---

Energy: National Policy Statements

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the opportunity to debate the energy national policy statements. These statements set out the Government’s policy for energy and infrastructure planning in a low-carbon economy. Those words run like letters through a stick of rock throughout these policy statements, and rightly so. Last year, your Lordships' House took great interest in the Planning Bill and the interest in the debate today reflects that continued commitment. Nuclear energy will be debated later on, but I shall not be able to be present, so I would like to take this opportunity briefly to remind the Minister of a question which I raised in June 2007. In the light of expected sea-level rises as a result of climate change, I expressed concern about the security of nuclear power stations on coastal sites. I notice in the NPS that a number of proposed plants are to be located on the coast. I wonder what assurance the Minister can give that those sites are indeed secure, given the projected sea-level rise of 1 or 2 metres during the life of the plant and during the lifetime of the nuclear waste to be stored on the same site for some hundreds of years. I expect this topic will be more fully debated when the nuclear NPS is debated in the House. The policy statement that we debate today concentrates on fossil fuels and energy infrastructure. Over the next four decades, we need to develop a low-carbon energy supply as part of the transition to a low-carbon economy. I confess that as I went to the end of the energy NPSs, I was disappointed. The Minister will recall the amendments which I tabled, together with other noble Lords, seeking to ensure that the IPC and national policy statements had regard to the adaptation to and mitigation of climate change. At the time, we were assured by the Government that those amendments were not necessary and that the new planning process for infrastructure adequately took account of climate change. Unfortunately, as I read the energy national policy statements, and in spite of good rhetoric on pages 7 and 44, I am far from reassured. The NPSs make it clear that the Government are placing heavy reliance on the market, principally through the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Unquestionably, the market has an important role to play; today we see businesses leading the way in innovation and development of technologies for a low-carbon economy. My concern is that the NPSs rely too heavily on the market at a time when we still need to change public attitudes and public behaviour. The Government recognise that they have an important role to play in setting direction, giving a lead and providing a route for transition, which is why they have drawn up the transition plan, but despite the Minister’s assurance and what is written in paragraph 2.1.5, I do not see how the NPSs and the decisions by the IPC are bound into the Government’s transition plan. My greatest concern is that there is nothing within the planning process that requires applicants to count the carbon. A number of clauses require them to demonstrate how they will adapt to climate change but nothing requires them to assess their own carbon footprint and to demonstrate how they will contribute to reducing our carbon output. As the IPC is not called on to count carbon, there appears to be no way to ensure that the total carbon emissions of approved new infrastructure contribute positively towards the UK emissions reductions target; indeed, quite the reverse. Notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has just said, with known targets overtly stated within the NPSs, it seems, for example, that the IPC could end up approving sufficient coal-fired power stations to make it completely impossible for the UK ever to achieve the 2050 emissions targets. The energy NPS asserts that the UK’s requirement for electricity will increase as we move to a low-carbon economy, particularly as our transport in the future will be largely fuelled by electricity. The energy NPS places heavy reliance on imported gas for the generation of electricity. The UK is already one of the largest gas consumers in Europe, representing close to a fifth of the European Union total. The NPS rightly addresses concerns about energy security with regard to our increasing dependence on imported gas, but it is silent on concerns about emissions and the generation of electricity from gas. As stocks of natural gas diminish or are harder and more expensive to reach, it seems we will be required to utilise more liquid natural gas, which of course needs greater processing than natural gas in the generation of electricity. In other words, there are more emissions in the use of liquid gas to generate electricity. It seems possible within the framework of the energy NPS for the IPC to approve fossil fuel plants to generate electricity with no regard whatever for the impact on an increasing carbon output or a changing climate. I understand that the climate change committee has not yet given evidence at the committee considering the NPSs. I hope very much that it plans to do so. Surely it brings an important perspective to this debate, one which we would be the poorer for not hearing. In closing, I confess my disappointment that the assurances that we received from the Government during the Planning Bill debates are not fully reflected within the energy NPSs. It is difficult to see how the new energy infrastructure will contribute to the UK achieving its emissions reductions by 2050. I recognise that we are in new territory, as we work out what a low-carbon economy looks like and how we can generate sustainable secure low-carbon energy. The Government's low-carbon transition plan sets out clearly the amount of energy to come from different sources. Can the Minister explain why the IPC is not required to approve planning of energy generation in line with these published proportions in the Government’s own transition plan? I suggest that the energy NPS needs an overt requirement for the IPC to make decisions to deliver the transition plan energy proportions. This requirement would be an effective way in which to bind the energy NPSs into the Government's thinking and policy on climate change. The Minister began this debate by asking whether the NPSs could provide a framework for energy policy. I humbly suggest that there is a flaw in the framework, in that the NPS fails to connect fully with the Government’s own targets on carbon reduction and climate change. I hope that the Minister might be able to address that issue.