---

Energy: National Policy Statements

My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are grateful for the careful and measured way in which the Minister set out the purpose of the documents. At the outset of his speech, he referred to our breaking new ground with this procedure. Indeed, I have not been able to find any precedent that matches exactly what the House decided in response to the report of the Procedure Committee. As I said to him colloquially before we started, we are to some extent in uncharted territory, but shall have to wait and see whether there are dragons lurking around. Some points are clear. We are engaged in a process of scrutiny, not approval; I think that "scrutiny" is the word used in the Planning Act. We are having debates, unlike another place, which had a Select Committee inquiry. The parliamentary scrutiny—unlike the public scrutiny to which the Minister just referred, and which ended yesterday—does not end until 6 May. I have a feeling that we may be thinking about other things on 6 May; no doubt we will discover that. We have moved some way since what I look back on as a rather ill tempered—for which I perhaps bore some responsibility—short debate before Christmas, on 15 December. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is here; I say a warm thank you to her, because she responded extremely quickly to offer me a meeting, which we had immediately after the Recess. The result is that, instead of being faced with one debate, we are now able to have three separate ones. It is also clear that we can have more time if we need it. Finally, as the noble Lord said, if a resolution were to be tabled, there is a promise of time on the Floor of the House. I say how pleased I am that that has all been settled. We have been making the process up a bit as we go along, but that is the nature of any exploration—you take sight on the highest hill you see, and you go there, and then you decide where to go after that. Anyway, here we are. As the Deputy Chairman pointed out, we are engaged in considering—scrutiny, not approval. I moved an amendment to the then Planning Bill that both Houses should approve the national policy statements, as they would be important statements of policy that should require parliamentary approval. It was not carried. It did not attract the Government’s support, but I am happy to say that it has now attracted the support of my party and is the policy that we will introduce if and when we form a Government. I also suggested that we would need a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider this so that we do not have the business of witnesses going first to one House and then to the other. We can then scrutinise the national policy statements and recommend them to the House for approval. The DECC Select Committee that sits at the other end has been interesting. As the Minister will be aware, one or two of us have spent some time among the public listening to what has been going on. The process started here after consideration at the other end, so perhaps some of the issues that we need to address will already have been exposed in the committee. However, I note what the Minister says about the date of its report, which is unlikely to be before the end of March—some way off. Will the Minister tell us a little more, as he told the committee at the other end, about the future handling of these national policy statements? He has had, as he has said, a huge volume of representations from all sources. There were more from this House, and there may be resolutions on the Floor of this House before the Government can finalise the national policy statements so that they can be issued publicly and made available to the Infrastructure Planning Commission. Will he spell out the timetable a little more, because, whatever the colour of the next Government, it will be for the next Government to carry forward most of the subsequent procedure? I draw the Minister’s attention to a paper that came out with EN-1 and which I have found quite extraordinarily valuable. It is called Consultation on Draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure, and does not have a number like the EN papers. It is a sort of overarching overarching paper, if I may so describe it. It has a very useful introduction and, perhaps most valuable of all, it sets out the list of questions to be asked. Some of these will appear in the papers EN-1 to EN-6 as part of the new planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects, or NSIPs—I shall use that abbreviation in future. It is clear that the EN papers are not policy documents, and I accept the Minister’s point that policy is for the Government and that the IPC’s job is to deal with the planning aspects of individual applications. I was very pleased to hear him say that each project must be considered individually on its own merits. That is a very important point that we need to hang on to. However, where does this lead us? What is the third question that has been posed in the Consultation on Draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure? It strikes me that it is significant. It asks: ""Does the draft Overarching Energy National Policy Statement provide suitable information to the Infrastructure Planning Commission on the Government’s energy and climate policy?"." I have no doubt that when that was drawn up and the national policy statements were issued, a number of those concerned could have given some sort of answer. It is also repeated in paragraph 2.1 of EN-1, which sums up the Government’s energy and climate change strategy and ends with a rather interesting statement: ""The Government believes these objectives are best delivered by a dynamic energy market operating within an effective regulatory framework with strategic Government interventions"." Since those words were published, we have had the Times interview with the Secretary of State on 1 February, followed rather remarkably two days later by the Ofgem report Project Discovery, which is a very substantial document. In his interview, the Secretary of State said—and the Minister agreed that his words were properly reported—that the present system is failing to deliver and that we, ""need a more interventionist energy policy"." He said that we need further reforms of Ofgem and an overhaul of the national electricity trading arrangement—NETA. He also outlined the possibility of a return to capacity payments, which used to be in the system. Finally, he promised that Roadmap to 2050 would be published with the Budget next month. I am delighted to know that there will be a road map to 2050. Far too much of these reports is far more short term, and the concentration on 2025 is very misleading, so we look forward to seeing the road map. Then we have Project Discovery. Ofgem issued a press release on it headlined: ""Action needed to ensure Britain’s energy supplies remain secure"." It has three bullet points. The first is: ""Ofgem recommends far reaching energy market reforms to consumers, industry and government"." Later it states: ""Prompt action will reduce risk to energy supplies, help lower costs to consumers and help progress towards climate change targets"." The chief executive of Ofgem, Alistair Buchanan, is quoted as saying: ""The overwhelming majority of responses to Ofgem’s October consultation show that there is an increasing consensus that leaving the present system of market arrangements and other incentives unchanged is not an option. Ofgem has therefore put forward a range of possible options to unlock the up to £200 billion of investment Britain may need"." Where does that leave us? The report identifies five key issues, but its message is pretty clear. Contrary to what the Minister suggested a little while ago, Ofgem is telling us that there is a real risk that the lights may go out in the course of the next decade, and that is how the report has been interpreted by many well informed commentators. The Minister will recollect that when I raised this matter at Question Time, my noble friend on the Front Bench said that it is rather strange that we have all these proposals coming from the regulator, not the Government. I thought the Minister would have found that mildly embarrassing. This brings me back to question 3, which I will read again: ""Does the draft Overarching Energy National Policy Statement provide suitable information to the Infrastructure Planning Commission on the Government’s energy and climate policy?"." In the light of the Secretary of State’s interview and of the Ofgem report, I do not see how anybody can now answer that question. Indeed, I am told that some companies are even now revising their responses to the inquiry. The director of the Association of Electricity Producers, David Porter, said that, ""the industry is plagued with political and regulatory uncertainty"." I would not have got that from the Minister’s speech. That is the view of the trade association that represents all the generators in this country, and it should be taken seriously. The Minister, in his reply to my Question, rather coolly, said that, ""the issues covered in the Times article do not materially affect planning decisions".—[Official Report, 3/2/10; col. 197.]" Before he gave that answer, the young lady from the department who was advising him rang me up and asked me what I was after. I referred her to the overarching report to which I have drawn the noble Lord’s attention. But I do not think she got the message. We are left, are we not, with the extraordinary position that, since these documents were introduced, the Government—not just Ofgem—have indicated very substantial major changes of policy? I do not see how people now can answer that question 3. I find the whole position deeply confusing and, of itself, very confused. I have one further general observation. In his opening remarks, I think the Minister referred once again to the fact that the new process is a single-consent system. One of the values of this overarching report is that it has made it clear, at least to me, that that is quite untrue. There is not a single-consent system. If you study part 4 of the overarching statement you will find that there are at least 12 issues to which applicants must find consents; it is not just the IPC that has to be taken into account but consents must be obtained from a range of other bodies. That all has to be done before or during the IPC's consideration of the applications. Pollution control is included and paragraph 4.10.2 of the paper says: ""The planning and pollution control systems are separate but complementary. The planning system controls the development and use of land … Pollution control is concerned with preventing pollution"." It is made very clear that the applicant has to get permission from another body to satisfy the pollution control system. That includes landed drainage, water obstruction, biodiversity and water discharges. Again, on the marine side, you will see that there is the Marine Management Organisation, which has to give its consent if it is involved. There are also environment permits, under the Environment Agency or the local authority. Again, it is worth looking to see what is said about them: ""Wherever possible, applicants are encouraged to submit applications for Environmental Permits and other necessary consents at the same time as applying to the IPC for development consent"." It is quite clear, therefore, that it is an entirely separate consent procedure. If you turn to safety, the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency and what is called COMAH—the control of major accident hazards—all have to be dealt with separately and do not come within the remit of the IPC. For any development which will interfere with aviation you have the system of OLS—obstacle limitation services—and for that you have to go to the Civil Aviation Authority. There are the TTAs—the tactical training areas—and for that the applicant has to go to the Ministry of Defence. And there is what is called CNS—communications, navigation and surveillance. This all comes as a separate exercise. Paragraph 4.19.11 says: ""The applicant should consult the MoD, CAA, NATS and any aerodrome—licensed or otherwise—likely to be affected by the proposed development in preparing an assessment of the proposal on aviation or other defence interests"." I shall go on, because that is not all. We have the whole question of coastal change, which has to be applied for to the Marine Management Organisation. There is the whole question of flood risk. That is a very interesting one, because it comes under the Environment Agency. It is clear that we have here a very interesting example of interdepartmental stress between that agency and, perhaps, DECC. Paragraph 4.22.15 says: ""If the Environment Agency objects to an application on flood risk grounds, all parties (the IPC, the Environment Agency and the applicant), should discuss and agree the course of action which would need to be taken to enable the Environment Agency to withdraw its objection"." That may be the way ahead, but it is not a single consent procedure by any stretch of the imagination. Finally, to top it off, if an application involves interfering with a wreck, separate consent is required from the department for culture and the rest of it.