Matt Warman
Main Page: Matt Warman (Conservative - Boston and Skegness)Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered pylons and upgrades to the national grid.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for awarding this debate on the great grid upgrade.
To begin, it is a busy day in politics, as we know, so a number of colleagues have asked me to mention their work for them and to share the concerns that many of us have about the approach that National Grid is taking and about proposals, unnecessary in many cases, to cover the landscape of some of the most beautiful parts of the country in pylons, which will cause permanent damage to the local economy and landscape. Specifically, my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), my right hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), and my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) have all done huge amounts of work. Without wishing to put words in their mouth, all share at least some of the concerns that I will mention.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for being present to respond on behalf of the Government, but I hope that he will take our concerns back to the policy Minister, the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). I am sure that the Minister will be grateful for another meeting with our group on this important matter.
My constituents are angry with National Grid and at the proposals to rewire the national grid in such a way as to use Lincolnshire as, frankly, a dumping ground for infrastructure that could be done better and differently. The proposal for a line from Grimsby to Walpole is to have pylons across the country for many tens of kilometres, rather than having it underground or, even better, offshore. The proposal is unwelcome enough in itself, but National Grid tells us that constraints Government have put on it mean it is required to use pylons, rather than underground or offshore. National Grid also says, however, that the new eastern green link is only viable when it is largely offshore.
What angers my constituents about the proposal, and angers many of the constituents represented by colleagues present in the Chamber, is not simply a desire to see the local economy and the local landscape preserved from the blight of pylons; it is an anger at what feels like an incoherent strategy by National Grid. That is within a framework set by Government, which is why I am grateful that we have the Minister here to talk about it from a Government perspective.
We should also acknowledge that the way in which National Grid has behaved has not delivered the kind of transparency to make constituents feel that this is a meaningful consultation on proposals that will not be temporary, although pylons are nominally temporary. The pylons will be with us for many years to come, and they will cost many millions of pounds, from an approach that I believe is fundamentally short-sighted.
The longer-term view of that very necessary rewiring of the national grid will not benefit from an approach that does not take into consideration what we are seeking to achieve with projects such as Grimsby to Walpole and many others, and projects such as the eastern green link bringing power down from Scotland to the south and the east midlands. We should be seeking a more coherent approach that looks at what rewiring the grid successfully for the long term will deliver.
In my conversations with National Grid about whether we use direct current or alternating current, pylons, or offshore or onshore, what is clear is that it has a legitimate desire—proposed by and originating from Government—to get this done quickly. That is the right thing to do, given that we see the grid coming under very different strains from those for which it was designed. Now, rather than bringing power out from a spine down the middle of the country, we are bringing power in from offshore. That requires a different approach, but the different approach is so fundamental that surely we cannot do it in this piecemeal way that involves a number of multibillion-pound schemes that, where they have been reviewed, for instance in Essex—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) will talk about this as well—it has been decided that they could be done better and more coherently.
I have spoken to many hundreds of my constituents in public meetings, in email and on social media over many months, and their anger is not simply about the desire to talk about the landscape. It is about the desire to see proper use of taxpayers’ money, and that should always be our top priority.
I want to talk about three of the key issues that my constituents raise above all else. Primarily, this is about food security. Lincolnshire is one of the most productive parts of our agricultural economy. Whether we are talking about the blight of pylons or the blight of underground cabling, which should be taken much more seriously, it is vital that we consider how much land will be taken out of production by the proposals. There is the pretence that underground cabling can be remediated and then we can go back to fully productive land, but that is a project for a number of years and the land is never, as any farmer will tell us, quite the same again. That is why we come back to an offshore approach being our first choice, but food security is a vital issue either way.
Constituents are deeply concerned in an area where the two industries that matter most are first agriculture, and second tourism. We know that many businesses have built their entire livelihoods, and have bolstered the local economy by providing jobs, in areas that, although they may not technically be designated as areas of outstanding natural beauty and so on, are ones where that economy is built on the landscape in which people come and stay on holiday, in which people come and spend wonderful months of the year.
The approach that National Grid is taking, set by Government, does not consider food security in that way. It does not consider the economic impact of what is being proposed. Thirdly, as I said at the beginning, it does not consider what we could do if we began not with a blank piece of paper but with a coherent approach that asks, “What are we seeking to achieve?”, with a number of different projects.
The reason why we have a good number of people in Westminster Hall today for an election day debate, and several people saying that they would like to be here as well, is that there is real evidence up and down the country that National Grid is not delivering the strategic approach that it should be and it is not being tasked by Government to consider all the most important issues. Those are food security, economic impact and the coherent strategy that we all need to see. It is no wonder that constituents are angry when they see food security ignored, economic impact ignored and value for taxpayer money ignored.
We can see that there are other approaches. Whether we are talking about, as I mentioned earlier, an approach that uses DC cabling rather than something else, which has been found in some situations to be cheaper, or whatever, we should be looking at all the options in pursuit of a coherent approach that is value for money for taxpayers.
I want to end with two final points. The first is that National Grid has been holding a number of consultations across Lincolnshire on the Grimsby to Walpole project—it has been holding consultations across the country on its other projects—and one of the things that it asks is, “How can we mitigate the impact of pylons?” I have not yet met a single constituent who has said to me, “I don’t like these 50-metre pylons, but I would be okay with a 40-metre one.” That is not meaningful mitigation, and I think it is disingenuous to pretend that the project, in its current terms, would not have a huge impact. I ask the Government to consider whether that approach has been coherent and consistent, and whether there is a case for pausing the current set of conflicting projects and looking again at how we can make them work in a way that is better value for taxpayers and better for the grid in the long term. That is my ask.
It would be reprehensible of me not to point out that the Labour approach is explicitly pro-pylons. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) has said that pylons are the future. If we wanted a demonstration of how little Labour understands rural Britain and the needs of the future of the electricity grid, there we have it.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
On that point, the hon. Gentleman may want to note that the Welsh Labour Government have opened a review and are instructing an independent advisory body to look into the potential of underground cabling. I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have a far more comprehensive view of issues on this side and he might like to acknowledge that.
Matt Warman
That could be the first occasion when a Conservative is being asked to refer positively to Labour-run Wales. On this occasion, however, I am delighted to do so. I would certainly welcome at the very least a review of the process and a review of Labour policy, which is, as I have said, explicitly pro-pylons. Perhaps we can have unanimity across the House that we should look again at whether pylons are the right way forward and the possible role of underground cabling. I should add that that is a rare endorsement—if an endorsement at all—of Labour-run Wales.
To conclude, I simply say this: my constituents are angry. I have never had more emails or more packed public meetings on any other issue. They do not deny that there is a real need to upgrade the grid for the future, but they want to see value for money for taxpayers, landscapes not unnecessarily blighted and an approach that acknowledges that the economic impact and the impact on food security should be the Government’s coherent and top priority.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, the subject of which is of huge concern to many constituents across the whole of eastern England, including East Anglia. Does he share my concern that if National Grid is to bring our constituents with it, it should be clear, open and transparent? I have had an instance in my constituency where National Grid brought a presentation to a village hall suggesting that a certain route was a fait accompli when it plainly was not. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more clarity and more transparency?
Matt Warman
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we need more clarity and transparency from National Grid. It is right that too many of my constituents and, by the sounds of it, my hon. Friend’s constituents feel that this is a fait accompli. The consultations are supposed to be meaningful if they are to preserve any kind of democratic consent, and we all need to encourage National Grid to deliver that kind of transparency, in particular on the costings of the different options. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
To conclude, I want simply to reiterate my previous point: we should think about food security, economic impact and what is best for the taxpayer when it comes to a necessary rewiring of the grid. I implore the Minister to take the message back loud and clear to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), because that is what is in the interest of the constituents of all hon. Members here today.
Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)
Due to the number of speakers, I will have to reduce the limit for speeches to four and a half minutes. If hon. Members wish to be called in the debate, I remind them that they should bob, which they are doing. Also, as my hearing is not brilliant, please can hon. Members face the front and not turn to other hon. Members when they respond?