rose to call attention to the case for the construction of a Severn barrage, its environmental impact, and other options for electricity generation in the Severn estuary; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this debate is to attempt to move forward with greater urgency the need to capture electricity from the Severn estuary. The fact that this site has the second-highest tides in the world is a huge incentive. I have no luddite tendencies in securing this debate. I do not say no to electricity generation in the Severn estuary and the Bristol Channel, but I seek answers to questions of how best this is to be achieved. The reduction of fossil fuel use and carbon emissions remains paramount in driving this issue forward.

At the start, it is best to summarise how tidal energy can be classified and captured from the Severn estuary as follows: first, tidal range, which is the normal ebb and flow of the tide and, secondly, tidal streams—flows of water at different depths and geographical locations. On tidal range, there are two methods of tidal energy capture from turbines in the Severn estuary: first, the Severn barrage—an obvious one—and the construction of tidal lagoons is the second option. The capture of energy by tidal stream turbines occurs at varying depths. The big question is: what is the best method to generate electricity?

This question gives rise to a range of additional questions for which it is highly desirable to have accurate answers. What are the relative capital costs of construction of different tidal electricity plants? What is the return on capital invested on different electricity generation systems? What additional rates of return will be achieved on more rapidly built systems? What will be the comparative lead-in time before electricity is generated from different systems? What impact will this have on increasing production of renewable energy sooner to reduce carbon emissions? What will be the relative cost per unit of electricity produced from different methods of generating electricity from tidal power? What are the relative environmental impact differences between systems of producing tidal electricity? Regrettably, we do not yet have the answers to all these questions.

Because work has been done on the concept of a Severn barrage for many years, we know that at current prices it will cost some £15 billion and produce up to 5 per cent of UK energy, and that the build-time is variously estimated to take from eight to 12 years. We know also that there are two possible sites for the barrage. The most canvassed site is the Cardiff Lavernock Point to Weston-Super-Mare barrage, or there is the Shoots barrage, just downstream of the second Severn crossing. A vast amount has been published on the barrage, but the main Sustainable Development Commission report, Turning the Tide—Tidal Power in the UK, published on 1 October 2007, contains what purports to be a more independent assessment of a proposed Severn barrage than some other assessments. In particular, this study looks at alternatives to the barrage, with tidal stream and tidal lagoon technology.

In summary, the SDC report details and reviews the options: Severn barrage, tidal stream and tidal lagoon. The report does not attempt to calculate the extent of the carbon footprint of the construction of the barrage, nor does it solve the economic problems of the closure of Bristol, Newport and Cardiff docks, or those of Gloucester. Nor does it address the considerable cost of establishing large new wildlife sites. The European directives concerning habitats on the Severn estuary state that it has an important number of international conservation sites. It is designated as a special protection area for avian features under the EU bird directive and as a possible special area of conservation. SAC status also applies to the River Usk, the River Wye and the Mendip limestone grasslands. There are local conservation sites too, including 26 SSSIs, one national nature reserve, eight local nature reserves, one historic landscape and four wildlife trusts. There are many local biodiversity action plans for habitats and species. This is especially important for Severn fish species and many water birds. According to the SDC report, allis and twaite shad, river and sea lampreys and Atlantic salmon face the prospect of extinction. That applies particularly to the winter and spring run of Atlantic salmon.

The SDC concludes:

“A Severn barrage must be publicly led as a project and publicly owned as an asset to avoid short-termist decisions and ensure the long-term public interest

Full compliance with European Directives on habitats and birds is vital, as is a long-term commitment to creating compensatory habitats on an unprecedented scale

Further investigation of the ‘environmental opportunity’ that might exist for combining climate change mitigation with adaptation through a habitat creation package that actively responds to the impacts of climate change over the long term

Development of a Severn barrage must not divert Government attention away from much wider action on climate change.

By taking this approach it would be possible to combine a climate change mitigation project (the barrage) with climate change adaptation, by developing compensatory habitats that reflect our changing climate, and combining this with coastal protection and other climate change strategies, thus creating an ‘environmental opportunity’”.

The report also states that there is tidal stream and tidal range. It defines that and says that it,

“could supply at least 10% of the UK’s electricity if fully exploited, around 5% from each resource”,

and that—I speak as a Welsh Member—

“50 per cent of this resource is in Wales.

There is minimal conflict between the exploitation of tidal stream and tidal range resources, or between the technologies that might be deployed. The best tidal stream sites are in the north of Scotland, with significant potential also around north Wales”,

and of course there are some in the Severn estuary as well. The report states that:

“The UK has an excellent tidal stream resource, and is leading the world in the development of a wide range of tidal stream devices, several of which are at the testing stage. The UK must ‘stay the course’ in developing these technologies, as the export and climate change benefits are potentially very large”.

The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who is unable to be here today, made these points in his speech on the Queen’s Speech. The report goes on:

“Despite the encouraging progress made so far, Government could do more to assist these emerging technologies, particularly through flexible financial support, and by providing additional resources to the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney.

On tidal lagoons, the SDC found that there is a lack of available evidence on the costs and environmental impacts, mainly due to the absence of any practical experience”.

These are the main relevant conclusions of the SDC in relation to this topic. However, some criticisms can be made of the SDC report. It used five desk-based research reports rather than carrying out any new work. More new work would be needed, as much of the evidence used dates from the 1980s. Further, the report devotes more than half its pages to the Severn barrage; the report may be about tidal power but the focus is certainly on the Severn barrage. In addition, financing the project needs further explanation—that is very true indeed.

Several other points need to be made in relation to the SDC report. First, the estuary is at risk from fluvial flooding and a barrage would have a significant impact on the rivers and watercourses that discharge into the estuary. The levels on both sides of the estuary rely on drainage systems storing fluvial water during high tide periods, which is quite a good point. Also, it is not exactly clear who would own the plan for the Severn barrage and thus be responsible for the appropriate assessment under the habitats regulations. The £15 billion cost, which I previously mentioned, relates to construction. There would clearly be considerable additional costs relating to feasibility studies, environmental impact, strategic environmental assessment and habitats compensations. Those are all points which could have been made clearer in the SDC report.

However, others have made some points which concern them. The Severn Tidal Power Group represents the main contractors who would be involved in the construction of the Severn barrage. It understandably welcomes the SDC report—a large project like the barrage would of course benefit it, and one suspects that the report’s indication that either tidal lagoons or tidal stream turbines are a little way off in development terms will encourage it in its view. However, it indicates that the coming study should examine all options and views.

Another body that is contributing to the debate and has an interest in the outcome is Tidal Electric Ltd, which has drawn up a number of points that are worth repeating—in its favour, I hasten to add. It has drawn up a table with the Severn barrage on the left hand side and tidal lagoons on the right. It says that the Severn barrage will be publicly funded, which it estimates at £15 billion to £25 billion capital costs, versus private funding. Its estimate for the production of electricity is 3.5p per kilowatt hour. It further suggests zero costs to HMG, plus taxed revenue, because tidal lagoons would be privately financed and carried out. It says that one would be environmentally damaging and the other environmentally benign; that one would destroy wildlife habitats while the other would create wildlife habitats; that one is opposed by environmental groups while the other is supported by them; that one would give flood protection upstream while the other would mean flood damage downstream; that there is a 10 to 15-year rollout for the barrage versus a two-year rollout, although I suspect it might be more than that; that further HMG-funded studies are proposed versus being ready to build on receipt of consent; and so on. Those are the benefits that it says that its system of lagoons would have over the barrage.

Tidal stream technology is going ahead and being assessed at present. That has large potential. Both tidal lagoons and tidal streams are estimated to be able to produce the same amount of electricity—some claim more—than would the Severn barrage itself. Capital costs of the Cardiff-Weston barrage would be £15 billion; to produce the same amount of electricity with tidal lagoons would be £5 billion. Tidal stream would be £6 billion plus a necessary grid connection costing £4 billion, taking the total to £10 billion. There are very varying estimates as to how much the electricity would cost from the output of these different systems. Cardiff-Weston is 3.6p per kilowatt hour, depending on which discount rates were used—it goes up to as high as 22p per kilowatt hour, with a mean of about 12p. Tidal lagoons would be 3.3p per kilowatt hour according to Tidal Electric, but 17.2p per kilowatt hour according to DBERR, so there is a big difference there. Tidal stream has been estimated to be at 2.5p per unit.

In conclusion, varying information is coming from divergent sources as to the final electricity costs with different modes of electricity generation. The basis of the proposed Severn barrage is the La Rance barrage in Brittany, looking at design, construction, costs and calculations and the electricity output at sale. At 40 years of age, it is old technology but that is the basis, because it is a tested system. But we must ask ourselves why the French have not put in another La Rance barrage and why the Canadians rejected a barrage for their new tidal electricity initiative. Undoubtedly, tidal stream technology could produce as much, if not more, electricity than the Severn barrage and the results of running this plant are emerging from work taking place in the Orkneys at present.

Tidal lagoons have considerable potential and could at least equal the Severn barrage in their electricity output. However, it is vital that the Government grant a licence to commence the construction of a working lagoon model in Swansea Bay which would produce accurate data for comparison. Generating electricity from tidal power in the Severn estuary is a massive opportunity. Will the Government meet the challenge and have the wisdom to see that there is an alternative vision to a barrage, one which has the potential to produce just as much electricity and eventually more? The rewards for this are the creation of an entirely new and innovative tidal power industry in tune with carbon reduction objectives, a green industry with worldwide multi-billion pound export opportunities for British-built technology, and the creation of real, high-value, long-term jobs here in Britain. All that is required is for the Government to kick-start it. In doing so, they would also be saving for future generations one of the most important environmental sites in these islands. I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord has had the will and the luck to secure this debate. When I was in another place, our constituency boundary to the west was the middle of the Severn, from Sharpness to Avonmouth. During my time as an MP, great studies were done on the possibility of a barrage, and I followed them closely and met many of the people involved. Since then, of course, global warming has added considerably to the case for trying to exploit the tides.

The exceptional tidal range on the Severn should not surprise anyone. If you look at the map of south-west Britain, you can see the huge funnel into the estuary between South Wales and Devon and Cornwall. That funnel faces directly out into the Atlantic Ocean, and the huge volume of water in the ocean is pulled backwards and forwards, primarily by the Moon’s gravity, to produce the tides. That huge volume swirls up the estuary and is then sucked out again twice daily. The ebb tide is reinforced by the fresh water coming down from the Severn and its tributaries—it is after all the longest river system in the country.

The highest tide this year was in March, when the difference in height between the high and low tides at Avonmouth was 14.3 metres, which is about a foot higher than the ceiling of your Lordships’ Chamber. If noble Lords imagine a wall of water as high as your Lordships’ Chamber and several miles across coming and going twice a day, they will have an idea of the power which a barrage or the other facilities would be designed to tame. Of course, the height of the tide varies during the month and during the year, but the mean range between high and low tide at Avonmouth is 8.2 metres. Even on that basis, the Magna Carta Lords depicted above us would get their feet wet twice a day.

It is clear that we must, as I am sure we will, harness that awesome natural power. There are various ways of doing so, as the noble Lord made clear, some of which could be pursued simultaneously, as they are not all mutually exclusive by any means. The barrage is only one way, albeit the biggest and most powerful, but it would involve some very large problems. I believe that we need to assess those problems once again and then decide—and the sooner we do so, the better. The problems that would be entailed are well documented in studies over many decades. They need updating but it would by no means be wholly new work.

First, there is the enormous scale of what we are considering. The front-runner among the various barrage configurations—the Cardiff to Weston barrage—would be 16 kilometres long and would cost nearly £1 billion a kilometre, according to one estimate, which is half of the whole defence budget. The actual technology is not that complicated or advanced but the problems of construction in such a harsh environment are considerable: imagine holding back that amount of water when the barrage is half-built and you are trying to close the gap. I watched the building of the second Severn bridge. It is one of the greatest engineering marvels of recent years and should, incidentally, be much more widely appreciated than it is, but it gives an idea of the challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, mentioned the French barrage at La Rance. It is true that it is currently the largest tidal barrage in the world, but the Severn barrage, by capacity, would be 36 times its size. It is on a quite different scale.

The habitat problem is well known and will clearly loom large in any decision. However, I want to draw attention to two of the other important factors. One is the problem of the timing mismatch between the generation of electricity by a barrage and the peak demand for electricity. On some days, generation and demand will coincide but on many they will not. The barrage would be expected to generate during most of the time that the tide was ebbing, but the output would vary even during the times of generation. The times when the barrage would be generating are calculable with precision well in advance but they cannot be chosen. The barrage will produce electricity when it wants to, when the tide allows.

The SDC says that that is not a technical problem for the grid—it is less of a problem, for example, than fluctuations in wind power—but it is an economic problem. It means that electricity produced by the barrage must comparatively be so cheap that the other sources can be rested with advantage when the barrage is working. For a project of this scale, that is a high hurdle to overcome.

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 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.

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 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 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.

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

“the time to talk is over, the time for action is now”.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

The Government need the barrage to attain their target of obtaining 20 per cent of energy from renewables by 2020—full stop. With no barrage, I doubt whether the target will be achieved. Secondly, the country needs a balanced and secure energy supply derived from a broad spectrum of sources, everything from second-generation nuclear, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, just referred, to first-generation barrages, of which this would be the first.

Thirdly, the public, who are now alert to and well informed on environmental issues, need a process of information and consultation on the Severn barrage that is open and transparent. There, for the second and last time, I will agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I do not want to harm her reputation by agreeing with her too often, but she is absolutely right to say that we need a level playing field in any ongoing process of consultation. It needs to be open and transparent; if it is not, not only regional but national consent would, probably, be withheld and life would be difficult for this or any future Government who sought to have the barrage.

Fourthly, the green movement, writ large, needs to move on and embrace a new realism about where future energy is coming from, while being vigilant over potential environmental degradation and determined to seek environmental enhancement at every turn. The Sustainable Development Commission is showing a broad-minded lead here, which pleasantly surprised me. Some members seem to have joined what might be thought of as the new realist environmental movement, changing their minds from where they were about 20 years ago. No one should pour contempt on them for doing that. After all, John Maynard Keynes was once teased or derided for changing his mind on some great economic issue. He said, “My Lords”—well, he did not say that; coming from King’s College, Cambridge, he probably said, “My Dears”—“I think that when the facts change, I need to change”. The facts have changed in the last 20 years.

Fifthly, we should remember that the landscape around the Severn, to which the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, referred, is largely manmade. That includes some of the estuary margins. Equally, some severe tidal environments would be damaged, destroyed or altered in various ways. If that is the case, there must be offsetting contributions to habitats and environments elsewhere, even though it is certain that that exact environment can never be replicated. There would also be much gain through the establishment of new protection zones in the area. We shall have to get acclimatised during this debate to the terms “habitat offsets” and “environmental gains”, in exactly the same way as anyone who serves on local councils is used to “planning gains under Section 106 provisions”. There should be a clear grasp of what those phrases mean.

Sixthly in this little litany of needs, the Government need the construction industry, if this is to go ahead, to be confidently engaged as genuine long-term partners. Behind the industry are shareholders and investors who will need to have confidence in the business case behind the construction of the barrage. I have great confidence in the abilities of our equally great British construction companies, such as Sir Robert McAlpine, Taylor Woodrow or Balfour Beatty, all of which have shown great interest in at least the potential of becoming involved in the barrage construction. If the process gets going, those companies will have to take on massive financial and construction risks over a sustained period, during which I suspect that the £15 billion headline figure may multiply more than a little in the uncertainties of such a great construction project. No one should underestimate this. If we want the barrage to be funded and constructed by the private sector, the Government and everyone else must be realistic about the risk that companies and shareholders take on. There needs to be a high degree of certainty about the appraisal process and the subsequent planning process. In this, the management of risk will be paramount, as the Minister understands all too well, with his distinguished past.

Seventhly, on the other side of the construction coin, the construction industry writ large needs continually to recognise the need on its part for openness, transparency and genuine engagement with regional and environmental concerns. Over the past few years, the construction industry has been going through quite a public period of self-examination, commissioning various reports, and much angst over what has been seen sometimes as tough and adversarial attitudes to customers and between companies. That has been apparent from the housebuilding end of the industry through to the large-scale and tough concrete-pouring end of the industry, wherein certainly lies the barrage. If the construction industry wishes to help to promote the barrage, it must be thoroughly modern and listen to all the concerns that arise, whether from the environmental world or the ports, which feel that their activities may be adversely affected. It is sometimes like treading on eggshells and, if we are to proceed, the industry has to recognise the need for openness and transparency in all that it does.

Eighthly—I have never said that word before—although we are allowed to recognise the secondary benefits of the barrage, from coastline protection at high tide, upstream river flood protection, the creation of jobs and so on, we need to recognise that they are secondary and no reason at all for proceeding with the barrage.

Ninthly—another word that I have never said before—and lastly, a word that I have often said, I favour, as is manifest, the general concept of the construction of the barrage. However, if it is to go ahead I should like to press the Government to give undertakings about when the appraisal process is going to get under way and what sort of appraisal process it is going to be. Will an appraisal organisation be set up to satisfy public and private investors’ concerns—some sort of independent steering group appointed by and reporting to the Government and through the Government to this House? If the Minister has a moment to spare in his 20 minutes and if he answers no other questions or points that I have raised, I hope that he will find the time to answer that specific point.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this important issue. I declare an interest as president of the Welsh Salmon and Trout Angling Association and the Radnorshire Wildlife Trust and as the owner of a small fishery on the upper Wye. My main interest is in fisheries and wildlife generally, especially in Wales, where I live.

I have been concerned for a long time about the likely impact on migrating fish of a conventional Severn barrage. In 1986, 21 years ago, I asked in the House whether the Government would satisfy themselves that, if a Severn barrage were to be built, migrating fish would be able to pass through it without excessive loss. A year later, I asked whether the Government were aware of research in the United States suggesting that fish passing through Kaplan turbines, a type then planned for the barrage, had an instantaneous mortality rate of between 11.5 per cent and 80 per cent, and that 43 per cent of salmon smolts passing through such turbines lost 20 to 28 per cent of their scales, while 75 per cent of the survivors had gross or microscopic lesions.

In 1992, when moving a Motion on barrages, I said that to the best of my belief scientists had so far found no way in which a yard-long fish, swimming strongly against the flow, but being sucked slowly back through the turbine, could avoid being cut up by rotating turbine blades. Therefore, there could be 100 per cent mortality and the runs of salmon in three famous rivers—the Severn, the Wye and the Usk—could be wiped out. All this is still true not only for salmon but for other species of migratory fish, notably the delicate and vulnerable allis and twaite shad, the endangered species for which the special habitat conditions found only in the Usk, Wye and Severn sustain three of just four viable breeding populations. There are also two species of lampreys.

The report from the Sustainable Development Commission and its accompanying research report 3—all 250 pages of it—give us valuable and up-to-date background. Reading these reports, one is left with a conviction that any measures taken to mitigate or to minimise the losses to migrating fish would not be effective. Research report 3 makes it clear that mesh screens across turbine intakes would be unlikely to work. So irreversible damage would lead to the local extinction of all the migratory fish. For wading birds, some have suggested that we merely have to provide an area of mudflats the size of Dorset. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, gave short shrift to that proposal. Still less is creating an alternative habitat for fish a practicable option. We cannot seriously contemplate creating replicas of the Severn, Wye and Usk, nor can we replace the unique genetic make-up of these rivers, which is what brings fish back to the rivers where they were born.

The Severn estuary is beautiful and rich in wildlife. It has also unique features such as the Severn bore. It is protected by a whole range of statutory designations, which were described by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey; the marine Bill may provide more. Apart from that, the Wye and the Usk are SACs in their own right. It is the habitats directive that creates problems for the barrage project. The SDC deals carefully, on page 131 of its report, with the argument that EU directives do not take adequate account of the challenge of climate change and the suggestion that there might be a one-off derogation from EU environmental legislation. On page 144, the report concludes,

“that it would be untenable for the Government to take a decision in favour of a Severn barrage unless it is prepared … to demonstrate its commitment to upholding the integrity of the environmental legislation and the processes it has signed up to. Failure to do so would undermine the Directives, set a dangerous precedent to other EU Member States and countries elsewhere in the world, and would not deliver a Severn barrage consistent with the UK’s agreed framework for sustainable development”.

It says on page 147 that,

“if compliance with the Directives is found to be scientifically or legally unfeasible, then proposals for a Severn barrage should not be pursued”.

So far as migrating fish are concerned, this means that unless a way can be found for them to avoid passing through the turbines, to travel up to the rivers with which they have a genetic link and then to return, a conventional barrage within the Severn estuary should not be built.

The environmental downside of the barrage project and its enormous costs were evidently decisive in persuading the Government four years ago that it would not be fruitful to pursue plans for it, as announced in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, on 13 January 2004.

We are required to do all that we can to deal with climate change and reduce carbon emissions, but there are many alternatives, not least nuclear power and especially tidal stream technology, as discussed in the SDC report. Those need to be carefully considered.

As a nation, we have had a series of disasters, for which the Government have, I am afraid, been responsible: the debacle of our intervention in Iraq, the loss of two disks containing the personal details of 25 million people that were sent out by HM Revenue and Customs, the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease caused by infected drainage at government-controlled institutions at Pirbright, and so on. The Prime Minister promised the Liaison Committee this morning that failure in public service delivery would no longer be tolerated. He added:

“The culture of the second-best is not acceptable to me. It is a culture of excellence that we want to achieve”.

That is encouraging, but it seems all too likely that a Severn barrage would fail, most probably on environmental grounds. We do not want another big failure. Let us for once get something right. We should concentrate on some of the other promising technologies now being explored and leave the waters of the Severn, the Wye and the Usk to the birds and the fish.

My Lords, I add my own words of appreciation to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for giving us the opportunity to discuss an increasingly urgent problem. Throughout the world, there is a shortage of electricity. It is not a matter for the UK alone. We know that China plans 544 new coal-fired power stations, plus the immense output of the Three Gorges dam. They are all indicative of the situation in the world. As nations develop, so the demand grows and the environment is under increasing threat.

In the Severn area in Wales, two of our nuclear power stations have already stopped production—Trawsfynydd and Hinkley Point A. The other three, Hinkley Point B, Oldbury and Wylfa, are nearing the end of their useful lives. We have a problem: as they go out of service, what is to replace them? Some people support new nuclear power stations, but others see the problems that go with them. I shall not go into them at length, other than to say that I pass Trawsfynydd possibly more often than anybody else in this Chamber. I think that my great-great-grandchildren also will pass it before it is able to be demolished. Nuclear power stations are expensive to maintain. For many years to come, we will have to face that problem.

A number of alternatives have been mentioned today: land-based wind farms— which are not always popular in every area—offshore turbines, hydropower and solar power. Even in the very sunny resort of Llandudno from which I come, I assure noble Lords that there is not enough sunshine to merit a great solar project.

Such projects are already proposed. The Gwynt y Mor project in Llandudno Bay would consist of 236 wind turbines, each of which would be the size of Blackpool Tower. That area has been recommended also for tidal stream technology. However, the local community is saying, “236 wind turbines? It will be the biggest one in Europe”. Do we not need somehow to maintain close contact with local communities, whose environment will be undermined or changed by such developments? Perhaps we should incorporate a referendum in such projects. It might be able to say whether 236 turbines are too many, whether 100 or 80 are enough, or perhaps that there should be none at all. The local people must be kept on our side as we move with these developments.

We must accept that if we oppose nuclear power stations because we see the big problems there, we have to prepare to accept an alternative. One alternative, which we have not really discussed this afternoon, is energy saving. Perhaps this is not the debate in which it should be done. We think of domestic energy saving, but industrial and commercial concerns use far more electricity than a household. We have seen some progress with home insulation and energy saving in the home. I have suggested here, perhaps once or twice, to some derision, that as bulbs fail in the great illuminated seaside resorts, we need to replace them with energy-saving bulbs. I would not mention Blackpool, but I would mention Llandudno; there are tens of thousands of bulbs in these places. That should save a tremendous amount of electricity in those areas.

There are, of course, other ways of doing it. Back to the Severn Estuary: the use of tidal power is, of course, the most appealing option of them all. We have mentioned three possibilities here this afternoon: the barrage; the lagoons; and tidal streams. As has been stressed time and again, this is an urgent matter. If China, India and the developing countries in Africa all need electricity, we must provide our own alternative, and do so very soon. Looking at the reports produced, the more I read, the more I tend to think that our best option lies in tidal streams. It is a matter for urgent, immediate, thorough and possibly final investigation. The decision must not be delayed because it is not a crisis for the future, but a crisis that is already here.

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this fascinating subject today. I found myself agreeing with much of what he had to say, particularly on the subject of tidal lagoons, of which I have been an enthusiastic supporter for some years now. Not surprisingly, I also strongly agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, on that.

As many noble Lords have already said, we have the second highest tidal range in the world around the shores of the UK, particularly in the Severn Estuary and the Bristol Channel. This is a highly prized asset, which we have been too slow to take advantage of. We have just had the Minister’s announcement of plans to increase offshore wind power substantially. New wave power devices are receiving support and subsidy from the Government. However, wind and waves cannot be guaranteed, whereas the tides can; you can set your clock by them with absolute certainty, into the next millennium and beyond. It is a 100 per cent green and free source of energy, so I sometimes ask myself why we are being so pedantic about using it and, instead, concentrating our energies on the wind sector. I find that incomprehensible.

Of the three ways in which our tides can be harnessed to supply electricity, I am on record in this House as favouring lagoons. This is because, far from being environmentally damaging, they can promote new ecosystems, they do not impede the passage of shipping and can be positively beneficial as the landward side of any lagoon can be used as a safe haven for ships, and even used as a marina. They would help to reduce coastal erosion and produce electricity for about 20 hours of every day. As far as I am aware, Tidal Electric Ltd is the only company actively seeking to build such a lagoon at the moment. As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said in his opening speech, they want to locate it in Swansea Bay and have been working on the project for at least the past seven years. They are not seeking any funding from Her Majesty’s Government, although if tidal streams are being supported with funding—which they are—lagoons are equally deserving.

However, I was pleased to read some encouraging words on that possibility in the SDC report entitled Turning the Tide, which says of tidal lagoons:

“To help fill this information gap, the SDC believes there is a strong public interest in developing one or more tidal lagoon demonstration projects in the UK”.

It recommends that the Government take this forward by providing financial support to encourage private sector or joint initiatives.

The company, Tidal Electric, says that it should be possible to construct the lagoon for about £100 million, which is relative peanuts when set against £15 billion to build a barrage, and that it would have a capacity of 60 megawatts with an output of nearly 200,000 kilowatt hours per annum.

This is an opportunity the Government should have been grasping with enthusiasm. Instead, the DTI, now BERR, has been consistently negative about Tidal Electric’s proposals, even going to the expense of commissioning a report in April 2006 that—surprise, surprise—concluded that the company had seriously underestimated the costs. One of the main bones of contention in the report is that it does not accept what Tidal Electric is saying, which is that lagoons can be built using a rubble mound construction for the retaining walls. That is a completely different and less costly building method than that necessary for tidal barrages, which are built almost entirely of reinforced concrete. When the company conducted its feasibility study it appointed two engineering consultants, WS Atkins and Montgomery Watson Harza, both Goliaths in the field of civil engineering, to advise on the project. Both agreed that the rubble mound method was the most suitable and cost-effective option.

The upshot of all this is that the company has now reached something of an impasse. It needs seed corn funding of about £2.5 million from private enterprise to complete the environmental impact assessment and deal with planning issues, but the negativity at the ministry guarantees that that is most unlikely to be forthcoming.

We know what delay means in terms of lost chances to make early reductions in our emissions, and we know lagoons can produce electricity for about 83 per cent of the time whereas, using only the ebb flow of the tide, the barrage will produce power for only about 25 per cent of the time. We know that we need a working model of a tidal lagoon so that we can properly evaluate them, and that none exists at present. After all, there are a number of other sites around our shores for lagoons which, if built, could collectively produce 8 per cent to 10 per cent of our entire electricity needs. That is what tidal electric is offering with the Swansea Bay lagoon and, as I understand it, it has the support of the Welsh Assembly. We are being offered a gift. I say to the Minister, with all the seriousness I can muster, please do not look this gift horse in the mouth. The Swansea Bay lagoon is outside the area that requires scoping and a comprehensive study for the barrage. We should be giving Tidal Electric the encouragement it deserves and let it show us what it can do. So far as I can see, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

I shall now talk briefly about the Severn barrage project. Like my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley, I give it cautious support. I have concerns about bird and marine life habitats and about the silting and sewage buildup. Shipping seems unlikely to welcome the project as it will delay ships’ arrival in port, be that Bristol, Newport, Cardiff or Gloucester. The jury is out on what impact it will have on fish and fishing, although the noble Lord, Lord Moran, spoke in very worrying terms on some aspects of that. Overriding all these concerns, however, is the fact that the barrage offers real green energy that is not nuclear and would be much cheaper to build than a nuclear power station.

The clock is ticking. We need to proceed with all possible haste with the scoping studies, environmental impact assessments and the SDC report if we are to get anywhere near reaching our renewable targets by 2020.

My Lords, I do not remember whether it was a law of physics or of mathematics that was drummed into me at school—for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. After some years’ experience in this House, I sometimes think that that is also a law of politics, but that is life.

We all need to remind ourselves that if we and mankind in general fail to curb our appetite for using fossil fuels and producing carbon dioxide and the other sophisticated carbon compounds that we pour out, the whole environment will be ruined anyway. There will be no Severn estuary as we know it anymore because, if sea temperatures and sea levels rise, the fauna and flora will change inextricably. We are in a situation where action must be taken.

I was going to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Stern, but as he is not here yet—he will join us next week—I will say Sir Nicholas Stern. Sir Nicholas said that not taking action was not an option. We have to do things. Of course, the first thing we have to do is get our energy without producing carbon dioxide. One or two of us in this Chamber spent a full day earlier in the week discussing the Climate Change Bill, so we are already thoroughly immersed in this subject. But it is necessary to remind ourselves of the scale of the problem that we are looking at.

The Government have pledged so far to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent from the 1990 position by 2050. That is probably 65 per cent or 70 per cent from where we stand today. One of the real pressures during the debate on the Climate Change Bill was whether in fact we did not already have sufficient information to suggest that there ought to be an 80 per cent reduction. If you start to envisage that economy, just over 40 years hence, there are one or two industries where carbon dioxide emissions will have to continue. I am thinking specifically of the smelting industries. There is no alternative there, because smelting is a chemical reaction and you cannot use electricity for heating in order to reduce ores to base metal. Some industries will have to emit carbon dioxide.

What we are really talking about is a world in which all the energy that we use for everything other than those basic industries comes from renewable green sources or nuclear power. It is a much greater change than the 2020 figure that we float easily. Of course, it is much closer, but the 2020 figure needs to more than double by 2050. It needs to quadruple, so we have a really huge problem. That is the first thing, and I mention that in this debate to get into our minds the context in which we are standing.

We do not yet know what will be the best options. Many people are saying that we must be open and have full time to study to come to sensible conclusions. I agree with that, but we also need to recognise the immense pressure that we are under. Inevitably, mistakes will be made and we should not worry about that too much. If we are going to make progress, we have to take the chance that some of the things we do may be wrong.

So then we come back to the specific issue that we are debating: the Severn barrage. I am slightly interested in the comparison that has been made between building a barrage in the Severn estuary and the possibility of building 150 lagoons up and down the estuary, as if 150 lagoons up and down the estuary would not irremediably alter the estuary. They might not alter it in the same way as a single barrage would, but they unquestionably would alter the estuary.

We have not heard whether they would produce as much electricity or more; nor have we heard what the cost might be. My noble friend Lord Liverpool suggested that one lagoon might cost £100 million. If that is so, I merely point out that the 150 lagoons in the estuary will then cost the same as the barrage. Whether we get the same amount of electricity out of it or not we do not yet know. I am into the business of producing equal and opposite arguments, which is not a piece of ground that I particularly want to stand on. However, I should enter yet another thought about estuarial barrages into the debate: I remind the House that the Environment Agency is discussing the possibility of a barrage across the Thames to protect London, if both the east coast continues to sink, which it undoubtedly will, and the sea level continues to rise, which it seems to be doing.

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a microsecond? Can I correct him that the Environment Agency is not considering a barrage across the Thames?

My Lords, I am open to correction, but I have to say that I went down on a boat and I am fairly sure that it was with the Environment Agency, which was taking me to discuss that possibility. It may be that the tentacles of the organisation are not necessarily discussing everything that is going on with the head, but that is not at all unusual in a vast and widely spread operation. These discussions are going on and if we consider the east coast-west coast and the problem of tidal generation and time, and we then put a barrage across the Thames, we do a lot if we use the barrage for a power generation to smooth out the peaks and troughs in generating capacity.

If we then put a barrage across the second big estuary up the east coast, which is the Humber estuary, we would have virtually continuous flow tidal generation capacity across the country. We would then be in the realms of 10 per cent of United Kingdom electricity use. Of course there are all these other systems: there is tidal stream, wave and so on and all of them will undoubtedly have a part to play, as will wind and solar power. I particularly wanted to speak this afternoon because it is easy to look at a particular project and discuss it in a particular way, but the context in which we stand today is remarkable and unique and we cannot stand still. Somewhere along the way we are going to have to take decisions. If we are lucky most of those decisions will be right, but we need to recognise that we will be exceedingly fortunate if the word “always” applies.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, on achieving the debate. I come to the issue as a civil engineer. I briefly worked on the project in the 1970s and 1980s. I have nothing like the eminence in civil engineering of my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. I am sorry that he is not contributing to the debate. I agree with noble Lords that there is a need for diversification of supply in the use of renewables. I do not think that that is under debate. Last week the debate seemed to be covering the North Sea and other places with windmills and today it is the turn of the Severn. We have to be careful that our concerns for the fish or the birds do not cause the lights to go out. The Government have some challenges ahead. They would not let the lights go out and maybe the third way is energy saving, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said. We should be harnessing what people perceive as free electricity from the tides.

I agree with many noble Lords on tidal stream technology. Siting generators on the seabed and letting the tide go backwards and forwards would seem simple. Unless you are a submarine, they do not get in the way. I hope that the Government will take tidal stream a bit more seriously and I expect that my noble friend will tell us about that when he winds up.

I am bemused by the different claims we have heard today and elsewhere about the benefits of lagoons and barrages, because they are variations of the same technology—they allow the water in and out, and power is generated by the difference in head between one side of the generator and the other. Whether that is done on both the flood and the ebb, or just on the ebb, is debatable; I do not know, but it seems simply that the benefits relate to the volume of water times the head as the maximum generating capacity, and the costs are the capital costs and some maintenance. The costs are to do with the volume of materials, rocks and any other works needed. I shall return to that. Large volumes of water are involved, but I do not believe that the technology is impossible—it is used in major dam constructions around the world. That technology applies equally to something as big as the Severn barrage and smaller lagoons. It is good that engineering companies are debating whether the best method is concrete, rock or whatever.

However, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on the question of a new Thames barrier—whether it is being promoted by the Environment Agency or someone else. I am sure that that is not the case, because the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would have told us. The Thames Barrier is closed only when a high tide is forecast, because ships have to go through it and there is not much constraint to the tide. I assume that the same would apply to any new Thames barrier, especially as the Government have given planning permission for something called the London Gateway, which is an enormous port development of what used to be called Canvey Island. A Thames barrier is a very different issue to a Severn barrier, which relies on a big head difference to generate electricity.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, talked about the timing of tides. I remember when I was working on that, someone discovered that because there was three hours’ difference between the tides of Morecambe Bay and the Severn, if both had barrages working to the same capacity there would be an almost continuous supply of electricity. If the timing is not right—well, it is down to King Canute, is it not? There is not much else we can do about it.

More serious is the effect on ports, which one or two noble Lords mentioned. Bristol, Cardiff, Newport and Sharpness are clearly worried by the construction of a barrage that would prevent access to the deep sea. It is worth reflecting on the port industry in the UK. I suspect that some noble Lords will know that congestion in the ports in the south-east of England is so great that the shipping lines have put a fairly hefty premium on any container that is delivered there. So the ports on the west coast of England and further north up the east coast are experiencing some revival. They expect that to continue. The forecasts for traffic in ports are quite frightening. I was in Amsterdam last week where I listened to the head of the port of Rotterdam saying that traffic through Rotterdam was expected to grow by 10 per cent every year for the foreseeable future. Provision is being made to build more ports and extend the capacity to cope with that. Okay, Rotterdam has a big hinterland, but I do not think that the economics will change very much. Whether the big ships come to the UK or we have feeders will not make a lot of difference.

So I suspect that the ports in the west of England have quite a future, especially considering that, when you look at the geography, the south Wales ports and Bristol are actually very close to the Midlands—almost closer than the ports of south-east England. I know that there is a longer steaming time around the coast, but any barrage would have to take seriously into account the needs of those ports and provide for locks. The port of Amsterdam is the fourth biggest in that part of the continent between Hamburg and France. It is fed by a canal with locks. They are just building a few more locks and I believe there will be four to take the biggest ships that they believe they can handle. It might be possible if we planned it in advance, but I would worry whether adding an extra lock or two when the demand increased through a barrage would lead to arguments about who would pay, when it would be done and the effect it would have on the port, which would be pretty stifling. Compare this to what they are doing in Amsterdam, where it is a case of, “We have got to do this, we have got to find the money, it will be done and the Government will pay”. That does not happen here. We have got to be very careful about the effect on ports and ensure that they are provided with locks that allow them to remain competitive.

I am slightly attracted by the idea of lagoons. If they can be constructed in a place that does not cut off ports and does not affect the environment so much, that seems to be quite an advantage.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about John Hutton’s statement that he wanted a Severn barrage. I have this feeling that Ministers love big projects. We have Trident, aircraft carriers, all these windmills in the North Sea, nuclear power stations—some of which are going ahead and some of which are not—and the Channel Tunnel. I was involved in the Channel Tunnel and yes, it got built, but the estimates of cost overruns and the risks and so on between the public and private sector lead me to conclude that Governments are not very good at big projects. I am not sure that the private sector is any better. It rather depends on who is taking the risks when things go wrong.

The construction industry will, of course, welcome a barrage or lagoons but, if they run out of money, or if it goes wrong, who is going to pick up the tab? I rather favour the Friends of the Earth view in Wales, which is that a big lagoon is much more cost-effective in capital costs and the price of electricity and it would have the added advantage of keeping the ports open. That is a really important matter; I worry about what would happen and whether the ports would be able to survive and prosper with a big barrage across the Severn.

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for calling this very timely debate. It has provoked much discussion and teased out many points that needed to be teased out, among which was the need for prompt action. His initiative has enabled a good discussion.

We have had a good debate, which has thrown up many issues. For environmental reasons, an alternative renewable source of energy needs much consideration, but we must also ensure that we have real security of supply for these islands. There is certainly still a need for consideration of many issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, rightly said, there are many challenges to come. Some of these can be examined only by precise, detailed modelling which, importantly, needs to be done by independent people with no particular axe to grind. There is support for this from many others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who called for a level playing field and for investigations to start as soon as soon as possible. So, indeed, did the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Rowe-Beddoe. Time must not be lost.

We cannot ignore the potential financial costs of building a barrage. Special measures will have to be taken for environmental reasons and to meet any concerns there may be over flooding. Further, the cost per unit of energy will have to be a factor. The Government’s duty is to secure our energy, so they therefore have a responsibility to ensure that any future project is adequately supported and funded. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, rightly emphasised the need for security of supply.

From this debate, it is clear that there needs to be a full investigation of the technical aspects, including in relation to lagoons—a point referred to by a number of noble Lords. In addition, any investigation must have a clear timescale and there must be a clear programme for assessing the project.

On the economic aspects, although the work would create jobs, there are concerns about whether the Port of Bristol, for example, would be able to operate properly with delays through locks and some ships being diverted elsewhere, with a consequent loss of business. However, were a roadway to be constructed from the industrial part of south Wales, there could be economic benefits, and that would bring pressure for development. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, talked about costs and I would hope that, as time went on, the project would not turn into another Olympic Games in terms of their escalation.

The subject of flood defences also has two sides to it. This is one area that many supporters of the barrage instance as being a plus, but others say that, due to erosion and other reasons, it is far from certain that flood defences would be improved. It would be interesting to consider that in more detail.

Many points were raised about the environmental considerations. The local impact on birds, fish and wildlife is, rightly, important. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, who has expertise in this area, rightly pointed out that it is almost impossible to find habitats elsewhere—a matter that perhaps I had not considered sufficiently. My noble friend Lady Miller supported that point.

Equally, we have to find a way of dealing with climate change. As my noble friend Lord Roberts said in relation to a different point, we have to look urgently at the international view on this and not just at our own local or national needs. The local impact may be a problem but, in the round, we need to provide long-term habitats and something has to be done somewhere. Therefore, although there is a concern about wildlife, there is also a big question of how we address climate change, which affects wildlife everywhere.

The noble Lord, Lord Moran, made a specific and welcome contribution on the subject of fish and fisheries—an issue on which he clearly has great knowledge. Answers are obviously needed on that and I hope that they will be provided.

Climate change is a big problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, there is a tremendous need for possibly even stronger action to be taken, as the present proposals may not be adequate. If we are to meet the concerns about the environment, it is clear that very serious thought needs to be given to a number of ideas, and chief among them could well be lagoons.

Lagoons have been mentioned by many contributors this afternoon. Lagoons would perhaps help in terms of not destroying habitats, many of which have existed for 15,000 years, and it should be remembered that 65,000 birds flock to the estuary. The tenor that I picked up from the debate is that a lot of time has been lost in addressing this issue and that there has been a loss of government focus on the matter. The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, spoke in great detail about lagoons. His contribution certainly made me think that it is a very serious subject, and clearly people have done serious work on it. Perhaps there has not been sufficient support from the Government but, after today, the Minister might consider that.

The real thing that has come out of this debate is that where there is a positive there is also a negative, and that is the great difficulty. If it was just a question of erecting a barrage that would contribute 5 per cent to electricity, it would be wonderful, but there are issues around that because building a barrage would involve environmental considerations about the construction and the disruption. I hope that this debate has put urgency into this issue, and I thank my noble friend Lord Livsey for obtaining it. We need to ensure that the project is investigated and that if there is to be a project, whether lagoons or barrages, it will be securely financed and supported. I think that all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have found it extremely interesting. The expertise has been excellent, and we all look forward to the Minister’s reply.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, for securing this important debate. He set the scene very well and listed many of the questions to which we need answers.

He said that we know that the cost of the barrage will be about £15 billion, but that estimate came from the figure in the studies undertaken in the 1980s uprated by the appropriate indices. It does not include the cost of compensation measures, which may be considerable, if they are possible. The good news is that Ministers have stopped being so negative about a Severn barrage. I was asking questions about it back in January 2004. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, spoke about the Government’s prevarication on tidal power, and she is right.

Today’s debate is about the barrage, but it is vital that we look at tidal stream technology as well as tidal range, including the barrage and lagoons. The SDC report looked at tidal stream technology, which clearly has potential, but is nowhere near ready for a pilot, let alone a full-scale device in the Pentland Firth. It is fortunate that none of these technologies is mutually exclusive, but the only one ready to roll from a technological viewpoint is the barrage. There has been much talk about tidal lagoons—I received a briefing on them some time ago—but since the technology is relatively simple, I find it hard to understand why there has been no progress and none has been built, not even small-scale ones. There may be a pump-priming problem; perhaps the renewables obligation needs to be tweaked to give further incentives. Can the Minister say why progress has been so slow? Is he convinced that the costing of lagoons is hopelessly optimistic?

The principal benefit of the barrage is the production of nearly 5 per cent of the UK electricity requirement with zero carbon output—its carbon output is lower than nuclear power. The SDC report indicates that the carbon pay-back period for the Severn barrage is less than 12 months. There are additional benefits of the barrage, but I do not think that they should be the major driver. It is easy to measure the benefits of a barrage and possibly to identify the disbenefits, but it is rather more difficult accurately to measure and cost the disbenefits. When it comes to wildlife and biodiversity, it becomes extremely difficult and subjective.

I have no doubt that the barrage will change habitats, but global warming is doing so right now, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith explained. The SDC report covers ecology issues in some detail. It indicates that the birds and habitats directives need not be a showstopper, and the report is strongly against any derogation from the relevant directives.

It is vital that the government study should look at this issue comprehensively and in great detail before a project consent is sought. We need to know what species will be affected, how they will be affected and whether the changes will be positive or negative, bearing in mind the observation in the STC report that an increase in the quantity of a few species is no substitute for variety or biodiversity.

Once the adverse effects are understood, we need to ask whether they can be mitigated and, if not, compensated for. The noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Miller, suggested that compensation was impossible—it cannot be done—and my noble friend Lord Patten said that habitat can never be replicated. They may well be right; there will be some adverse effects on species that cannot be mitigated or compensated for. At that point, we should consider the uniqueness of the species and balance that with the overriding public interest. It would be quite unwise to discard this opportunity for a Severn barrage without having studied it very carefully.

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 will be negative, and these will have to be taken into account when assessing the economic case for a barrage. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, reminded us about the capacity of our port system, which is a major concern of the Freight Transport Association. Will the Minister ensure that any study will consider port enhancement and not only measure the cost of the adverse effects?

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.

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 expertise from others, too. The noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Miller, and many others, are acknowledged experts on the environment and the issues of this case.

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 next year inviting a national debate about how we achieve our renewable energy targets. I venture to think that our debate today may have been the start of that national debate.

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 grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, for that information—but discussed earlier than that. The possibilities of it using what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, described as awesome natural power are clear. It is important that this scheme does not preclude other schemes, as the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, reminded us. As proposed, it would have a capacity of 8,600 megawatts and an output of 17 terawatt hours a year, providing around 5 per cent of current UK electricity demand from a renewable source and saving some 6 million tonnes of CO₂ a year over its 120-year lifetime. On that basis we have to consider it seriously, just as the House has this afternoon. It has been estimated to cost around £15 million—I take on board the point made by the noble Earl in his speech from the opposition Front Bench; it will be one of the largest civil engineering projects in the world and by far the largest single renewable energy generation scheme in the UK.

My Lords, did I hear my noble friend say “million” or “billion”? I suspect he meant “billion”.

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.

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”.

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.

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.