---

Energy: National Policy Statements

My Lords, this has been a most interesting and lively debate. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is always taking me to task for there being what she thinks is a long time before the documents arrive, but there will always be a balance. Clearly, we need to get on with the new planning system, but the national policy statements are an important part of that; it is vital that we get it right. The parliamentary scrutiny that takes place will be of enormous assistance in ensuring that we do so. The noble Lords, Lord Jenkin, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Chorley, all raised concerns about the parliamentary process in terms of time. Suggestions have also been made that the approach of the House of Commons DECC Select Committee in allowing witnesses to come might mean that it would have been better to have a Joint Select Committee, instead of the two Houses having their own approach. We need to be guided by experience and I am sure that the Government will want to look at the processes, as will the other political parties and all parliamentarians. We will want to learn from that. I am sure that there will be an opportunity for further discussion of whether, in the light of our current experience, we need to make changes. It is important that Parliament has the time and that the procedures are right to allow these matters to be discussed and significant interventions made. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, he raised this matter with the Leader of the House. I am glad that we have been able to ensure that we will have these debates. Noble Lords have already intimated that they intend to put down Motions, which would lead to discussion and debate in the Chamber. There is opportunity for noble Lords to make their points heard. We will look carefully at all the comments that have been made in Parliament as well as at any Motions that are debated, alongside public scrutiny, the events that have taken place, and the discussions and input from stakeholders. The question is whether all that can be done by 6 May, which is the date—of course, it cannot be. I want to reassure noble Lords that we will not seek to short-circuit the timetable that has been laid down. It is a crucial part of the validation of the national policy statements. My understanding—I will double-check this between now and our discussions in a fortnight’s time—is that, post-election, it would be the responsibility of the incoming Secretary of State, whoever that might be, to reset the date for the end of the scrutiny period. I am sure, though, that whoever is in that position will want to ensure that we build on the work that has been undertaken in this Parliament, and see that both Houses have ample time to consider the national policy statements and ensure that all the procedures are gone through correctly. What does that mean with regard to when it is likely that the national policy statements can be designated? At this stage, it is difficult for me to be precise. If all the procedures of both Houses have been gone through by the time of the election—and it is by no means certain that the election will be on the first Thursday in May; in the end, the Prime Minister will decide that and it is his choice—then designation by the Summer Recess might be possible. However, if one steps past the election date and Parliament is still in the middle of scrutiny, so that the process has not been completed, the Government will then have time to consider all the input from the parliamentary process and it will be more likely that the designation date will move to the autumn. I cannot give a precise timetable at this stage. It is clear, though, that Parliament needs to complete the proper process of scrutiny and that the Government then need time to go through and understand what has been said, consider whether changes need to be made to the national policy statements and then move to designation. I assure the Committee that that will be done with great care. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that today’s debate has reinforced his view that he was fortunate not to take part in the many debates on the Planning Bill. I have to tell him that during the considerations on that Bill I was happily ensconced for six months in your Lordships’ House on the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, and I ended up with the same view. With that Bill, the Energy Bill and the Climate Change Bill, we had four pieces of legislation going through Parliament at the same time, all of which had an impact in terms of both planning and energy and climate change policy. Although noble Lords are critical of the Government for delays—the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, always berates me for that—there is a coherent thread, if we put all this together. The other question that has been debated with regard to the Planning Act was the role of Ministers and the role of an independent body. We will probably have to accept that there is disagreement on that matter, but the Government feel that there is strong benefit in Ministers making it clear, after appropriate scrutiny and consultation, that it is for them to set the national policy. Following that, though, we think that there are distinct advantages in an independent body making individual decisions about planning consents. I suspect we are not going to agree on that, but it is certainly the basis on which we are presenting the national policy statement to Parliament. I would also say to my noble friend Lord Woolmer that I think he is right when he refers to the balance and importance of these national policy statements. We very much hope to avoid the endless delays there have been when major infrastructure applications have been made. He is also surely right to emphasise that often, when there have been local inquiries and local hearings, the debate has been not about whether a particular electricity generating plant should be given planning consent in a locality, but about whether it is right, for instance, that we have a nuclear power station. Actually, that has often prevented enough focus being given to really serious issues about local impacts, so I think this is a much better approach. A classic example of that was the Sizewell B public inquiry, when days were spent on whether it was right to have nuclear power. The evidence is that debates on infrastructure issues to do with construction and transport around Sizewell were inevitably marginalised. This approach allows the Infrastructure Planning Commission to focus on those impacts and the impact they will have on local communities, albeit within the context of the national policy statement. I will come on to that balance in terms of the weight of decision that the IPC then has to make to it. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for her comments on the consultation process. I think it has been valuable. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, asked an interesting question about the emphasis given in these documents to consultation by the IPC. Of course, the documents that we are producing are energy-specific. The responsibility laid down in legislation on the IPC in relation to consultation is as relevant to the energy sector as to the other sectors covered by other national policy statements. I assure him that I see consultation as one of the real gains from the new system. For instance, before an application will be accepted by the IPC, the developer will have to have gone through an extensive pre-consultation process, in which the local authority will have had a major role to play. I assure him that, although he is disappointed about the lack of reference to consultation, we consider that to be an important part of the process. I will look at the wording to see whether we need to emphasise it more because he has raised an important point.