Overhead Electrical Transmission Lines

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for bringing this debate before us. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for their contributions so far.

The view coming through is clearly that none of us can underestimate the challenges ahead in being able to deliver the UK’s target to achieve net-zero carbon emissions. It is intense, and it is fair to say that we are already witnessing unprecedented change in the way our electricity is being generated. We recognise the demands this is putting on the industry to deliver, but also on the capacity of the electricity grid to catch up and then keep pace with the dramatic investment and build required.

I think we all know the pressure there is on government. In fact, in talking to businesses about the timescales that they are being quoted for connection to the grid, some of the waiting times we hear of are, frankly, eye-watering. The years quoted—we are talking in years here—start at seven years and go up to 12; even longer waits are not uncommon. From our conversations, I think that these are some of the most problematic areas that industry generally and investors are having to grapple with at the moment. Fortunately, other places around the world have a more attractive set of circumstances; they can go more speedily.

Briefings from industry representatives suggest that it can take around 10 years to build a new transmission line, seven of which can be spent on the consenting and planning side, with just three years on construction. Clearly, our debate today with regard to a preference for underground transmission lines or overhead lines with pylons is critical to understanding some of the reasons for this lengthy process. As we have heard, the context is that the Secretary of State should grant development consent for underground or subsea sections over overhead alternatives only if they are satisfied that the benefits clearly outweigh any extra, economic, social or environmental impacts. The mitigation hierarchy must be followed and technical obstacles must be overcome.

The latest government guidance presumes that the lines will be built overhead, with notable exceptions, as we have heard, including areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. The responses on this have been split, not always in predictable ways. To cut to the point: will the Minister tell us whether the Government feel that expediency or landscape considerations should take precedence? Further, how can he ensure that the correct balance is achieved and delivered consistently across the country, when these planning applications are determined? With regard to the areas of natural beauty and other sensitive areas, can he confirm whether it will just be within the boundaries of those areas, or will consideration be given to the aspect—the areas outside those boundaries that are overlooked by people who go into our national parks to enjoy the natural amenities there?

A recurring concern with overhead lines is connected to their ecological impacts. I do not think we have heard much about that. Some of the evidence coming through in responses to consultations might seem slightly perverse, but this is not straightforward. The RSPB has stated that both overground and underground lines can have detrimental impacts on birds and other wildlife, depending on the terrain—for example, wetland habitats or through the impact of hedgerow removal. Can the Minister comment on this and give us his assessment as to whether a more discretionary, rather than prescriptive, starting presumption might be a better way to manage the ecological impact of implementing new electrical lines? It clearly is not possible to have a one-size-fits-all approach in this area.

We know that, before adding new parts to the electricity network, the transmission owners will always consider first whether they can achieve more capacity by upgrading or enhancing the existing networks. This is quite right and as we would assume. When this is not possible, a robust and transparent options appraisal will follow. Further to assessments flowing from this, planning authorities will work on the proposals in line with the national policy statements, ready to take proposals for decision.

Consultation with local communities and stakeholders then becomes a key component in making progress. A transparent process must be established to gain the confidence of all parties in an attempt to avoid confrontation. Achieving a balanced view on all the available considerations is then the responsibility of local planning authorities and, ultimately, the Government if still contentious.

We can all recall when we had a Question on this in the Chamber. It coincided with the Government’s announcement of their national plan, back in November last year. The Secretary of State announced an ambitious programme to deliver a transformation of the electricity network to support energy security and the transition to net zero. This will include plans to halve the time taken to build new transmission infrastructure and will therefore reduce the time taken for viable projects to connect to the grid.

As we know, local objections have delayed many of these considerations. The Secretary of State also announced plans to introduce “a community benefits package” and

“a national communications campaign to improve public understanding of electricity infrastructure and its benefits”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/23; col. 22WS.]

to enable local communities to make the choice before them. Do we have any more idea what these community packages will look like or what the communications campaign will contain? Could the Minster update us on the proposals and inform us when they will be implemented?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Yes, I absolutely concede the noble Lord’s points but, given the modern policy environment and all the legal impacts, much energy infrastructure that was built many years ago would be very difficult to build today. In past generations, consumers were perhaps much more understanding of installations of nationally significant infrastructure than they are now. I absolutely accept the noble Lord’s point. In all these considerations, it is also about balance—balancing out competing factors, of which cost is one and convenience is another, but security of supply is an equal factor that also needs to be considered. I suspect that the noble Lord is probably considering the low-voltage distribution network rather than the high-voltage transmission aspect of the supply.

My noble friend Lord Swire talked about the different creative technologies available for laying underground cables and asked whether the Government had considered those factors. Ultimately, it is not for the Government to opine on those matters. Those innovative solutions are quite rightly being driven forward by industry and they are a brilliant example of how we can use such innovations to support the delivery of our energy infrastructure ambitions and our net-zero infrastructure. The transmission owners and others are the experts in this field and, of course, we will continue to liaise with and support them in their endeavours.

I hope I have—but I suspect I have not—succeeded in persuading noble Lords that undergrounding is far from being the silver bullet in our endeavour to expand our network transmission infrastructure and meet our net-zero targets. In fact, using underground rather than overhead lines may in some respects have the opposite effect and lead to more delays rather than fewer, given that the installation takes much longer. In some cases, the upfront costs are perhaps not worth it in the longer term, as my noble friend Lord Effingham suggested. In our bid to greatly expand our domestic energy production and meet the needs of households up and down the country, I am afraid that we need to act and build networks faster than we have ever done in the past.

It is for those reasons, which I have talked the Committee through, that the Government have decided to maintain our policy position of a starting presumption of overhead lines for electricity network developments in general. That is not to say that the Government stand idly by while communities living in the path of new transmission infrastructure are affected; it is quite the opposite. That is why, at last year’s Autumn Statement, the Chancellor announced proposals for a community benefits scheme for communities living near transmission network infrastructure, which the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, asked about. The communications campaign is due this year and I invite the noble Baroness to get in touch directly so that we can provide more details on it.

I am afraid that I am running out of time, so I will move to my conclusion. I will write to noble Lords if I have not answered any of their points.

I do not need to tell the Committee that, as with so many issues, no policy is etched in stone indefinitely. In fact, the Government would not be doing our job properly if we did not keep policies under review. However, that falls far short of committing to look again at the Government’s current policy on undergrounding less than two months after it came into force. Now is not the time. The Government can determine whether this should be reassessed if and when more evidence is provided by industry. For now, the best place for the majority of transmission infrastructure is—I am sorry to say—up in the air, for technical, operational, environmental and cost reasons and, most importantly, to protect consumer bills.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

May I ask for a written response with reference to the community benefit packages and the consultation package, just to give us an update? Several months have gone by and we should be moving on this.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness on that matter.