National Policy Statements (Energy)

Debate between Charles Hendry and Huw Irranca-Davies

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I entirely agree. I have huge support for what my hon. Friend suggests for energy generation in individual houses and on estates—driven by local authorities and with private landlords. It is also about making sure that people benefit from the measures we put in place. It should not be just a one-way channel with the big-six companies providing energy, but with energy being sent the other way.

On carbon capture and storage and carbon capture readiness, the EN-2 document is good as far as it goes, but what is less good is the Government’s progress to match ambition to reality. As the document notes, CCS could potentially scrub as much as 90% of carbon emissions from fossil-fuel power generation. It gives us a real chance to bolster our energy security by maintaining wider diversity in the energy mix. Labour recognised that: as the Minister said, we ran the competition for the first large-scale CCS demonstration project. We also identified £l billion-worth of funding on which the Minister is following through. He is to be commended for holding his Treasury colleagues’ feet to the fire and keeping the £l billion at the ready. We had the announcement on the first CCS project this time last year, early on in the coalition. It was repeated in the emergency Budget, then in the comprehensive spending review and again in the recent Budget statement—it has been announced more times than the spring, summer and autumn sales at DFS—but what have we actually had? What money has been spent or work carried out? The answer is zero, zilch, nowt.

[Charles Hendry]

Let me give the hon. Gentleman a chance to put the record straight. Will he confirm that under the last Labour Budget there was no funding whatever for the CCS project and that it was only when we came to power that we gave real money to it— £1 billion, which is more than any other Government anywhere in the world have given to this sort of work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I can put the record straight: not only had we identified the project but we had pledged the money for it.

[Charles Hendry]

indicated dissent.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Indeed we had: the CCS competition was up and running. Instead of having a delay of a year and waiting for some announcement, we would have been getting on with it now.

That is just the first project. We have also, as we have heard tonight, been promised projects 2, 3 and 4, depending, of course, on Mr Chancellor being his usual generous self and/or on European new entrant reserve funding—or perhaps on the tooth fairy at some point. If our amendment on CCS had been selected, we would simply have been asking the Minister to put our money—taxpayers’ money—where his mouth is.

If CCS is successful on an industrial scale, it will help with diversity and security of energy by making gas and coal part of our low-carbon future. Without it, the energy sources in these national policy statements—coal imminently and gas very soon after—are doomed in the UK. It has to work. Without it, the opportunity for Britain to lead the way in research, development and industrial application and to develop a world-lead in the export market will be missed. More to the point, we have a moral responsibility to do this. To all the people who argue that no fossil fuel can ever be clean, I say, “Look at China’s increased generation of energy every year, which is equal to total UK energy capacity. Look at China building one traditional ‘dirty’ coal-generating plant every single week,” because if we are serious about our intent to tackle international climate change, what greater opportunity is there to help others tackle their and our addiction to traditional, wasteful fossil fuel burning and create opportunities to lead in this innovation?

EN-5 deals with electricity networks infrastructure and the multibillion pound investment required. The whole House will want to wish National Grid a happy 75th birthday, but when you are 75, things start to creak a little and things fall off—present company excluded, Madam Deputy Speaker, including yourself. We not only need the investment in maintenance, but we need to link up parts of the country that are currently energy deserts. We need to develop more two-way connectivity to allow the generation that was mentioned to and from new locations, to develop a smart grid over time, and to deal with the potential doubling of electricity demand.

EN-4 anticipates the need for new gas import infrastructure and storage capacity to help avoid the volatility in prices to which we are now subjected and to provide gas security. The national policy statements that we have not touched on cover environmental and other planning issues exhaustively. The Minister’s officials are to be congratulated on their hard work across the board.

Underpinning all the welcome NPSs before us, the EMR last week, the new energy Bill, which we anticipate some time in the coming parliamentary Session, and the current Energy Bill, which seems to have been lost in action temporarily, is the need not only to tackle our energy consumption by demand-side measures and energy efficiency and to have new energy production that is low carbon and increasingly renewables-based, but to resolve the most complex of energy conundrums in the most cost-effective way possible. The Minister and his Secretary of State are in danger of losing the argument for new generation energy before they have even begun. They have lost focus on the need for affordability, for UK plc to remain competitive internationally, and for people to be able to pay their bills without making the choice between eating and heating.

Two of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) have also been tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. I have spoken to my hon. Friend about my worries that at this late stage, with the need to get the national policy statements completed, any of the amendments could add further delay to the already delayed NPSs. However, I have great sympathy with his desire to see that the waste hierarchy is effectively applied to all energy waste. Although I cannot support his amendments if they cause delay, I join his call for the Minister, perhaps in his concluding remarks, to make it clear that outside the NPSs, the IPC will have to take account of the waste hierarchy and make the right decisions.

I think the Minister will agree that, as I said at the outset, it is disappointing that these national policy statements, which will underpin our energy future in the UK, have so little time to be debated today, but it is good that they exist. As so many hon. Members wish to speak and so little time is available, I simply say to the Minister well done on getting to this point. It has been long awaited and we understand why. We can afford no more delay, dither or uncertainty. Ernst and Young’s recent report stated baldly:

“Compared with the level of ambition, clarity of policy direction and scale of investment being delivered by a number of other countries, the UK is in danger of being left behind.”

The Secretary of State needs to put a bit more of his energy into delivering our energy future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Charles Hendry and Huw Irranca-Davies

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The Opposition share the Minister’s ambitions on offshore wind, which is no surprise given that it is our policy as well, and on renewables generally. How does he react to the news that renewables investment in the UK plummeted by 70% last year under the coalition Government; that we have dropped from third to 13th in the global rankings for renewables investment; and that a report on the coalition’s green promises shows little or no progress on three quarters of its promises? What now for the greenest Government ever?

[Charles Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the funding mechanism of renewables obligation certificates that we inherited has a cliff edge in 2013, and we have tried to give investors certainty beyond that point. It is clear that in the case of many renewable technologies, people have been unable to build structures because the system was to change in 2013. They did not know what the regime was going to be afterwards. That is why we have brought forward the banding review—to give investors long-term certainty and introduce market reform at the same time.

Wind Farms (Mid-Wales)

Debate between Charles Hendry and Huw Irranca-Davies

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Charles Hendry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I have been in office for nearly a year, so by past records, I am up for replacement. I think that it was actually 16 Ministers in 13 years. I hope that I will have the chance to stay around a little longer to ensure that we end up in a sensible place on these policy matters.

The hon. Member for Ogmore asked about the fourth carbon budget. He knows very well that I will not comment on leaked or supposedly leaked documents, but the Government understand totally the need to take the issues extremely seriously and put in place a robust set of targets and mechanisms to drive forward our ambition and our ability to respond. I will reply more directly in a moment to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham on the important grid issues.

It is clear from all the studies that I have seen that the United Kingdom has some of the best wind resources in Europe. Wind turbines tend to generate electricity about 70% to 80% of the time—not necessarily at full capacity, but during that time, they are turning and generating some electricity. Wind, unlike most other sources of electricity generation, is a free and unlimited source of fuel. It is also reliable overall—the likelihood is that low wind speeds will affect half the country for fewer than 100 hours a year. The chance of turbines shutting down due to very high wind speeds is low.

Onshore wind is one of the most cost-effective and established renewable technologies. We have to make sure that we take account of the needs of consumers by ensuring that they do not pay more than is necessary to decarbonise our electricity supplies. We can do that by making sure that onshore wind has a continuing role. However, although it is clear that onshore wind should continue to be part of the solution to the massive energy security and low-carbon challenges that we face as a nation, it needs more democratic legitimacy than it has today, and I intend to ensure that that happens.

We have to protect communities from unacceptable developments. We have already started to review the issues that often cause concern to local communities. We recently published a report on shadow flicker from wind turbines—an issue that the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock mentioned—and we have commissioned a report on wind turbine noise. We must now go much further. Wind turbines should be positioned where the wind resource is strongest, so this year we are introducing a full review of the funding mechanism of the renewables obligation certificates to ensure that subsidies will not make it attractive to put wind farms in unsuitable locations. The funding mechanism must also reflect reductions in costs.

The cost of grid connections also means that there is an incentive to put wind farms closest to where the electricity is needed, rather than where the wind is strongest. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham has made an extremely important point about the disconnection between areas identified for development and accessibility to the national grid, and the impact that that has on communities. That is why Ofgem’s fundamental review of the way in which transmission charges are levied is so important. It is also why the Government made clear at the start of Ofgem’s review that the transmission charging regime must deliver security of supply as well as low-carbon generation. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the charges that consumers pay for renewable energy are as efficient as possible.

Most importantly of all, there needs to be a new relationship between wind farms and the communities that host them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) said. At present, too often a community can see what it will lose but not what it will gain by having a wind farm in its midst. That is why we have been exploring the financial mechanisms that should emerge to support communities that decide to host wind farms—particularly in England, where we have more responsibility for these matters—and that do more to encourage such community developments. “Community energy online” is a scheme whereby local groups can come together and look at what will be the best renewable energy schemes for their community. I am absolutely convinced that we have to address the issue of democratic accountability and public acceptability. The more these schemes can be seen to come from the ground up—that is not intended to be a pun—and to be developed with community support, the more we can deal with the democratic deficit.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I have a straightforward question. Given what the Minister has just said, the changes that the Localism Bill will make and the desire to address the democratic deficit, does he intend there to be more development of onshore wind than in the past decade and more? Is he hopeful that more communities will take up onshore wind development?

[Charles Hendry]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s question shows that he does not quite understand localism. Localism does not mean that I, the Minister, say that I want more or less; it means that I want communities to decide how they want to develop. Once they have seen what will be available to them, the package of benefits and the direct support that will come to their communities, they will rightly get involved in and make those decisions. Clearly, a few of the large developments will still need to come to Ministers once the Infrastructure Planning Commission has been abolished, so those will be national issues. What we are keen to see is appropriate development in appropriate locations with community support. That will be one of the most significant changes under this Administration.

To answer a point made by the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, the Localism Bill will provide specific measures to enable communities to shape development in their own locality. That is clearly a matter for England rather than Scotland, but we hope that the new Scottish Government will look at whether they can follow in some of those areas.

We have heard much about the issues relating to technical advice note 8, and I understand the concerns that have been expressed. The process is carried out by the Welsh Assembly Government, and TAN 8 identifies seven strategic search areas where major wind farms, which are defined as those over 20 MW, should be located. Three of those—areas B, C and D—are in mid-Wales, which is why we have seen more applications for development in those areas than elsewhere. A review of that approach would have to be carried out by the Welsh Assembly Government. As a Minister who may be required to make some of those decisions, I know that we are talking about not a binding requirement but a material consideration, and applications outside those areas can also be considered.

A related issue—I know that this is of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne)—is the knock-on consequences for the grid infrastructure of the way in which those areas have been chosen, and the possible impact in England and other areas outside those covered by TAN 8. That is a material issue that has to be looked at in more detail, because one simply cannot put in place a new development without the grid infrastructure to support it. That is the issue to which I now turn.

There is no existing high-voltage network in mid-Wales, so the necessary infrastructure will have to be built. The options are currently being developed by the National Grid Company and SP Manweb. The applications for those connections will be decided by the appropriate planning authorities, which may include Ministers, so I am constrained in what I can say on specific issues. However, to respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Ogmore, we expect a further consultation on specific routes to be completed by the end of the year. We can learn more about how that consultation process works. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow is concerned that sometimes it involves the National Grid Company and not the developers together. I think that people involved in the consultation process would prefer to see all the parties coming together.

The report commissioned by KEMA and the Institution of Engineering and Technology is being refined—not by us, but by the organisations themselves—to make sure that it takes full account of the data collection available and the technical analysis. I hope that it will be published soon. It will certainly give us a much more factual basis for understanding the costs of undergrounding in appropriate parts of the country, and of putting the grid connections undersea. The enormous number of parliamentary questions that I have been asked and letters that I have received on the subject as part of a national campaign mean that I am in no doubt whatever about how strongly my hon. Friends and other Members feel about the grid connection issues. I know that the National Grid Company takes the issue extremely seriously. It is required to look at both the costing and the environmental and social issues.

Ofgem’s recent transmission price control proposals, known as RIIO, or “revenue = incentives + innovation + outputs”, include incentives that should allow visual amenity to be properly assessed in conjunction with the planning process. We hope that the national policy statements can be published in the near future. As the hon. Member for Ogmore knows, we are holding them back until we have the interim report on new nuclear. The lessons from Fukushima are being looked at by the nuclear regulator, but I hope that we will be in a position to publish those shortly.

Finally, on construction traffic and the impact it may have, I am aware that the road infrastructure was not designed for the sort of transportation in which huge turbines are carried through small villages on small country roads. There has to be a solution to the problem. Individual developments have to address the issue in a constructive way. There has to be a satisfactory conclusion before a development can take place.

I hope that I have responded to many of the issues raised. This has been a fascinating and important debate. Again, I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire for defying medical advice to be here to raise such a critical issue.

Onshore Wind Energy

Debate between Charles Hendry and Huw Irranca-Davies

Thursday 10th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Charles Hendry]

We have had many contributions, so I hope that my hon. Friend understands that it will be difficult to respond to them fully if I start taking interventions.

Common sense also tells us that if we are to make the right decisions on our energy security and ensure that future generations look back and say that we did the right thing, we have to put new plant somewhere. During the debate, we have heard a lot of calls about why constituencies are not right for certain types of new development, but, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), I have not heard anyone saying, “I don’t want wind turbines, but I do want something else.” No one has volunteered for a new nuclear plant. No one has volunteered for a new gas plant, a coal plant with carbon capture or a biomass plant. If we do not put them anywhere, we cannot survive on invisible electricity. We all want the switches to work when we push them on, but we do not think that we need to see where the energy is being generated. Energy plants need to be sited in appropriate locations, and common sense tells us that that is the right way forward.

We have carefully considered the contributions that different technologies can make. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will understand that much of the cost that we are considering—the increase in costs for consumers—is based on an oil price of $80 a barrel. Everything changes when oil is $100 a barrel. The central strategy of the American Administration is based on oil at $113 a barrel. At that price, the move to a low-carbon economy brings real benefit to consumers because fuel costs would be lower than they would have been had their supply been based purely on hydrocarbons. We should be in no doubt of the important contribution that renewables can make towards our security of supply and low-carbon objectives. There is a range of different ways in which we can meet the challenge. After this debate, people can go on to the DECC website and look at our 2050 pathways calculator. We can tap in for ourselves and see what keeping our lights on does to carbon emissions. We are not wedded to one approach on the various technologies, but we do want to create an environment where people can see for themselves what will be the best technologies.

As for the suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire made, we will not simply go down the route of targets. Targets alone do not deliver anything. Government must have a determination to show how targets will be met, which is why we will put in place road maps so that people can see what is happening and how it is taking place.

We will be taking forward this matter in the most robust way. We also recognise that as a result of the investment that has already been made in wind turbines, some 5.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions were avoided in 2009. That is the equivalent of the total annual emissions of the bus transportation fleet in this country, which starts to show the contribution that such technology is making.

Many of my hon. Friends have talked about the intermittency of wind, but that is an issue with which technology can increasingly deal. It is not about having a whole fleet of coal-fired power stations standing by to be pumped up into action when the wind does not blow. Let us consider the scope for pumped storage—an electricity interconnector to Norway, perhaps, or a new one into France that builds into its nuclear capacity—and the work that is being done on battery technologies and on a whole range of new technologies that will mean that the power can be there when we need it rather than when the resource happens to blow. That will be one of the big changes that we see coming through in this decade. The issue of intermittency will become one that can be fully addressed.

Regarding security of supply, we also need to recognise that when Sizewell B—our most modern nuclear plant—did not operate for seven months last year wind was powering 800,000 homes in this country during that time. So it is not a case of one technology or another. The core to a sensible energy strategy is ensuring that we have the right balance of different technologies within it.

However, we must change the way we go about achieving that balance and that is what I will focus on for the rest of my remarks. We have heard very sincere views expressed during this debate and I completely understand the views that my hon. Friends and others have expressed. But let me reaffirm the Government’s commitment to reform the planning system to ensure that communities have more ability to determine the shape of the places in which they live. Many of the changes will come through the Localism Bill, which has been discussed in Committee today.

We will abolish the regional spatial strategies and their top-down regional energy targets. Members have talked today about how planning applications have been overturned on appeal and granted on appeal. It will be much more difficult for applications to go through on that basis if the regional energy targets are taken out of the mix. Responding to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire, I would say that people can already look to the cumulative effect that exists. However, I do not think that we want to go down the route of saying that each constituency should be generating energy only for its own needs and no more, because that would conflict with the principle that these facilities should be put in the areas that are most appropriate.

We are introducing provisions for projects to be submitted to local planning authorities, so that developers will have to show that they have worked with communities to develop their planning applications. That will help to develop a better approach regarding these applications, so that more of them can go through with planning consent being given locally rather than having to go to appeal.

We are introducing neighbourhood planning, to enable communities to draw up neighbourhood plans to shape the development in their own locality and to permit development without the need for planning applications. In addition, we are of course abolishing the Infrastructure Planning Commission.

I do not think that it is right to go down the route of having specific distances between onshore wind farms and residences. The way that such distances have been interpreted in Scotland and Wales is not actually the way that they have been enforced in those countries. However, the challenge that I face with regard to that issue is that very often we would find brown industrial land—a brownfield site—that we would all believe was an appropriate place for a wind turbine, but if one were to say that the presence of one house near to that turbine, within a distance of 1 km or 1.5 km, could stop that development from happening that would prevent us from using some brownfield sites, which could be well used in that respect.

The new planning framework will be a concise and more strategic document, which will bring together much of the work in this area to provide much greater clarity. It will provide much greater transparency, to ensure that local authorities can take well-informed decisions.

We are also looking at some of the other issues that have been raised today. We are reviewing how noise is monitored and how flicker is assessed, and we will publish the results of those reviews during the next months so that work on addressing those issues can be developed.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will the Minister give way quickly?

[Charles Hendry]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me but I will not give way, because there are important points that I need to make in the final moments that I have left.

We have brought forward the review of the renewables obligation certificates, because ROCs are an important way of ensuring that we can see investment in renewable technologies. However, we must ensure that those technologies are not put in place in unsuitable locations. The review will make sure that developers of wind farms are encouraged to go to the windiest locations, because the principle of ROCs is that if a company does not generate electricity it does not receive any payment. Therefore, ROCs are a better mechanism than some of the suggestions that have been made today about requiring planning committees to identify how much electricity can be generated by a particular development. We will develop that work on ROCs during this year.

We are examining the cost of grid connections, because often that cost means that there is an incentive to put wind farms close to where the electricity is needed rather than where the wind resource is strongest. That is why Ofgem’s fundamental review of how transmission charges are levied is so important and it is also why we have made it clear to Ofgem that its review of the transmission charging system must deliver security of supply as well as low-carbon generation.

We intend to go further by rewarding local communities, so that they have a real say about how their communities should develop. As part of the coalition agreement, we have announced that business rates from renewable energy developments will be retained locally. In parallel with that, I am pleased that the wind industry itself is looking at establishing agreed minimum standards for the contributions that wind farm developers will make to local communities. Financial contributions by developers might include, for example, investment in energy efficiency measures to reduce electricity bills, or cheaper prices. Of course, the most powerful reward for a community is to have a direct stake in a project. That is why we are keen to see this work happen.

In conclusion, we have had a helpful debate today. I hope that we have been able to show that we believe that wind energy onshore has an important contribution to make. What we can also do is to ensure that wind farms are put in the right locations, where the resource is strongest; that we have a funding mechanism that drives that process; that we have a transmission system that makes the development of wind energy achievable, and a planning system that shows that where communities decide they will consent to such a planning development they will derive a real, direct benefit from having it in their locality.

Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire for securing such an important debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Charles Hendry and Huw Irranca-Davies

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Charles Hendry]

My right hon. Friend picks up on an issue that is of great interest across the House. We are making good progress on the discussions about a green investment bank, and an announcement will be made shortly. We see this as a fundamental building block for bringing new investment into an area which is a massive driver for economic growth and recovery in this country.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The Government have very warm intentions for community engagement through the Localism Bill, although The Daily Telegraph has today rather cruelly portrayed it as “bribes for windfarms”. Mike Landy, who is very well respected and has 25 years of experience of renewables internationally, says:

“It is hard to see how the UK’s target of 15% renewable energy by 2020 can be achieved without a significant contribution from onshore wind. The localism bill has all the makings of a NIMBY Charter...there is a distinct danger we could be heading towards BANANA—Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything”.

So I have a straightforward question: what will be the average time taken for an onshore wind farm application by the end of this Government?

[Charles Hendry]

We are determined to stop the top-down approach that was taken by the previous Administration. We believe it is imperative that local communities should have an active engagement in the siting of big facilities in their communities, and the changes we are making will give them greater discretion. We will stop the regional spatial targets and strategies, but put in place significant benefits so that communities can see how they benefit from hosting a facility on behalf of the national interest instead of seeing it as something that is imposed on them, as at present.

National Policy Statements

Debate between Charles Hendry and Huw Irranca-Davies

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

rose—

[Charles Hendry]

I will give way shortly, but I hope I shall be forgiven if I do not do so immediately, as I am in full flight.

We need to establish a structure that will give people an incentive to invest in new nuclear, clean coal, coal with carbon capture, renewables—in regard to which we have great potential—and new gas plant, along with gas storage. We are alive to all the challenges, and we are moving forward on all fronts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to agree that our position is in tatters. As I made clear to him in the debate on the justification orders in Committee, when they went through with our support, we would very much welcome an opportunity for the Minister, alongside his colleagues, to go back to Sheffield Forgemasters and argue the case for making sure that it can be part of the supply chain. He is continually reluctant to do so. I suspect that that is not necessarily because of his reluctance, but because his colleagues are reluctant to argue the case.

[Charles Hendry]

I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the highest regard, was going to explain what his shadow Cabinet colleagues had done in that vote. During that debate two weeks ago, we had agreed fundamentally on the need for regulatory justification and he was speaking officially on behalf of the Opposition, yet when it came to the deferred Division in this House a week ago today three of the most senior members of the shadow Cabinet voted against those reactor designs being approved. If they had won that debate, the whole nuclear programme in this country would have been brought to a standstill. If the Opposition are to have credibility in this area, we need to understand why the shadow Chancellor, the shadow Business Secretary, who is the one who will lead on issues relating to Sheffield Forgemasters, and the shadow Education Secretary, who is one of the most senior members of the Labour party, chose to try to stop nuclear power in its tracks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charles Hendry]

I am keen to get back to some of the areas where there is consent and general agreement, but I will of course give way to the Opposition spokesman.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he acknowledge that this issue is pertinent to our debate on our national infrastructure and the supply chain? It is my clear understanding, unless the Minister can disabuse me of this, that only one other global supplier makes the piece that Sheffield Forgemasters was going to make. If the company had been given that repayable loan, which would have been repaid to the Government in short order, it would have led the global supply chain—not just for the UK but for export—in the reactors that we passed the justification orders for last week. It is a clear own goal. I ask the Minister to go back to his BIS and Treasury colleagues to see whether there is still an opportunity to bring the measure forward. It is not too late.

[Charles Hendry]

The hole in the argument is that the hon. Gentleman makes that case on behalf of the Opposition when the shadow Business Secretary, shadow Chancellor and shadow Education Secretary voted against the nuclear programme. As long as the shadow Cabinet has anti-nuclear sentiments at its highest level, any suggestion that the Opposition want a nuclear renaissance is fundamentally questionable.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

When we return to this matter with the finished articles in front of us—the final, beautifully honed, polished NPSs—will we be afforded adequate time? Will each national policy statement have adequate, separate parliamentary time in line with the coalition Government’s stated aim of enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of NPSs in their planning reforms, or will they be mixed together like a bag of all-sorts? If the coalition Government are true to their aims, the Minister should help us through the usual channels to push for days, not hours, to debate the NPSs. Much as we dearly love the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—we may ask who would not do so, when he is described on the front page of his website as “an absolute star” and a “saintly figure”, among other less self-effacing and more humorous things—when it comes to debating energy NPSs, we want the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), or the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. We want them—no one else will do. Can the Minister guarantee that he and his DECC colleagues will not be squeezed out of their seats by the right hon. and saintly Member for Brentwood and Ongar?

In the coalition’s drive for parliamentary scrutiny, I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm today that there will be a separate vote on each NPS, having been unable to confirm it yesterday to the Energy and Climate Change Committee. To mix the nuclear issue with those of fossil fuels, renewables, pipelines and the electricity network infrastructure would tax the wit of Wilde and the wisdom of Solomon. For us mere mortals, will he make representations through the usual channels to ensure that the votes are separate?

Will the Minister explain to the House why he has set against the calls to make an NPS amendable? We understand that there will be a take-it-or-leave-it vote. It would be interesting to hear the justification for taking scrutiny so far but no further. He might have a very strong rationale for that position, such as wanting to avoid the unpicking of an NPS that has been through exhaustive consultation, but we need to hear it.

There is a more fundamental point to be made about the parliamentary scrutiny of the NPSs, which goes to the very heart of the planning reforms that the Government are developing. The argument advanced by the coalition is that democratic accountability is best assured by laying the NPSs in front of the House and making a Minister, hopefully this Minister, answerable for them. In fact, he said back in June:

“A fast and efficient planning system is critical for facilitating investment in much needed new energy infrastructure. By abolishing the Infrastructure Planning Commission we will ensure that vital energy planning decisions are democratically accountable.”

His colleague the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), went further, saying:

“Today the coalition is remedying those deficiencies by putting in place a new fast track process where the people’s elected representatives have responsibility for the final decisions about Britain’s future instead of unelected commissioners.”

Yet we understand that for the Minister, the consideration of the NPSs is a quasi-judicial decision. He has described it as such. Ministers, formerly myself included, are used to making quasi-judicial decisions and are made aware of the very strict limitations that bind them. His decision is strictly limited, involves the application of policy to a particular set of facts and requires the exercise of discretion and the application of the principles of natural justice. It is not a prescription for localism, political interference or ministerial hokey-cokey. It is about policy and facts.

May we safely assume that the NPSs, once presented to the House by the Minister in January, will be a fait accompli? May we assume that he will have satisfied himself, in a quasi-judicial role, that the NPSs presented are fit for purpose? He will listen to fellow MPs, but his mind will be made up. On that basis, will he tell us, first, what is the point of putting the NPSs to the House if they represent his full and final view? Secondly, if he has a mind to amend them, what specific examples can he give that would cause him to change his quasi-judicial view and alter the documents, and what further time delay would ensue?

[Charles Hendry]

I hesitate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman after my own comments went on for quite a while, but I wonder whether I can provide clarity on that issue now. The quasi-judicial aspect relates to a ministerial decision on a planning application, not to the approach taken to the national policy statements themselves. We are in the course of a three-month consultation, which will finish on 24 January. There will quite possibly be amendments to the NPSs after that, which will be in the final version put before the House for debate, assessment and a vote. We do not have a quasi-judicial capacity in that respect. My comments about acting in a quasi-judicial capacity related to ministerial decision making on individual planning applications under the rules set out in the NPSs.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the Minister for that intervention, but will he clarify two things? Has he just said that NPSs will be amendable on the Floor of the House. He will sign off and present NPSs to the House, but will he sign them in a quasi-judicial role, or will he perform such a role only in respect of individual planning applications?

[Charles Hendry]

There is confusion between the approval process for NPSs and the role that Ministers will take in respect of individual planning decisions when the IPC has been abolished. On individual planning decisions, Ministers will act in a quasi-judicial capacity, but on NPSs, a revised consultation period to take account of the initial representations—we felt that improvements needed to be made—will end in January. If further revisions are necessary, a document will be put to the House for its final consideration and approval.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Is the Minister suggesting that the final document will be amendable and subject to a decision by the House, as I think I heard him say from a sedentary position? It would be helpful if he could clarify that, because we are talking about significant decisions over the future energy needs of this country. It is important that the House knows whether it is voting on a batch of NPSs or on each one individually and for how long they will be debated. It is also important that the House knows whether it has the ability to amend NPSs. If so, would that cause delays? My assumption is that if the House changes any individual NPS, it will need further consideration and possibly consultation. 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.