---

Draft National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure (EN-2)

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to wind up today’s debate, which is the third such debate that we have had. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that this was unknown territory, but we have had some very good debates and some very strong points have been made. The test that is set for us is whether the draft national policy statements are fit for purpose. I remind noble Lords that, in the end, that is the question before us. We have ranged far and wide, and have had some genuine debates on energy policy, which I have no doubt we will continue to discuss, particularly at Second Reading of the Energy Bill the week after next. I think that it has been a good process, and I reassure noble Lords that all the comments made in this debate and by the DECC Select Committee in the other place will be fully taken into account as part of the consultation process and parliamentary scrutiny. As we know, there may well be an opportunity for debate in the House if Motions are tabled proposing amendments to the national policy statements. Having listened to our debates, I suspect that noble Lords are not short of ideas for amendments, but we will come to that in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is right to say that there is a general political consensus about the need to move to a low-carbon energy mix, and he is right to stress that it should be a mix. Although I will come on to talk about wind power, we are not putting all our eggs in one basket; we are looking for a variety of low-carbon sources of energy. We are looking to ensure that we maximise the enormously important assets that we have in the North Sea, which will continue to play a major role in our energy security for many years to come. We are looking to encourage more storage—more import capacity. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, all of those have their challenges. The key issue is: do we have the right interventions, incentives and regulatory systems to ensure that that hangs together and happens? I believe that we do. I am convinced that an important element of that is the new planning system for which Parliament has now legislated. I always welcome debates with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, on the question of whether we have the timing right. I know that she feels, in essence, that these decisions should be made by Ministers rather than the Infrastructure Planning Commission. She knows that we disagree; we think it right that Ministers should set the policy. That is why, in the end, we will designate national policy statements, but that will take account of parliamentary process and public consultation. We think that there is considerable merit in decisions then being taken by the Infrastructure Planning Commission. We will have to beg to differ on that. This is not a question of passing the buck. We are trying to achieve a consistent, transparent system that allows individuals and organisations to make their views known. Decisions should be made more quickly than under the current system, but in the context of clearly stated national policy. That is at the heart of what we are doing. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, that I have confidence that the IPC will have integrity in making its decisions. I think that he feared that if some decisions were made at national level rather than by local authorities, they would not be dealt with in the same way. I point out to him that before any application can be considered or accepted by the IPC, it must go through a robust process of local consultation by the developer, in which the local authority has a major role. That is a very important part of the new structure. I do not want to repeat what I said in our debate only two days ago, but the IPC must come to a careful decision. It has to weigh up the information provided in the application and other material presented during examination to ensure that any identified adverse effects of the application are taken into account and mitigated. If the IPC is satisfied that the adverse impacts identified outweigh the benefits of the proposed development consent, it is clear that consent should be refused. As noble Lords have said, we are dealing with four separate documents. Inevitably, it is difficult to deal with them with a common thread so, as other noble Lords have done, I am going to go through these matters subject by subject. As we had the rather marvellous announcement this morning about high speed rail from London to Birmingham, I shall start with transport. My noble friend Lord Berkeley had an important point to make about the transport implications and the presumption of sustainability, which he asked for. He mentioned a number of references in the documents to transport infrastructure—for instance, the IPC is told that it must expect applicants to locate new fossil fuel generating stations in the vicinity of existing transport routes wherever possible. In the draft overarching national policy statement, it is made clear that waterborne or rail transport is preferred over road transport where cost-effective. My noble friend asked what we mean by cost-effective, but we will have to leave the IPC to come to a judgment on that. My noble friend was looking at a sort of carbon measurement. We have already had a debate on this issue, and one of the questions that has been posed is whether the IPC itself should have a hierarchy of decision-making where each application is measured for its carbon footprint and the IPC should favour applications on that basis. We do not take that view. We believe that the IPC should decide each application on its own merits. It is for the Government to ensure that the cumulative impact of the various interventions that we have to hand ensures that we meet our carbon reduction targets. The IPC has to make a decision on the merits of the case before it. I take my noble friend’s point, though, and the points that he made about waterborne transport were well made. With regard to transport in connection with construction—I have checked this and if I think the NPS needs to be made clearer, I will ensure that that happens—the general principles that are written into the documents apply to construction as much as they do to any plant or infrastructure when it is up and running. I turn to the question of tidal and wave power. I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, had to leave us, but I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I say again that he should not read any mischievous intent into the Government’s not producing a national policy statement on wave and tidal.