New Home Building Programme

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, it is obvious that the noble Lord has been going to the same seminars as the noble Lord, Lord West, with regard to framing Questions, but I am sure that that point will have been picked up. On his general point, of course we are very happy to hear about prevention, which is indeed better than cure. A public health budget is held by the Department of Health and Social Care and that is the other side of the coin. We have the building regulations but money also needs to be spent on promotion to make sure that people are aware of these issues.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

Is the Minister aware that information on many of the standards developed by the BSI is available only on the payment of a fee, which can be quite high? Does he agree that it does not make a lot of sense to have something which on occasion has the force of secondary legislation but is accessible only if you pay for it? Surely, if something is designed for safety, it should be freely accessible.

East Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on items six and seven, pertaining to west Suffolk. I speak as a resident and ratepayer of the St Edmundsbury Borough Council. This is a rather unusual piece of legislation in that it is catching up with reality. It seems to be about turning de facto into de jure. Its roots lay in the fairly recent past. They were conceived by the leader of St Edmundsbury Borough Council, John Griffiths. The opportunity arose to sell the council offices in the middle of Bury St Edmunds for them to be converted into flats and for new offices to be built on the edge of the town. The building has more room, is better planned, is environmentally up to date and is very smart indeed. It houses the council officials of both St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath. Most of those posts are already held in common by one official. In effect, there is already a substantial shadow administration. In a way, we are officially legitimising what has already been done. In old-fashioned terms, these two authorities have been living in sin for years, and this legislation will effectively make them man and wife, as one concept.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I also speak as a Suffolk resident of almost 40 years, although not of either of the areas covered today. I am a former district and county councillor in Suffolk so I have a keen interest in this.

I have always advocated unitary government for Suffolk, perhaps going back to the old, two-council days before 1974, or possibly 1973, with serious devolution to the towns and parishes which want it. I felt that way because I truly believe that service delivery would be better if we brought together planning and transport, for example, under one council. Local people would not have to sort out which council does what. As a councillor, I know that that is a significant issue. The financial savings that can be made from creating unitary councils have been well established across the country where this has been done.

Opposition to my view has always been on the grounds of saying, “Well, district councils are important because they’re small and they’re local and the wards are small. Everybody knows everyone and they’re close to the people”. I buy that; I can see that argument. However, it seems that in merging these councils—I am talking about councils as opposed to their back-office functions—big wards will be created and the council offices will, in many cases, be moved away from the area they represent. The advantages of districts are lost without the benefits of unitary government. Bins will still be emptied by one council and the waste disposed of by another, for example.

I remain concerned about that. I accept the point that Suffolk councils have been in the process of merging their back-office functions to save costs for some years now. That is entirely sensible. However, my council in mid-Suffolk, having done that with the neighbouring authority of Babergh, has now gone completely mad and moved its joint offices to the middle of Ipswich. There is no local connection there. If you are going to defend three-tier local government on the grounds of local connection, you have to show local connection.

I am worried that all this is being driven by the parlous state of local government finance in this country, rather than some sort of rational, thought-out plan. It feels as though people who live in Suffolk are somehow not being properly engaged with—I will come back to that—or brought along in the process. It was interesting that the Secondary Legislation Committee shared some of those concerns. I appreciate the trouble that the Minister has gone to to allay those. Nevertheless, there is still a lot of work to do—to be charitable—to convince people in Suffolk and in town and parish councils that the proposals will work.

To give what I think is an important piece of context, the report that went to Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils on 14 March 2016 stated:

“The potential benefits and pitfalls of unitary local government have been well rehearsed previously”—


through LGR—and,

“have not been reproduced here. It is uncertain whether the new Secretary of State will be open to such discussions … Similarly, this could not be done in any format without … an impact upon Suffolk County Council. It is assumed at this stage (and without any discussion with the County Council) that this would be strongly resisted”,

by the county council. In other words, in East Suffolk at least, this was kicked off in 2016 without really knowing what the Secretary of State or the county council thought.

With regard to the support to which the Minister referred, the problem was that nobody ever had a say about the benefits of unitary councils—which I think, had it been put as an option, would have been more significant—but that did not take place because a unitary authority had been ruled out.

This continues to be a model. On 21 March this year, the leader of Suffolk County Council announced that he had commissioned a report from ResPublica to look at options for local government in Suffolk over the coming years. This afternoon, the local press are reporting that he has suspended this work, saying that it is because his opponent in a leadership bid is opposed to it. I have no idea whether the second part is true but it shows, given the importance of local government to Suffolk and the services that it delivers, that it deserves better than this.

[Lord Tebbit]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, would she make it plain that she is speaking primarily about East Suffolk? We in West Suffolk have been enjoying the benefits, or disbenefits, of the change now for a long while. We have been just living together and getting to like it.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

I am very pleased to put a cloak of respectability over the noble Lord and the area in which he lives. I hope that he sleeps more soundly as a result. Yes, I was citing the report that went to East Suffolk, but there is a general point. I would have preferred a much more strategic look at the whole county and how services are delivered so that we can all feel that councils are genuinely representing us. I think that that is exactly where we will be in five years’ time, but that will probably have cost us a lot of time and money.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, first, I should draw the attention of the Grand Committee to my declaration of interests: I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am not a resident of Suffolk, although I have friends there and visit often. It is a wonderful place to spend time.

I am clear that there is local support for the order. I know that the Minister has addressed the issue raised by the Secondary Legislation Committee, and I am happy with that. I have talked generally about consultation: we must ensure that our consultation processes actually involve talking to local people to get their views; we do not always do that. I am not saying that about this case.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. I think that local government in England is a little confused. If you go to one place, there is a unitary council that does everything for the whole county. In the next place, you will have four or five tiers of local government doing the same job. There is an issue there. That is not the case in other parts of the country. In some parts of the country, you can have a metro mayor and a combined authority, the PCC, a county council, a district council and the parish council, all delivering different services to you. In another place, you have just a unitary council or a unitary district. I know that the Minister will say that we like it being bespoke and everyone can do as they like, but you could equally argue that it is a bit confused and a bit of a dog’s breakfast in some parts of the country.

In principle, I am not against what is suggested here, bearing in mind the points I made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I would be very happy to see my noble friend Lord Porter afterwards, if he has particular points, and to cover those in detail, if that would be helpful.

I am very happy to preside over the union of the two parties that have been living in sin, as the noble Lord put it. It all seemed to be going well until the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, got up to object—it reminded me of a scene in Jane Eyre or possibly Far from the Madding Crowd—but happily not in relation to the one union that was very close to my noble friend’s heart. She subsequently clarified her concerns about some of the issues.

Babergh and Mid-Suffolk were very close to an agreement in relation to a locally led proposal. It was not to happen, but that was a local matter, and as a department or a Government we have quite rightly not attempted to impose anything on them. So these are locally led proposals. On the unitisation issue, I shall not get sucked into Suffolk politics and matters pertaining to that great county as I do not know all the issues. Once again, however, it is open to authorities within Suffolk to come forward with locally led proposals if that is what they want.

I was not up to speed with the latest development on the review of the county council. I know the county council initiated it of its own volition without the involvement of the other areas, but if something were to come forward at a future juncture, of course we would look at it.

In relation to East Suffolk as well as West Suffolk, from the evidence we have of the consultation, these proposals are strongly supported by residents. All the districts concerned, including Waveney and Suffolk Coastal in the case of East Suffolk, are strongly in support of these proposals, which comes back to the locally led point.

That brings me to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. He and I have at the very least a nuance of difference in our approach here. Despite his very respectable Labour pedigree, the noble Lord has a slight Stalinist tendency to favour a standard approach for every council in the country, which is not necessarily what local councils want. These are locally led proposals. The same is true on a different canvas in relation to the mayoralties. They are not necessarily the same, but they are locally supported and bespoke.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

Does the Minister accept that one of the problems, the one we are all grappling with, is that these proposals do not have any sense of originating from the people, so when people show support or do not do so they are showing support or otherwise for something that has been handed to them? It is the same now with many of the other structures of local government. We all share a deep commitment to local government structures and we want to be confident that they enjoy public support. This is not a political point. It is about local democracy.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I do not dissent from the general point that leadership means that proposals have to come from somewhere. I am keen to make the point, and perhaps to restate the point to overstate the point, that these are locally led proposals from local leaders. Of course they are not going to come from individual residents, but the evidence we have from the consultation, which the Secretary of State will have borne in mind when looking at these proposals, was that there was strong local support for them.

I take the point that there has to be a government policy, but the Government, of whom I am proud to be a part, are keen for there to be diversity and bespoke deals. The noble Lord probably takes a different view of this, but it is not a view that the Government subscribe to. We have a broad policy of saying these things have got to be locally led. We will look at them and scrutinise them to ensure that they are locally supported and represent value and so on, but local democracy is the key point.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 31st January 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has moved a very wise amendment. I hope that the Minister will accept it in due course.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, support the noble Baroness. I assure her that she need not apologise for anything as she has raised some very interesting issues in the course of the Grand Committee, and has done so with great passion and commitment.

I raise a related, but perhaps slightly tangential, issue concerning the impact of having a lot of development all at once. Currently, developers argue that Section 106 or community infrastructure levy contributions should relate only and very specifically to the development they are undertaking. That may sound a reasonable argument but it is highly problematic as it completely fails to take into account the cumulative effect of a number of developments taking place around a village, or, indeed, taking place over time. It is very difficult to argue with legal certainty that the need for a new school, for example, is related simply to one development as opposed to the cumulative impact of a number of developments. Therefore, that issue needs to be looked at as it goes to the point about the acceptability of development to local communities. They also need to feel that the funding mechanism will be there. Furthermore, developers often argue that the money should be used only for very narrow purposes and not for the benefit of the wider community. The Government need to look at the acceptability of development in this regard.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for moving this amendment. Before I look at the substance of it, on housing need generally I think it will be borne out by statistics that even if all migration were to stop now—it will not because the Prime Minister made clear that we will still very much need the brightest and best for specific areas of activity in the country—there is still a truly massive backlog of housing that needs to be supplied. There is no gainsaying that. There is a massive catch-up operation to be done, and all political parties over the years contributed to this problem by not building enough. There is little doubt of that. I part company with my noble friend on that specific point.

On Amendment 7, moved by my noble friend, local communities within a designated neighbourhood area are responsible for deciding which policies they want to include in their neighbourhood plan. They can, if they choose, include policies on housing delivery and housing sites if they consider them appropriate for their area. They will develop their housing policies by considering the types of development needed for their area and will identify suitable locations for housing development. If the policies and proposals are to be implemented as the community intend, a neighbourhood plan must be deliverable.

Where a neighbourhood plan is used to allocate sites for housing development, the local community must assess whether those sites are deliverable and developable. Paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework provides details of what needs to be considered. As part of this consideration, those preparing the plan must take realistic decisions about the timescales for delivering those houses and the issues that might affect this, such as the area’s infrastructure needs. This might require them to consider phasing the delivery of development to ensure that they have a realistic plan for delivering their housing policy within required timescales. It is certainly open to neighbourhood groups to do that now and for that to be part of the neighbourhood plan. Where communities consider this necessary, they should of course have clear evidence as to why there should be a restriction on when a specific site or sites will come forward for development.

These are important matters but should essentially be left to the judgment of local communities. Maybe we need to make clearer that that is a possibility but then it is a matter for the relevant neighbourhood, advised by their local planning authority. These people are best placed to make such decisions, which are more appropriately addressed by policy documents and guidance than legislation. As I previously indicated, the Government set out their policy on these matters in the National Planning Policy Framework and in planning guidance, to which both local planning authorities and those preparing neighbourhood plans must have proper regard.

I hope I have reassured my noble friend on this point. Just before I leave this particular amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised an issue regarding funding from community infrastructure. We shall come to this in the next group but, just briefly, I think 25% goes to the relevant parish council or neighbourhood group. It is up to them how to spend that; it does not have to be related to the infrastructure for which the levy was paid. As I say, we will come to that on Amendment 26 and can look at it in more detail then. In the meantime, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I understand the reasons behind this amendment and I sympathise very much with them. However, to force all local authorities to impose a community infrastructure levy—a CIL—is actually not practical. I speak as a member of one authority that does not impose a CIL, and there are quite a lot. There are parts of the country where the viability of development is marginal. Whether it is infrastructure, commercial or housing development, the difficulty is making it stack up financially. In my part of the world, there would be more development allowed, promoted—and welcomed to some extent—if it were financially viable. If it is not financially or only marginally viable, imposing a CIL would simply result in less development. It cannot be imposed everywhere, nor should we look at areas that can impose CILs with green eyes—as we look at a lot of the country with green eyes on financial matters. We have to survive in the environment that we are in. From that point of view, I cannot support the first part of this amendment although, where CILs are imposed, the second part might well be reasonable.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

In the debate on the last amendment, I raised the question of the community infrastructure levy and Section 106 because that amendment was more about what the planning authorities can get. This amendment is about what the neighbourhood planning areas will get. I quite understand that the Minister will want to wrap up his responses, so there is the question that I raised on the earlier amendment about the impact of having to be directly attributable on the ability to access this money. I am also told there is a problem in that many developers insist on having specifically costed projects before they will sign an agreement for Section 106 or CIL. That is a problem if this is the first of a number of sequential developments. A local area may very well not have a detailed specific cost, but they are, in effect, building up a pot. In my local area we did that for a new relief road, though it took five years and something like four phases of development to reach it. Specifically, to the point of neighbourhood planning areas, I have also been told that some planning authorities are insisting that the neighbourhood planning areas have to have a general power of competence in order to be able to spend CIL money.

The points I have raised have all been raised with me by the National Association of Local Councils. Perhaps, rather than go into too much detail in his reply, it would be helpful if the Minister could undertake to meet that body again to go through those concerns and make sure that everybody is on the same page. It could then disseminate the information using its networks.

EU: Energy Governance (EUC Report)

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

That this House takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee EU energy governance (6th Report, Session 2015–16, HL Paper 71).

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity this evening to debate the sub-committee’s report on energy union governance. It is some six months since our report was published, although having just heard that the Digital Skills Committee has waited some 16 months for its debate, perhaps I should not grumble as much as I thought I would. However, I make the general point that Members of this House put a huge amount of effort into Select Committee reports, the staff work extremely hard, and outside witnesses and organisations take a great interest in the work we do, so it is a great pity when the House does not find time to debate these closer to publication. Nevertheless, I am pleased to be able to present the report this evening.

For any Government, nothing is more important than keeping the lights on, but we are trying to maintain a supply which is not only secure but affordable for consumers, whether they are individuals or businesses, and which is environmentally sustainable. That challenge—that trilemma—has focused minds on the benefits of co-operation as a means of achieving those goals, and the EU energy union is one vehicle for that co-operation.

I have had the privilege of chairing the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee for three years, and I can honestly say that it has been the most rewarding and fulfilling experience I have had in my 16 years in this House. But now I have, sadly, been rotated off. It is a painless but not entirely pleasant experience, and I shall miss the work a good deal. The members of the committee have always been immensely supportive, and one of the great joys of the work is that we have never been hampered by discussions or debates of a political nature. Our debates are robust at times but have always focused on the issues, and are all the better for that. I therefore extend my sincere thanks to each current member of the committee and to those who, like me, have been rotated off.

I also place on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, the chairman of the European Union Committee. His leadership, encouragement and personal support have been a great help to me. My noble friend Lord Teverson, who I see in his place, has now taken up the position of chairman of the committee and I have no doubt that he will enjoy the experience as much as I have and bring to it his great knowledge of the wide range of subject areas covered by the sub-committee. He served in the European Parliament and previously chaired an EU sub-committee. I wish him well. He, like all of us in this House, will be supported by efficient, knowledgeable and highly-skilled staff, whose commitment to our work, and indeed to the House, is absolute.

As your Lordships may know, the remit of the sub-committee includes agriculture, fisheries, environment, energy and climate change. The subject of the short report for debate this evening is firmly within the realm of energy. It is clear to most of us that energy policy in the 21st century cannot be formed from an isolationist perspective. The European Commission’s energy union strategy recognises this reality and attempts to ensure that Europe has a secure, affordable and low-carbon supply of energy. It aims to deliver energy security, reduce emissions and provide a better deal for consumers, and uses energy efficiency measures, the completion of the internal energy market and research and innovation to deliver this. An agreed EU energy governance framework will be essential to underpin the relationships between the EU institutions on the one hand and member states on the other. Such a framework will seek to meet the energy policy objectives of both the EU and member states but also to respect member states’ national sovereignty.

Before I go on to speak about the report itself I will make one or two comments about the background to it. The committee’s report was published in December and was the result of a short inquiry following a stakeholder seminar and a ministerial evidence session, as well as written submissions. The inquiry was timely; the European Commission published the first state of the energy union report last November and is expected to bring forward legislative proposals on energy governance later this year. Our report offers some thoughts and recommendations ahead of those legislative proposals. I extend my thanks to the specialist adviser to the inquiry, Antony Froggatt, whose comments and guidance on complex and rather technical matters were invaluable.

Our report called on the European Commission to ensure that the proposals for a future energy governance framework include legal clarity, a respect for member state sovereignty, a strong focus on security of supply, a commitment to the consumer, real ambition for decarbonisation, and increased regional co-operation. Indeed, we argue that the EU-wide binding 2030 renewables target will not be delivered unless it is backed up by a monitoring and enforcement mechanism which acts as a guarantor for the agreement and ensures that member states share the effort equitably.

The European Commission response was received on 3 March and was largely supportive. The UK Government’s response to the report was received on 29 February and was accompanied by a covering letter from Andrea Leadsom. It would be fair to say that the response has focused on current UK Government policy and the domestic measures which are already in place. In many cases the response simply avoids commenting on specific EU-level conclusions and recommendations. Overall, it lacks detail and comprehensive engagement with the arguments put forward by the report. I fear that this is due to current circumstances and that the Government are nervous about saying much at all because of the way things stand now. Nevertheless, I will make four points and I will be grateful if the Minister could reply to them at the end of the debate.

In paragraph C of the response, the Government avoid commenting on the report’s headline recommendation that the Commission should be able to propose new measures to guarantee existing EU-level commitments. The response contains a broad statement that agrees with the streamlining of reporting requirements. However, we argue that given the political importance of the EU-wide binding renewables target of 27% by 2030, it is noteworthy that there is no elucidation of the Government’s position. While we know that the Government are sceptical of the sort of enforcement measures proposed by the Commission, we would have hoped for some real engagement with the recommendation, even if only to disagree with it and to suggest what an alternative might look like.

In paragraph B the Government are silent on the committee’s recommendation that they should be transparent, timely and comprehensive in reporting their own progress against each of the dimensions of the energy union. Can the Minister say what the Government’s policy on this is?

In paragraph D the Government comment on bringing forward new renewable support schemes to bring forward additional offshore wind generation. However, they seem to have confused ongoing industry support with the more important need to maintain investor confidence through long-term and consistent policies. This point about investor confidence was a major theme in the committee’s 2013 report No Country is an Energy Island, and its conclusions are as valid now as they were then.

Finally, the Government’s comments on capacity markets are at odds with the view of the sub-committee in a number of areas. The sub-committee recommended that there should be a common framework at EU level to assess the need for and the means of achieving adequacy standards which secure availability of supply without escalating prices to consumers. The Government appear to disagree, arguing that this is a political decision that cannot take place until the internal energy market is completed. In fact, in the sub-committee’s view this is a technical task and would contribute to the completion of the internal market. The Commission agrees with the sub-committee that a common framework within the EU should be developed. Therefore are the Government really opposed to common adequacy standards? On measuring generation adequacy, the Government seem to agree with a common methodology at EU level but also seem to want national assessments. There seems to be an inconsistency here. Finally, on energy storage and demand-side measures the report argues that they should be given equal access to domestic capacity markets. The Government point out that these are already eligible to participate in the capacity market but do not comment on the inequality which we have highlighted.

I have one final point about the UK Government’s overall approach to regional co-operation. The previous report authored by the sub-committee on regional marine co-operation, The North Sea Under Pressure, concluded that no existing body or mechanism has a sufficiently broad remit to facilitate the political co-operation required to make the necessary step change in management of the North Sea basin, and we argued for the re-establishment of a North Sea Ministers’ conference. This recommendation was rejected by government on the grounds that such co-operation was taking place elsewhere. I fear that our calls have fallen on deaf ears. Last week the Vice-President for Energy Union and the Commissioner for Climate Action, with Ministers from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, signed a political declaration and action plan on North Sea co-operation. The declaration will facilitate the building of missing electricity links and allow more trading of energy and further integration of energy markets. Reinforcing regional co-operation will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve security of supply.

The UK was, sadly, absent. The announcement, like much these days, was reported on Twitter and there were lots of comments asking, “Where’s the union jack?”. I fear I know the answer to that but, even if the UK felt that in the current circumstances it was not able to be highly visible, I would like to think that we are engaged in this process. After all, if that well-known maritime nation Luxembourg thought that it was worth while attending and co-operating, it would seem very odd for the UK not to be there. The benefits of co-operating and the savings that come from it are enormous, so it really makes sense to do so.

Energy is crucial for all of us and the objective of secure, affordable and low-carbon energy can be aided by co-operation across borders. The EU has a really important role to play in bringing member states together, whether in a legislative framework or in a spirit of voluntary co-operation. The UK Government need to do more to demonstrate that they are serious about leading in this endeavour, whatever the outcome of 23 June.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this evening and particularly to those who said nice things about me. I have reached that age where my gratitude is much greater than my modesty, so I thank them for their comments.

I also tried very hard in my introduction not to mention the R word but of course the referendum is the backdrop against which all these debates take place. I thought it was interesting that there was consensus, certainly among this evening’s speakers, on the challenges we face in producing a supply of energy that is environmentally sustainable, secure and affordable for everyone—and consensus that these objectives can be met only by co-operation of a number of kinds between countries. The challenge is about how we create a governance framework that delivers the strategic objectives while allowing it to reflect member states’ very different traditions and preferences for an energy mix. If the European Union can get this one right, it will also be a very useful template for other areas of endeavour where there are advantages in working together but we still want to maintain some freedoms and flexibilities.

I was particularly struck by the point on innovation and making sure that such a framework does not stifle innovation, because I think we are on the cusp of an energy revolution. We are not very far away from that and would not want to stifle that sort of innovation and change. With that, I again thank all noble Lords, particularly the Minister, and I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Nuclear Technology

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I should make it clear that I am speaking in an entirely personal capacity, neither as chair of the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee nor as a spokesman for my party. Energy policy clearly needs to be based on three pillars, the so-called energy trilemma: the balance of security of supply, affordability and environmental considerations. As my committee’s 2013 report made clear, the interests of all those are best served by having diversity in sources of supply. Unlike the noble Viscount, I am a fan of renewables and I should like to see much more emphasis on energy efficiency, but I believe that non-renewables will have to provide the baseload for our electricity supply well into the foreseeable future.

As a councillor in Suffolk in the 1990s, I opposed new capacity at Sizewell but in the intervening years I have changed my view. I am far more worried now about the threat of climate change, and I cannot see a decarbonised future for this country which does not involve nuclear. For me, Fukushima and the subsequent stress tests which were carried out across Europe have made me more confident about UK capacity in nuclear, not less.

Despite the fanfare of recent days, I am not at all convinced that Hinkley Point C will ever lead to new plant at Sizewell and Bradwell. I think that they are too large, too expensive and too uncertain. Similar designs in France and Finland are now years overdue. There are also questions around whether it is sensible to put all your energy security eggs into one foreign country’s basket. It is a questionable policy, particularly in a country that is lacking in transparency. It seems that, in this as in a number of other things, we have become beguiled by size. Projects on this scale require huge capital investment and are difficult to control in terms of their costs. Local people have to endure an enormously disruptive period while construction takes place.

Last week the Institution of Mechanical Engineers published the results of some polling. It was encouraging from our perspective to note that 56% expressed themselves as being in favour of nuclear energy, but 44% said that they would protest if anything was built within 10 miles of their homes. I have often wondered whether people would feel quite so strongly if we could think about these things on a rather smaller scale. So, like other noble Lords, this has brought me back to the question of small modular reactors, which have already been mentioned. The 2015 World Nuclear Association report describes how SMRs are built in factory settings in modular forms, and I think that that is where the real economies of scale come in; they are economies of volume rather than of size. The Nuclear Industry Association describes the delivery of 16 gigawatts of new build as its key priority. The fact that SMRs can be co-located with existing nuclear structures is a huge advantage in terms of working with communities that are used to nuclear facilities; there is a local and regional supply chain and skills base; and of course there are big cost advantages in being able to connect to the grid. As a win-win, the significant amount of heat that is generated can be used to supply local district heating for the community. Moreover, the “passive safety” features, which mean that little human intervention is required in the case of an accident, are a real plus.

For decarbonisation, particularly as our coal-fired stations come out of commission, light water reactors have the potential to be a really important replacement. I note key developments in the United States from Babcock and Wilcox with a 180 megawatt pressurised water reactor and Holtec with a 140 megawatt plant. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments about integral fast reactors, which in effect reprocess existing waste not just from plants but also from weapons. Hitachi has told the Government that it could have a plant up and running in Sellafield within five years, and I would like to hear a little more about that. I am also very interested to learn how the Government are moving forward with regard to small modular reactors. The chief scientific officer at Rolls-Royce believes that they could come onstream in five to seven years. The Chancellor recently announced a £50 million research programme and I would like some more detail about that, particularly with regard to the development of a robust regulatory framework and design assessment. There really is no need for us all to keep reinventing the wheel.