Examination of Witnesses (Questions 37
- 39)
WEDNESDAY 6 JANUARY 2010
MR GRAHAM
BOCKING AND
MR RICHARD
COAKLEY
Q37 Paddy Tipping:
We are joined by Richard Coakley, the Vice-President of the Institution
of Civil Engineers, and Graham Bocking from RICS. You have had
the benefit, although I am not sure it is a benefit, of hearing
our previous discussion, so I think you will be clear about the
themes we want to pursue with you. Let me ask you straightforwardly,
as we started with the last witnesses, about the National Policy
Statements. Are they in a fit purpose for the Government to adopt
them?
Mr Coakley: Good morning, ladies
and gentlemen. We, as the Institution of Civil Engineers, believe
this is a very good way forward. We have aspects that we do not
see as quite right in the NPSs, and we can go into those in more
detail, but one has to start from a certain position and I think
this moves the country on very much to where we need to be. We
have a massive challenge ahead of us and this is a great opportunity.
Mr Bocking: I would tend to support
the view of Mr Coakley. In contrast to the first witness this
morning, we take a rather more pragmatic attitude and recognise
that the NPSs are part of a wider policy framework, there are
some issues which quite clearly do not fall within them, there
are issues which are necessary to achieve carbon reduction which
are not relevant to major planning applications for new energy
plant, for example energy saving measures, energy efficiency measures,
which are nevertheless critical to achieving the targets. They
do not form part of the NPSs, but that is not wrong. We can go
into that in a little more detail if you wish. There are other
mechanisms in place to deal with some of the points that have
been mentioned, not least the mechanisms which the planning system
offers, such as environmental assessment of the projects which
will address in much more detail the local issues. It is perhaps
somewhat confusing, or at least slightly inconsistent, that on
the nuclear proposals there are site specific details in the relevant
document which do not exist for other technologies, and that is
understandable. You may have seen from my papers that I come from
a renewable background, but I have some understanding of other
technologies, so you would not expect me to be promoting nuclear
particularly, but recognise that it is being put forward as part
of the mix. Local issues specific to proposals at local sites
can be addressed under mechanisms. There are other policy mechanisms,
policy documents, and reference has been made to them, to the
Transition Plan, the Emission Trading Scheme and so on.
Q38 Paddy Tipping:
Both organisations have welcomed the setting up of the IPC and
they operate in the context of the NPSs. Are the NPSs sufficiently
clear and robust to allow them to do their work?
Mr Coakley: Our view is that they
are not—we use the word—holistic. They do not actually
bring the whole of the energy problems together as one, they are
looked at independently. Maybe that is the way in which they have
been produced and the overarching view of them. They do not incorporate
the real problems we have with transport and heat, for example.
These are particular areas where I find them wanting. The IPC
has got a good challenge to work with these documents and deliver
the right outcome. I do not think we can actually have everything
in the NPS documents at this stage. It is possible that they can
be brought in and reviewed in the future as indeed new technology,
like CCS, develops. I think we have got to be careful that we
are not saying, "Let's complete this as a perfect group at
this stage", let us see what we can work with. I am saying
I support these documents but I think there is a lot to do to
actually make them perfect.
Mr Bocking: There is clearly more
which can be added in relation to other issues: transport infrastructure
has just been mentioned and land use planning is clearly another.
It does not necessarily have to be within the NPS but as part
of the overall planning policy it is clearly very relevant if
you have a land use planning policy which tends in the longer
term to reduce the need for commuting, for example, that would
have effects which are beneficial. There are things which could
be added in here, but it is also important to note that if we
are talking about priorities, a priority is to do something. We
are going to have existing power plant which comes to the end
of its life and we have a climate change situation which, despite
the weather outside, demands attention and these documents are
part of the framework to enable that attention to be given and
to enable the markets to bring forward proposals and for some
of them to be approved so that new installations can take place.
Whilst one could spend whatever amount of time was available trying
to perfect these documents, there is also a priority to get something
in place to enable the development process to continue. There
are other mechanisms available to Government which then enable
priorities in terms of, for example, different technologies to
be adjusted according to how the market is seen to be responding.
As an example, there is the situation at the moment on CCS where
the response to the invitation to come forward with prototype
proposals seems not to meet the objectives that have been set.
Maybe there will need to be some further initiatives taken to
ensure that changes. Because the timescale for CCS is quite important.
We are talking of having prototypes in place by 2020 but retrofitting
of a massive amount of plant by 2025 and something does not quite
add up there. CCS needs to be implemented as quickly as possible.
It is not necessarily for the NPS alone to achieve that, but if
it is not sufficient alone then other policy mechanisms need to
be used.
Q39 Paddy Tipping:
We will come back and talk about the points you were making, Richard,
about transport and heat and links to the wider infrastructure
in a moment or two. Let me ask you this: ultimately, despite the
NPSs, our energy policy is going to be implemented by the market
and my impression, Richard, is that your institute has advocated
a more strategic approach. Is that right? Should there be greater
Government intervention to deliver our energy policy?
Mr Coakley: The points that were
made earlier in the morning were important points with regard
to our energy mix. For me, the important aspect is security of
supply and it is very important that we do not rely on gas. There
are vested interests in gas and there is a lot of gas around the
world, but the important thing is security of supply for this
country and that will give us a commercial basis for working with
the rest of the world. It always comes back to this security and
in my view that has to be set out as a strategy at the top for
the country because, in a marketplace, as the number of people
working in the marketplace reduces the marketplace can be controlled.
You have to make sure that they are in charge of the strategy
that the country and society needs in the UK rather than private
interests. For me, a strategy is important.
|
