---

The Government have, however, listened to concerns raised by stakeholders and in debate in the other place. As a result, the Government feel that it would be appropriate to raise to 132 kilovolts the threshold for when an electricity line project will be considered by the IPC. Amendment No. 129 therefore changes Clause 16 so that the only overhead line projects that will constitute a nationally significant infrastructure project for the purpose of the Bill are those relating to the development of long-distance transmission lines and the very largest distribution lines. We hope that the amendment goes a long way to addressing some of the concerns that have

14 Oct 2008 : Column 690

been expressed and will ensure that the IPC deals only with those electricity lines that are of national significance.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and I welcome him to the energy Dispatch Box and wish him well.

Am I misunderstanding something? If this new procedure is intended to be a signal improvement and acceleration of anything that might have been possible under the old procedure, why is it that people seem to want to escape the new system by getting themselves below the threshold? I find myself deeply puzzled by that. One would have thought that if this was a new procedure that was going to accelerate decisions, people would want to come into it. As my noble friend Lord Reay said, and as the Minister has been saying, it appears that people want to get out of it. Have I misunderstood something?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is a great pleasure to reply to the noble Lord, whose career I have followed with great interest over many years since we debated the health service a very long time ago, when he was Secretary of State for Health.

That is an understandable question, though I am slightly surprised—although I have not taken part in previous debates—since I understand that there has been some concern about whether the remit of the IPC will be too large and it would deal with too many projects. There has been concern about whether the workload would be so great that in fact it might be swamped by applications, which would mean that it would not be able to focus on what must be considered nationally significant projects.

9.45 pm

Lord Jenkin of Roding: That was extremely helpful, but it indicates that the change in threshold is more for the benefit of the IPC and the system than it is necessarily for the benefit of the promoter. One remembers the case of the Yorkshire transmission line, when 10 years elapsed between the application and when the line was finally built. One would have thought, therefore, that people would have said, “For goodness’ sake let us have this new procedure to avoid that sort of thing”. However, if the change in threshold is intended not to crowd out the whole process in the hands of the IPC, I can understand that. Maybe that is the explanation. I am most grateful to the noble Lord.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, that is, I think, the explanation. I move on to amendments moved or spoken to by other noble Lords. Amendment No. 115 of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seeks to determine the position of underground electricity lines. My understanding is that they benefit from permitted development rights and are, therefore, not included in the scope of the Bill. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the IPC can require sections of a proposed overground electricity line project to be constructed underground if there are strong reasons for doing that.

14 Oct 2008 : Column 691

The noble Lord made some good points about the desirability sometimes of underground lines, but reflected on their cost, which is huge. He may also know that the ecological balance is not entirely clear. My understanding is that for underground lines to match to performance of overhead lines, four separate trenches have to be built or, perhaps more appropriately, dug. That can disturb sensitive habitats and damage archaeological heritage. There is a debate about that issue, but the position is covered by permitted development rights.

The noble Lord asked an extremely interesting question about electricity lines to France, known as interconnectors, which allow us to obtain electricity from the French grid and vice versa. We had a fascinating debate about Northern Ireland. My understanding is that the position with France would be the same as it is for Northern Ireland: lines that were above ground would need consent under the Electricity Act 1989, but that consent would transfer to the IPC if the threshold was met. To the extent that interconnectors are on or under the sea-bed, they will need consent under the Coast Protection Act. Under the provisions of the draft Marine Bill, marine licences would replace those consents and will be dealt with by the proposed Marine Management Organisation. I shall come later to how that organisation will relate to this Bill, because it is of considerable interest to noble Lords and, indeed, to me, who will presumably have the pleasure of piloting the Marine Bill, when it is ready, through your Lordships’ House.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, raised an important point on pipelines for the transmission of carbon dioxide. He will be aware that we are moving to a higher dependence on gas imports and that is why we have included various onshore gas supply infrastructures in the Bill. Increasing dependence on imports means a requirement for additional offshore gas supply infrastructure. Existing gas import pipelines from Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands need consent under the Petroleum Act. Innovative offshore gas supply infrastructures, including the offshore storage of gas and the unloading of liquid natural gas tankers, is addressed through provisions in the Energy Bill.

Carbon capture and storage technology is still evolving, although one has hopes for, and has expectations of, its potential for the very reason that the noble Lord mentioned. Obviously, without knowing what form this might take, it is difficult to be definitive about what pipes might be used to transport carbon dioxide. Were carbon capture and storage to come forward as part of a generating station application in the future, we think that it could be included as an associated work to the power station application. I believe that the provisions relating to associated works and the guidance on that to be given by the Secretary of State are set out in Clause 111.

The noble Lord then went on to ask whether a national CCS pipeline network would be developed. The advice I have received is that it would be too expensive to be treated as an associated work to a generating station. However, a CCS pipeline might sometimes qualify in its own right under Clause 20. “Pipeline” is defined in Section 65 of the Pipe-lines Act 1962 as a pipe for the conveyance of anything other than air, water, water vapour or steam.

14 Oct 2008 : Column 692

Clause 34 allows the Secretary of State to direct that certain applications be referred to the IPC if she considers the project to be of national significance. As the planning White Paper explains, a key reason for introducing this power was precisely to ensure that we were able to deal with changing technology, such as for carbon capture and storage.

In addition, Clause 14 allows the Secretary of State to add a new type of project to the list of nationally significant infrastructure projects so long as it falls within certain fields and in certain areas. I note that we will shortly be debating amendments which seek to take that discretion away. However, I hope that noble Lords will bear in mind that for the very reason that we cannot always anticipate new technology, we need to have provision in the Bill to allow for the legislative framework to apply to new situations. Having said that, I must not anticipate the exciting debate that we will have shortly on that matter. I consider it to be one of the most important provisions in the Bill in that it provides the basis for dealing with future technology changes which will be to the benefit of the national interest.

Amendments Nos. 122, 126 and 127 deal with offshore generating stations. Under the Bill, the IPC would be responsible for determining applications for onshore generating stations with a capacity of more than 50 megawatts and offshore generating stations with a capacity of more than 100 megawatts. For onshore projects, we have set the threshold at 50 megawatts to match the provision in Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. We proposed a threshold of 100 megawatts for offshore projects because they tend to be larger and have a less significant impact on people than those on land. We think it is sensible that the threshold for offshore projects which will be dealt with by the IPC is set at a higher level compared with onshore projects. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor—

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My noble friend may or may not know that I agreed with his noble friend the Minister that this evening I would not move or speak to Amendment No. 127, which dealt with the very point that is now asserted to be the Government’s position. I should be most grateful if he could reassure me that I can have substantive discussions with his colleague the Minister on this and that his mind is not totally made up; otherwise, I fear that I shall probably need to speak to my amendment.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is a very fair intervention from my noble friend. I can certainly promise him long and interesting discussions. I cannot go any further than that in giving any commitment but I shall certainly be ever eager to talk to him about this matter between Committee and Report.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised some interesting points regarding offshore issues and the future relationship of the Marine Management Organisation and the draft Bill. On the general principle of including offshore consents within the Bill there is an unprecedented amount of investment in our infrastructure required in the next decade or so, and we think that offshore renewables will play an important part. I understand that industry believes that 40 to 45 new large offshore wind farms will be needed within the next eight to

14 Oct 2008 : Column 693

10 years to meet those challenges. We think that the IPC will be integral to achieving these goals for major offshore developments. That raises the question of how that integrates with the work of the marine Management Organisation and the marine Bill. That is a fair question. The Government’s intention is that offshore projects of 100 megawatts and below will be dealt with by the Marine Management Organisation, which is being set up under the proposed marine Bill. That body will be the UK’s strategic delivery body in the marine area.

We believe that the MMO’s role in marine environment matters is synonymous with the approach taken on land where local authorities will be taking decisions on smaller generating station projects. In addition, for energy developments under 100 megawatts the MMO will provide a one-stop shop single decision-making process similar to the IPC single consent regime. I understand that noble Lords have a number of points to make about the way in which this will work with the MMO regulation. I am happy to go through it in detail, or I can set it out in writing if noble Lords prefer.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I should be happy to see the Government’s position in writing, but I hope that the Minister recognises that there is some inconsistency in setting up a body that is deliberately designed to manage the seabed and to have authority over all that happens on our offshore development, and then placing another body on top and saying that when it comes to really big schemes someone else will have the responsibility of being the strategic managers of such projects. Given that the two Bills are following closely on each other that may be a formula for tension and disaster in the sense that two departments will each be pushing an agenda, which could lead to a great deal of confusion—not in the Minister’s case because he can represent both interests. But in Whitehall generally, I am not sure that the arrangement that the Government seek to put in place is durable. Will the Minister not only write to us but think again about this aspect of the Bill?

Baroness Hamwee: I am not intervening on the substance but it strikes me that if there is concern about possible confusion and tension between departments, the explanation on how this Bill will work with the forthcoming legislation should be on the record. I am often concerned that a letter, even if it goes to the Library, does not have the same status. I am sorry; I do not want to prolong things tonight.

Lord Reay: The Minister did not refer to my Amendment No. 124 on onshore wind farms, and he certainly did not answer my question.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am coming to that, but noble Lords would like me to say a little more about the Marine Management Organisation. I am in the unique role to ensure that the two departments work well together and it is my intention and the intention of both Secretaries of State to ensure that there is an integrated approach across government. I hope that this is not establishing potential conflict between the IPC and the MMO.

14 Oct 2008 : Column 694

10 pm

As I have already said, we saw as more anomalous the relationship between the IPC for the very significant national projects that we want to be covered and the role of local authorities as planning authorities. The MMO will have to make a unique contribution to sustainable development and the integrated management of the sea. It will be guided by the UK marine policy statement. We expect the IPC to draw on the expertise of the MMO. The MMO can add conditions to an order granting development consent if new information comes to light and can even revoke consents if necessary. The MMO will be responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of IPC consents, and the Planning Bill guidance will detail the nature of the advice that will need to be given by the MMO to the IPC. My understanding is that there will also be a memorandum of understanding to formalise the arrangement. MMO enforcement officers will use marine Bill powers to enforce the system.

Thought has been given to ensuring that there is an integrated approach. I understand that when we come to debate the marine Bill these matters will be fully debated and scrutinised, but I do not think that what is proposed in this Bill is inconsistent with the general framework of the Planning Bill or with the general structure of the IPC dealing with a smallish number of very significant national projects on an annual basis and the anomalous role of the local authority in terms of planning consents.

I hope that I can reassure noble Lords on that and that I have said enough to read the general principles into the record. I am happy to write in even more detail to noble Lords if they would prefer it.

I turn to—

Lord Greaves: What the Minister said depends on the IPC and MMO coming into existence contemporaneously. If the marine Bill were to be delayed, it would put a spoke in the whole thing. Is the Minister telling us that we are going to be discussing the marine Bill within months?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, knows that I cannot respond to that question. I can say that my ministerial colleagues and I are anxious to see the marine Bill in Parliament as soon as possible when parliamentary time allows.

I now turn to the question of onshore generating stations. My noble friend seeks to reduce the threshold from 50 megawatts to 30 megawatts and so bring more projects into the remit of the IPC. The noble Lord seeks to increase the threshold from 50 megawatts to 300 megawatts to reduce the number of projects. That suggests to me, on the government Front Bench, that we have the balance about right.

Lord Reay: The Minister is not answering my question. How does he justify describing a wind power project of 50 megawatts generating only 15 megawatts a year as a nationally significant infrastructure project?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord is anxious for me to respond, but he does not give me much time to get to the point. We reached the 50 megawatt limit because it was set in the Electricity Act 1989. It

14 Oct 2008 : Column 695

was originally intended to allow local generating stations, typically with a single gas turbine, to be consented below central government level while ensuring that nationally significant power was dealt with centrally. Although the advent of renewable energy technologies means that there is now a wider spread of generating station size, we think that the limit still provides a useful distinction. In wind farm terms, 50 megawatts is about 20 onshore turbines, which is enough to have a significant effect on the wider landscape.

The noble Lord should consider how many renewable energy projects built in the past 15 years would have been large enough to qualify for decision-making by the Infrastructure Planning Commission under the Bill. My understanding is that only 6 per cent of the 1,999 megawatts of constructed renewable generating capacity in England and Wales would have been consented via the IPC had it been in existence. Obviously, whether we have the balance right is a matter for debate, but I suggest that those statistics show that only the top end of capacity in relation to onshore wind farms would be caught by the provisions in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, raised the interesting question of combined heat and power. I assure him that any generating station meeting the thresholds in the Bill will be considered by the IPC, including those that use combined heat and power. Although this is a new area for me, I have observed at Question Time that we are regularly treated, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to the potential of combined heat and power. We have taken steps to encourage the use of combined heat and power, including supporting measures to encourage the development of schemes and increased awareness of the opportunities for combined heat and power. However, in relation to generating stations, it is not always practical to fit this technology, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, pointed out. That is why in our guidance to developers we want them to maximise the use of combined heat and power, but we do not think that it would be right to require it.

In his last question, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, bowled the googly of hazardous waste, particularly in relation to nuclear waste. He kindly invited me to write to him. I accept that kind offer. For the sake of the Committee, perhaps I should read the extract that the noble Lord mentioned. It says:

“Hazardous waste can arise from a wide range of materials, from chemical residues from industrial processes to everyday items such as televisions and car batteries”.

It does not include radioactive waste. Because hazardous waste has the potential to cause greater harm to the environment and to human health than other types of waste, its management is understandably subject to strict controls, which apply to any projects approved by the IPC.

As noble Lords will know, four months ago we published the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely White Paper, which set out our framework for implementing the geological disposal of higher-activity radioactive waste. We have not yet taken a final decision, but the Government believe that the implementation of geological waste disposal would benefit from the Planning Bill

14 Oct 2008 : Column 696

reforms, which could assist the delivery of agreements with local communities. If the Government decided that that was the right approach and that it would be sensible to embrace radioactive waste within the work of the IPC, we would bring forward a statutory instrument to include it under Clause 14(3), the use of which we will debate shortly. The instrument would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I reassure the noble Lord that no decision has been taken, but that is what was meant when he received the note about the potential use of the Bill.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am extremely grateful for that and I will be grateful to get the letter that the noble Lord has kindly offered. As these two processes appear to be heading in totally unrelated directions, if one is to use that amending power to bring radioactive waste into the Bill and within the purview of the IPC, the letter must set out how that would work and how it is consistent with the process set out in the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely White Paper to which he referred. That is what people will want to know, so it would be helpful if he could include that in the letter.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is a helpful comment, which sets out a challenge. My difficulty is that the Government have not taken a final decision, so this is a rather hypothetical debate. However, I will certainly write to the noble Lord and to other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I hope that I have responded to noble Lords’ concerns on these matters and I commend the government amendments to the Committee.

The Earl of Caithness: Can the Minister help me? I might have missed it, but I am having difficulty finding Clause 14(1)(ea), to which his Amendment No. 131 refers.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That was a very friendly intervention, if I may say so.

Lord Berkeley: I refer my noble friend to Amendment No. 116.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That was an even more helpful intervention. Another amendment in the group, Amendment No. 116, proposes new paragraph (ea):

“the construction of a pipe-line by a gas transporter”.

I hope that, with the help of my noble friend, that answers the point satisfactorily.

Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had a full discussion about major infrastructure projects in a limited number of fields: gas, carbon dioxide and thresholds for wind farms. My noble friend Lord Jenkin got into some nuclear waste amendments. We have other waste amendments to consider later that do not cover that issue but which would have been the point at which I raised the question of nuclear waste.

Finally, we had the debut of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on this subject. He has dealt with our and the Government’s amendments in great detail and we will

14 Oct 2008 : Column 697

have to study with immense care what he has said. I think that we have the answers that we want, although he raised a number of questions in his remarks that we will need to think about. However, he has been enormously helpful. We have certainly got explanations on the main points of our concern. For that, I am immensely grateful and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

---