Clause
14
Generating
stations
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I beg to move amendment No. 109, in
clause 14, page 7, line 38, leave
out ‘will’ and insert ‘is expected
to’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 111 to 113, 122, 130, 133 and 137 to
139.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The amendments are minor
changes, mainly to ensure that a project will be considered nationally
significant if it “is expected to” exceed a particular
threshold, rather than “will”, as stated in the Bill. The
changes are being made because it will not always be possible to say
with certainty what the capacity will be at the point of making an
application for development consent. For instance, if the capacity of
an overhead electric line is expected to carry 20 kV, it is right that
it falls to the IPC for consideration, even if, on completion of the
project, the average operating capacity falls below that. We must
operate on the principle of the level at which a facility is expected
to operate to service the
national need. The amendments will ensure that there is no unnecessary
legal challenge over a decision when the capacity of a facility does
not always meet the required
threshold.
Mrs.
Lait:
I understand what the Government are trying to do
here, although perhaps they should have thought about it before they
drafted the Bill. That is what we would have done, but then we are not
the
Government—yet.
Will
the changes have any implications for the number of
national infrastructure planning applications? I suspect that the
answer will be no. Furthermore, on generating stations, why is there a
difference between onshore and offshore generating capacity,
particularly given the technological developments that we have just
spoken about? Turbines are becoming more efficient and are generating
more electricity, which means that we will need fewer of them.
Clarification would be
useful.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The answer to the first question is no. In
answer to the second question, the thresholds were written into the
Bill in light of recent applications. Offshore generators tend to have
much larger generating capacities than onshore generators. As I
understand it, the onshore provision is a transposition from the
previous Bill. We have made the offshore capacity larger than the
onshore capacity in light of what is currently
planned.
Amendment
agreed
to.
The
Chairman:
We now come to amendment No. 366 with which it
will be convenient to debate amendment No.
369.
Dan
Rogerson:
On a point of order, Mr. Illsley, the
hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is involved in the consideration
of a report by the Standards and Privileges Committee, and has asked
that amendments Nos. 366 and 369 not be moved. Is that in order,
Mr. Illsley? I would also be grateful if the Committee could
consider amendment No. 367, and the amendments grouped with it, in
order that I may address those in my
name.
The
Chairman:
Given that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant
Conwy is not present, amendments Nos. 366 and 369 are not
moved.
Dan
Rogerson:
I beg to move amendment No. 367, in
clause 14, page 8, line 3, leave
out ‘50’ and insert ‘100’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 368, in
clause 14, page 8, line 3, at
end insert ‘installed
capacity’.
No.
76, in
clause 14, page 8, line 11, at
end add—
‘(5) The Secretary
of State shall annually undertake a review of the threshold specified
in subsection (2)(c) and publish a
report.’.
Dan
Rogerson:
Amendment No. 76, which stands in my name, deals
with the thresholds. I understand why the Bill requires thresholds, but
I am concerned that they might distort the applications. If a developer
feels that it would be beneficial to be covered by the IPC, it might
artificially inflate the capacity of its generator. I have focused on
electricity generators, but the point could apply to any of the other
areas covered by thresholds. A developer might draw up its scheme in
such a way that it is over the threshold set out in the Bill. For
example, I would prefer applications for wind farms in my constituency,
of which there are a number, to be considered thoroughly by the local
council. I have made it clear to the Committee that I am not opposed to
wind farms generally, but that they should be considered
thoroughly.
I
understand that one scheme in particular is very close to the 50 MW
limit, which might provide an incentive to the developer to increase
the capacity of the scheme slightly to bring it under the provisions in
the Bill. That would take away the decision from the local authority
and move it to the IPC. My amendment would require the Government to
review annually that threshold and to consider whether it has had
unintended effects on applications. Arguably, such a threshold could
depress the number of applications for smaller schemes and more
devolved energy networks. I am focusing my remarks on energy, but there
might be other thresholds included in other categories that might have
a similar effect. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s
response on that.
Tom
Brake:
Given that the Minister has highlighted that there
is some uncertainty about how much energy is generated, does my hon.
Friend agree that it is now even more important that the review is
carried
out?
12.30
pm
Dan
Rogerson:
That is an excellent point. With the amendment,
we seek to ensure that the Government are considering the operation of
the Bill in this context so that no unintended consequences are
allowed.
Mr.
Jones:
On amendment No. 367, which was tabled by the hon.
Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, we have heard a lot about the
Government’s anxiety not to disturb the devolution settlement.
That highlights an attempt by the Welsh Assembly Government to disturb
the devolution settlement: for some considerable time, they have been
pressing for an extension of competence in respect of generating
stations with capacity beyond the 50 MW to which they are currently
confined. I remind the Committee that in the Welsh Assembly, Plaid
Cymru and the Labour party are in coalition. Of course, they are not in
coalition here, but I am interested to know why the Government
have maintained their adamant opposition to the extension of competence
for Welsh generating stations with capacity above 50
MW.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I shall start with amendment No.
76. The hon. Member for North Cornwall made a good case for keeping the
thresholds in the Bill under review. He flagged specifically the
threshold for onshore generating stations, given the importance that
renewable energy projects of all kinds will have in helping us to meet
our climate change targets.
As I set out earlier, we have
set the thresholds for electricity generating stations to be consistent
with existing legislation for the most part. The changes we
are introducing are not primarily about shifting
boundaries on what is considered nationally significant, but about
where and how decisions on such projects are made. The obvious example
in the energy sector is offshore renewable projects, where we have
raised the threshold for nationally significant projects to reflect the
fact that offshore wind farm developments have significantly increased
in size in recent years. The adjusted threshold means, in this case,
that only genuinely larger projects will be handled by the IPC. We
therefore believe that the thresholds in the existing
legislation on the whole accurately capture the range of projects that
are nationally significant.
The hon. Gentleman is right to
say that projects that will help us to meet our climate change
objectives are important, but that is an argument to which local
authorities should pay due attention in relation to the national policy
statement covering this infrastructure. They must take account of the
planning policy statement on climate change rather than directing
projects of below 50 MW to the IPC, which would risk overloading the
regime, making it less efficient and effective. We are very aware of
the need to ensure that we do not remove decisions from local
authorities except where there is a clear case for doing so. However, I
appreciate the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s arguments and I
assure the Committee that if evidence were put before Ministers that
circumstances have changed, we would certainly consider it. However, we
do not expect circumstances to change that frequently. A statutory
requirement to review them annually would therefore be a trifle
excessive and a burden on Government.
Amendment No. 367 would
increase the threshold for onshore generating stations to 100 MW.
Offshore turbines generally have about twice the generating capacity of
onshore turbines, so 20 offshore turbines will produce 100 MW, whereas
20 onshore turbines will produce 50 MW. I understand the concerns of
the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, but I have set out the
threshold that the Government believe to be appropriate, which
reflects the long-established threshold for large onshore generating
projects that is contained in the Electricity Act 1989, and we believe
that it will capture the type of project that will impact on a wider
area. The overall response to the planning White Paper consultation did
not contradict that view.
Finally, amendment No. 368
seeks to insert a reference to “installed capacity”. The
amendment is not necessary because consents are already granted on
“installed capacity”, which is the maximum amount that a
generating station can produce when it is operating at 100 per cent. of
capacity, as opposed to the amount that it would produce on a
day-to-day basis. The Bill does not alter that. The amendment is
therefore superfluous, so I hope that it is not pressed to a Division.
I hope that I have provided the necessary assurance to the hon. Member
for North Cornwall in respect of amendment No.
76.
Mr.
Jones:
With respect, the Minister has not dealt with my
point on devolution.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
On devolution, I said earlier in our
deliberations that we wish to maintain our position on the settlement.
However, I am well aware that Welsh Ministers have argued for the
devolution of energy consents of more than 50 MW, and that there have
been tripartite discussions on the matter between the Department for
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the Wales Office and the
Welsh Assembly Government. However, the Government’s view is
that reserving powers on nationally significant energy infrastructure
is the best way to develop the UK’s long-term energy strategy.
The planning White Paper made it clear that the current devolution
settlement works well and the Government propose that it should
continue. Given that position, it is clear that such projects must be
included within the IPC’s remit. If they were not, major energy
projects in Wales would continue to be determined by Ministers in
Westminster under the old regime.
I should add that our reform
proposals include a number of measures to ensure that when such
decisions are taken away from Whitehall Ministers and passed to the
IPC, the Welsh Assembly Government will have appropriate input to the
process. For example, two or three commissioners will be appointed on
the advice of the Welsh Assembly Government, and when a project relates
to land in Wales, at least one of them will be on the panel of
commissioners who consider it, whenever that is reasonably practicable.
I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point and I
apologise for not responding when I concluded my earlier
remarks.
Dan
Rogerson:
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying
that the Government are aware of the issues and that they intend to
keep a watching eye on the thresholds and any effect that they have on
applications. The Minister gave a commitment that any evidence of
unintended consequences would be dealt with by secondary legislation. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Amendment
made: No. 110, in clause 14, page 8,
line 8, leave out ‘between the mean low water mark
and’ and insert ‘up to’.—[Jim
Fitzpatrick.]
Clause
14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
15
Electric
lines
Amendments
made: No. 111, in clause 15, page 8,
line 23, leave out ‘not exceeding’ and
insert ‘that is not expected to
exceed’.
No.
112, in
clause 15, page 8, line 23, leave
out ‘used
or’.
No. 113,
in
clause 15, page 8, line 25, leave
out ‘the line is or (when installed)’ and insert
‘(when installed) the line’.—[Jim
Fitzpatrick.]
Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Mrs.
Lait:
We are not going to object to the clause, but this
is a useful opportunity to get some clarification on one of my
favourite or pet subjects—Scotland. Will the Minister clarify
how paragraph 15(1)(d), which
reads
“partly in England
and partly in
Scotland”
relates to
clause 187, which is on the extent of the Bill, and which says that the
Bill extends
“to England
and Wales
only”?
While he
is thinking about that, perhaps I could ask him to allay my concern
about the consultation with Scotland on difficult decisions. What
consideration have the Government given to situations in which
Scotland, under its devolved structure, has a reverse impact on England
and does not provide, thereby putting extra demand on England?
Hazardous waste is a particularly controversial example. How
will the Government and the IPC deal with applications within England
to deal with areas in which Scotland is not providing sufficient
capacity?
Scotland
has historically provided much of the UK’s
nuclear electricity. Hunterston, Torness and
Chapelcross have been key in that. Chapelcross is being decommissioned.
Hunterston and Torness have planning permission or presumption of
planning for more sites, as does Chapelcross. But the previous
Labour-Liberal Administration set their face against building any new
nuclear power stations, as has the new Scottish National party
Administration. Therefore the pressure is on England to provide for the
UK in a way that historically it did not have to do. This is going
slightly wide of the matter under discussion, but it gives the Minister
the chance to answer my question about clause 187 and to tell us how
the Government are approaching the issue of England having to
provide because Scotland is not doing its fair
share.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I will study Hansard to examine some
of the nuances that the hon. Lady is getting at because a more
considered response than I might be able to give is required. However,
I shall give that which I have in respect of power lines going across
borders.
Clause 15
sets out when the installation of an electric line above ground will be
a nationally significant infrastructure project. That will include
projects in England and Wales, projects that are partly in England and
partly in Wales, and projects that are partly in England and partly in
Scotland. To respect the devolution settlement, where projects are
partly in England and partly in Scotland, the commission will only be
responsible for approving the part of the line that is in England. All
projects will be within the IPC’s remit except for the following
two types of project: installing a line that is intended to be used for
a single consumer and that does not exceed a nominal voltage of 20 kV;
and installing a line within premises in the occupation or control of
the person responsible for its
installation.
These
thresholds are consistent with existing thresholds under the
Electricity Act 1989 and include all the projects currently consented
by the Secretary of State which are deemed to be nationally
significant. Overhead lines may cut across a number of local authority
boundaries and have significant national as well as local benefits. As
such, the Government believe
that they merit treatment as nationally significant.
In addition, each link of the electricity transmission and distribution
network is critical to the effectiveness and resilience of the network
as a whole. The network is of strategic national significance and it is
important that the overall integrity of the network is maintained
through consistent national-level decision making. The development control system
must also be able to take into account the
anticipated greater role of renewable energy, with the changes to the
network structures that implies, and the likelihood of a more localised
pattern of generation and distribution in future. Responses to the
planning White Paper consultation showed a large majority of those
responding on this issue in favour of including electric lines in the
commission’s remit. The clause makes an electric line a
nationally significant infrastructure project only in relation to the
English part of the line.
If the hon. Lady will allow me,
I will study her remarks and come back to her in due course with a more
comprehensive response once I have determined exactly where she wants
to get a response
from.
Question put
and agreed to.
Clause
15, as
amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
