Proceeding contribution from Tom Greatrex (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 December 2010. It occurred during Debate on National Policy Statements.
National Policy Statements
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I served for a short time on the Energy and Climate Change Committee before being moved on to other things. As the Minister and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), made clear in their opening remarks, the policy statements are important, and it is crucial that we have the opportunity to debate them—I hope that we will have more opportunity to debate them than the short time that is available this evening. Bearing in mind that several Government Members want to speak, I will try to curtail my remarks to less than seven minutes, if possible. As the Minister has said, policy statements are crucial to energy security, our capacity and our ageing plant, which needs to be replaced. As the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said, they are crucial to investment, which can create and sustain jobs in the industry and the supply chain—I know that many Members on both sides of the House have a definite interest in that. I will not repeat the issues with Sheffield Forgemasters, other than to say that it is a crying shame that opportunities to develop, nurture and create jobs and skills will be enjoyed by other parts of the world, when we are focused on trying—in the words of the Prime Minister—to ““rebalance the economy””. I want to touch on a couple of issues, to which I hope the Minister will respond. Many Members are more than aware of the huge frustration at the time it takes to move an infrastructure project from planning to building and to being ready for use—the clock is, as we all know, ticking. The previous Government looked to address that frustration through the Infrastructure Planning Commission. There are concerns that by choosing a different route—by making the IPC part of the Planning Inspectorate—the Government might be subjecting the certainty that investors need to further delays. In moving to that model, I hope that some reassurance will be given that delays will not result in investment decisions not being taken or in investment being taken elsewhere. That is absolutely crucial. The Minister knows from our discussions that I welcome the Government's commitment to carbon capture and storage and to the pilot project at Longannet. That is the right project, given the speed with which existing coal technology can be retrofitted and be up and running. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said in an intervention, it is also important that gas forms part of future carbon capture and storage projects. I have heard the Minister refer to that, but I would be grateful if he reaffirmed it and gave further information. Otherwise, we will miss out on technology that can be developed, tested and used in this country, which goes back to my earlier point about some of the jobs and skills that can be nurtured in this country but exported elsewhere. When the Prime Minister and others go off to China, India and other parts of the world evangelising for UK manufacturing industry, there is potential for jobs to be created in the whole of the UK, not only in one part. That can help to join up the parts of the policy agenda. I want to touch on some of the issues of electricity market reform. I know that I am getting a reputation for being able to bore on about transmission charging for ever, but I have about two minutes, so I will bore on about it briefly. As the Minister will be aware, there is considerable concern in some parts of the industry that investment decisions are being limited by the current transmission charging regime. Although the Ofgem review is being conducted—I welcome Ofgem's recent change in stance—we have to be absolutely clear that as the electricity markets are reformed the transmission charging regime changes too. It was designed primarily for the pre-renewables world and is not serving our interests in achieving our overall targets for reducing carbon. There is potential for that industry to develop, partly, but not entirely, in Scotland, where investors could be put off making a number of decisions on projects as a result of the current transmission charging regime. There has been a lot of talk about the importance of the green investment bank. The idea originated under the previous Government and has been carried forward under this Government. It is crucial that we get the model right. It has to be about levering in green investment on a certain scale if it is to have any positive impact. I use my last few seconds to reiterate my plea to the Secretary of State for Scotland—which he seemed to begin to agree with—that the green investment bank be based in Scotland, given the industry and the expertise that is there.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 519 c920-1
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Consumption Energy Electricity generation Energy supply Infrastructure Heating Oil Planning Natural gas Nuclear power Power stations Pollution control Policy Renewable energy National policy statements Sheffield Forgemasters
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 20:01:15 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688510
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688510
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688510