Examination of Witnesses (Questions 660
- 679)
WEDNESDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2010 (afternoon)
SIR MICHAEL
PITT, DR
IAN GAMBLES
DR PAULEEN
LANE CBE
Q660 Mr Weir:
Yes, of course. Do you feel that the NPSs—particularly the
overarching one—fulfil one of their key purposes, which
is to set out a clear statement of government policy?
Sir Michael Pitt: As far as we
are concerned we believe it is sufficient in terms of setting
out government policy. It gives enough guidance for Commissioner
s to be able to determine whether or not a particular application
is compliant with the National Policy Statement and to give consideration
to whether they should approve or not approve that application.
Q661 Mr Weir:
When you say "sufficient" do you believe they could
be clearer?
Sir Michael Pitt: We have argued
this in our submission to you that we do think there are some
improvements that could be made, some of which are merely drafting
improvements, consistency of wording. We would also very much
like the NPSs to draw out and highlight in some way very crisp
statements of what the conclusions are, what is the policy? The
narrative is very interesting and it provides a good backdrop,
but it is the words of the policy which are going to be key to
the Commissioner s who have to make those judgments.
Q662 Mr Weir:
The Sizewell public inquiry has obviously been quoted at us several
times during this. Do you feel the NPS as drafted will do away
with the need to discuss policy as such and inquiries into nationally
significant infrastructure projects?
Sir Michael Pitt: I am sorry,
could you repeat the question?
Q663 Mr Weir:
Do you feel that the NPS as drafted will do away with the need
to discuss specific inquiries into nationally significant infrastructure
projects?
Sir Michael Pitt: I think what
the NPSs do is reduce the degree to which evidence would be provided
on those issues. I think that from the point of view of a applicant,
from the point of view of local authorities, objectors and statutory
consultees, everybody knows that the IPC has to regard the National
Policy Statement as a primary document; it is key to the decision
making process. What I think Commissioner s cannot do is rule
out evidence and submissions which are made to them. They have
to address that evidence and submissions and if they object to
it, for example, and wanted to put evidence before a Commissioner
which was about need, then I think the Commissioner in some way
would have to refer to that in their report but might not well
give it as much weight as they would have done if there was not
a National Policy Statement in existence.
Q664 Mr Weir:
The point was put to us by lawyers this morning that, for example,
in the nuclear NPS there is stated to be a need for ten new nuclear
stations and there are ten sites, so where does that leave the
IPC? If evidence is put to them about need, the Government has
decided—whether we agree with them or not—that there
is a need for ten stations, they are going to be faced with the
position of looking at evidence that is apparently contradictory
to the policy set out in the NPS from the start.
Sir Michael Pitt: The public position
of the Infrastructure Planning Commission is that clearly the
NPS is a very significant document but it does not mean to say
that Commissioner s would ultimately agree all ten sites. If it
is the view of the panel—assuming it is a panel—that
the adverse impact locally of a particular individual nuclear
power station was so great that it overruled the national benefits
of that energy then that panel would have the right to turn down
that application.
Paddy Tipping: One of the issues we have
discussed a lot is the justification of need; we received quite
a lot of evidence on that. Des?
Q665 Dr Turner:
If these documents are as advertised they almost take away from
yourselves any need to consider justification for the need, for
instance, for a nuclear power station or whatever the generating
technology may be. Do you feel this is so?
Dr Gambles: Yes, I think to a
great extent that is so. The justification for the policy that
the Government outlines in the National Policy Statement—the
reasons behind the policy—are a matter for government and
it is not a matter for Commissioner s to re-examine the rationale
that lies behind the policy. I say that without in any way contradicting
what Sir Michael has just said, that if someone wishes to present
evidence that is relevant to the matter under consideration they
can do so and that will be considered, but I think it is not for
Commissioner s to re-open the consideration of the underlying
rationale for policy.
Q666 Dr Turner:
Does it make that rationale sufficiently clear in all cases for
that to be so? It might be different, for instance, for a wind
farm because the NPSs do not really make clear any distinctions
between the desirability of different generation technologies.
Can you see a problem arising with the impact of a wind farm as
against a gas generating station or whatever? Do you think it
would be helpful if you had more clear guidance on the desirability
in policy terms of different forms of generation?
Dr Gambles: No, not necessarily,
because each application must be considered separately and on
its own merits. Commissioner s will, in that sense, never be comparing
the merits of a wind farm with the merits of a gas powered station;
they will be examining each on their own merits. The Policy Statement
is very clear that it is a matter for the market to determine
what the energy mix shall be and that there is an overriding need
for both renewable and non-renewable capacity and so we would
examine each application within that context. If Government wished
to amend a Policy Statement to set out a hierarchy or an energy
mix, as some witnesses have asked, then of course it is a matter
for them and we would then take it into account. I would not say
it was necessary in order for us to use those statements.
Q667 Dr Turner:
Do you not see a potential problem in trading off in your decision
making the absolute need and desirability of the generating technology
against, say, adverse environmental or social impacts which might
be acceptable for a low carbon technology but not if it is going
to be a carbon intensive technology?
Dr Gambles: I think those are
going to be difficult decisions and judgments. I do not underestimate
the challenges that Commissioner s will face in comparing things
which are very difficult to compare and weighing things which
are difficult to weigh in looking at environmental impacts, local
impacts and socio-economic impacts against the benefits of meeting
national need for energy supply. Those are going to be difficult
decisions. I am not sure that they are made more difficult by
the considerations you are talking about.
Q668 Dr Turner:
It leaves open the possibility which is already raised by DECC's
own figures which suggests that there is already quite enough
gas powered generation capacity that has already received consent
not to need any more. This presumably has clear implications for
how you would consider future applications for gas powered generation
but it is not covered in the guidance.
Sir Michael Pitt: I wonder if
I could jump in there. I think it is really important that neither
the IPC nor Commissioners attempt to second-guess government policy.
The Government presumably has carefully evaluated all these different
options and possibilities, given some consideration to having
a hierarchy of different forms of generation and finally reached
their conclusion that there should not be one. Given that is their
stated policy—it is pretty well-stated and repeated within
the National Policy Statements—that is then the position
the IPC finds itself in and must work with it.
Q669 Dr Turner:
It means that what the Government is effectively doing in this
is saying that the market should determine it.
Dr Lane: Yes, that is exactly
it.
Q670 Dr Turner:
With the economics of power generation as such, if you leave the
market to determine it you will get a carbon intensive generation.
Sir Michael Pitt: I wonder if
I could just add a comment on this because these are really important
considerations. As time goes by and as the Commission deals with
a succession of applications and reaches decisions in the way
we have described, it is quite conceivable that over a period
of time there would appear to be a problem of conflict between
government policies—government policy on carbon targets—and
what is actually in the National Policy Statements. We are required
to produce an annual report for select committee and for Parliament
and I would imagine we would want to draw attention to that in
our annual report so that if we feel that there is a conflict
between government policies as set out in different documents
we would like to make that clear to the relevant secretaries of
state, but that would then put the problem back where it belongs,
back to government to decide how to resolve it.
Q671 Dr Turner:
If the guidance were modified to take account of this problem
you would not have to worry about that.
Sir Michael Pitt: That is right.
We can imagine a situation where, from time to time, the secretary
of state will wish to withdraw the National Policy Statement on
a particular sector and replace it with a new statement because
life has moved on, circumstances have changed.
Q672 Paddy Tipping:
Just tell us about that. Is that a whim of the secretary of state?
Can he just do it and tell you that this is a change?
Sir Michael Pitt: I think under
the act the secretary of state can withdraw the existing national
Policy Statement after it has been designated, but then to introduce
a new NPS would require a repeat of the consultation process and
the scrutiny by your good selves and others.
Q673 Paddy Tipping:
We are going to be busy for a bit. Just going back to the line
of questioning that Des was talking about, when we signed up to
the EU renewable target of 15 per cent by 2020, that implies that
30 to 40 per cent of our electricity has got to be generated by
renewables by then. That does introduce a hierarchy, does it not?
Dr Lane: I think there are various
mechanisms by which the Government is presumably attempting to
address that issue whether it be through the carbon trading system,
and it is open to government to ensure that it is satisfied that
those mechanisms are delivering. After all, that is what it says
in the Policy Statement, that it believes it is doing that. It
is open to government to change some elements of that process
if they feel it is necessary to do so. They could do that even
without having to rewrite the whole of the NPS. Because of the
way the NPS is constructed it would be open to them to pull some
of those levers without having to repeat the whole process. Albeit
the original timescale we were given for the NPSs was about five
years, it is perfectly possible to do that.
Q674 Dr Turner:
It could give the Government an extra and quite powerful lever
for promoting renewable energy for instance, would it not?
Dr Lane: I hesitate to stray into
the policy area directly, but obviously it would be open, given
that these are drafts, that the wording could be changed and I
know that you have received evidence from various parts of the
renewable energy industry as to their attitude to the way the
NPS is currently constructed and whether or not it is helpful
in that respect. That may be something the Committee wishes to
comment on.
Q675 Sir Robert Smith:
You were saying in answer to the earlier questions that if you
have an application before you obviously you deal with it on its
merits and you do not compare alternative applications. Quite
often on a controversial development objectors could put in the
observation that that need could be met by better use of the site.
Are you saying that because no-one commercially has come forward
with that better use you will only look at the commercial application
that is sitting before you?
Dr Lane: We can only determine
the application that is in front of us, yes. It is not open to
us to pre-judge the commercial judgment of the operator that puts
something in front of us; that would be a matter for government
policy in terms of the market mechanisms as to the commercial
viability of that project.
Q676 Sir Robert Smith:
So only the market can deliver the solution to that need.
Dr Lane: We can listen to the
evidence but the statement of need is that it is market led and
that therefore we should not attempt to judge the commercial viability
of anything that is in front of us either in terms of the commercial
viability of the actual project or by comparison to an alternative.
Paddy Tipping: Shall we talk about site
specificity and the nuclear NPSs' named sites.
Q677 Mr Weir:
Are you content with the fact that non-nuclear NPSs are not location
specific? Would you have preferred more guidance on these?
Sir Michael Pitt: This is a choice
open to government whether to attempt to be more specific about
individual sites or, as has been said, to leave it open to the
market place to decide which particular locations to bring forward.
We are entirely satisfied with the way in which this has been
handled inside the National Policy Statements. We do not think
that the lack of designations of sites outside of nuclear presents
us with any insurmountable problems at all.
Q678 Mr Weir:
One of the things that has been put to us is a lack of site specification
has made it more difficult for the public to know the impact of
these on them. Do you have any views on that?
Sir Michael Pitt: The opportunities
for the public to have their say will be if there is an application
in their locality. I think you may well know that from the procedures
in the act there are a series of occasions when objectors, the
public, local authorities and consultees can make their representations
first to the developer themselves and then through to the Commission
by written representation and open hearing. If there is a project
in the vicinity of where they live there are very good democratic
processes built in.
Q679 Mr Weir:
The point of the NPSs and consultation process was to set a national
policy which you have said will weigh heavily in the decisions
of the IPC at least. The idea that has been put to us is that
the national policies are a process of public consultation but,
other than the nuclear ones which are site specific, it is difficult
to engage the pubic in looking at NPSs because they have no idea
whether or not they will have any impact in the area in which
they would be specifically interested. It is a different matter
when it is a specific application, but it is too late at that
point to make any impression upon the terms of the NPS because
that has already been decided.
Sir Michael Pitt: I have an enormous
amount of sympathy with the question but we are guided by the
act and the way that has been constructed and, as far as I can
see, this particular regime and these National Policy Statements
do follow the act precisely.
| 
