here - United Kingdom Parliament

899 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 900
[Charles Hendry]
policy statement or to introduce one specifically for
marine technologies. In this country, we have a network
of rivers, which are a potential source for electricity
generation that we are keen to see harnessed.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): The Minister has discussed
the urgent need for new renewable electricity generation
capacity. If that is the case, why is the banding review of
renewables not reporting until August 2012 with
implementation in March 2013? Will he consider speeding
up that process, so that we can get the capital that is
waiting for, for example, biomass power stations released
and get such projects under way?
Charles Hendry: One of the issues for investors in this
area is certainty. They want to be able to plan for the
long term and to know what rate of support they will
get under whatever mechanism is in place. A date of
2013 enables people to plan a transition to whatever the
banded level will be after that. I understand the need for
early clarity, and if there are ways we can provide that,
we shall seek to do so. We seek to work constructively
because we understand that the alternative can be a
hiatus in investment, with investment dropping off for a
period of years in advance of the threshold and the
level of support changing. It is important, in terms of
national interest, to have a continuous flow of investment.
I turn now to the issues that have been covered in the
energy national policy statements. Perhaps it would be
helpful if I briefly set out the purpose of the documents
before us today. The revised draft energy national policy
statements consist of a suite of six national policy
statements and a number of associated documents.
They are not intended to set out new energy policy.
They are consistent with and explain current energy
policy and how it relates to the planning consent process.
Similarly, we are not using national policy statements to
change the standard for consenting projects. They neither
raise nor lower the bar on how a major energy infrastructure
project is examined and consented. They are there to
explain how such decisions should be made. They set
out the consenting policies that need to be considered in
the examination of major energy infrastructure and the
decision on whether to grant or decline consent. At the
same time, they will ensure that new major energy
infrastructure projects respect the principles of sustainable
development. They will allow not only the Infrastructure
Planning Commission but developers and local residents
to see the basis on which applications must be considered.
There is an overarching energy national policy statement
that sets out the Government’s policy on energy and
energy infrastructure development; an energy need
statement on the need for new nationally significant
energy infrastructure projects; the assessment principles
that need to be taken into account in examining and
deciding on proposals for energy infrastructure
development; and generic impacts for all energy
infrastructure, and how they should be assessed and
mitigated to ensure that the right balance is reached
between securing our energy needs and protecting the
environment.
There are also five technology-specific energy national
policy statements, covering fossil fuel electricity generation;
renewable energy infrastructure, which deals with onshore
wind, offshore wind and energy from biomass and/or
waste; gas supply infrastructure and gas and oil pipelines;
electricity networks infrastructure; and nuclear power
generation.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con):
We know that we are legally required to reduce carbon
emissions by about 80% in the next 40 years. Can we
fulfil that requirement, given that of the 59 GW of new
capacity required in the next 25 years, 33 GW of which
is needed from renewables, we have only 2 GW currently
under construction? The other 26 GW that is needed
will, presumably, come from low-carbon nuclear. The
Government have made enormous progress in this area—I
acknowledge that—but would there be more scope to
look at nuclear if we, for whatever reason, did not hit
those targets?
Charles Hendry: I pay tribute to the work that my
hon. Friend has done as an ardent supporter of the
Heysham plant in his constituency and of the case for a
new plant in that area. The role for nuclear has been set
out clearly in the national policy statements. We believe
that it has a fundamental role, but we also have to be
realistic about what is achievable. We have identified
sites that could be used for 16 GW of new nuclear
power, but that is as much as the energy companies
believe can be constructed over the next 15 years, which
is the time scale that the national policy statements
cover. That is not necessarily the end of the ambition,
but it looks like what is achievable and realisable over
those 15 years. There is no doubt about the Government’s
ambition in terms of new nuclear.
Martin Horwood: On the subject of what is realistic,
and referring back to what the Minister was saying
about sustainability, is he aware that the Chartered
Institution of Water and Environmental Management
has said that current known reserves of economically
extractable uranium may last only between 40 and
85 years? Given that other economies are also investing
in new nuclear, we may be looking at the lower end of
that scale rather than the higher, so new nuclear cannot
be regarded as sustainable in any real sense.
Charles Hendry: I have certainly heard that point
before. The OECD has a fundamentally different view
of the availability of uranium stocks, and there is work
to be done in plutonium reprocessing, which would
provide an additional source of fuel. Furthermore, work
is being done on the development of thorium reactors,
which do not give rise to many of the concerns that
people have about uranium reactors. A great deal of
progress can be made and, at the end of the day, the
decision is for investors to make. If they do not believe
that there is sufficient uranium to power their plants for
their lifetime, they will not make that investment. They
will base their decision on the facts available to them
and they will need to be reassured about the availability
of stocks.
The overarching national policy statement contains
information on the impacts that need to be considered
for all energy infrastructure, while the technology-specific
NPSs contain additional information on the impacts
that are specific to each technology. They take into
account the appraisals of sustainability. We have revised
the AOSs for the non-nuclear NPSs substantially, which
is why we are a carrying out a fresh consultation.