Examination of Witnesses (Questions 740
- 759)
WEDNESDAY 10 FEBRUARY 2010
LORD HUNT
OF KINGS
HEATH OBE, MR
ADAM DAWSON
AND MS
ANNE STUART
Q740 Colin Challen:
Does this not illustrate that there is in fact an inherent bias
towards nuclear?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No,
I do not think that is a fair comment. What we are clear about
is that we want to see a diversity of energy generation. In itself,
the commitment on renewable energy of 15 per cent by 2020 translating
into about roughly 30 per cent electricity is a clear statement
of government policy and priority, so I do not think that that
is the case. I think the case in relation to nuclear is due to
the specific issues around the decision to go back to new nuclear,
the commitment in 2006, and I think also a recognition that the
number of sites for potential nuclear development is pretty limited,
and I think it is rather different from wind and other generations.
Q741 Colin Challen:
But it seems to me as if the nuclear industry is getting a head
start. In dealing with public opinion, the fact that we will have
NPSs in relation to renewables, and particularly wind which is
perhaps the most controversial, and because there is so much held
up in the pipeline, all the battles that local people have about
the siting of wind farms have yet to happen or they are happening
and they are being generally backed by local councillors who support
objections. That does mean that wind still has a lot of resistance
to overcome, does it not, despite the NPSs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think
that there is no doubt that, if we are talking about onshore wind
and planning consent, this has been a major problem. Indeed, when
I got this job back in autumn 2008, I think that the two major
issues that were raised with me by the industry were access to
the grid and the problem of planning. We know that the record
of local authorities in giving planning consent to wind is pretty
poor, and clearly we hope that the new planning system in relation
to onshore above 50 megawatts will lead to a more rational approach
and an approach which at the same time allows local people to
have their say and, nonetheless, recognises the national importance
of major wind applications. I understand that the wind industry
themselves did not want the site-specific approach for the reasons
that I have suggested. I am optimistic; it does seem to me that
in the last two or three years we have seen considerable momentum
in relation to wind, and of course offshore the third leasing
round by Crown Estates which was announced in January was very,
very successful indeed with major companies coming in with major
investment, so I would recognise that those developers who have
tried to take wind projects forward have found considerable barriers,
but I am optimistic. With the combination of the emphasis that
we are giving in Government to renewable energy and the reformed
planning system, I am hopeful that this will lead to much greater
progress in the next few years.
Q742 Mr Weir:
Obviously, we have had evidence from local groups who have been
very critical about the public consultation, specifically the
nuclear-specific one, and the Department has produced a very interesting
and detailed breakdown of the publicity. The residents of Hinkley
Point were particularly critical. I notice that there were 5,000
leaflets dropped, according to this, through a long list of villages,
but that seems to be considerably less than were dropped at the
other nuclear stations when there were between 10,000 and 11,000
in most of them, as far as I can see from this. They were also
critical about the area in which they were distributed. Do you
feel that sufficient information was given in this case?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
I am. I do believe that we have had a good process in relation
to the consultation events, that sufficient information was available,
not just through leaflets, but through the local media. Could
I ask Mr Dawson to perhaps respond in general because he has been
very much involved in the planning of these events.
Mr Dawson: Indeed, yes. The first
point to make, I think, is that the number of leaflets was determined
by the geography as opposed to meeting any particular target,
so we aimed to leaflet within six miles of a site, so that may
explain some of the differences in the numbers that you saw. In
addition, we have also sought to advertise in newspapers and we
have done that in advance of the public events that we were holding.
We have also recently re-advertised the imminent ending of the
National Policy Statements consultation so that people have had
the opportunity to input their views later in the process as well.
Then, associated with all of the events, we have done media, so
there have been interviews with ministers and officials on the
local media in the areas that have been affected, so I think actually
we have gone to quite considerable lengths to make sure that all
sites were aware of the activities that were going on and people
had the opportunity to come along and have their voices heard.
Q743 Mr Weir:
The other point was that many people did not know, they did not
hear it on the media and they did not necessarily get the local
paper, so it is interesting that you have included in your paper
local pressure group publicity and the Stop Hinkley website, and
there the point was that they had to get it out to a lot of people
because they were not getting it through the media. My geography
of the area is perhaps a bit vague, but Bridgwater was not included
in the original leaflet drop, I note from your own thing, and
I note also that you have had a second bite at it at Hinkley.
Is that evidence that perhaps you accept that it was not so well
done in the first place?
Mr Dawson: The reason why we had
the second event was because Hinkley was only the second of the
programme of events and we felt that it might have been the case
that we were not able to give enough publicity in advance because
it happened very soon after we had launched the National Policy
Statement. We got feedback from the area that they would like
another event, so we responded to that and organised one. Incidentally,
Hartlepool, which was the very first very shortly afterwards,
we received similar feedback there, so we went back there as well
and participated in a session that the local authority organised
there.
Q744 Mr Weir:
On a more general point, Lord Hunt, the other point which has
consistently been brought forward is the aspect that in the nuclear
one, because it is site-specific, it is easier to get public engagement,
but with the other ones, where it has not been site-specific,
it is very difficult to get local people involved because they
do not see the immediate impact in their area. Are you satisfied
that there has been sufficient public involvement in these non-nuclear
NPSs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
I do think that the events that we have had nationally on the
whole suite of the energy National Policy Statements have been
successful and lots of viewpoints have been put forward. One has
to recognise that we are at the first part of this whole process
and, in the case that you have mentioned of non-nuclear potential
developments, of course the whole IPC process means that the developer
will have to go through a very extensive process of local engagement
before the application can be accepted by the IPC in which the
local authority will have involvement. Then, of course you then
come to the IPC process itself when it actually takes a planning
application and the opportunity for people who have concerns to
express their views, in open hearings so we took the decision,
which I think was the right one, to only have the site-specific
element in relation to nuclear, I think that we got the balance
right between national and local events. At the end of the day,
the question is this, and this is testing out the National Policy
Statements: are they fit for purpose? There is a whole purpose
of the current consultation and parliamentary scrutiny and what
I can say so far is that we are being tested and that people are
raising legitimate issues which we will have to consider. At the
end of this part of the new planning system, will we have National
Policy Statements that are fit for purpose? Well, I think we will
do so. You can always find different ways to consult, and we all
are experienced in that, but I believe they are thorough and it
has been thorough and effective.
Q745 Sir Robert Smith:
Is there not a danger though in what you just said about the process,
that a member of the public comes along on the last day when the
IPC are looking at an application and is horrified, shocked, bewildered
and gets told, "Oh well, you see, these National Policy Statements
constrain us in what we have to do and we have to comply with
these National Policy Statements. You really should have taken
an interest back then when those Policy Statements were going
through", and that is why it is so important to engage the
public now? Much of my planning casework is people coming along,
saying, "I don't want this development", "Well,
you missed it in the Local Plan, you missed it in the strategic
plan and you only woke up when the planning application came in",
but that is too late to influence the policy process.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
of course I understand the point that you are putting and I would
not at all seek to underestimate the value of public involvement
in the current part of this process, making sure that these draft
National Policy Statements are up to scratch, but let us be clear,
that we are at the stage where Government in the end comes to
a view on national policy, following scrutiny by Parliament and
public input into the National Policy Statements. Now, that seems
to me that that is very much the role of Government. When it comes
to the individual applications, then that is a matter for the
IPC and they will deal with it, using the planning considerations
that they have to take into account. I do think that one of the
big differences between the current planning regime and what is
going to emerge is the amount of work that the developer will
have to do with the local authority and the local community before
the IPC will even take the application. I also would say that,
as you will know, why we are here is because of the experience
of previous planning applications where there have been public
inquiries and where days and weeks have spent debating the issue
of whether you should have a particular technology or not rather
than focusing on issues to do with local planning consents and
infrastructure; all the issues that we all are interested in locally.
What this does is allow much more focus to be given to those local
issues and concerns without having the overriding issue of, for
instance, do you go back to nuclear or not because, surely, that
is right for Government, accountable to Parliament, to actually
decide.
Q746 Sir Robert Smith:
One of the other questions on the consultation is on the nuclear
side, that a lot of the sites are next to existing plant, and
that was very much expected and in the pipeline, but there are
greenfield sites. Have you made extra effort to alert the community
to the greenfield areas, or have you noticed any difference in
the engagement?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
perhaps I could ask Mr Dawson to answer that.
Mr Dawson: There are indeed two
greenfield sites, one is at Kirksanton and the other one is at
Braystones, which is fairly close to the Sellafield site. We considered
very carefully how to engage with these communities. For example,
at Braystones, initially we had considered whether we should do
a single event and activity to cover both Braystones and Sellafield,
given that they were so close to each other, but we concluded
that would be wrong and we decided to run separate events, even
though the two sites were very close to each other. We publicised
each one separately and we have run separate exhibitions and so
on so that we were able to distinguish the greenfield site from
the legacy site that was already there in that case. Kirksanton
was the other one. We, I think, probably had just about the most
vigorous response to our consultation from Kirksanton of all of
the sites and I do not think that there can be any doubt that
people in the area were aware that this was going on. Certainly,
those of us who went there were very aware of the feelings that
the people had in the area and we went to considerable lengths
to make sure that it was properly publicised, so I do not think
there should be any issue of people, certainly in those two greenfield
sites, not knowing that it was going on or not feeling that they
had the opportunity to input.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have
done an interview with a local newspaper and the local regional
TV on the issues in Cumbria, so we certainly are pretty clear
that there are issues that people have raised and we understand
them and will consider them.
Q747 Paddy Tipping:
I am pleased that you are having a special event in Dungeness.
Is there a strong case for a new nuclear plant there?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
I think as you will know, we concluded that, because of the site
of special significance due to the unique nature of the shingle
and given the advice that we have had from Natural England, it
would not really be possible to mitigate in a satisfactory way
or deal with the adverse consequences, and that is why we concluded
that we would not be able to recommend Dungeness as a site for
development. I know that this has proved to be a controversial
decision and I know that there are many people in the vicinity
of Dungeness who would wish Dungeness to be considered, and Mr
Dawson is attending an event in Dungeness this Saturday where
there will be further discussion of it, but, as the Minister who
received the advice, I looked at this very carefully indeed. One
has to recognise, I have to say, that these are draft National
Policy Statements and I quite certainly do not have a closed mind
to this issue, but equally the advice I received in looking at
the issue would suggest that development in Dungeness would be
very, very difficult indeed.
Q748 Paddy Tipping:
But, if it came out on Saturday that it would in fact be possible
to mitigate, would you ask Natural England to look at it again?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I will
ask Mr Dawson perhaps to deal with this in detail, but I think
probably I have answered your point really, that we do not have
a closed mind. If substantive evidence were produced which would
suggest that it would be possible to meet the kinds of objections
that have been put forward, including the advice received from
Natural England, then of course we would consider that. I think
I must stress here that we are talking about draft National Policy
Statements and I do think that this whole undertaking is one in
which we will look very seriously at the comments we receive,
but perhaps Mr Dawson—
Paddy Tipping: No, a statement of principle
is fine. We have talked a bit about need and I want us to explore
that a bit more.
Q749 Dr Turner:
Philip, we have had a lot of comments about the way in which the
NPSs deal with the question of need. Building on what you have
just said, you have suggested that the existence of the NPSs would
obviate the need for the IPC to go through the sort of angst-ridden
considerations whether to have a nuclear station or whatever which
have taken up so much time in the planning process in the past.
Indeed, the overarching Statement says that "the IPC should
expect to receive applications for all types of electricity generation.
It should start its assessment of them from a basis that there
is significant need for all types of generation". One of
the points made by NGOs is that there is sufficient gas-fired
generation already in the pipeline to obviate the need, or virtually
obviate the need, for any further gas-powered generation. Is there
not a risk that, as stated, the NPSs could lead to an over-representation
of carbon-intensive generation in the generation mix?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
I understand the point that is being put here and it is sometimes
described as the `dash for gas'. The concern is that, although
we have policies that are very much about having diversity of
energy generation and wanting to see renewables, new nuclear and
indeed coal-powered with CCS, the investors will simply go for
gas and that that will make it very difficult for these other
energies to come forward. Let me say at once that, if the Government
saw evidence that that was the case, then I believe the Government
would need to intervene, and it would be the role of Government
to make sure that the market was responding in an appropriate
way in order to meet our overriding energy policy. It is not,
I think, for the IPC to take on that role because it has been
suggested that the IPC might set arbitrary limits on the development
consent they would give for each technology. I am confident that
we have the right mechanisms in place to see the development of
renewable energy generation alongside new nuclear and carbon capture
and storage. I think we should also recognise that gas does have
a role to play. It has an important role to play now and you could
argue that gas is, in a sense, part of the transition, that it
enables us to make the transition from where we are now to where
we want to be in the future and, I have to say as Energy Minister,
I believe one of my most important roles is to ensure that in
the North Sea, the UKCS, we continue to exploit our oil and gas
reserves there and to make sure that the decline happens as slowly
as possible because gas does have an important role to play in
the future, but I understand the fear about the `dash for gas'
and I can assure the Committee that, if it became apparent that
the fears which have been expressed by the NGOs looked like it
was coming about, then of course we would need to look at interventions.
Q750 Dr Turner:
But, since the NPSs are basically a statement of government energy
policy and the government energy policy is that we should have
30 per cent of electricity from renewables, et cetera, it is not
really reflected on the face of the NPSs. The suggestion has been
made that the NPSs should at least indicate a hierarchy of desirability
of different types of generation, which could well be a consideration,
and, if the IPC is considering a raft of applications, three of
which are renewable and two of which are carbon-intensive, then
the NPSs would have a very clear steer about which was more desirable.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I would
be very, very wary of going down that route because essentially,
it seems to me, that would bring the IPC into the arena of policy-making.
I believe that it is Government's role to do that. The IPC has
to take each planning application on its merits and not, if you
like, make value judgments about whether one particular energy
technology is deemed to be better than another. I do think that
that must be for Government to make sure that we have sufficient
interventions and incentives so that we get the right mix. I would
also say that I understand the hierarchy approach, and others
have suggested that you set a sort of gigawatt per energy technology
limit for the IPC to give consent up to, but there are two points
about that. First of all, even though they give consent, you do
not know with absolute certainly that that development is going
to take place. Secondly, I think I would argue that you might
put undue pressure on the IPC if, for instance, you are almost
setting a quota. Would that not be undue influence on the IPC
to give consent where it might not be appropriate to do so? Surely,
it is better for the IPC to judge each application on its merits.
It is for Government; we set the policy on energy and, if we find
that the applications that are being made, looking at the mixture
of technologies, do not look as though they are going to meet
our low carbon requirements or energy security requirements, then
it is up to Government to intervene. We are doing pieces of work
at the moment looking ahead to the kind of technology mix and
requirements on energy going up to 2050, and we are also doing
work looking at the market, which is called the `energy market
assessment', where again we hope to produce preliminary work on
this at the time of the Budget, very much looking at whether we
have got the right levers, do we need more levers, but I do think
that that must be the role of Government and Government must accept
responsibility for this.
Q751 Dr Turner:
I do not think anyone is suggesting rigid quotas or anything like
that, but it would have a role to express some provision for hierarchy,
especially if you consider the relationship between the IPC and,
as the statutory consultee, the Committee on Climate Change, which
is in a position to advise the IPC on the relationship between
the carbon intensity or otherwise of a given application and the
progress of carbon budgets so that in fact, between the NPS and
the Climate Change Committee, the IPC could be given a very clear
and dependable steer so that they would not be placed in an invidious
position.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I know,
Mr Tipping, why there should be interest in trying to give steers
to the IPC on this, but I think that it would be unworkable. I
think it would be invidious for the IPC to have what, in effect,
would be value judgments between different technologies, and I
do not think it is what the IPC itself would want to do. It is
very, very important that they have clarity that their job is
to receive each planning application on its merits, that they
make their decisions in relation to the impact assessment and
all the other assessments they are required to make, but, if you
were to actually say to them, "In addition to that, you,
the IPC, have to ensure that the energy mix is right according
to government policy", I think that takes them out of that
independent view in relation to planning consents and they would
become much more a kind of operational arm of Government in deciding
whether a particular application should be allowed or not. I think
it is very important that Government accepts responsibility for
this. There will always be argument about whether we have got
the right policies and the right interventions, but it is right
that the Government should bear that responsibility.
Q752 Dr Turner:
But, having set up the NPS mechanism and the whole new planning
system, the Government has put this at arm's length, so the Government
has deprived itself of the ability to intervene if it wishes to,
so, if the Government wishes to make sure that climate change
mitigation is considered as a very important factor in assessing
need, how is it going to do it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
in a sense, we are sort of repeating some of the debates about
the planning legislation in the first place. I think it was right,
first of all, to ensure that with these major planning applications
in future the debate locally should not be about whether it was
right that you had a particular technology and that falls to Government
because on energy policy the Government has to set the framework
for the way in which the energy market, the energy infrastructure
and the energy supply, is going to be developed. When it comes
to planning applications, surely the planning body must deal with
those on the basis of the merits of that application. Now, the
question then is: does Government have enough interventions? Now,
I think the question there is that we think that we have developed
a series of policies which do ensure that we get the right energy
mix, but I am not at all complacent about that and that is why
we are doing this work on the energy market assessment to make
sure that, as we go ahead, if we need further interventions, we
will take them, but it is our responsibility.
Q753 Paddy Tipping:
I think, Phil, that is an issue that we will come back to talk
to you about at a later date, about how far the framework is strong
enough, the role of Government, and the new Ofgem Report, Project
Discovery, says some interesting things about that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Certainly,
it is interesting that Ofgem, whom I have always seen as the apostle
of the free market, have now decided that government intervention
is required. Clearly, we are looking at the Ofgem Report and in
fact it was very helpful to us in terms of the energy market assessment
that we are doing.
Paddy Tipping: We have begun to talk
about the role of the IPC in terms of carbon budgets and carbon
accounting, so let us pursue that a bit further.
Q754 Mr Weir:
We have had conflicting evidence, I suppose, about what the role
of the IPC should be in respect of carbon budgets and, in particular,
should they have a role in assessing the cumulative carbon emissions
arising from their consenting decisions. What is your view on
that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No,
I think they should not. My argument is exactly the same as my
response to Des Turner, which is that, if the IPC is making essentially
a value judgment in terms of looking at the carbon emissions of
each proposed application, I think it becomes rather more than
a planning body; it is bringing itself into making, if you like,
energy policy decisions. It is for us, the Government, to do that.
Our job is to make sure that the market, the interventions, the
subsidies through renewables and all the other interventions that
we have produce the right result in terms of energy policy and
energy outcome. I think it really does confuse the picture if
you give to the IPC a wider responsibility, and I think for developers
it will create a great deal of uncertainty in terms of what process
do they have to go through in order to get planning consent. I
am also very wary of taking responsibility from the Government
when I am clear that energy policy is our responsibility and we
properly should be held accountable for that.
Q755 Mr Weir:
How would the Government deal with the situation when the IPC
is purely looking at developments from a planning point of view,
not as to the type of generation and the carbon emissions from
that? There must be a danger that the wrong type of developments
are put forward by developers. The Government is going to have
to step in at some point and, I do not know, would you call in
a certain development or stop a certain kind of development? There
must be a point where you would have to take an interest or take
action if the wrong type of developments were going through the
IPC.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
quite clearly, the question of development of energy infrastructure
is of close interest to Government and, clearly, we take a very
close look at how developments are taking place and ensuring that
the cumulative output meets the kind of mix that we want to see.
What are the kind of interventions that can take place? Well,
clearly, as a lot of this is around the kind of subsidies that
are available, if we talk about renewables, we have recently seen
the impact of introducing banding for the Renewables Obligation.
The result has been a very, very successful licensing round in
terms of offshore wind, and I think that is a good example of
how an intervention can actually ensure that you meet the policy
objective. The work that we are doing on the energy market assessment
is looking at whether there are other interventions that need
to take place, how can we ensure that the investment that is likely
to be required over the next 20/30 years is going to come about,
but I do not think we should use the IPC to be part of that process.
If the National Policy Statements themselves look like they are
not fit for purpose, then of course they can always be reviewed
and withdrawn, these are not set in stone for decades to come,
so I am satisfied that we will have the necessary ability to influence
what is happening to make sure we get the right technology mix,
but I do think that trying to give the IPC a kind of additional
responsibility to essentially manage energy policy, which is what
this would do, I would be very wary of going down that path, and
I think the IPC would too.
Q756 Mr Weir:
What about the interaction between the IPC and the Committee for
Climate Change? Will the Committee have a role in advising the
IPC on this matter of stepping in in any way should they be concerned
about the way that the generation capacity is developing?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think
it is entirely appropriate for the Committee on Climate Change
to comment on what is happening in relation to energy policy,
where they think things are going wrong, where they think they
are going right and making suggestions to Government about what
interventions they might make. That is what the Committee is doing
at the moment and I have no doubt that, if they wish to comment
on the planning process, they will be well able to do so. What
again I would be wary of is the Committee for Climate Change being
asked to actually make comments on an individual planning application;
I do not think that that is the Committee's remit. In terms of,
as you know, the Committee on Climate Change, it has had enormous
effect in terms of advice to Government and, I am sure, will continue
to do so, but again surely, rather than commenting on a specific
application, it would be much more looking at what is happening
in relation to the energy mix, whether we are likely to meet our
climate change targets and, if we are not, then that would be
the alert that they would be giving to Government and to Parliament,
and it seems to me that that should be their role. I am very clear
here that the IPC itself is not in itself an instrument of government
policy in relation to energy; that is not its role. There is a
real worry that we get into a sort of grey area here where people
are not clear about what the IPC is there to do.
Q757 Mr Weir:
I understand your point, but the overarching NPS is supposed to
be a statement of government policy. Now, should there not be,
whether it is the Committee on Climate Change, someone looking
at the way that the IPC is operating? The IPC, from what you are
saying, is operating purely on a planning basis, and we understand
why, but the planning decisions of the IPC will have a significant
impact on the development of a type of generation and surely there
must be someone having a look at that to make sure that that is
fitting within government policy for climate change and carbon
reduction?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
I think that is for Government, is it not?
Q758 Mr Weir:
But who is going to do it? Surely, there must be someone to give
them a steer there and say, "No, you can't keep giving permission
for this type of generation because it is leading to an imbalance"?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
I do not think that is how it would work because I certainly think
that Government should be doing that. Other organisations, I am
sure, will as well and in fact I suspect that every decision made
by the IPC is going to be clawed over. Clearly, stakeholders,
pressure groups and parliamentarians are going to be looking at
the cumulative impact, so I am not at all worried that there will
not be a very close eye kept on the IPC decisions and the cumulative
impact. I still think you come back to the issue where, as a result
of those decisions, and of course those decisions are only made
as a result of applications being brought forward by developers,
if one gets a view that the kinds of interventions and incentives
that are in place at the moment are not producing the energy mix
that we require, then it must come back to Government to look
at the interventions and to see what else needs to happen. Equally,
if it became clear that there were gaps in the National Policy
Statements or problems, then again you have got the process of
suspension or withdrawal, so you do have those mechanisms as well,
so I understand what you are saying, but it does seem to me that
there will be a lot of monitoring of what the IPC does. The Government
itself has every interest in ensuring that its own policies get
us the energy mix we require because the Committee on Climate
Change, which is a statutory consultee in relation to the National
Policy Statements, of course, if it reports in the future on our
energy mix and any concerns it has, Government will listen to
it.
Q759 Paddy Tipping:
Can I just ask you to comment on some evidence that the IPC gave
us, and let me just read it out to you: "Consideration of
climate change impacts is likely to form an important part of
the IPC's examination of proposed energy nationally significant
infrastructure projects, and commissioners must consider all relevant
evidence submitted". The IPC thinks it has got to look at
carbon effects.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Can
I ask Ms Stuart to answer that.
Ms Stuart: I think there are two
aspects here. It is very obvious and, I think, very clear on the
face of the NPSs that we do expect the IPC to take a very serious
interest in climate change adaptation. With everything they consent,
they have to actually consider the impacts of not merely what
would happen at present levels, say, of flood risk, but what would
be the predicted climate change impacts, so I think yes, they
have got a very clear interest and a very clear mandate to be
interested in climate change and I would not expect them to be
ignoring it. They also have an interest in, for instance, the
emissions of power stations, and obviously one of the emissions
to air is carbon dioxide and other things and they will take an
interest in that. I think what I would be very wary of is saying
to them not merely, "You can't consent an individual power
station if it reaches a certain level of unacceptability",
but we have obviously said to them, "You cannot give consent
to a coal-fired power station that does not have a CCS demonstration",
which is a climate change issue. What they are not being asked
to do is say, "We can't give consent to this power station
because we consented that one previously" or "because
we know another application is coming along". What we are
trying to make them do, and what I think they want to do, is to
focus on the application in front of them and make a decision
on the acceptability of that application.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I must
say, I think that you have to draw a distinction between the sort
of climate change impacts, so, if you have a generator that is
by the sea, you have to look at what the impact of a rise in sea
levels would be. I think that is rather different from looking
at what gigawatts it has and what technology. The IPC are trying,
through planning decisions, to meet the kind of mix that we want
to see, and that is the distinction that I would draw there.
|
