here - United Kingdom Parliament

911 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 912
[Huw Irranca-Davies]
The Minister’s officials would certainly become involved,
and relevant stakeholders would need to be consulted.
There would be a minimum of 13 weeks’ consultation,
as recommended by civil service guidelines, but possibly
a heck of a lot more. It would be helpful to get some
clarity on those issues before we debate NPSs.
Charlie Elphicke: Speaking of clarity, can the shadow
Minister explain why we are threatened with the lights
going out in 2015? Should he and his party not apologise
for that shocking situation?
Huw Irranca-Davies: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking
apologies, may I suggest that he starts by knocking on
the door of No. 10? He should ask the Prime Minister
why it took so long for him to move from a position of
equivocation on nuclear new build to a position of
indifference. Following Labour’s leadership, the Prime
Minister finally rowed in behind on the need for nuclear
new build. The five-year hiatus to which the Minister
referred happened, as someone remarked earlier,
because there was no appetite in the country or among
the body politic to move forward on new nuclear. We
showed leadership; certain individuals rowed in behind,
but it took them a long time to do so.
For the sake of taxpayers, who are always in the mind
of the coalition Government, will the Minister tell us
what he knows about the cost of abolishing the IPC?
What are the costs of the transition to the new major
infrastructure unit within the planning inspectorate?
Will there be savings for the taxpayer, and if so, will he
or the Government publish those figures after the debate?
In the absence of the much anticipated localism Bill,
where in the reformed process does localism rear its
lovely head? Will the Minister explain how parliamentary
scrutiny of NPSs, which represent the Minister’s
opinion on the strategic needs of the UK, allows for
localism? If the answer to that question is not in the
Government’s response and if we will not be told in
January, where is it?
What is the expected lifespan of NPSs? I ask that for
a very good reason. The Minister recently spoke with
clarity and purpose at a meeting of the World Coal
Association, which I was pleased to attend, and made a
bold prediction. He said with certainty that next spring,
he would draw a line in the sand on his forthcoming
decisions on a range of market mechanisms and incentives,
including electricity market reforms, carbon floor-pricing,
emissions performance standards, capacity payments
and so on. The NPSs are part of that line in the sand,
giving investors certainty for years ahead, yet they do
not stand alone. There are so many “What ifs?”, and the
Minister has to take these into account—it is like multidimensional
chess.
I know that the Government do not particularly like
the idea of school sport, as we discovered yesterday, but
the Minister has been indulging in his favourite sport
with his ministerial colleagues—an extreme sport known
as Treasury-wrangling. After some delay, he came out
with a partial win, announcing the first stage of commercial
CCS—carbon capture and storage—which has delivered,
after a slight delay of six months, the first part of
Labour’s commitment to CCS. We look forward to him
rapidly bringing forward not only that pilot, but the
three others, including a pilot on gas CCS. However,
may I urge—or should it be “nudge”, in the Government’s
new lexicon?—the Minister to get on with that pronto?
He has honestly and publicly acknowledged that there
is no future for coal in the UK unless that technology is
made to work. However, there is also a global imperative,
as developing nations rush towards their own coal-powered
futures. As such, this Government must avoid any further
delay on the complete CCS programme of work.
However, what if CCS on a commercial scale does
not work? What if there are delays because of cost, lack
of funds or complexity, or because the technology to
bring it forward is not available on time, or even not at
all? We all want CCS to succeed—we all say that it has
to succeed—and we are full of hope that it will, both for
UK energy security and abating the global exploitation
of fossil fuels. However, a reasonable man—and a
reasonable Minister—cannot just assume that that will
happen, and must therefore make contingency plans.
Martin Horwood: Given that carbon capture and
storage technology has been in use on a commercial
scale in the United States for some 40 years—albeit not
on the same scale as that envisaged for the power
stations in question—what does the hon. Gentleman
imagine the technical barriers will be?
Huw Irranca-Davies: I am glad to say that I am not
an engineer, but that is exactly the point behind the
large-scale commercial CCS pilots. That is exactly why
we are running them, and we all hope that CCS will
work. Indeed, I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s confidence
that it definitely will work. However, there are some
nagging “What ifs?”. What if CCS is not delivered on
time, or cannot happen because of the technology, the
scale or the investment?
In my short time in this post, I have come to realise
that the Minister’s Front-Bench colleague, the hon.
Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), positively
exudes enthusiasm. Indeed, he leaves a trail of enthusiasm
wherever he goes, and for every conceivable energy
source. His enthusiasm is demonstrated in photo-ops
around the country and around the world, but what if
the latest enthusiasm for decentralised energy, which
the Minister mentioned, and combined heat and power
is not realised, because the electricity grid is not smart
enough to make it work locally or because the right
incentives are not in place, or for other reasons?
I have a final “What if?” for the Minister: the nuclear
“What if?”. He has been categorical in recent days—
heroically categorical—that new build nuclear is on
schedule for 2017-18. Yet he knows that the Health and
Safety Executive will not be issuing final certificates
next year on the two designs that this House has taken
through in the past few days through justification orders,
but will instead issue interim certificates. There is more
work to be done on the designs and, equally importantly,
the build speed of new nuclear, as evidenced by delays
internationally, in Europe, the US and Asia.
The coalition Government have struggled to come to
terms with their identity crisis on nuclear—do they love
it or hate it, and will they unequivocally support it or sit
on the fence—but the Minister deserves some credit for
helping his Lib Dem comrades down off the fence.
However, the industry still waits for the long-term certainty
of market signals that will bring forward the investment
at all, let alone on time. So, there are “What ifs?” on