---

Energy: National Policy Statements

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is a difficult act to follow. When the then Planning Bill went through the House, I was an enthusiast for it; it seemed an eminently sensible way to tackle big national planning issues. I was even more of a supporter of the amendments in the other place regarding the scrutiny process of an NPS before approval by Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred to his own efforts, which I also supported, as I did his important remarks and thoughts this afternoon, which we all ought to bear in mind. However, I was somewhat dismayed by what has now emerged—not by the first NPS itself to emerge from Whitehall, but rather by the way in which we are expected to deal with it. On one hand, in the Commons a committee is or has just completed examining the first group of NPSs in detail and has taken extensive oral evidence from interested parties. On the other hand, as I understand it from the interchange on 15 December, we have only this debate here in the Moses Room, with all the procedural consequences—although we now learn that we are to be allowed two more sittings, which certainly helps. Be that as it may, were it not for the availability of evidence submitted by interested parties to the Commons committee, I for one would have been hard pushed. My remarks today stem from—are almost entirely dependent on—that evidence and consequential conversations I have had with some of its witnesses. This is surely not a satisfactory way of proceeding. Indeed, if the Commons had not introduced that committee process by taking evidence from interested parties, the whole NPS idea would have been, in terms of Parliament, hardly satisfactory—some would say little better than a farce, although I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is almost a one-man Select Committee. Surely the sensible way forward would have been a Joint Committee of both Houses. This is the first NPS to be published, and I suspect it is likely to be the biggest, weighing in at nearly 5 pounds and in six volumes. It is a pity that the Government could not have had more of a run-in on something easier. However, I welcome the detailed and measured way in which the Minister introduced the report this afternoon. My interests are largely in landscape-related issues. I was pleased to see that both Natural England—of course a government quango, albeit much respected—and the CPRE, which is a distinguished countryside campaigning organisation, both submitted evidence. Both organisations made similar points. I will summarise the key points under five heads: first, the Government's low carbon policy; secondly, spatial planning issues; thirdly, sustainable development; fourthly, assessing the impacts of projects; and fifthly, nuclear. As regards low carbon, the NPS needs to emphasise the Committee on Climate Change's statement that all new generation will need to be decarbonised by 2030. Consequently, fossil fuel generation without CCS needs to be phased out in the next decade. The Minister more or less confirmed that. It is an essential requirement. Energy planning should be an integral part of spatial planning. The NPS should not override planning policy statements and planning policy guidance. I suggest that this is a timely reminder. On sustainable development, the NPS does not clearly set out the Government's environmental objectives. Natural England stated that the natural environment is largely treated as a range of impacts to be assessed and overcome. It suggests that stronger guidance is needed. These are not my words; they are those of Natural England and are effectively endorsed by the CPRE independently in its evidence. Assessing the impact of projects is not an easy area to summarise in a short speech. In the view of the CPRE, the implication is that spatial planning is seen largely as a barrier to development and that spatial policies should be disregarded where it is judged that they might restrict NSIPs. The CPRE fears that this could have hugely damaging consequences for some of our most valued landscapes, including national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The CPRE states that it is disturbed at the relative lack of attention given to local impacts in the draft NPSs. Natural England is clear that the NPS needs to be strengthened in this area and that greater emphasis should be given to steering major development away from designated areas. Finally, I come to nuclear. I have no hang-ups with nuclear per se. Vis-à-vis low-carbon policy, we need a significant proportion of nuclear generation, provided it is reasonably economic. The French have shown the way. Again, the main need is to get on with it and build some power stations of any sort. I was intrigued that of the six volumes of the NPS, the volume on nuclear is by far the fattest. I am not sure what, if any, conclusion I draw from that, but we shall be devoting a further debate to nuclear, so I shall say no more on it today. I fear I have struck a rather carping note in most of my remarks so, before I sit down, I shall say that, notwithstanding the way we in this Chamber have to deal with this new beast—the NPS—it and the Planning Act can be an important advance in how we deal with major national energy issues. There is clearly enormous work to be done, and I suggest we take seriously the detailed and thorough critique that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.