Examination of Witnesses (Questions 730
- 739)
WEDNESDAY 10 FEBRUARY 2010
LORD HUNT
OF KINGS
HEATH OBE, MR
ADAM DAWSON
AND MS
ANNE STUART
Q730 Paddy Tipping:
A very warm welcome to Lord Hunt, the Minister of State at the
Department of Energy and Climate Change, who is supported by Adam
Dawson, Head of New Nuclear, and Anne Stuart, Head of Energy Planning
Reform. Welcome to you all, and welcome to the students at the
back; a doubly well-informed audience today, some of whom might
want to ask questions at the end. Let us start the session, Phil,
by going back to the Planning Act 2008. I know you were involved
with it and a lot of us took a lot of interest in it, and it just
seems a long time ago that that legislation went through the House
and after that it has taken quite a long time for the NPSs to
emerge. Why was there such a delay with the energy NPSs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Thank
you, Mr Tipping, and thank you for your welcome this morning.
I think that is right, that I had just got into the Department
in autumn 2008 when I picked up the energy parts of the Planning
Bill when it was in the House of Lords, and it does seem quite
some time since then. We have had to work very carefully to make
sure that the draft National Policy Statements are fit for purpose.
The Energy National Policy Statements, in particular, are pretty
comprehensive. Indeed, one of the criticisms, I think, that has
been made of us is that we produced so many pages, but, given
that we are covering an overarching NPS in relation to energy
and then separate NPSs in relation to different technologies,
inevitably it has taken some time. We have had also to recognise
that this is the first step in a new planning system and I think
it has been very important to get it right, as is now the public
consultation that we are in the middle of and parliamentary scrutiny.
Obviously, I am hopeful that we will be able to move as quickly
as possible to designation, but equally we will have to take account
a lot of the input that we have received, and will receive, as
a result of the consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.
Q731 Paddy Tipping:
Do you know offhand how many responses you have had so far?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes,
in relation to the actual number of responses, I think we have
just had over 1,000 formal responses so far and, as the consultation
closes on February 22, I would imagine that we will get a lot
more in the last two weeks, of course in addition to having to
look extensively at the impact upon this group.
Q732 Paddy Tipping:
Presumably, you have been looking at the responses as they have
come in and you have not put them in a pile to read on 22 February.
What are the main themes that are emerging?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
I am not sure how far you are going to press me on this because—
Q733 Paddy Tipping:
I wanted to see if your list was the same as ours.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have
deliberately wanted this to be a thorough job in terms of, rather
than dipping into the points being made, actually really looking
at this in detail when we have been able to pull it all together,
but you would not be surprised that a number of issues have been
raised about energy policy in general, energy security, whether
the mix of energy generation is right in the future, to what extent
should the IPC be going beyond its planning reach into almost
setting quotas for each type of energy technology based on carbon
emissions, clearly issues about the process that the IPC will
use, the process of consultation, and in relation to new nuclear
clearly a lot of questions have been raised about nuclear waste,
and I suppose I should mention overhead lines as well as there
are those who wish that all overhead lines were placed underground.
I am encouraged by the fact that we have had so many comments
already. We have had some national events where nearly 400 people
have attended and we have also had the local siting events in
relation to the ten possible sites for new nuclear development
by 2025 and I think we have had so far over 3,000 people coming,
so it does seem to me so far to have been a pretty lively engagement.
Q734 Paddy Tipping:
Given the range of comments, when do you think you might be in
a position to designate? What is the broad timetable you have
got in mind?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I cannot
be absolutely precise on this, there are one or two events that
are coming which might intervene, but ideally we would like to
do this in the summer, but it might be in the autumn. I think
that one has to reflect that, as yet, I do not have a specific
timetable. For instance, the House of Lords is having three separate
sessions taking the overarching energy NPS, then nuclear and then
the others in a third session, and this is occurring in February/March
and, if there is then going to be a debate in the Chamber of the
Lords, I do not know yet whether time will be found before an
election is called, so there are some imponderables here, but,
as I say, ideally we would like to do it by the summer recess,
but I cannot give that guarantee. I think in the end we have to
do this and we have to do this carefully, and I understand the
imperative to get on with it, but equally the key thing is getting
it right.
Q735 Paddy Tipping:
We are going to produce our report a bit more definitively by
28 March, which is what you asked us to do. I would not want you
to do a Bob Ainsworth and tell us the date of the General Election,
even if you knew it, but it is pretty clear to me that there are
only a number of parliamentary weeks left and I think it is unlikely,
if we were to recommend a debate, and I think there is a strong
possibility we would do that, that we would get it in in the lifetime
of the current Parliament.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
that is very helpful and I think probably the 28th is probably
the latest that one would wish to receive your report! I think
that, if that is the case and then we are talking about a new
Parliament and the time it takes to sort this out, then clearly
it might have a consequence in terms of when designation can take
place, but I want to get the balance right here. We are clear
that we want to do this as quickly as possible, but the most important
thing is to get it right and that we are able to give due consideration
to all the comments that we have received and to the output of
parliamentary scrutiny.
Q736 Paddy Tipping:
And you are prepared to acknowledge that the imminence of the
General Election has, in a sense, truncated the timetable and
it has made it more difficult for ourselves, in particular?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
I am appreciative of the work of the Committee and of course we
have been keeping close attention to the hearings that you have
been having. We have always recognised that this is a tremendous
amount of work for the Committee to do and we would be extremely
appreciative to receive the report before the election, but I
think inevitably it does cause a pause, though no doubt my officials
will have the luxury of having no ministers around for some time
to get on with the job of assimilating and making recommendations,
so one should not think, just because an election is called, that
the work will stop.
Q737 Sir Robert Smith:
Do you accept though that it has not been ideal in the sense that
we have had to start our scrutiny before all the evidence has
come in to your Department because of the election and, if there
had not been an election, the process would have been different?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do
of course understand that it has meant that the Select Committee
has been operating under some pressure, for which I am grateful.
Nonetheless, it does seem to me, with the thoroughness of the
hearings you have had so far and the fact that so many people
have already responded, that we are going through a rigorous process.
Paddy Tipping: Let us move on and talk
about the consultation process.
Q738 Colin Challen:
We know that there are various legal challenges being threatened
to the way that the consultation has been handled. Are you happy
with the way the consultation has been handled?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have
always thought that the whole process of developing the draft
NPSs would be liable to a great deal of scrutiny and to judicial
proceedings, and that is not unexpected. Overall, I think we have
done very well on the consultation. Of course, if people wish
to take proceedings, we will defend ourselves robustly, but in
terms of what has happened we have had these national events,
and we added one for the North West in the light of the helpful
advice from the Select Committees, and, as far as the local events
in relation to the proposed sites for new nuclear are concerned,
we have had very good attendances. I have had letters from members
of the public who have said they have appreciated the opportunity
to see the information and we have certainly had good acknowledgement
of the openness in the way in which officials have been prepared
to discuss issues with people who have raised issues. We have
added a number of local events. Some concerns were raised about
the short notice in relation to Hinkley and Hartlepool and we
have added an event at both Hinkley and Hartlepool. My colleague,
Mr Dawson, will go to one on Saturday at Dungeness, although it
has not been listed as a site suitable, but there clearly has
been a lot of local debate about whether Dungeness should have
been listed, so we are attending an event there. Therefore, in
terms of the requirement to be thorough and effective, I am satisfied
that it has been thorough and effective, and there has always
been lots of local media activity and ministers have done quite
a lot of interviews for local radio and some regional TV stations,
promoting the events.
Q739 Colin Challen:
You mentioned the site-specific nuclear consultation. Given that
there is so much wind held up in the planning process, which hopefully
the NPSs will deal with, I just wonder why it was that it was
not possible to have site-specific consultations on wind proposals.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
I know that this has been one of the issues raised as to whether,
in parallel to what has occurred on nuclear, we should have had
a process which was much more specific about whether other technology
developments should take place. I think we do have to recognise
the special circumstances of new nuclear developments, and in
2006 the Government gave an assurance that there would be this
site-specific approach. However, if you were to extend that to
all technologies, and I accept that you are asking about wind,
but I think that, in principle, you could say that, if you are
going to extend it to wind, you might extend it to other technologies,
I think the risk is that it would take a large amount of time
to do the preparation work, it would be very expensive, it would
delay investment, which I would regard as a big problem. Finally,
if you were actually engaged in an exercise that looked at the
whole country and tried to map out where it was appropriate for
different developments, I suspect the problem of blight would
be greater, so we came to the view that it would be better to
leave it to the developers to propose sites and that the assessments
should then take course from there.
|
