Proceeding contribution from Lord Marland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 11 January 2011. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1).
Revised Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1)
I look to the opening words, which state that the Holford rules were, "““intended as a common sense approach””." In other words, it was a very 1959, laissez-faire rule. What we are doing is hardening the rules. We are not giving anything away on them. We have merely said that the Holford rules should apply, but if there are implications in terms of whether it is not geologically feasible to put lines underground, the rules should be borne in mind for the same reason as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said—the cost. We cannot impose unrealistic costs just because we are completely determined, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I are, to place those lines underground. However, I assure him that he has my greatest support and sympathy, and I have taken on board what he said. I shall fight the good fight, as he will, on these issues. I am also grateful for the noble Lord’s point that we have to consider the future of our society. That is fundamental, and it is something that your Lordships’ House takes more seriously than most, because we take a long-term view of these things. What the noble Lord said was very important. My noble friend Lord Reay is well known for his views on onshore wind. I cannot comment on whether I share them or not, because onshore wind is a government policy. However, I am always interested in his views. He asked some good questions. Onshore wind is part of a mixed portfolio required under our 2050 pathway if we are to supply this country with twice the supply that it needs today. Onshore wind supplies not a significant amount but a relevant amount. We know where the significant amounts of supply will come from, and we talked about them earlier. We want to be very careful about getting sidetracked into the smaller aspects of supply and concentrate our firepower as a Government on the major things, such as new nuclear, CCS and converting our waste into something much more effective. Of course, onshore wind has tremendous support in certain parts of the country, particularly in Scotland and Wales, where local communities have come together and determined that there are benefits. Equally, a huge number of communities in England do not see the financial benefits to them. Luckily, we have rigorous planning procedures which ensure that fair play is maintained. The noble Lord asked what the effects are on the CCR requirement and what extra costs there are on the companies for fulfilling it. There are no delays at the moment because everyone who applies for CCS is just buying the land next to them. There have been no problems with approval on that. The only extra cost is that of purchasing the land. I have mentioned two or three good points about CCS and the Holford rules, with which I hope the noble Lord is satisfied. As far as the Met Office is concerned, the Government should review several things. First, should we be the owners of the Met Office? There are compelling reasons for the Government not owning an institution, and I am on the PEX-A committee which is reviewing whether the Met Office and its advice should be owned by the Government. However, people tell me that there is only one nation in the world that does not own its own meteorological office and that is Malta. That would be an interesting combination. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, did not applaud me to the rooftops for the changes that we have made on LNG and siting. We have made great strides and have listened carefully to what he has said, as I said in my opening speech. The noble Lord, who is an expert in this field, notes that this is a complicated area. There is no single legislative body and there are many different licensing conditions. Clearly, the Government are absolutely adamant that safety at all standards must be maintained. We have the best health and safety standards in the world. On the pipelines, he raises the very good point that standards should be maintained and constantly reviewed. Lessons should be learnt from the BP incident in the Gulf of Mexico. We are reappraising standards rigorously. Perhaps the noble Lord is going to applaud me to the rooftops.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 723 c146-7GC
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Birds Biofuels Carbon capture and storage Energy Electricity generation Electricity Infrastructure Electric cables Oil Planning permission Planning Natural gas Noise Pipelines Safety Sustainable development Renewable energy Tidal power Wind power Carbon emissions Fossil fuelled power stations Liquefied natural gas Infrastructure Planning Commission National policy statements
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-05-01 16:40:14 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_699153
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_699153
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_699153