Q569 Mr. Dave Anderson: In your note to us you raise concerns about consultation and say in effect there is a democratic deficit. Can you expand on that?

Mr Brock: The IPC is an appointed body. I believe it must give a report each year to the Secretary of State which he or she lays before Parliament. That is the extent of the democratic accountability. In this country customarily the major decisions that the IPC is to consider are made by democratic, accountable bodies but on this occasion we have chosen not to do so. Therefore, these national policy statements and the parliamentary process in which we are engaged including yours are the only obvious democratically accountable parts of the process. Obviously, you discharge your job seriously and diligently but you have a major task on your hands particularly when you have a location-specific NPS which is EN-6. Does that help you understand what we mean by "democratic deficit"?

Q570 Mr. Dave Anderson: It does to a certain extent, but there is also the question to be reached democratically within this House whether or not we need this to keep the lights on in this country and that is supported by the people of this country. To some extent is that not part and parcel of the democratic debate and is that going to happen in what we are doing here?

Mr Brock: The democratic process so far as it is chosen is to put the Act onto the statute book and we have the system that we have here. I do not impugn any of that whatsoever, but one must recognise that the opportunity for input by democratically electable bodies is here and across the road rather than in the engagement one gets with a public inquiry.

Mr Corner: From my perspective perhaps I may give an answer to what is behind your question. We hope we have expressed in the paper we have submitted the view that we cannot object - we certainly do not - to the setting of national policy by government with the assistance of tribunals and committees like this because that is what Parliament is for. It seems to me that is entirely proper and appropriate. I welcome the fact that national policy to guide the IPC is being set by government because hopefully it will make infrastructure procedures more expeditious. That is what is behind it. My main concern is how site-specific matters are considered. It is quite difficult for the detail on the specific sites to be considered and determined as part of the NPS process. I realise government is not saying that it is determining the specific sites at this stage, but the NPSs and what they say about specific sites will have a great influence before the IPC. I simply say that the IPC needs to be conscious of the level of examination that has been possible at this level and it will need to do more.

Q571 Mr. Dave Anderson: Do you believe that the consultation process now going on fits the government's own guidelines on consultation?

Mr Corner: It is very difficult to say because the government's guidelines are extremely general. The consultation process must follow the statute and regulations. Obviously, if it has done that in principle it is appropriate, but that of itself would not necessarily stop the courts from intervening if it was decided that the process was not appropriate having regard to the importance of the subject-matter.

+++

Q635 Mr. Dave Anderson: Do you both believe that the NPS provide sufficiently strong messages about the requirements to provide the infrastructure impact of carbon capture and storage? We heard evidence earlier about potential pipelines. Do you think the NPS covers that sufficiently? If not, what should it do?

Mr Grayling: We do not believe that it sends quite a strong enough message in relation to the government's goal of de-carbonisation of electricity by 2030 which will require that by then all large coal and gas-fired power stations will need to operate carbon capture and storage. Specifically there does not seem to be any reference to carbon dioxide pipelines in the national policy statements which we think is an omission that should be rectified. We should take a strategic approach to the development of the pipeline network for the storage of carbon dioxide.

Ms Manise: To amplify that, the infrastructure associated with energy generation is obvious by its absence in the NPSs. The connecting and distribution infrastructure can have as much impact on the environment and on communities - it is also economically very costly - as the generating capacity itself. Like Mr Grayling, I am very pleased to see some signal around CCS in the NPS, but it should be stronger. Coal and gas have a lot of life left given available sources and therefore are likely to continue to be used for quite a long time. To do so sustainably and to de-carbonise the energy system by 2030 means those fossil fuel sources must be used in conjunction with carbon capture and storage if we are to meet any of the carbon reduction targets.

Q636 Mr. Dave Anderson: On carbon capture and storage last week we heard evidence from Scottish and Southern Energy that the way in which the NPSs were drawn at the moment basically said to them that they would have to prove it was not economically viable before they could agree to go forward with their planning applications. The point made to us was that it was physically impossible to prove it at this moment which is one of the reasons we are building demonstration projects. They suggested that the wording should be deleted from the NPS. Do you have a problem with that?

Ms Manise: Natural England would not have a problem with it because it is way outside our remit to comment on the economic viability of one sort of development versus another. For us the bigger issue is that there is no mention not only of CCS but other energy generation technologies; there is no mention of environmental viability and security. There is a lot of mention of economic viability, cost benefit analyses and some reference to social impact but there is precious little in terms of what CCS, or indeed anything else, might do in terms of long-term environmental viability.

Q637 Mr. Dave Anderson: You started by saying it was not your role to comment on economic viability. Their point was that they could not prove it. If a standard gas plant was being proposed where they had 50 years' experience they could demonstrate that they had done it here, there and everywhere, but given where we are at the moment it just is not possible to prove this point because it has never been done anywhere in the world.

Ms Manise: I would struggle greatly in being able to prove something in the future based on no history or evidence from the past. I entirely understand why they would put forward that point. I myself would find it very difficult to do.

Mr Grayling: At present the requirement for a new gas-fired power station is simply that it is carbon capture-ready, not that at this stage it must be operating capture and storage. The Environment Agency is the government's adviser for England and Wales as to whether those conditions are met in relation to a consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act. We are trying to take it very seriously because notwithstanding what colleagues from Scottish and Southern said one can do that well or badly in terms of whether the subsequent retrofit is an integrated solution that is energy efficient or whether, for example, one bolts it on and has to build a separate boiler to provide steam to drive the capture plant. They could take their argument too far. There is a way to do capture-readiness cost-effectively but as and when the technology chain has been proven at scale I am sure we shall be looking at what policy framework is necessary to ensure there is a level playing field between the different energy regulators so that one is not disadvantaged in terms of the investment it has put in versus another.

Q638 Mr. Dave Anderson: Another point that is a real concern for us is whether it is right that the NPS precludes the IPC from considering the question of the management and disposal of nuclear waste.

Mr McHugh: The government has set out its policy on nuclear waste pretty clearly in the NPS as it currently stands. However, the test that the government has set itself is an ongoing one. In relation to the storage of waste on any particular application that may come forward it is something that we and the NII and HSE will look at. Therefore, IPC could come to us if it wished to be reassured about whether there is sufficient storage capacity for the waste and whether in future it will be potentially disposable to a geological repository. Those are issues that we shall be considering as regulators.

Q639 Mr. Dave Anderson: Are you saying that the IPC can come to you?

Mr McHugh: It would be able to do so if it wanted to.

Q640 Mr. Dave Anderson: We understand that at the moment the NPS precludes it from taking a position on it. My understanding is that the government has said the issue of radioactive waste storage has been looked at and sorted, so there is no reason for you to become involved in it.

Mr McHugh: I think that at a strategic level it has been. In relation to a particular application there may be elements of it on which it may want reassurance from us as regulators where we can say this is what we are looking at. This is specifically what we are looking at in relation to the generic design assessments of the nuclear power designs.

Q641 Mr. Dave Anderson: Do you say that the fact the NPS does not say the IPC can do this means that the IPC will or will not be able to do this?

Mr McHugh: We want a close working relationship with the IPC, so we would be quite happy if it came along and asked us that question for the purposes of its own reassurance.

This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee. Neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

The full transcript may be read here.

Promoted by Paul Foy on behalf of Dave Anderson, both of St Cuthbert's Church Hall, Shibdon Road, Blaydon, NE21 5PT