New Pylons: East Anglia

Richard Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

That is absolutely right, but we also need to make the point that even if the evidence is made available and proves the point in favour of the present proposals, it is against benchmarks that are out of date and inadequate for the purpose. That is why I call this a patch and mend approach to the existing infrastructure, when the scale of the extra capacity required to be carried in the East Anglian grid is massive. It is a huge leap, yet there seems to be no strategic or controlling mind behind the planning of the national grid for the next 50 to 100 years. It is all on much shorter-term horizons.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

I extend my sincere condolences to my hon. Friend, in common with colleagues.

The lack of a controlling mind does seem to be one of the biggest problems. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only reason that the network needs to be reinforced from Dunston in the north of my constituency, going right across Norfolk and into Suffolk, is because of the perverse decision to route existing offshore wind connections to that part of the network, instead of following National Grid Electricity System Operator’s own advice, which is to accelerate the provision of an offshore transmission network, which would save up to £3 billion in capital expenditure and a further £3 billion in operating costs? Does he agree that now is the time to revisit that decision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I am glad to lend my support to the arguments of many MPs whose constituencies are directly affected by the proposed pylon route of East Anglia GREEN. I represent the constituency of Broadland in Norfolk, which is not directly affected. The run starts at Dunston in south Norfolk, just south of Norwich, heads through Suffolk and into Essex. The reason I wanted to join the debate is to question the rationale for reinforcing the transmission network from Norwich south in the first place.

The consultation, which has already been much criticised and will be by other contributors, starts with the assumption that there is a problem that needs to be solved. That problem is additional power being applied to the network at Dunston, at Norwich south. The power comes from offshore wind farms, both those connected in the past five years, since the previous review by Ofgem in 2015, and the huge number of additional wind farms anticipated between now and 2030, and thereafter.

We know from last year’s National Grid ESO report of an anticipated 17 GW of offshore wind constructed in the southern North sea alone—part of the 50 GW by 2030 ambition—but there is a problem. Although we won the argument for a holistic network design leading to an offshore transmission network, with the Secretary of State making that announcement on the Floor of the House, we appear to have lost the battle when it comes to East Anglia. The holistic network design comes into force from 2030 onwards, we are told, yet the connections for East Anglia affect our counties between now and 2030. It is between now and 2030 that the 17 GW will be constructed and connected.

We have here the most classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Much better would be to look again at the design for East Anglian connection, follow the advice of the National Grid ESO report, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), and create an offshore transmission network. Accelerate it; do not accept the argument that it can be put in place only by 2030 and push for 2025. If we do that, on its own estimates, there are £6 billion of savings to be made: £3 billion in reduced capital expenditure, because it is much easier for a wind farm to connect to a grid that is already offshore, and £3 billion of further operating savings between now and 2050.

[Mr Bacon]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, with this enormous extra offshore capacity that is coming, if we do not follow his suggestion of an offshore grid as soon as possible, which is Government policy, we could be faced with the current nightmare being duplicated or triplicated? In a few years it could be said, “Well, actually the pylons we installed a few years ago are not efficient, so we need even more pylons.” How lunatic would that be?

[Jerome Mayhew]

Of course, Ofgem would say, “Well, we’ve done the calculations. We know that there isn’t going to be any more offshore wind, and we think this is going to be enough.” But in 2015, when it last looked at this subject and was asked to assess whether an offshore transition network would provide value for the money to the consumer, its advice to the Government was, “No, it would not, because we will never have enough offshore wind to justify it.” Well, how wrong it was. Just seven years later, here we are bitterly ruing that short-sighted failure to make anticipatory infrastructure decisions. We could have avoided all these arguments and be leading Europe in the development of this innovative design, which now is absolutely technically possible. In fact, I have spoken, with others, to the managing director of Hitachi, who told us that this is off-the-shelf technology now.

We come back to the consultation, which has just been closed, and the position of the regulators and National Grid. Their argument is essentially that it is too late to change the decision about connection points. We already have radial connections coming into Norfolk. Given that the power is being delivered to south Norfolk, the network has to be reinforced to draw the electricity south, hence East Anglia GREEN and 112 miles of pylons. However, I invite the Minister to take a step back and look at the rationale behind the decision to write contracts to allow the offshore wind farms to connect to Norwich south. All those offers must have been subject to planning permission, because the regulator knew, or ought to have known, that the connection point did not have sufficient capacity to deal with the anticipated measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I reiterate the condolences of my colleagues to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on his loss. That was a brilliant speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and I associate myself with nearly everything that nearly everyone has said. I am smiling at my constituency neighbour—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill)—whose constituency is behind Tesco and Morrisons in my constituency. We are neighbours, but if I were to go a few hundred yards to the east, my neighbour is a different Member of Parliament. I know Wortham Ling well—I walk my dogs near there.

I am interested in two aspects of this important debate. First, planning permission cannot be assumed and therefore a route cannot be assumed. I may have misinterpreted this, but that appeared to have come as a bit of a surprise to the Minister. He certainly looked round in alarm when one of my colleagues made that point. The second aspect is about time. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex mentioned judicial review. I do not want to repeat anything that has been said, but it is clear in the development in recent years of English administrative law—common law—that there is a law of consultation known as the Gunning principles, which are set out clearly and helpfully by the Local Government Association. There are four principles and they derive from a case in which Judge Stephen Sedley was in charge of the court: Regina v. Brent London Borough Council, ex parte Gunning—that is why they are called the Gunning principles. They are now clearly established and applied by the courts.

The first principle is that the proposals are still at a formative stage. The second is that there is sufficient information to give intelligent consideration. The third is that there is adequate time for consideration and response. The fourth, which has become increasingly important in recent cases, as opposed to earlier cases where the first three principles were given more weight, is that

“‘conscientious consideration’ must be given to the consultation responses before a decision is made”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made a point about time. He said that “there must be no holdup” in the development of offshore wind. Amen to that—we all agree. The one way we can be absolutely sure there will be a huge holdup is if the lawyers get hold of this. If the Minister wants to be bogged down in judicial review and legal battles for years to come with no progress towards our net zero targets, all he has to do is ignore what all of us are saying, and I guarantee that that is where he will end up.

[James Cartlidge]

There is another email about the reasoning for the eastern link, and another reason was given was about the speed of delivery of an offshore link against the speed of building pylons. It says:

“The subsea link between Torness in East Lothian and Hawthorn Pit in County Durham needs to be in place by 2027. The link between Peterhead in Aberdeenshire and Drax in North Yorkshire is needed by 2029. While onshore AC overhead line options were considered, those were discounted because they would not be deliverable in the timescales that were required.”

Does that not show that going undersea can actually be quicker?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bacon]

I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right. If we want efficiency, effectiveness and economic progress, we should listen to the people calling for an offshore grid. After all, as several of our hon. Friends have said, it is already Government policy. What we need to do is follow through with the concomitant decisions that should apply when something is Government policy, rather than ignoring this area which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds said, will become the Saudi Arabia of England for offshore generation.

To conclude, because I do not want to overrun the time limit that you have set, Mr Stringer, we must make it clear that our constituents do not feel that they have been properly consulted or that offshore options were given any meaningful consideration. We want to be sure that any detailed report on offshore options is meaningful and thorough, involves our constituents fully and is written by independent experts. We also want it to embrace the idea of taking a first step towards a broad-scale East Anglian offshore grid, with, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said, Sea Links 2, 3 and 4 carrying 6 GW and multi-noding with international interconnectors, in order to add further value, which must feature in any overall holistic cost assessment.

If we want to make progress on this, as everyone agrees that we need to do, particularly in light of the recent invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and if we want to become more energy independent, more quickly, and hasten the drive towards net zero, which every single person in this room would like to see happen, we should listen to my hon. Friends, and the Minister should too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

Of course, UKRI provides funding for a whole range of universities. Again, if the hon. Gentleman has specific ideas for projects, perhaps he would come forward with them.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

It is possible to build a house that costs nothing to heat, but that is not happening at scale at the moment. Does my right hon. Friend consider it part of his Department’s responsibilities to support research into making this more widespread, which would be hugely beneficial for the planet?

[Alok Sharma]

I know that my hon. Friend is an authority on the house building sector, and I had an opportunity to work with him on these issues when I was the Housing and Planning Minister. He raises an important point. We know that 15% of emissions are from housing, and we are looking to see how we can bring that down as part of the net zero target.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

The offshore wind sector deal was a gift that kept on giving, because the hon. Lady and I had the great pleasure of discussing that with the Prime Minister on the Friday after the launch and seeing the incredible opportunities already flowing to the wonderful port of Grimsby, which she represents very well. I would love to congratulate that local firm and work with her on this groundbreaking sector deal.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

We have known how to build houses that cost nothing to heat for 20 years, but we just do not do it. Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to get clean growth is to support my Housing Reform Bill, which would supply serviced plots of land on which thermally efficient houses could be built?

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend is a wonderful campaigner on this new and exciting area of house building, which is part of the grand challenge. I was very pleased, as I am sure he was, to see the Chancellor commit last week to phasing out fossil fuel heating in homes from 2025. We know we can decarbonise. We know we need to do more.

Draft Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and spent fuel (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Richard Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

I do not have to tell you this, Sir David, because you know it is true, but it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I have pointed that out on other occasions, but I reiterate my previous comments on the subject.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

May I point out that not only is it an enormous pleasure for us all to be here under your chairmanship, Sir David, but that it is an unbridled pleasure for us all to be here once again with the Minister?

[Richard Harrington]

I am, unusually, speechless; I say only that if all parliamentary business were like the Statutory Instrument Committees we have sat on in the past couple of weeks, we would all be able to have a much longer break in February.

It is my duty and pleasure to introduce the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 28 November. They are made under powers set out in section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and address specific inoperabilities arising from the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom. They will come into force on exit day, only in the event of there being no deal between the UK and the EU. I shall not comment further on that.

As I have said in the House, we are seeking a wide-ranging nuclear co-operation agreement with Euratom while putting in place the necessary measures to ensure that the UK industry can operate in all scenarios. The draft regulations are one such measure. They revoke and replace the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Regulations 2008, which will become inoperable once the UK is no longer a member of the EU. The draft regulations introduce broadly equivalent procedures for the import, export and transit of radioactive waste and spent fuel into and out of the UK, but they reflect the UK’s independence of the Euratom community in such circumstances and apply to the whole UK.

The draft regulations set out a regime to ensure that radioactive waste and spent fuel are not shipped into or out of the UK without prior authorisation from the relevant competent authorities. They are vital to protect the public and the environment from the dangers of ionising radiation when radioactive waste and spent fuel is shipped into or out of the UK. They allow for the continuation of crucial nuclear activities such as the decommissioning of legacy sites and the return of radioactive waste to the relevant country of origin following the reprocessing of other nations’ spent fuel.

I will say just a few words about the background to the draft regulations. To put them in perspective, I should say that every year we make about 400 shipments of radioactive waste to Euratom member states. The majority of those shipments are of contaminated metals for treatment in Germany and Sweden. Hon. Members may be aware that we have ceased reprocessing other nations’ spent fuel, but we will need to return high-level waste arising from the last of the reprocessing contracts to its countries of origin—Australia, Japan, Germany and Italy. The draft regulations will allow for the return of that high-level waste, and they are of strategic importance to the UK’s fulfilling its reprocessing contracts and supporting the decommissioning and clean-up mission at Sellafield.

The 2008 regulations introduced a set of regulatory procedures for transfrontier shipments within Euratom and a separate set of procedures for shipments entering or exiting the community. When we leave the EU and Euratom, those regulations will become inoperable because they treat the EU as a single bloc that includes us. To ensure there is an operable regime after exit day, the draft regulations treat Euratom member states and all other countries in the same way.

There will be three operational changes for our operators shipping to and from Euratom member states. First, they will need to request authorisation from the relevant authority when importing a shipment from Euratom. The competent authorities are the Environment Agency, Natural Resource Wales, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency.

Secondly, UK operators will need to notify the relevant competent authorities when the shipment is completed. Thirdly, when importing from a Euratom state, UK operators will need to provide evidence that they have made an arrangement with the exporter that has been accepted by the exporter’s competent authority. That arrangement would oblige them to take back the radioactive waste or spent fuel if the shipment cannot be completed in accordance with the regulations.

To put the changes into context, I should say that they do not affect the entire nuclear industry, and at present only six UK operators have authorisations in place to ship radioactive waste. Were these not formal proceedings, I would ask you, Sir David, and others to estimate the total costs to all affected industry from these additional steps—they are far less than I thought. My Department’s officials have estimated that they are between £1,700 and £6,000 every three years, as well as a minor familiarisation cost for operators of £100 to £900 each.

The guidance for the regulations will be published online prior to coming into force, and our officials have been engaging regularly with the operators that will be affected to ensure that there is minimum disruption. As I say, it is de minimis, but it still needs to be done properly.

For the record, the instrument was drafted collaboratively between the officials in our Department, the devolved Administrations, the UK’s environment agencies, the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Although the legislative competence is reserved, we have been very collaborative about it. I thank the devolved authorities and all other partners for the help that they have given. Further engagements have taken place through stakeholder workshops, the Euratom industry forum and other industry events.

The regulations are vital to the success of our decommissioning programme and to the completion of our last few reprocessing contracts. The regulations will allow the UK to maintain the highest nuclear safety standards, while ensuring that the relevant UK operators can continue to operate, even in the unlikely event of a no-deal scenario.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to support economic growth while decreasing emissions.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

19. What steps he is taking to support economic growth while decreasing emissions.

[The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) will know—and, I am sure, celebrate—that we have led the developed world in cutting emissions in our economy. Growth in our economy went up by 72% while emissions have decreased by 43%. That is not good enough—we want to go further and faster. That is why we set out last year all the policies in the clean growth strategy and why this week the first ever Green GB Week is helping us to re-emphasise the message that growth and green go hand in hand.

[Claire Perry]

This is a brilliant project and an example of exactly the innovation we need to tackle one of the most insurmountable problems we face, which is airline emissions. The Government relaunched last year a £22 million industry competition on future fuels for flight and freight to stimulate exactly this sort of innovative thinking.

[Mr Bacon]

Given that most people would prefer to live in a house that costs nothing to heat, boosting their spending power, that we have known for decades how to construct such houses cost-effectively and that there is no sign that big house builders will routinely offer such houses, are the Government planning to raise minimum standards for the thermal performance of new build houses, which will help the planet, the real economy and ordinary people’s household budgets?

[Claire Perry]

I have here a card with my hon. Friend’s title—he is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on self-build, custom and community housebuilding and placemaking, and he speaks with such knowledge and enthusiasm on this subject. He is quite right, and that is why we have set up the clean growth mission, why we have set out clear standards to drive up the energy efficiency of all homes to at least band C by 2035 and why we can no longer see new homes—particularly new build homes—that are off the gas grid being built with fossil fuel heating; we want that out by 2025.

Draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) (Energy Intensive Industries) Order 2017

Richard Bacon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 General Committees

[Chi Onwurah]

Absolutely.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Can you say that again?

[Chi Onwurah]

I could, but I will not. That legislation was laid in draft in March 2017 and was subject to a continuation motion in June, but I understand that it has not yet been formally debated and agreed. That statutory instrument contains a number of amendments to the 2015 legislation, in addition to those proposed in the order we are discussing. In particular, it includes a schedule specifying which industries are to be exempt, which the Minister mentioned.

It looks, on the face of it, as though the regime that is due to come into place as a result of the order will be uncertain in its extent, and hence difficult for companies to plan for, since there will remain unfinished business in terms of definition and other matters. Does the Minister accept that and does she think that that will affect the timetable for implementation further, with a possible delay beyond 1 April? Why were the draft regulations not laid simultaneously with the order we are debating, so that we could have enjoyed debating them both and so that the uncertainty could have been cleared up straightaway?

Yesterday’s Budget has thrown up a new flaw in the Government’s policy in this area, which I would argue demonstrates the lack of seriousness with which they are treating the task in hand of supporting our energy-intensive and foundation industries. In the updated levy control framework that was released yesterday, the Government committed to

“no new low carbon electricity levies until 2025.”

If I am not wrong, this statutory instrument seeks to implement just that—a new low carbon electricity levy. Will the Minister confirm that this is yet another example of the Government tying themselves in knots and U-turning on a policy before it is even brought into law?

In conclusion, our party does not support this system for the long term. If a Labour Government had been elected in June, we would not have done it in this way. We call on the Government to review the system with a view to returning to a rebate system, provided that we establish continuity of rebate and a stable environment for energy-intensive industries to work in. However, we recognise the urgent need to reinstate some form of cost-reduction scheme for the renewables obligation costs of energy-intensive industries. As such, although we have put on the record strongly and at some length our disagreement with several aspects of the statutory instrument, we will not oppose it.

Post Office Closures

Richard Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing the debate.

I would like to raise the case of Diss Crown post office in my constituency, which is at the heart of the marketplace in Diss. In that geographically central area of Diss, 10,000 local residents, which is more than twice the number of people on the electoral role for the area at the time, turned up to welcome the Royal Anglian Regiment—the Vikings—home after its tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. The post office is very much at the heart of the community. In particular, it is not only at the heart of Diss, but it will be at the centre of the regenerated Diss following the newly reinvigorated Diss heritage triangle project. That £3 million regeneration includes £1.65 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund. Part of the scheme will relocate some of the town’s facilities, including the tourist information office, further north towards the centre, away from the supermarkets on the fringes of the town. The proposal to close the Diss Crown post office cuts completely against that project.

WH Smith has expressed an interest in taking on the franchise, but the WH Smith branch in Diss must be one of the smallest in the country. It is up some very narrow steps through a narrow door. In fact, there are two narrow doors either side of the shop window, but they are not in the remotest bit suitable for disabled access and nothing that could be done would make a serious difference, because the footprint of the store is very small. My local district council, South Norfolk Council, has invested £400,000 of council tax payers’ money in the heritage triangle project. Indeed, paragraph 2.32 of the South Norfolk local plan refers to the need to protect primary shopping centres, including the Diss heritage triangle.

The proposal to transfer the post office further south to the WH Smith branch would, apart from the inaccessibility problems, put it on the wrong side of town. That would be to the clear detriment of public investment in restoring the old town centre. It would also mean that many public events, such as the welcome home parade to which I referred and the annual Remembrance Day parade, would, instead of taking place against the background of a heavily used, vibrant public building—as other Members have said, it is surprising that it is not possible for such branches to be profitable, and I find it almost impossible to believe that it is not—take place against the background of a closed, redundant, empty building, since there is no word on what Post Office Counters would do with it. In the case of Diss, it would have a damaging effect by counteracting significant public investment in a project that aims to revive Diss town centre.

The Post Office’s current proposal is to relocate the branch to WH Smith, which are the wrong premises in the wrong place. That goes against the trend of local public investment aimed at securing regeneration in one of our finest market towns, which has some of the oldest town records anywhere in the country. Diss could and should be a flagship example of the regeneration of our market towns, with the successful Crown post office at its heart. I hope the Minister will take these points to the Post Office. She should explain not only that we want a much more commercial and proactive approach, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, but that there are certain Crown post offices where the proposals are wholly unsuitable. We need and deserve something better.