Broadband

Debate between Tessa Munt and David Heath

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. If he has information about where that will happen, that leads me to my next question. Every time I have asked where the not spots are, I have been given all kinds of maps showing different colours. Most of my constituency is under consideration, or somebody is looking at the plumbing, or whatever. It seems unlikely that anyone will be able to make any headway in those areas. If the Minister is that sure, however, I am delighted.

I would be very grateful to have that information from him so that people who have no coverage can make alternative arrangements. I have heard reports, from my part of the country and others, of parish councils attempting to find out what is going on, and arranging for their own parishes to go online through some alternative to BT. Just when they have been about to hit the button and go for it, BT has suddenly come back to them and said, “Actually, we are going to do your bit after all.” That is not very competitive. If BT is not going to be up front, it is not fair for it to come back to communities that are trying to make their own arrangements and say, “Don’t do that, because we are coming in anyway.” That is slightly anti-competitive practice, and it does not look good, even if it is the truth.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and various other parts of Government, such as the Rural Payments Agency, have moved to digital. However, according to the figures that we have been given by the Country Land and Business Association, more than 10% of the countryside is without access to any broadband, and 12% has no digital footprint whatsoever. The trouble is that our suppliers expect farm businesses to be fully interactive online. Even though the basic infrastructure is not in place and Government-funded schemes are not delivering to remote and difficult-to-connect communities, they still have to use the various basic internet systems. Farmers find it difficult to innovate and to use new farming technology and software, which has to be downloaded from the internet. They also find it difficult to comply with other Government regulations by, for example, submitting VAT returns, getting vehicles taxed and processing animal tagging.

In my constituency, accessing the internet is also vital for jobseeker’s allowance claimants. Those who are looking for work, for whatever reason, have to show that they have applied for every possible job opportunity online. If they do not have internet access, it is absolutely impossible to meet the criteria, and their benefits may be stopped. Some of my constituents have to travel some distance to use the internet. They have to go to Bridgwater or to Wells, and there is little public transport. For people who are challenged financially and have little money because they have no job, but who are trying to find themselves work, it is incredibly difficult to compete and get the jobs that they need and want.

[Mr Heath]

Is not much of the problem caused by the hugely deceptive nature of percentages? We talk about a large percentage being covered without realising that in Somerset and the surrounding area, that means the fleshpots of Taunton and Exeter, and probably places such as Tiverton and Honiton. That relatively small percentage of people covers a large area of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, and they are the people who do not get broadband and do not get mobile phone coverage worth having. In fact, they do not get anything, and it is time that they were properly served.

[Tessa Munt]

I tend to agree. Rather than looking at percentages, we should look at people. Back in the 1980s—I can remember all of this—we had British Rail trying to move trains from A to B and forgetting that its job was to move passengers from A to B. Exactly the same lack of focus on people has led us to where we are with broadband.

When my children were in senior school, they found the internet essential because they had to access their homework online. When they were at college, they had to send all their submissions online to their tutors, and they have to do exactly the same thing now that they are at university. It is difficult for someone who has no broadband and who lives some distance from the library, if they cannot drive or do not have a car and there are no buses. How the hell is anybody meant to be able to do these things?

I have a wonderful constituent who is 94 years old, who moved into Cheddar and found herself waiting weeks and weeks for some sort of connection. She used Skype, Twitter and Facebook to keep in contact with members of her family, who were all over the world. We must remember that in order to keep older members of the community living in their own homes, it is absolutely essential they can access services such as having their heavy shopping brought in from the supermarket by ordering online. They can still pop out to the shops every day and do the small items of shopping. Using the internet in such a way will help to keep them in their own homes.

Many of the businesses in my area are tourism-based, and if they do not have a reliable online connection and cannot use broadband at the right speed, they do not have a competitive edge. It is also difficult to buy, sell and communicate if the connection drops out all the time. Without a decent broadband connection, life is so much harder.

I wrote to the Competition and Markets Authority asking it to look into BT’s apparent refusal to join an open bidding process to increase high-speed fibre broadband access in Somerset. There is slight confusion over this, but it looks as though BT has held back information that might have enabled other organisations to join the bidding process. By saying that that information is commercially sensitive, it has prevented anybody from being involved in tendering for the phase 2 superfast extension programme.

Flooding (Somerset)

Debate between Tessa Munt and David Heath

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because the next thing written on my piece of paper is “A361”. I do not like the idea of Taunton being cut off from civilisation and we need to do something about the A361, but the question is, what? I am not convinced that simply raising the level of the road along its entire length is the most sensible use of funds, but we need to do something in combination with the sluice, which I will come back to in a moment. We need to mobilise whatever funding is available—whether from Network Rail, which otherwise needs to do something about its track across the levels, or the roads agencies—and use it in the wisest way to ensure that the road is not closed again and that we all have easy access to the pub at Burrowbridge, which served as such a useful headquarters for the media during the flooding.

Are we going to see the replacement of the necessary pumping facilities? Some have already been done, but we brought in those massive pumps during the crisis and they were an extremely good thing. We need to ensure that they are available when we need them, and without having to ask, as we need a boat to be available when necessary. Such facilities need to be built.

That brings me to the two big ticket items. One is the Parrett sluice, which I agree entirely with, having looked into the matter. As the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset knows, I was initially sceptical as to whether the sluice would include improvement for my area—it clearly would for his—but I am now convinced that it would. Preventing the influx of water from the Bristol channel at high tide, thereby ensuring that we can drain away water from the upper reaches of the levels, is crucial. We need the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce the funding in the autumn statement—no doubt about it, we need it there in black and white. When we have that, we will be satisfied that the Government are keeping their promises to the people of Somerset.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

While we are on the subject of sluices, will the Minister address the problem of Bleadon sluice, bearing in mind that we have all talked about how any approach has to be for the whole catchment area? My concern is with the Axe and Brue rivers; there is a need for dredging on the Brue, but my most important concern is the Axe, which drains out into the northern part of my patch and over towards Weston-super-Mare. Bleadon sluice was closed by the Environment Agency, which put a red notice on it in 2009. There has been a bundle going on—no one will take responsibility. I was told earlier this year that the sluice was going to be fixed at some point during the year, but we are a long way through it and nothing has happened. Will the Minister address that, since we are on the subject of sluices?

[Mr Heath]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot divorce the issues of the Parrett and Tone from those of the Axe and Brue. That is why the next ask is equally important: setting up the Somerset rivers authority, to absorb the interests of the existing internal drainage boards and to create real capacity to manage our complex water systems appropriately and with the benefit of local knowledge. That will not happen unless we have a revenue stream to support it, which in turn will not happen unless the Department for Communities and Local Government realises that Somerset is an exception and does not fit its rules. The Department will have to give way to establish what is already the case in some parts of the east of England—a separate levy to fund the maintenance we know to be necessary. Again, that is an ask to which the answer must not be no, because otherwise we will not have done our job.

Will the Minister also update us about how the common agricultural policy reforms as implemented in England—the pillar two payments, in particular—will be used to encourage water retention, the sort of sustainable use of land that will reduce the amount of water entering the lower reaches of the levels at the right time? That is a key component, whether it involves reforestation or simple changes in land use, to enable us to hold more water at higher levels, releasing it slowly when it can get away.

We need a balance between the environment and the community, including the agricultural community. The environment of the levels is precious. I will not have it said that the environmental benefits of the levels do not matter, because the levels are irreplaceable—if we allow them to drown, they die. Therefore, it is in our interests as environmentalists, as well as representatives of our community, to ensure that the balance is created. As I have said often, flooding 3-feet deep for three weeks is fine. That is what we expect in Somerset; it is the levels way. Flooding 10-feet deep for 10 weeks is unacceptable; that is when people are in difficulties, businesses and communities die, and vegetation dies as well.

I hope that the Minister will give as many answers as he can. We will excuse things not having been completed by next winter, provided that we have clear intent that they are under way. After all the promises that we have been given and all the efforts made, however, we will not excuse things simply being said only for nothing to happen. We will have flooding again this winter—that is a fact—but if it is as bad as it was last winter and we can turn around and say, “The Government have failed to do all those things that they said they were going to do,” then, frankly, the Government will have to answer not only to the people in this Chamber, but to an awful lot of people in Somerset, who will be very angry indeed.

Ansford Railway Bridge

Debate between Tessa Munt and David Heath

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to do something that, as a former Minister, I have been unable to do for the past three and a half years, which is to raise an issue in the House, on behalf of my constituents, in an area that was not my responsibility as a Minister.

There is a considerable groundswell of opinion in my constituency about the closure of a railway bridge in Ansford, very close to Castle Cary railway station, closing the A371, which runs through my constituency. The reasons for the disquiet are the length of the operation that Network Rail is effecting, the consequences for the local economy, the inconvenience to local people and the fact that those could have been mitigated with a bit more care on the part of the railway company. Having said that, I think we all understand the reasons for the bridge closure. It is an essential maintenance requirement; it is not in anyone’s interest that we have bridges over railways that fall apart and cause trouble. We all realise that occasionally significant works have to be done.

The closure of the A371 was originally mooted as a 24-week closure beginning in September 2012. I intervened, mainly because I felt that the notice given to local businesses and people was entirely inadequate, that no consultation had taken place—to anybody’s knowledge—and that it was simply inappropriate, in effect, to close down the town of Castle Cary over the Christmas period, with all the consequences that that would have had. To give credit to Network Rail, however, after those complaints, it recognised that there was a problem. It attended a meeting held in the area and listened to local people’s concerns, and it went away, determined to postpone the work and undertook to see how the works could be done in the shortest time and with the least effect on the local area. It then came back with a project to start in July this year, which it did, and to end, we hope, in mid-November—a 19-week period.

Let me be clear, however: 19 weeks is a very long time for a major road to be closed. It would cause enough disruption in a metropolitan area, but of course there would be alternatives. In rural Somerset, there are no easy alternatives, and the diversions are considerable. For light cars, it is 17 miles; for heavy goods vehicles, it is 32 miles, which represents a significant extra cost for companies whose main business is either freight or the delivery of products elsewhere in the country. South Somerset district council has estimated the consequences for the eight largest companies in the immediate vicinity of the road closure. Its reasonable estimate is that the additional cost for those companies alone is in excess of £1 million and that it will cost smaller businesses at least another £1 million. All that is without reference to the inconvenience and disruption to individuals. It might mean an extra 12 miles on the way to school or to work in the morning or added inconvenience for those rushing to catch a train at Castle Cary, one of the few viable train stations in my constituency providing a service to London. It is now difficult to get to it from one direction at least, which causes great difficulty.

If we were talking about a council—or, I would like to think, a Department—every effort would be made, as far as possible, to fit things in with local needs. Public accountability suggests that the organisation involved would be desperately trying to reduce the economic and social effects to a minimum, but Network Rail is of course not publicly accountable in that way, other than through the Department for Transport. Indeed, I am afraid to say that there appears to be no evidence that it believes it has any wider responsibility, other than to minimise its costs and do whatever is most convenient to itself. That is why local people are so upset.

I am glad to see the Minister here this evening, but I know that he cannot provide me with an enormous amount of comfort, nor do I expect him to—I know that because at the start of this work I was in correspondence with the then rail Minister. I know, too, that the Secretary of State for Transport has had discussions on this very subject with Mr Richard Fry of Frampton’s—a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) and a representative of a freight company that is one of those most affected—yet all to no avail. In fact, if the Minister has been given the same brief as his predecessors—who is to know whether his civil servants have rewritten it?—he might employ the following sentences: “Network Rail is a private sector company limited by guarantee. The scope and duration of its engineering works are operational matters for the company in which Ministers have no powers to intervene.” If he finds that in his notes, I hope he will omit it and take it as read, because I know that that is the case. However, it in no way alters my contention that proper pressure should be applied on public bodies such as Network Rail.

My reason for securing this debate is to say that that answer and its consequences are simply not good enough, and things could be arranged better. Let me cover some of the things that might have been considered. One of the clear views expressed by my constituents is that, given such an enormously disruptive road closure, then ’twere best it were done as quickly as possible—that the minimum amount of time should be taken. That would involve working rather more than the minimum periods available, in order to get the job done. We discussed with Network Rail the possibility of night working—indeed, conditions could not have been better for evening or night work over the last few months—but that has not been forthcoming. We could have had weekend working, but no work has been done at weekends. We could also have had arrangements to provide for temporary daytime access or, if that were not possible, night-time access when no work was being done, but that was inconvenient and was not done either.

I know that with every major civil construction project people will say, “Nobody ever seems to be working on it.” Sometimes work is done that people are not aware of and sometimes a refractory period is necessary while concrete sets, for example. I understand that, but I assure the Minister that no one in the local area discerns any sense of urgency with this work. There is no sense that people are trying to get it done in the minimum amount of time. Indeed, they are simply dawdling their way through the project, with all the effects that that has.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly. I have written to the Minister about this matter, because a huge number of my constituents have been inconvenienced. I have also written to the company concerned, but at no point has it agreed to do anything like consider double working, triple-shift working or anything else that might avail the local community or Frampton’s, which my hon. Friend has already mentioned, and the other transport companies. Does he agree that that is the least that the company could have considered?

[Mr Heath]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that her constituents are feeling exactly the same pressures as mine are. This is not just a problem of unwillingness to think about the situation. It seems impossible for anyone—the Minister or anyone else—to apply pressure on Network Rail to make it acknowledge its responsibility to the local community. Closing a road has consequences, and it must be done for the minimum amount of time.

Network Rail could also have looked at alternative ways of undertaking the project. Such alternatives were offered, but they were rejected. It was suggested, for example, that temporary alternative bridge work might be put in place, but Network Rail was not prepared to consider that, on the ground of cost. Instead of repairing the bridge, it might have considered replacing it with a prefabricated alternative, which would have avoided the long delays altogether. Again, that was not considered. I understand that the Army offered to build a Bailey bridge as a temporary replacement. It offered to do it for free, as it would have found it a useful exercise; Network Rail would not have had to pay for anything except the pier supports. Again, the offer was rejected.

There are other things that Network Rail could have done to make life easier for local people. I mentioned that people are having difficulty getting to the railway station from Castle Cary, two miles away, simply because the link between the two is closed. However, they could have reached it if car parking had been provided on the right side of the closure, because people could have decamped by footpath from there to the station. That car parking was offered. Indeed, I understand that Michael Eavis, who runs the Glastonbury festival, offered to provide free use of the metal surfacing that he uses in his festival car park, to create hard standing in a field on the right side of the road closure, which would have helped local people. Again, that offer was not entertained by Network Rail. Apparently it is not even interested in getting people to use the railway if it is going to cost money.

Even the things that Network Rail did undertake to do have not been done satisfactorily. It said that it would provide full signage to show that the affected businesses were open, but the signage was still not in place long after the closure had been effected, and the businesses lost money. The signage that was eventually put up misled people. The situation on the ground is quite complicated, and I do not expect the Minister to understand it, as he is not a Somerset man. However, there is a road called the B3153, which goes from Castle Cary across a railway bridge that everyone assumes is closed, even though it is not, to places in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells. The signs simply say that the railway bridge is closed, and everyone assumes that they refer to that railway bridge. Businesses have lost revenue as a result. The advertisements that were supposed to be in all the local newspapers and on local radio never quite transpired in the way that was suggested. Whenever anyone mentions compensation, people get very tight-lipped indeed. There is no suggestion that anyone will be compensated for these problems.

As I have said, the consequence of all this is that the estimated cost to the major employers in the area is about £1 million. In our terms, these are big local employers. They supply dairy products, veterinary supplies and pet foods. The cost to the largest one alone will be £350,000, because of extra fuel burn, the need for dual-crewing in order to meet the working time directive, and extra wages costs. These costs all add up. There will also be extra costs for the council as a result of damage to the highway network because, sadly, heavy goods vehicles are using inappropriate roads.

I do not believe that any of this was necessary. Network Rail could have done a better job for local people. I say that because an example from elsewhere has been brought to my attention. Work was recently done by Network Rail in Lewisham. I have no doubt that it involved important track work, and it cost £9.5 million. That includes £2.5 million to ensure the safety and protection of a wildlife area. I think it is good—no one should get me wrong on this—that money is being spent to protect such an area, but I would have liked that money to be invested not just because of Network Rail’s fear that wildlife protection groups would be on its back; I would have liked it to consider Somerset people as well—people who are losing their jobs and their livelihoods in local businesses as a result of what Network Rail proposed. I think £2.5 million would have paid for all that shopping list of mitigating factors.

This provides an object lesson in how not to take into account the needs of the local economy and the interests of local residents. I ask the Minister to consider this issue. If it were not a road that was closed, but a railway line, do we honestly believe that Network Rail would not have worked absolutely round the clock to get the line opened again—because its revenue would be affected? Do we not believe that Network Rail would have used every possible measure to maintain some traffic along the line, whether it be in one direction or the other, in a way that has not happened in the case of this road? In those circumstances, it would not have been 19 weeks; it would certainly not have been a five-day-a-week, 9-to-5 job.

Network Rail has done itself no favours whatever in community relations. I have to say that this is not the fault of the local community relations managers, who have been doing their level best to be as helpful as they can be within the constraints set by head office. The overall policy of Network Rail here, however, shows absolutely no regard for local interests. That is what concerns me—the attitude displayed by Network Rail. If anyone wants an indication of that, let me say that I wrote to the chief executive on 5 September, asking about the progress made on the scheme, asking when it could be expected to finish and asking when we could expect to see some of the accelerated work that had been promised. I received an acknowledgement on 11 September; I am still waiting for a substantive reply. I think that tells us everything you need to know, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that Network Rail is not completely oblivious—or will be made not to be completely oblivious—of the interests of the local communities that, as a public company, it is supposed to serve.

Horsemeat

Debate between Tessa Munt and David Heath

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Phenylbutazone, known as bute, can be bought off the internet in tablet form, in injectable form, and as an apple and citrus-flavoured powder. Most horse owners believe that it is the only effective anti-inflammatory drug in controlling joint pain. It is so easy for owners to get hold of it that I wonder what the Minister might have in the way of proposals to ensure that there is some integrity to the system. Does he agree that testing is the only way of identifying the use of this drug?

[Mr Heath]

I do not want to move away from the position that it is crucial to understand: it is the responsibility of those who are selling products and those who are processing products to obey the law, which is very clear that a horse that has had phenylbutazone administered to it should not be entering the food chain. We have a regulatory issue as to whether the horse passport system across Europe is sufficient to meet that task, and that is what we are addressing. It would not be helpful to people who own horses across Europe to say that they cannot use a very useful anti-inflammatory drug; rather, we need to say, “If you do that, don’t put it on people’s plates.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tessa Munt and David Heath

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly proper question. From my experience, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer never knowingly loses an opportunity to debate matters in the House or to answer questions. He is no Macavity. He has attended 11 of the 13 Treasury oral sessions since he took office, which compares well to the previous Chancellor. The hon. Gentleman might have a point, though, and I will discuss the matter with Treasury colleagues, if there is a problem. I believe, however, that we will see the Chancellor the Exchequer regularly here answering questions on economic matters, as he would wish to do.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

May I put in a plea for an extension to Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time, which is still limited, despite there being so many particularly interesting matters relating to rural affairs and food?

[Mr Heath]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. The trouble is that we cannot extend one Question Time without reducing another or lengthening the interval between them. I know that the House wants to hold Ministers and Departments to account and to fulfil its scrutiny role, and we have to find a balance in order to ensure that that is done efficiently and effectively, but I hear what she says.

Electricity Transmission (Protection of Landscape)

Debate between Tessa Munt and David Heath

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to require factors other than cost to be considered for schemes for the transmission of high voltage electricity where infrastructure would impact on the visual and other amenity of a landscape; to provide that in certain cases such infrastructure be installed by visually unobtrusive works; to require that public consultation be undertaken and inform the selection of the method and technology for the transmission infrastructures used; and for connected purposes.

The purpose of the Bill is simple. It seeks to update the Electricity Act 1989, which recognises the transmission of high-voltage electricity only on cables strung between transmission towers, which we all know as pylons. Concerns have been raised by thousands of people throughout the country, many of whom live in rural areas and do not have the protection afforded to those in urban or suburban communities, where power lines are automatically put underground.

People who live in towns and cities, however, often enjoy their leisure time and holidays in the countryside, and I draw attention particularly to the 26,000 people whose livelihoods are dependent on tourism in my constituency, just one of many that would be damaged beyond belief if new lines on 152 ft pylons were introduced. The Somerset levels were in contention to become the 17th world heritage site until the proposal was made.

There are such problems for rural communities all over the country, as new pylons are planned to bring new supplies of energy from whatever source, be it turbines, gas, coal, wind, nuclear or tidal. What happens when we want to install cable TV? Automatically, we dig up high streets and roads all over the place. What happens when we host the Olympics? Around the whole Olympic village, power cables have been put underground. We do not suspend blue water pipes or yellow gas pipes from transmission towers, so why do we do so for electricity power cables?

National Grid has drawn to my attention the fact that it is holding a competition on pylon design, but that is purely a diversion and certainly not the answer to the country’s questions about transmission. The county council, district councils and parish councils are all against the proposals, but all that National Grid, our monopoly supplier, does is hear; it does not listen. There are alternatives, and they are underground and undersea.

The Bill recognises several factors, including the voice of the public and the value of consultation, which should not just be done on the nod; it should be about listening, not just hearing. Consultation responses should inform the method and technology for the infrastructure used. This is also about being green. Losses during transmission are about 7% once one gets the power to the cables. It is clear that undergrounding or putting cables undersea would reduce those losses significantly.

There are health reasons why we should put cables underground. The Government continue to be very poorly advised on the adverse health effects associated with high-voltage overhead power lines. Extensive studies have established a clear correlation between increased risk of childhood leukaemia, adult leukaemia, adult brain tumours, motor neurone disease, miscarriage and Alzheimer’s disease and the electromagnetic fields associated with such lines. The risk to children and adults easily satisfies a cost-benefit analysis in favour of burying high-voltage power lines.

The UK Health Protection Agency considers only a fraction—typically less than 10%—of the available scientific evidence. Included in major studies showing increased risk of childhood leukaemia are the 2005 study by Dr Gerald Draper of Oxford university, published in the British Medical Journal, and studies in Tasmania and, particularly, in Iran, where all power lines go overground. One of the many studies showing increased risks of Alzheimer’s disease is the 2008 whole-population study by Dr Anke Huss of the university of Berne, which revealed particular risks in populations living near overhead power lines in Switzerland.

National Grid is not the National Gallery, the National Trust or the national health service, but it is a massive, monopoly, multinational provider with a primary aim—to seek the maximum return for its shareholders. We have no choice but to use this super-sized company to get our power from its source to the places where it can be distributed to us in our homes and businesses. In June 2009, National Grid’s own chief executive officer, Steve Holliday, went on the record to say that undergrounding transmission lines was a “ no-brainer”. Cost is not everything.

In October 2010, Sir Michael Pitt, the chief executive of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, requested an independent and authoritative evaluation of undergrounding. The Department of Energy and Climate Change sought the assistance of the Institution of Engineering and Technology as an independent assessor of that study by a company called KEMA. The study was to be funded by none other than National Grid. None the less, it went ahead, and the results were meant to be produced on 25 January. However, nothing happened. On 3 June, the IET issued a press release stating that KEMA had not been able to issue a report with which it was satisfied owing to a lack of data from National Grid, and so the IET could not endorse its work.

It is surely time to open up this debate—to put it right into the light and demand that all these figures be provided. I am calling for openness in deciding whether power cables should be put underground or undersea instead of overground. The costs are not an issue—we all pay them through our bills. In November 2009, National Grid admitted that the cost of undersea or undergrounding would put just 1% on our electricity bills. Siemens has produced figures showing that using gas-insulated lines would reduce the whole-life costs of underground cables to under half the costs of pylons.

I pay tribute to the work of my many colleagues across the House who are interested in this subject, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), as well as many others. There have been objections to pylons in Wales, Scotland, the north-east, the south-west and throughout East Anglia. I understand that there is a statement on record from Carwyn Jones, the First Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government in Cardiff, who said no to pylons too.

I also recognise the work of the many pressure groups. I am grateful to some of them for information, in particular Pylon Moor Pressure, No Moor Pylons, Save Our Valley, REVOLT, Bury Not Blight, Highlands before Pylons, North East Pylon Pressure, Montgomeryshire Against Pylons and Stour Valley Underground.

It is time to consider the impact of what we are doing to our countryside, our tourism, our health and our environment. We know the cost of everything, but this matter indicates that we might not spot the value of what we have. Changing the law would at least give us the opportunity to get it right for everyone’s sake. I am delighted to introduce this measure to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Tessa Munt, Martin Horwood, Roger Williams, Sir Robert Smith, Tim Farron, Mr Tim Yeo, Dr Thérèse Coffey, Glyn Davies, Natascha Engel, Dr Alan Whitehead, Mrs Anne McGuire and Caroline Lucas present the Bill.

Tessa Munt accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 215).

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, you heard a point of order from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), which suggested that the Government had not made Parliament aware of fundamental changes in tax policy by a statement in the House. I believe that that was incorrect. I think that she was referring to the ring fence expenditure supplement for the North sea fiscal regime. I am sure you will recall, Mr Speaker, that that was presaged in the March Budget. Further to that, a very detailed written ministerial statement was issued by the Treasury this morning and was available in the House of Commons Library at 10 o’clock. Indeed, had the hon. Lady taken the trouble to look at the Order Paper, she would have found it at No. 3 on the list of today’s written ministerial statements. I just wanted to put the record straight.