MPs debate "fish-friendliness" of Severn barrage


Supporters say the £30bn barrage would provide 5% of the UK's electricity, but opponents say it would harm the environment

For Welsh hacks of a certain age it felt like deja vu all over again. I spent the first six and a half years of my time at Westminster covering the debates about the Cardiff Bay barrage.

Hugely controversial, the initial Bill was blocked after a mammoth filibustering exercise involving a speech lasting several hours by the then Labour MP for Cardiff West, Rhodri Morgan - the original rebel without a pause.

Eventually, the government had to take over what had been private legislation to gets its way - and parliamentary procedures were changed as a result.

The proposed Severn barrage is equally controversial and many of the arguments are familiar. Its supporters say it will bring jobs - its critics say it will damage the environment. Its impact is so great, parliament will have to pass a special law before it can go ahead.

This morning, MPs on the energy and climate change committee began their inquiry into the scheme, taking evidence from supporters such as Neath MP Peter Hain and opponents such as the National Trust.

The sharpest divergence of views came over the impact of the scheme on fish in the Severn estuary. Peter Hain said the scheme's turbines would be "fish-friendly" although he couldn't guarantee that no fish would be hurt in the making of this barrage.

Martin Salter, a former Labour MP who now works for the Angling Trust, told the committee: "Peter talked as if it was a good thing that the turbines would be operating 24/7 - well that's 24/7 fish-mincing." Mr Salter said the impact could be devastating and to argue that the barrage would be fish-friendly was "absolute guff".

I guess you could debate how "fish-friendly" angling is but the committee appeared sceptical about what he felt was a lack of detail provided by the schemes's promoters, Hafren Power and about the price the consortium would want for the energy generated.

Barrage supporters hope the UK government will give the go-ahead for the scheme this year, amid fears that the Middle East money backing the scheme may not be on offer for long.

Welsh Secretary David Jones, said after the meeting: "The government is open minded on using the Severn barrage to generate renewable energy and my position has not changed. There are a number of projects being proposed, all of which need to consider affordability, long-term sustainability and value for consumers. I've agreed to speak to Peter Hain and already met with other interested parties."

Several MPs asked whether public opinion is supportive of the barrage. Bracknell Tory MP Phillip Lee - who stood for election in Blaenau Gwent in 2005 - said: "I would suspect that it probably is because of my experience of accruing my 816 votes back in 2005." Mr Lee said something needed to replace collapsed industries in Wales.

Mr Hain suggested Mr Lee deserved a medal for getting so many votes and said there was "almost universal support across Wales" for the project.

Phillip Lee was not the only Tory committee member with Welsh political experience. Chair Tim Yeo reminisced: "I also fought a seat in south Wales, in 1974. Amazingly, there was a recount but I did come second. The recount was to save my deposit."

The seat was Bedwellty, where Mr Yeo won more than 5,000 votes, coming second to the Labour candidate, Neil Kinnock. Whatever happened to him?

David Cornock Article written by David Cornock David Cornock Parliamentary correspondent, Wales

Has Westminster become a zombie parliament?

MPs of all parties have suggested Westminster has become a "zombie parliament" ahead of the general election in May.

Read full article


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 29.

    John. Peter Hain and Middle Eastern money. Doesn't that worry you. The fact that it is not stipulated who is putting up the money. Or doesn't it matter to you just to be different. There are some not very nice people in those countries doing not very nice things to their people and Peter Hain is aligning himself up with them. If they are the only ones touching it, that says something. Doesn't it.

  • rate this

    Comment number 28.

    Here's a radical suggestion, how about we invest in energy efficiency measures instead?

  • rate this

    Comment number 27.

    #24 ' it's more than just a dam for a water-wheel Boxer,'

    Be fair ! I was just simplifying the physics to explain why you can't put in 20 barriers and generate all of the UK's energy.
    It's what physicists famously do 'Consider the racehorse as a uniform sphere of diameter 1m.'
    As it happens, I agree with you: Build it !

  • rate this

    Comment number 26.

    ... our progress has rarely pleased everyone, and often the progress has unexpected results, but that's the way we are, and in this case a single clean project will produce about 6% of our current usage for a century and a half, better the lights on than sitting in the dark.

    ... a plus would be adding energy efficiency to boost the 6% to 12%, then the mud flats would a good exchange indeed.

  • rate this

    Comment number 25.

    John, what a load of nonsense. Destroying eco systems is a sign of us progressing in terms of our humanity? oh dear, oh dear.

  • rate this

    Comment number 24.

    ... it's more than just a dam for a water-wheel Boxer, when it is built it will be a social-political statement that we are progressing in terms of our humanity, albeit quite a small step, a step towards a cleaner world in which to live.

    Well done Peter Hain ........

  • rate this

    Comment number 23.

    #19 The simple boring answer to your question is 'No !'
    The barrage essentially acts life a dam for a water-wheel. The power you can generate depends on the mass of water and the distance that the water drops. A well situated barrier ought to get at least 25% of the available tidal energy. Any second barrier will harvest significantly less energy. To get 20 efficient way !

  • Comment number 22.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 21.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 20.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this

    Comment number 19.

    K Evans (6)
    "Walk between Flatholm and Steepholm"...and at high tide !

    I wouldn't be in a hurry to try that Mr. Evans. Even at low tide !

    Was wondering.....If just one Bristol Channel barrage can supply 5% of the UK's electricity. Could 20 similar Bristol Channel barrages supply 100% of the UK's electricity ?

    Should I register copyright on this idea ?

    Well stranger things have happened !.

  • rate this

    Comment number 18.

    Can't say I have ever studied the logistics of a Severn Barrage but in general terms I can surmise that if Peter Hain is for it then I am very likely to be against it!

    The UK is not short of opportunities for low-impact gravity-fed and pumped-storage hydro-electric developments. These appear to be infinitely preferable to the highly corrosive and unpredictable marine developments.

  • rate this

    Comment number 17.

    Crikey and there was me thinking we were building this monstrosity in the Bristol Channel

  • rate this

    Comment number 16.

    #15 'You tell me why we are. '
    Partly because the other nations of the earth - principally China in the last decade - want the things that we have enjoyed for the last two centuries, since we in Britain started the Industrial Revolution. Say China = 1.3B people; say 400M households and half have a car (200M) running at 10miles/L. They will burn ~100M tonnes of fuel a year. 250M t of CO2

  • rate this

    Comment number 15.

    How lovely to see that wonderful old cliche "progress" rolled out. As for increasing levels of CO2 in No.13. You tell me why we are. Its time we focused on energy efficiency as we squander too much energy.

  • rate this

    Comment number 14.

    ... celtic, rather than "destroy such environments in the name of progress and vanity., we ...

    ... "modify the world in pursuit of progress."

    It's what we have been doing for thousands of years.

  • rate this

    Comment number 13.

    'he world has moved on from the days when it was acceptable to destroy such environments'
    You think so ?? So why are we continuing to generate increasing amounts of CO2 and now exp;oiting shale. I would rather keep the coral reefs and lose a mud-flat.
    Regardless of global warming, you won't get coral in an acid sea.

  • rate this

    Comment number 12.

    Boxer. it passes all three tests and I think the world has moved on from the days when it was acceptable to destroy such environments in the name of progress and vanity. The comments from Alf are interesting, I feel more investigation is called for. Are David or Betsan up for that? No, thought not...

  • rate this

    Comment number 11.

    #6 'There are two holms and you could walk in between them at high tide.'

    If this were true, you could walk beween them all the time. Did you mean 'walk between them at low tide' ??

    If you want to run a flow turbine as a demo, may I suggest Jack Sound in Pembs. Only a damn fool would take a ship through it, so navigation conflict is minimal.

  • rate this

    Comment number 10.

    What Richard with Middle Eastern money and Peter Hain. Where is it from in the Middle East. Doesn't it make you wonder.


Page 1 of 2



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.