here - United Kingdom Parliament

907 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 908
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): Given
that the previous Government had a complete lack of
policy on energy, threatening constituents such as mine
with the possibility of their lights being switched off for
long periods in the next 10 years or so, I find it a bit rich
that the hon. Gentleman is lecturing us somewhat,
although I appreciate the consensus on some issues.
Does he at least agree that the national policy statements
brought forward by this coalition Government are a
great step forward in attracting the kind of investment
that we need to ensure that the lights are left on?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Well, we can debate who can
claim credit for the NPSs. Of course, they were instigated
and developed under the last Labour Government, but
I give credit where it is due; I will come to that in a
moment in looking at some of the detail. We agree that
there has been some improvement in the intervening six
months—it will be nine months by the time they are
eventually signed off—but they were in darn good
shape before, and they were ready to go. The hon. Lady
pushed me on trying to claim the credit entirely, but
these are the Labour Government’s documents. They
have been refined and improved, but they were already
in place.
Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me make a tiny bit of progress.
This short debate is informed by the ongoing
consultation—or perhaps I should say, for the benefit of
the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie
Bray), reconsultation—on the national policy statements.
The coalition Government have taken this opportunity
to pause, to reflect, and to revise them. In a way, that is
a good thing, because it has allowed more time for
deliberation, but—let us be frank—it will also have cost
a vital eight or nine months by the time that the final
NPSs are produced in January. That is a luxury that has
inevitably led to a delay in our national efforts to secure
a long-term energy security future.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con): Is it not the
case, though, that the report by the Energy and Climate
Change Committee criticised the previous Government
for leaving it quite so long to get to the stage where the
NPSs were being considered? It published its report in
March 2010, when the Government had had from 2005
onwards to put them in place.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. The hon. Lady will have
noticed that between March 2010 and now an election
got in the way. The national policy statements were in
place, and this Government, had they so chosen, could
have picked them up and run with them, or alternatively,
as happened when we came into office in 1997 and had
our policies ready to go having worked them up with
the civil service, they could have got on with it straight
away. We will be nine months delayed by the time we
have these documents before the House for full
consideration.
Dr Thérèse Coffey rose—
Huw Irranca-Davies: I will make a little progress.
Although I welcome this debate, we now have only
one hour and 20 minutes to debate issues that, as I am
sure the Minister will agree, are critical to our national
strategic energy needs and to the balance between those
needs and democratic accountability at national and
local levels. Unlike the over-long process of reconsultation,
this short debate demonstrates all speed, but limited
accountability. It will therefore be impossible to do
justice to the six core energy documents and the
accompanying materials. This must be seen instead as a
useful staging post to a much longer debate in this place
in Government time.
I will begin with some points on the reform of planning
in relation to NPSs, in response to the Minister’s opening
remarks.
Martin Horwood: Before we leave the question of
Labour’s legacy, can the hon. Gentleman put a figure
on the unfunded liabilities for cleaning up the last
generation of nuclear power? Some estimates put it as
high as £160 billion. Does that sound accurate to him?
Huw Irranca-Davies: That question should probably
be put to the Minister. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s
long-held position on nuclear power. I pay credit to the
Minister and the Government for pulling the coalition
into a semblance of agreement on nuclear—albeit with
the odd person against it—which means that we can
move forward.
Labour’s Planning Act 2008, which underpins this
matter, made the planning system for major infrastructure
quicker, more efficient and much more predictable. It
laid the conditions for essential new investment in the
UK’s infrastructure, including large-scale, low-carbon
energy projects. The coalition Government have a
responsibility to ensure that their plans, which include
scrapping the Infrastructure Planning Commission, do
not add delays or remove the clarity and certainty that
industry needs to invest in new renewable and nuclear
capacity, and low-carbon energy. I give credit to the
coalition Government and the Minister, because they
have wisely decided, despite the unnecessary delay, to
continue with the Labour Government’s national policy
statements, with the revisions, rather than wait for
wholesale reform of the planning system. That is a
welcome recognition of the excellent work of the Labour
Ministers who formerly occupied the Minister’s office
and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster
North.
Christopher Pincher: The hon. Gentleman waxes eloquent
about the right hon. Member for Doncaster North
(Edward Miliband). Can he therefore explain why the
Public Accounts Committee, when it reviewed the
Department of Energy and Climate Change, said that it
lacked a definite sense of energy and purpose under the
now Leader of the Opposition?
Huw Irranca-Davies: The ball is now firmly in the
court of the Minister. There is an issue with the urgency
and delivery of some the Government’s ambitions that
we share. They must get on with it.
Rather than take further interventions, I will get into
the nitty-gritty. Some of my questions for the Minister
arise from his appearance yesterday before the Energy
and Climate Change Committee, which, as usual, did a
very good job.