|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister indicate what the position is with regard to the coal-fired power stations at present? Are they all in operation or have some been mothballed? Further, if they are in operation, where do they stand in the merit order bearing in mind that they must all be written down virtually to nil?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord's detailed question, especially as he asked me about all coal-fired stations. I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord on the subject, or he may prefer to table a specific Question for oral answer.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the Government's policy is to have a moratorium on the building of gas-fired stations with a view to helping the coal mining industry? If so, and if that remains so, what can these American power companies do to affect us? What is the real threat?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the term "moratorium" is incorrect because it implies that no consents would in fact be given. There are exceptions based on reasoned requests which are being considered, especially with regard to CHP projects. Again, I cannot go into any further detail because I would be anticipating the outcome of the review.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in view of the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, in which I believe he said that 100 years of supply was assured in coal, can the Minister tell the House what is considered to be the assured lifetime of supply of our natural gas?
Lord Clinton-Davis: No, my Lords; I cannot give any assurance in that respect. Such factors will be set out in the review. I do not have that information with me at present. However, I urge the noble Baroness to be a little patient. It will not be long before the review is published.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in view of the threats which are now being received from American companies, can my noble friend the Minister comment on another important matter which will be discussed in the consideration of the report which is soon to be issued: namely, whether the Section 36 consents are legally binding?
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that extremely reassuring reply. However, is he aware of the aims of the Forestry Stewardship Council--an unaccountable foundation based in Mexico--which seeks to impose a new regulatory scheme on British forestry which is going through an extremely difficult time at the moment? Does he not think it right that the Government should try to persuade the Forestry Stewardship Council to accept the Forestry Authority as the necessary regulatory body in this country?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am indeed aware of the activities of the Forestry Stewardship Council. We are, of course, committed to the idea of sustainable forestry. I believe that the UK forestry standard is the appropriate test. We must recognise that some large retailers--commonly known as the 95 Plus Group--are concerned to establish independent certification. I believe that could best be done by all parties agreeing to use the UK forestry standard as a base with independent audit and thus obtaining certification in that way. I believe that is the appropriate way forward. I hope that the Forestry Stewardship Council will be able to accept that.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I express an interest as the chairman of the all-party forestry group in both Houses. Is the Minister aware that we are all concerned about the destruction of tropical forests but have serious doubts about the ability of some campaigners to monitor that process? As regards the United Kingdom, does the Minister really believe that it is necessary to impose on the industry a new body, the Forestry Stewardship Council, when the Forestry Commission has an international reputation for good research and management in forestry and has grant giving powers to the private sector? Has it not sufficient expertise and sufficient power without imposing a new organisation on the industry?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I have no intention of imposing the Forestry Stewardship Council on the industry but, as I have said, I recognise that some major retailers and purchasers of timber at this moment look to the Forestry Stewardship Council as a certifying body. I believe that the way forward is not down that route but through the UK forestry standard.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, at the risk of Question Time becoming a little wooden, does the Minister realise that I agree with him absolutely? Can the noble Lord use his influence to persuade some of these companies of the reality of the situation? While standing in a Sitka spruce forest in Argyll, one sometimes feels that one is in a rainforest, but that is not the case. It is a perfectly sustainable form of forestry and has certainly been planted and felled during the lifetime of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and perhaps during my lifetime, I regret to say. Our forestry is sustainable. The Forestry Authority's standards are excellent. It supervises planting, thinning and felling. There is no need for an extraterritorial body to monitor what we already do well in this country.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the World Wildlife Fund International has placed British forestry 12th out of 15 countries as regards quality of forestry? Does he agree that that is unfair? Is the Minister's department doing anything to try to cancel that stigma which has been placed on British forestry? Is he satisfied with the general advice which is given to those concerned with forestry in this country on sustainability and biodiversity? My understanding is that at the moment it is site specific and there is a need for more general advice on this issue. Is that available?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, a considerable amount of general and specific advice is available on sustainability and biodiversity. As regards the so-called European "score-card" published by WWF, that is a total and complete nonsense. The main criterion it uses is the extent to which a nation has been able to retain its ancient forests. Britain experienced the industrial revolution and the agricultural revolution some time ago which inevitably destroyed a large proportion of our ancient forests. However, WWF's "score-card" makes it impossible to improve one's score as once an ancient forest is lost, by definition it cannot be recovered.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister admit that in the Government's promotion of their excellent native pinewood schemes in Scotland, the Forestry Authority can occasionally be a little bureaucratic in insisting on natural vegetation censuses when there is really no point in them? Will the Minister look into the problem and remove this unnecessary and
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am well aware of the noble Lord's interest in this area. He has made a major contribution to land use in Scotland, in particular as regards natural forests. I shall look into the specific point he makes, but I am sure he realises that one needs regulatory schemes when one is distributing public funds.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page