My Lords, I, too, have been following this issue carefully. Before my noble friend Lord Ridley had a very provocative article published in The Times three or four weeks ago, I had quite an argument with him. He told me what he was going to write and I said it was rubbish. He duly wrote his article, and there were letters, including one from my noble friend the Minister, and from a number of other sources, which said that he was talking rubbish.
I am sorry that my noble friend is not here today: perhaps there will be another opportunity for him to defend his view here. However, I do not think I am doing him an injustice when I say that his view is based on the proposition that a biomass that depends on the growing of trees cannot in any way be regarded as a renewable source. I said to him that they grow again and that if forests are properly managed—and many of them are, not least by the Forestry Commission in this country but also in Scandinavia and so on—the turnaround is about 30 years. He said no, it is 90 years. He may well know a great deal more about this than I do. I have so far subscribed to the view that when a biomass source is used as a fuel for energy, if it can reproduce itself over a period—and of course, as they grow, trees reabsorb the carbon dioxide that they emit during combustion—then it is a renewable source.
I was worried at one point about the importation of timber and its threat to the health of our forestry, against the background of ash dieback. I arranged an interview with the head of the trade association in America that exports manufactured wood pellets, a large quantity of which come to this country. I have also talked to the companies that burn them, notably Drax, which is converting part of its coal-burning to biomass, as is Eggborough, a different kind of company but one also in the process of a substantial conversion to biomass. They base it entirely on the import of manufactured wood pellets from reputable sources in America or Scandinavia. I was completely satisfied that the manufacturing process totally eliminates the possibility of the importation of any funguses or other diseases that affect timber here. I have not heard any suggestion that if it is properly handled there is any risk in that direction.
7 pm
Of course, the other thing they have to ensure is that in the course of transportation the wood pellets never get wet; otherwise, they have to use a great deal
of energy getting them dry again. Indeed, if one studies the export arrangements in America, the import arrangements here and the transport arrangements by rail to the power stations, a great deal of effort is made to ensure that they are always under cover and never get wet, because it destroys the efficacy of the fuel source.
I see absolutely no objection to deriving some of our energy supply from that source. Indeed, the Government have accepted that, because they are going along with—and indeed providing subsidies for—the conversion of coal-fired power stations to burning biomass. That was the basis of my argument with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, on this. Of course, he was very sharply answered by both companies that replied to his article in the Times, along with my noble friend.
My noble friend Lord Teverson may well be right that we need to come back to this, to look at it overall. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, it is not as simple as it was thought to be at first glance and opinion has swung violently from one way to the other; quite a lot of the environmental bodies are now campaigning passionately against any form of biomass. That cannot be right but nevertheless we need to keep a very careful eye on this.
From what I have discovered so far, the major uses of biomass as a renewable source in this country are unexceptional. If they are properly managed and properly replanted and so on, these trees are fine. I have tabled an amendment, of which I have given my noble friend notice, concerning the problem of people substituting a subsidised energy use for normal wood products manufacture. We will come to that when we reach Clause 21. That is a separate issue. It is not an environmental issue; it is a question of fair trading and fair competition. Nevertheless, there are these issues and we need to keep a very careful eye on them.
The question of importation of wood chips is a very different matter. There you can have the importation of the kind of diseases from which our forestry may well suffer. That has to be very carefully monitored. We cannot have a repeat of Dutch elm disease or ash dieback, and now there is the threat to oak trees. If this country is anything, it is a country where we have long basked in the glory of our wonderful trees and that really has to be a top priority. I agree with my noble friend Lord Teverson that this is something that we need to keep an eye on.
I am reasonably confident that my noble friend will repeat the view that she expressed in her reply in the Times, that she is satisfied that as a form of renewable energy, biomass is perfectly acceptable—if it is properly regulated and properly sourced.
I had a marvellous meeting with a member of the Aitken family. They have a very small business which promotes power generation for individual factories and distilleries based entirely on the wood that is left behind after the forest has been commercially felled and taken away. There is always a mass of stuff left behind that can be gathered up and used to generate fuel. I am sure that that is a great deal easier than replanting the forest once the rubbish has been removed. Their business is based entirely on removing the rubbish
and burning it. That seems to me an admirable thing to do, and it is another example of how biomass can contribute to helping us solve our energy problems.