail Bill and the rather technical Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill, there is no legislation for the railway this year. We can only hope that the Department for Transport can incorporate these ideas into its plans for the next legislative programme.
13 Nov 2007 : Column 411
Only a wee bit of time remains, so I will give your Lordships the short version on the constitution. The UK Government in general and the Scotland Office in particular need to become substantially more open to the desire of those who live in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom to find a new and more sustainable political settlement. The union of 1707 has run its course and is being distorted by devolution and the West Lothian question. I hope that the Scotland Office will end the unionist propaganda and start discussing the future with those who live in Scotland.
6.41 pm
Lord Morris of Handsworth: My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the gracious Speech and, in particular, its commitment to the housing programme. I declare an interest: I recently became the chair of the Midland Heart housing association. Perhaps I should declare another interest, because my starting point in the housing debate was arriving as an immigrant in Birmingham at 16, not to a home or to a multi-occupied house, but to a multi-occupied room. It is no fun waking up in the morning in a room full of strangers and not even knowing how and when they entered the room.
I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is not in his place, because I would remind him that, as we have heard today, some things never change. The argument in my day as a young immigrant in Birmingham was, “Immigrants are taking all our homes and they are taking all our jobs”, but I would remind the noble Lord that, as an immigrant, I have taken only one job from the host community, that of general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, which I kept for 12 years.
I was disappointed that the gracious Speech did not mention the constructive contribution of immigrants to the UK economy. If we are to build those 3 million homes, we will need those Polish plumbers and many more. I strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to the new homes target. It represents a generational shift in social housing provision. Three million new homes will be built by 2020; it will be a costed, affordable programme; 70,000 new, affordable homes will be built per year—not for immigrants, but for those in housing need.
It is an indictment of our society that essential workers—hospital and emergency workers, bus workers, teachers and many others—cannot afford to live in the communities where they work. It is an indictment of our society that rural communities are dying because local people cannot live in the area where they grow up. As a result, they cannot work in or contribute to their local economies.
The housing programme presents us with a real opportunity to avoid the housing mistakes of the 1960s, when the culture was to build homes cheap and high. Those homes are no longer fit for purpose, and many of them should be demolished. New houses must meet the needs of this generation and those which follow. We must look for sustainability as well
13 Nov 2007 : Column 412
Encouragement of diversity of ownership—a mix of social housing, affordable housing and shared equity—is welcome. The voice of tenants must be paramount. By those means, we can meet our housing needs and rebuild communities for everyone—mixed communities for single people, couples, families, senior citizens and those who are vulnerable.
I welcome the 10 eco-towns as a contribution to reducing our carbon footprint, but our objective and our ambition should be that all new homes make some contribution to that end.
The housing programme gives us a real opportunity not just to build houses, but to find housing solutions, to rebalance the lack of cohesion in our communities and our society, and to build social capital to which we can all contribute. A decent home determines life chances. It should not be a lottery; it is an essential human right.
6.46 pm
Baroness Valentine: My Lords, most of the Government’s proposed legislation in the areas that we are considering today, I welcome. It draws successfully from studies by Lyons, Stern, Eddington and Barker. However, I care about implementation. Work does not stop with the press conference or when legislation clears Parliament. That is when the real work starts.
East of here, delivery of the Olympic spectacle is in good hands: it will be fabulous. But what about the much vaunted legacy—in particular, physical regeneration of the area around the Games in east London, which is essential if the Olympics are not to be an isolated white elephant? That deprived neighbourhood sits in the Thames Gateway, Europe’s biggest regeneration site.
East London is a test bed for whether this year’s legislative proposals deliver for real. With the Olympics as a catalyst, how do we deliver higher community aspirations, a thriving economy connected to the City and to Europe, and a world-class leisure destination? We do so with vision, leadership, resource and appropriate governance. I would have trouble ticking any of those boxes, let alone all of them.
The public sector has many plans for the area, but does it have vision? What is vision without funding commitment for infrastructure? Billions needed to prepare the 2012 park means billions needed to unlock wider regeneration in the area.
The planning process regulates delivery. The Government promise democratic consultation before making strategic commitments to large-scale projects. That, with fast and effective planning procedures, will please most, though perhaps not planning lawyers. East London housing provision might benefit, too. Developers are ready to invest where they are confident that roads, bridges, schools and health centres will be built. The Government’s new planning gain tariff clarifies developers’ contribution towards
13 Nov 2007 : Column 413
What blocks housing schemes also handicaps commercial development. Resources are as important as principles. Many local planning departments have neither capacity nor expertise to deal with large, complex developments. East London needs Sir Michael Lyons’s “place shaping” big time.
Nationally pooled business rates provide little incentive for authorities to encourage new commercial development. If authorities are to shape rather than frustrate development, they should keep more of their new business rates and use them to strengthen their planning departments.
East London will be linked to the rest of London by Crossrail. Thanks are again due to the Government for finally committing in October to a funding package. However, a project that takes two decades to agree is not exemplary, and agreement still has to translate into trains and tracks. After the jubilation, I learnt that both the Treasury and the Department for Transport will scale down their Crossrail teams. The biggest construction project in northern Europe is still being legislated for, let alone begun—and where was Crossrail funding legislation in Her Majesty’s Speech? Business, as a major funding partner, should have a seat at the Crossrail top table alongside the Transport Secretary and Mayor of London, to ensure that the appropriate governance and risk management are put in place.
The Climate Change Bill has the laudable goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. We need a legislative and tax environment which captures the full cost of environmental impact. The more that any tax raised can be hypothecated to tackling climate change, the better. The Government rub their hands at the prospect of more air passenger duty, but where is the conversation about investing it in environmental solutions?
Shrill media and pressure groups make aircraft the only villains. Greenhouse gases from all sources need to be equally addressed. We need carbon reduction targets and emissions trading schemes operating within these, but Stern did not advocate using the planning system or any other to restrict flights. The answer for the environment and for UK competitiveness is not artificial handicaps on either Heathrow or, for that matter, City Airport in east London.
The UK’s cars and lorries produce three times more CO2 than aviation, and congestion makes London Europe’s slowest city. Road charging must be at least part of the solution. For instance, London’s congestion charge reduces traffic and emissions, and increases investment in public transport. To gain trust, schemes must make visible contributions—economic, environmental and social—to their local areas. Also, an independent body should regulate charges to avoid multiple and confusing charges and to ensure value for the charge payer.
In central London, despite 70,000 fewer cars a day entering the zone, congestion has recently increased, mainly due to road works. We need a step change by
13 Nov 2007 : Column 414
6.52 pm
Baroness Byford: My Lords, 2007 has been, and is still, a difficult year for many people. Rising interest rates have resulted in loss of income, council taxes and fuel prices are at an all time high and, partly as a result of changes in the weather pattern, the cost of food is going up. Today the Prime Minister launched a wide-ranging investigation into the security of the nation’s food supply. My goodness, where has he been for this past 10 years—and how many of us have been raising our concerns about the downward trend of the UK’s self-sufficiency in indigenous foods? We welcome the move away from Mrs Beckett’s well-remembered saying that there was actually no need for self-sufficiency and that it was neither necessary nor desirable.
So what are the Government’s plans for the people of this country? I had hoped that this gracious Speech might be the one to free individuals from central control, enabling them to get on and improve their lives according to their own priorities, but I was disappointed. Moreover, some of the proposed Bills will bring greater regulatory burdens. I was disappointed, too, as other noble Lords have said, at the lack of the long-promised marine Bill, and I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us how that draft will be moved forward.
Today our debate concerns mainly the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport and Defra. Within that context, the Climate Change Bill will affect all government departments and will, I understand, start in this House very shortly. It is an important Bill, which I readily support, and it has already been through much consultation and scrutiny. The housing and planning Bills are important, too, but while the Housing and Regeneration Bill gives local communities a greater say in the future growth of their housing plans, the Planning Reform Bill does exactly the opposite, giving the Government powers to push through projects sometimes even perhaps when there is a lack of local support. Again, I hope that we shall be reassured about consultation on those matters.
On housing, I should like to refer to the Rural Housing Trust, which was formed some 30 years ago and has enabled affordable rural housing to be built in some 330 villages. Its success is due to its flexibility. Like the noble Lord, Lord Best, I should like to look further at the whole question of the rented sector, too.
The Climate Change Bill, the Energy Bill and the Local Transport Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said earlier, are interlinked—and I, too, am dismayed that we are not discussing them at the same time. If we are to succeed in reducing Co2 emissions and move away from wasting energy, our
13 Nov 2007 : Column 415
I hope that the Energy Bill will address all aspects of provision of energy, from nuclear to wind and wave, from biofuels to microgeneration and from biomass to the Severn barrage. It must take this opportunity to consider them all, unlike the previous Energy Act, which dealt only with the decommissioning of nuclear plants and the construction of offshore wind farms. That was definitely a wasted opportunity. I hope, too, that the Bill will include measures to encourage energy efficiency by individuals, businesses and government departments. With 3 million new homes to be built, it is surely the right time to look at new technologies that provide for local needs and move away from the total reliance on central supply through the national grid.
The Climate Change Bill overarches all departments. Some commentators have suggested that the Government’s target reduction of 60 per cent in carbon emissions is too low. Will the Minister tell us whether the recommendations brought forward by the new committee will be binding on Government, or will they just be purely advisory?
As I said, 2007 has been a difficult year, but for livestock farmers it has been a disaster. Defra’s competence has been called to account and on many occasions the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has come to the Dispatch Box to apologise for its shortcomings. The legacy of failure from the Rural Payments Agency is still with us, as are the consequences of the lack of any decision on the way forward in the control of bovine TB. The return of the dreaded foot and mouth following biosecurity lapses at Defra’s own regulated establishment at Pirbright completes an all-round appalling year. Only two days ago, we had the return of avian flu. No wonder livestock farmers’ confidence is at an all time low.
Last week, the Chief Veterinary Officer announced that she will take early retirement. This is yet another gap to fill, at a time when Defra—which is a wider department than MAFF was—has only a part-time permanent secretary. I know that Defra is under a lot of pressure and I accept that the outbreak of bluetongue was not caused by departmental failure. Clearly, however, leadership is a key component to success. With climate change and disease more likely to come to these shores than ever before, the need to have competent vets able to advise farmers locally on the ground and the Government at regional and national level has never been higher.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |