---

Energy: National Policy Statements

The document as a whole is extremely useful and one that should have our support. I do not agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the balance of the report. Some 31 pages set out the energy context, with around 60 pages for all the other issues that must be considered, notwithstanding the energy policy context. They set out the importance of considering environmental issues, habitat issues, hazardous substances, pollution, air emissions, biodiversity, coastal change, flood risk, historic environments and so on. For me, it is not a reasonable interpretation of the statement to say that it is energy driven come what may, and that anything to do with a big energy project should get the go-ahead. That is not my reading of the document. The statement says two things. First, unlike in the past, we are not going to have endless arguments at each individual inquiry about what national energy policy should be or whether one technology is better than another. The green movement, heaven forbid, will not be arguing against nuclear energy, but I remember how years ago you could guarantee that any inquiry about nuclear power would be entirely about whether it was safe or not. If it was for a coal-fired power station, there were issues of policy and so on. What this document seeks to do is set out an energy policy framework within which the IPC can work. That was the purpose of the legislation we took through this House, and I think that is entirely right. Going back to having inquiries that hear every single voice arguing for completely different policies and going on for month after month would be a retrograde step. Later I shall come on to the interesting document that the Conservatives have just published on their planning proposals. Despite their appeal to localism, even they have somehow managed at the national level to take the choice away. So the balance is right and the NPS states clearly in various places, and particularly in paragraph 4, that the IPC should adhere to key principles such as the need for energy infrastructure and so on, but then stresses all the other issues that must be taken into account. That seems to be the right balance. The document also rightly says that the solution to the energy mix is likely to change over time. The costs of different technologies will change. Innovations and inventions will occur. Supply shortages will come and go in different energy industries. The document is right in saying that the IPC should not be trying to second-guess what will happen in 10 or 20 years’ time. That is important because if it was to do that, it would open up all those issues for discussion at any inquiry. If any inquiry into a major construction project used as an argument against the application the fact that this might seem the right energy balance now but not if you look to 2020, one can easily see that the apparent gain from having a national policy statement for energy approved by Parliament would be lost because it would simply open up discussions about where we should be technologically in 2050, and that would be a great shame.