National Grid Proposals: North East Lincolnshire

Debate between Martin Vickers and Matt Warman

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers]

Like other colleagues who have intervened, my hon. Friend highlights the point that new technologies are available which must be considered before a final decision is taken.

Infrastructure that transmits electricity across the country is nationally significant, and we accept that upgrades in one form or another are needed. Expanding the network will indeed lower consumer bills. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) noted in the debate on 2 May, transmission and distribution costs are now roughly 15% of every electricity bill. It will also secure our energy supplies as we decarbonise our energy production in pursuit of net zero.

Of course the most ideal routes from a resident perspective are also, according to National Grid, the most expensive. Building pylons is cheaper than burying cables or taking them offshore. Once we consider that this infrastructure is needed up and down the country, we realise that the cost becomes staggering. The Government argue that power lines buried underground are up to 10 times more expensive, although that is disputed and the cost often falls on to the bill payer. However, cost should not always be the primary factor in decision making: Governments and their agencies have wider considerations such as ensuring that the quality of life for their citizens is as pleasant as possible. They need to carry people with them by seriously considering every alternative and sharing their deliberations with the communities involved.

Similarly, there are indirect costs of building pylons that have nothing to do with their construction, but have been imposed as a tool to buy local support. An example of that is the announcement of community benefits schemes to be provided for the areas. That will be funding—although compensation might be a better phrase—for every overhead line and underground cable in an area, and the cost of that must be taken into account overall, as must the discounts of up to £1,000 for households closest to the new infrastructure. I am never opposed to local communities being given much-needed funding to improve the areas for the benefit of local residents—of course, it is only right that communities are compensated for inconvenience, particularly when it relates to such nationally significant work—but those costs will soon add up, and they must be included in calculations.

Unfortunately, constraints imposed by Government seem to have placed an emphasis in favour of pylons, as opposed to alternatives such as underground and offshore. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), standing in for the Minister in the debate on 2 May, said,

“overhead lines should be the strong starting presumption”.—[Official Report, 2 May 2024; Vol. 749, c. 200WH.]

The phrase “strong presumption” is a loaded statement and does not indicate that full consideration will be given to alternatives. Though he did clarify that flexibility is possible

“where there is a high potential for widespread adverse landscapes and/or visual impacts.”—[Official Report, 2 May 2024; Vol. 749, c. 200WH.]

Some clarity on what “high potential” and “widespread” means here would be welcome, given that many communities will have a valid case to say that both terms apply to developments in their area.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, as he is discussing the debate I secured in Westminster Hall. I welcome the contribution of many Members to that. Does he agree that the Minister rightly expressed that there is a huge amount of real feeling on our constituents’ behalf? It is right that the Government should listen to that and that this process needs to consider those feelings. Perhaps we should ask whether it should be paused while those feelings are taken fully into account.

[Martin Vickers]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Whether we call it a pause or a moratorium, we need to stop and reflect on where we have arrived.

I hope the Minister will confirm in his reply that although planning guidance contains an assumption in favour of pylons, full consideration of the alternatives will be put before Ministers. The proposals are short-sighted and incoherent, given the obvious necessity to rewire the grid to make it fit for the future and ensure we have the infrastructure in place to reach net zero. By 2050, the country will require two or three times the amount of electricity as today, but in respect of these plans, there is a clear failing of strategy in relation to how we ensure the necessary infrastructure.

My constituency is largely a rural one, as Lincolnshire is more broadly, and there are significant regional concerns regarding the impact of erecting pylons on prime agricultural land and what that will mean for our food security. In fact, when it comes to this land, even underground wiring is not ideal, given the disruption that might cause.

We are fortunate to benefit from an ever-increasing amount of electricity generated from offshore wind farms, and my constituency is fortunate to be on the Humber estuary, which is a leading force in the renewable energy sector. That presents an opportunity for an offshore grid transmitting much of our electricity away under the sea. At some point that electricity will have to come on land, but it would significantly reduce the need for pylons and overhead cables. We can learn here from examples in Belgium and Denmark.

I conclude by delivering a few messages to relevant stakeholders. To National Grid, I reiterate my previous remarks, where I stressed that it must consider the impact on residents in nearby villages before making any decisions and look to mitigate the impact on the visual environment to the greatest extent. I, like many of my colleagues, am in favour of extensive underground and undersea sections rather than utilising open countryside. I desperately hope that will be taken on board.

In that regard, I was encouraged by the Prime Minister’s reply on 20 March when, referring to me, he said:

“He will recognise the balance we need to strike by making sure that we give our country the energy security it needs but doing it in a way that is respectful of the impact on local communities. I will make sure that Ministers take into account the concerns he raised and that all the views of local constituents are taken into account.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 934.]

I do not want to make this speech too political. However, given that the ultimate decision on this matter is unlikely to be taken until next year, and consequently after the election, my message to whoever sits on the Treasury Bench and is responsible for deciding this matter is that I and my Conservative colleagues will not let it rest. The proposals as they stand will not get my support.

Finally, I say to the Minister that the Government have set out ambitious but sensible environmental targets. If we are to achieve those targets to reduce emissions, we will need to produce more electricity, and clearly that means that the additional infrastructure is required, but we must protect our visual environment.

I appreciate that Ministers cannot pre-empt National Grid’s final recommendations and must not prejudge issues that they will later have to determine, but I hope that the Minister will ensure that the views of my constituents, as well as those of others across the House, are front and centre in the process and that the wider impact on the environment and economy of north-east Lincolnshire, which I am privileged to represent, will be taken seriously. I assure my constituents that their voice will be heard and that I—and I know my colleagues—will fight any proposals that have a detrimental impact on their communities.