here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
927 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 928<br />
[Charles Hendry]<br />
w<strong>here</strong> we believe that local authorities should have<br />
significantly more power when deciding on the issues<br />
that come to them below the 50 MW. Of course, the<br />
views of local people, directly and through their local<br />
authorities, will be an integral part of individual planning<br />
applications, and they will be heard.<br />
I shall pick up on some of the other points that have<br />
been raised during the debate. My hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins)<br />
talked about Dungeness, and from our conversations<br />
and his consistent representations, I understand w<strong>here</strong><br />
he is coming from. We recognise that the development<br />
of a new nuclear power station at Dungeness would be<br />
a continued source of employment and bring economic<br />
benefits to the surrounding area, but the Government<br />
are obliged by law to consider adverse affects on the<br />
integrity of European-protected sites which might be<br />
caused by development and to consider alternative sites<br />
if those impacts cannot be mitigated.<br />
Dungeness is not on the NPS, because we have not<br />
yet been persuaded that a new nuclear power station<br />
could be built t<strong>here</strong> without having adverse impacts on<br />
the integrity of the Dungeness special area of conservation,<br />
or that adverse impacts could be avoided or mitigated.<br />
The Dungeness SAC is the most important shingle site<br />
in Europe, so after careful consideration of the<br />
representations made so far our view that Dungeness<br />
should be excluded has not changed. The consultation<br />
is continuing, and, if additional evidence that changes<br />
that conclusion emerges in the course of the meeting<br />
that I will have with my hon. Friend and his local<br />
authority’s representatives, or in written submissions,<br />
we will take it into account.<br />
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test<br />
(Dr Whitehead), who speaks with such authority, raises<br />
several issues, but I shall focus on the role of gas. We see<br />
a need for gas, but part of the issue is that we have<br />
inherited a situation in which new nuclear cannot be<br />
built until the end of the decade, because its construction<br />
did not start earlier. Further, when it comes to the<br />
mass roll-out of renewables, we are third from bottom<br />
in the whole EU. We have great ambition but start from<br />
a long way behind. Carbon capture and storage on a<br />
major commercial scale cannot play a massive role until<br />
the end of the decade, although our ambitions for that<br />
are high.<br />
Gas will t<strong>here</strong>fore have to be part of the process; that<br />
is the simple, practical reality. Gas-powered stations can<br />
be built quickly; gas requires lower capital expenditure<br />
than other technologies, so the write-off period is lower;<br />
and importantly it is flexible, so it can back up other,<br />
more in<strong>here</strong>ntly variable technologies.<br />
Of course, the issue of emissions will be critical. That<br />
is why we are taking forward the work on the carbon<br />
floor price and looking at emissions performance standards<br />
and the other measures that will be brought to bear,<br />
which investors will need to take into account as they<br />
make decisions on these critical investments. The time<br />
scale of that is now almost upon us. In the next few<br />
weeks, before Christmas, we will set out how the electricity<br />
market reform process will work.<br />
My hon. Friends took me on a fascinating tour of the<br />
country. We heard about the nuclear opportunities in<br />
Gloucester and the great training opportunities at the<br />
Barnwood EDF facility. My hon. Friend the Member<br />
for Gloucester (Richard Graham) is absolutely right to<br />
talk about the skills agenda and the supply chain<br />
opportunities that we are determined to realise.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth<br />
(Sarah Newton) focused on energy security and the<br />
issues surrounding the wave hub and deep geothermal<br />
resources. I look forward to visiting those facilities with<br />
her in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for<br />
Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) talked about the supply<br />
chain and his concerns about power lines, which we<br />
completely understand.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt)<br />
spoke about the Holford rules. We will reflect on the<br />
concerns that she expressed, but we must also have<br />
clarity about what benefit local areas will achieve from<br />
these new investments. That is at the heart of the<br />
localism Bill. Thinking about how local communities<br />
should benefit in terms of business rates and other<br />
direct benefits coming into their communities will<br />
completely transform the relationship between these<br />
facilities and the communities who host them. That will<br />
be an important element as we move forward.<br />
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West<br />
(Tom Greatrex) speaks with great authority on these<br />
issues, and the House benefits from his expertise. He is<br />
absolutely right that time is not on our side. The whole<br />
purpose of what we are trying to do is to remove the<br />
barriers to new investment in these areas. We are absolutely<br />
clear that t<strong>here</strong> will be no public subsidy for new nuclear,<br />
but we must then remove the other potential barriers—the<br />
regulatory barriers—to ensure that that investment can<br />
go ahead. On carbon capture and storage, I can absolutely<br />
give him the assurance that we are looking to gas as part<br />
of the next projects. The market-sounding exercise showed<br />
a significant interest in gas, and we will t<strong>here</strong>fore open<br />
up this competition to gas plants as well.<br />
The hon. Gentleman talked about EMR and the cost<br />
of transmission. We have to look at this in a new way.<br />
People will not build power plants if they do not believe<br />
that they can get their power to market. Historically,<br />
power plants were built in the coal centres or outside<br />
the big industrial centres; now, we are looking at new<br />
places for them to be built. We have to look at this<br />
afresh, and I am delighted with the work that Ofgem is<br />
doing to look at the best structure for the process. I will<br />
leave others to deal with the issue of the location of the<br />
green investment bank.<br />
Finally, I want to deal with some of the points made<br />
by the hon. Member for Ogmore. He mentioned “what<br />
if?” scenarios. He was right to do that, but we are in that<br />
“what if?” environment because of the situation that we<br />
inherited. After 13 years, we have to get £200 billion of<br />
new investment coming into the infrastructure. If more<br />
decisions had been made to take forward the role of<br />
nuclear and not to have the five-year moratorium, we<br />
would be significantly further advanced, and the challenging<br />
energy situation in the middle of this decade would not<br />
have applied in the same way.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire<br />
(Dan Byles) talked extremely clearly and effectively<br />
about the energy security needs that we have to address.<br />
It is possible that CCS may not work, or that the price<br />
may be too high, but if we do not push the process<br />
forward and take advantage of the extraordinary<br />
opportunities that we have in this country, we will