---

Energy: National Policy Statements

The Minister is no doubt absolutely right, but one would have to search very hard in the speeches made by Ministers and others about this matter to recognise that. When the Minister referred to a single system of consent, one was somehow led to believe that all these other things would somehow be swept up in it. It is all very frankly set out in EN-1, and that is manifestly not the case. Therefore, there is still a great deal of consent requirements for applicants to cope with. I do not want to dwell on the point, except to say that a little more candour in presenting this to Parliament and the public would not have gone amiss. There is a long list of consents, which I have indicated. I think that Ministers should stop claiming too much for their new system. There are three matters of substance to which I must refer. The first concerns the concept of need for new investment, which underlies much of what is stated on the NPSs and stated in a number of different ways. On page 14 of EN-1, the words "significant need" are used. With electricity capacity, there is also a need that "at all times" there should be sufficient capacity to supply electricity to the country. One of the advantages of the consultation paper is the marvellous glossary at the back, which is where one comes across the nationally significant infrastructure projects. Another concept is introduced from the European directive: IROPI—imperative reasons of overriding public interest. That is relevant primarily to environmental matters such as the habitats directive, but it is yet another test. Given this confusion of language, the question of need is not sufficiently clearly set out in the national policy statements. In view of the overriding national need for new infrastructure investment, there should be a prescription in favour of new investment unless that is manifestly outweighed by adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated against. I am still considering how that could best be drafted in an amendment, but I give notice that, subject to anything the Minister may say when he replies, I will table an amendment to EN-1 at a later stage in this process. Secondly, there has been much pressure on the Government to reverse the statement in paragraph 2.1.5 of EN-1, and a lot of discussion in the committee at the other end. Paragraph 2.1.5 says: ""Given that the Government policies that underlie NPSs have been set in accordance with the Transition Plan and carbon budgets, the IPC does not need to assess individual applications in terms of carbon emissions against the budgets"." Indeed, I sat behind the Minister when he defended that position very robustly before the committee at the other end. Having heard the Minister’s arguments, I am not persuaded that the critics are right. He put up a strong argument, and I well understand his case that to make the IPC responsible for assessing that sort of thing would give it a wholly impossible task. It already has a formidable task, and this would add further complexity and uncertainty. However, there is a case for strengthening the impact of EN-1 by recognising more explicitly the UK’s climate commitments and the need for low-carbon generation. That is not quite the same thing; it does not refer to individual targets or anything of that sort. The Government’s analysis demonstrates the need for new low-carbon generation by 2025, a significant proportion of which is expected to be filled by nuclear power. This is consistent with the Government’s legally binding target to deliver an 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions, and with the need for the substantial decarbonisation of electricity by the 2030s and almost complete decarbonisation by 2050. Moreover, it must be recognised that the generation-capacity requirement that was quoted in the NPS for 2025 is not a goal in itself; it is a milestone on the way. I reinforce what I said earlier: that I am very glad that the milestone paper will go up to 2050. Of course this will all require continued investment in low-carbon technologies, of which nuclear power is certainly one, and the challenge of meeting the Government’s target robustly establishes, ""impressive imperative reasons of overriding public interest"." That, too, could well be incorporated into the NPS. Indeed, it needs to be stated in the NPS. Again, I give notice that I will table an amendment at a later stage. We will come to a lot of this when we deal with the nuclear statement, EN-6, in a fortnight. The Minister’s predecessor, Malcolm Wicks, produced an excellent report for the Prime Minister on energy security, and made the very valuable suggestion that the nuclear build should go a lot further than is currently envisaged in EN-6. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that my third point will be much shorter. It is that I believe that the Government are wrong to have rejected Dungeness for their list of approved sites. I hope to develop that case when we debate EN-6, and give notice that at the appropriate point in the process I will table an amendment to include Dungeness in the list. We may not have to vote. I listened to the noble Lord answering that point in the Select Committee at the other end. He recognised that it was controversial, and went on to tell the committee that his mind was not closed. That has caused a good deal of optimism in the minds of those pressing the case for Dungeness. When we come to the later reports I shall seek to raise other matters, particularly about the lack of incentives to raise the hundreds of billions of pounds of investment required to meet the Government’s objectives. However, that must be for another day. I have raised a number of issues arising from EN-1 and very much look forward to the Minister’s response.