here - United Kingdom Parliament

925 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 926
we are to move towards a smart grid, which we will need
to enable the 21st century energy infrastructure that we
are trying to put in place to work. This huge infrastructure
challenge translates into a huge investment challenge.
Some £200 billion of investment is required in the
coming years. To put that into context, I point out that
it is approximately one third of the entire investment in
energy infrastructure that the whole of Europe will
require. EDF is looking at spending some £20 billion on
what we hope will be the first of a new generation of
nuclear power stations. That £20 billion represents the
largest single investment by a French company outside
France, I think ever, but certainly since the second
world war. We need another nine just like that if we are
to hit our £200 billion.
At the risk of over-emphasising this issue, let me say
that we absolutely have to get the investment climate
right. We need to put in place a stable regulatory and
investment climate that will give investors the confidence
to invest staggering sums of money for 30 or 40-year
timelines and beyond. The investment challenge here is
probably the biggest single part of the issue that we are
discussing today. I therefore strongly welcome the broad
degree of cross-party consensus that we have on our
emerging energy policy. Investors must have the confidence
that we will not lurch from one energy policy in this
country to another with potential changes of Government,
but work together and put something in place that will
give the confidence for 10, 20, 30, 40 years or more.
That is all I want to say. It is a plea as much to those
on the Opposition Front Bench as to those on the
Government Front Bench. We must ensure that we put
together an investment and regulatory regime that will
not change, that will be stable and give the confidence
that is necessary if we are to have the investment that we
need.
6.46 pm
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): I will return to my favourite
subject of the electricity grid, particularly as it affects
Somerset, Suffolk and the other areas that have been
mentioned today. Electricity networks have a significant
effect on the beauty and tranquillity of the countryside,
and to date the industry has been guided by a set of
principles called the Holford rules in routing new overhead
lines. I particularly want to note that the second draft of
the NPS on electricity networks proposes to weaken the
standing of the Holford rules. The latest draft says only
that decision makers
“should bear them in mind”.
That is likely to mean that there will be no requirement
on either the electricity companies to demonstrate that
they have sought to avoid damaging impacts on important
areas of landscape, or that the decision maker should
base its evaluation for proposed overhead transmission
line schemes on whether the Holford rules have been
met. Neither does there seem to be an expectation
that the mitigation measures suggested in EN-5, at
paragraph 289, should be carried out for schemes where
one or more of the Holford rules are not met. The effect
of this will be seriously to weaken the protection of the
countryside from unnecessary or intrusive energy
infrastructure.
The other minor points that I would like to make
include the wording of several sections of the NPS
where minor changes of wording could have major
impacts. I will write to the Minister in detail about those
if I may, but certainly there are paragraphs in EN-1 that
relate to the historic environment where there is weakened
protection for non-designated but still important heritage
assets, and there are impacts on the visual landscape
that relate to the regional economy departing from
existing protections for nationally designated areas such
as national parks or areas of outstanding national
beauty. In addition, EN-1 also seems to advise applicants
on how to circumvent green belt protection.
Finally, I cannot reflect the comments that were
made earlier, and I should like to be sure that there is
some way in which local authorities can negotiate a
realistic contribution from developers, especially, for
example, for residents in my area, which will be
providing a storage facility for nuclear waste on a
temporary basis that I understand to be somewhere in
excess of 100 years.
6.49 pm
Charles Hendry: We have had a good debate. It has
been brief, but it is part of the process, not the end, and
there will be further opportunities to discuss the issues
at length when the House returns in the new year. We
have had a very good mix, involving national interest
and a great tour of the energy opportunities horizon in
the constituencies of many Members on both sides of
the House. One of the most encouraging outcomes of
the debate is the recognition that, throughout the country,
people are looking at how we can generate electricity in
a new way. Where are the new opportunities? The hot
rocks in Cornwall and the cold rocks in Yorkshire—the
great opportunities that we find around us—are something
that we should truly celebrate as we look at the issue.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies),
who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, talked
about who should take the credit, Labour Ministers or
Conservative Ministers? I do not think it should be any
of us, because it should be our incredibly hard-working
officials, who have done almost all the work in getting
us to our current position and an outstandingly good
job on a very complex set of documents.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the delay. We wish
that there had not been one, but we recognised that in
the previous draft statement there was a flaw in the
appraisal of sustainability, and we felt it right to re-interpret
that in order to make it stronger and clearer. Because
that was so fundamental and in the overarching national
policy statement, it seemed right that we should re-consult
on all the statements, and it has been absolutely the
right way to take the matter forward.
On the question of how the process will move forward,
we have assumed that there will be a debate about the
national policy statements overall and, at the end of the
day, votes on the individual statements, but we do not
anticipate the scope for hundreds of amendments to
them. We have changed the previous Government’s
decision that there would be no vote at all, because we
believe it important that, as part of this democratic
process, the House should have the chance to vote on
them.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about the role of
localism. There is a difference between the nationally
critical strategic infrastructure, which we deal with in
the national policy statements, and the local agenda,