§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
2.37 pm§ Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a subject of great importance to my constituents and to many people who are interested in environmental matters and the future of the electricity industry. The same subject was raised a few days a go in another place by my noble Friend Lord Crathorne.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy who is responsible for energy matters, for being here in person to reply to my remarks even though he could have asked a more junior Minister to be here instead. My hon. Friend is already familiar with many of my concerns and complaints about the manner in which permission can be granted for the construction of overhead power lines. He was good enough to invite me and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to his Department in July to discuss the matter. He knows that while my concern is general and covers the national approach to the subject, it arises from the plans of the National Grid Company to erect 50 miles of overhead power lines across Cleveland and North Yorkshire, largely across my constituency.
I am pleased that the Government ordered a public inquiry into the applications to build the power lines, as that is what I and other colleagues asked for. That inquiry is now over. The National Grid Company has presented its case, but it has had to face a formidable array of arguments from North Yorkshire county council, other local authorities, and the extremely well-informed pressure group, Revolt. My hon. Friends the Members for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) and for Ryedale and I have sent our evidence to the inquiry in support of the arguments of those organisations that the applications are not necessary in the first place, have not been based on an adequate assessment of the alternatives and have not sufficiently taken into account the inevitable impact on the local environment.
My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt receive the report of the inquiry in due course and it will make many nights of good bed-time reading. It will come as no surprise to me that my hon. Friend will be unable to comment, in advance of receiving that report, on the merits of the particular applications by the National Grid Company. It will come as no surprise to him, however, that I believe that they should be refused outright.
It is important for my hon. Friend to know that the strong feelings shown by me and my constituents on this matter do not arise from simple, uniformed Nimbyism. What we have seen of the procedures for deciding where power lines and power stations should be located, and what we have seen of the policies and practices of the National Grid Company, have led us to conclude that the conditions under which the Secretary of State can grant permission for overhead power lines need to be changed in some respects, interpreted more strictly in others, and made more specific.
One of the deeply unsatisfactory aspects of the local case to which I have referred is that although the construction of the new Enron gas-fired power station at Wilton has been cited as the reason for the power lines, no thought was given to the matter when planning permission 584 was granted for the power station itself. That point has been taken by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and I know that its representatives visited the DTI last week to discuss that matter.
I believe that CPRE is right to argue that we should amend Electricity and Pipeline Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1989. Surely those regulations should include explicit reference to the fact that environmental statements accompanying applications for consent to build power stations under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 should include an assessment of the likely impact of associated developments, including power transmission lines. It is not good enough to give approval for a large new power station and to tell people in nearby areas only afterwards that huge power lines must be erected through their community as a direct consequence. That clear lesson can be drawn from what has happened in Cleveland and North Yorkshire and I hope that my hon. Friend can accept it.
The question of planning procedures is, however, only the first of many issues that this case has thrown up—many of them are more far reaching and fundamental. It is too late now for any amendment to the 1989 regulations to affect the North Yorkshire case. Instead, I hope that my hon. Friend will make full use of his powers under section 37 of the 1989 Act and reject applications to build power lines or impose on them, according to the words of the Act,
such conditions … as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate".If he were to do so, he could force the National Grid Company to give greater weight to concerns about the environment and health. He could encourage the development of new technology and avoid the creation of huge inefficiencies, overcapacity and waste in the electricity distribution system. I should like to consider those three elements in turn.First, on the environment and health, let us be in no doubt that 50 miles of pylons—it is proposed that they should run largely alongside a similar, smaller existing line, which will thereby create a corridor of wire under which some people will have to live, and they would cross an outstanding rural landscape—represent substantial visual pollution. In the past few years, the House has passed laws to reduce lead in the atmosphere, phase out CFCs, take the sulphur out of power station emissions, clean up rivers, and so on. We should not be content to build huge overhead power lines across our countryside, with little thought about how we could avoid that. The environmental standards of the nation have changed since the National Grid Company last built power lines on such a scale.
Let us be in no doubt that the evidence on the health implications of such lines, while still inconclusive, is steadily building up to confirm a link between high-voltage power lines and childhood leukaemia. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Swedish National Board for Industrial and Technological Development is now convinced that radiation from power lines can cause leukaemia and that the board is now drawing up options to deal with that for the Swedish Government to consider? Within a few years, the National Grid Company and the Government may bitterly regret the construction of new overhead power lines.
The Minister may say that it is all most unfortunate, but that there is no alternative. That is wrong. In respect of North Yorkshire, the inquiry has been shown a number 585 of alternative arrangements which would achieve a similar reinforcement of the security of the national grid. My hon. Friend will read about them in the inquiry report, so I shall not delay the House today by detailing them. For today, suffice it to say that the case for the National Grid Company's applications becomes compelling only if one assumes that further gas-fired power stations will be built on Teesside in future, stations for which consent has not yet been given and which I hope will never be given.
Even if there were a compelling need, the Department of Trade and Industry should use its powers under the Electricity Act 1989 to push the NGC towards the development of new and more acceptable technology. The old Central Electricity Generating Board described in a 1976 report the possibility of developing new superconducting cables which would have far greater capacity than conventional power lines, would neutralise magnetic fields, thereby obviating the health hazards, and would greatly reduce transmission losses.
In 1976, the only known coolant for such cable was helium. Since the introduction of new, high-temperature superconductors, efficent transmission with much cheaper and more readily available hydrogen and nitrogen coolants is now feasible. That was all set out by the CEGB 16 years ago; yet since then the National Grid Company has done little or nothing to develop such technology.
If the company argues that the nation requires for the future an underground superconducting spine running down the country connecting Scotland with the south of England, that would be applauded by us all. It can expect no support, by contrast, for sleep walking into the future proposing time-honoured techniques on a take-it-or-leave-it basis while rejecting all sorts of better technologies as too expensive. A similar myopic approach in the oil or gas industries would have ruined our environment long ago. The Minister would do an enormous service for the nation if he shook the National Grid Company from its complacency by refusing to give consents for overhead lines until or unless a more imaginative and forward-looking attitude is taken to the development of new technology.
The Minister should use his powers to give the National Grid Company a good kick. Its behaviour is symptomatic of a business which faces no competitive pressures and can tell anyone who argues with it that there is no alternative to whatever it proposes. Until a meeting arranged by a local pressure group in North Yorkshire, the National Grid Company had no idea that the Department of Transport found no problem in principle with underground electric cables by the side of trunk roads. Duties should be placed on it by the Government to promote new technology to tackle environmental and health issues and to maintain a transmission grid that is efficient and economical, not just technically secure according to licence standards.
I referred earlier to the area of waste, inefficiency and overcapacity in the provision of the nation's electricity and the system for transmitting it. The overhead lines project in North Yorkshire has been costed at about £200 million. That cost must ultimately be passed on to the electricity consumer. Yet its purpose allegedly is to ensure the connection of a new power station, or perhaps power stations, to the grid at a time when generation capacity in 586 the United Kingdom is 32 per cent. in excess of peak winter demand. According to the National Grid Company's own seven-year statement, that surplus capacity will increase to 57 per cent. by 1997.
To any outside observer, that would seem strange. Even stranger, however, is the fact that the bulk of extra generation is to be built in areas remote from the centres of demand, resulting in the proliferation elsewhere in the country of power lines and towers, heavy and expensive transmission losses, expensive reactive compensation plant and a reduction in the stability and security of the whole electricity transmission system. How can there be reported plans to build four or five gas-power stations on Teesside when the excess demand for power is in the south of England? The north-east is already an exporter of electricity.
I know of no energy expert in the country who would not argue that if gas must be used for the large-scale generation of electricity—we have already debated that argument and will debate it on other occasions—it would be far more energy efficient to pipe it as gas near to the centres of demand before turning it into electricity. Transmission losses in the piping of gas are minimal, but when electricity is transmitted by overhead power lines from the north to the south of the country, about 10 per cent. of the power is lost. That is a serious waste of the nation's natural resources and adds to the huge cost of constructing the power lines in the first place. There is little doubt that electricity prices would be higher than necessary as a result.
We now have the ridiculous situation where the National Grid Company, through no fault of its own, feels compelled to construct an electricity transmission network to cater not for the demand for electricity but for a grossly excessive generating capacity. Just as bad, it must plan to cater for that capacity despite the fact that, by any judgment of economics or energy efficiency, the capacity is being provided in the wrong place.
There is little point in making fine-sounding statements in Rio about energy use or encouraging people to insulate their homes if we then allow the construction of a transmission network which leads to unnecessary waste and transmission losses on a considerable scale. The solution lies not just in a reform of the electricity market, which may be a subject for the review which my hon. Friend the Minister is conducting, but in a more competitive transmission system for gas. British Gas is the sole owner of the national gas pipe grid. It seems to be charging excessive amounts for gas transmission, thereby encouraging the generation of gas-fired electricity near the onshore terminals rather than near the demand for electricity.
I realise that I have raised a wide range of issues, but they are all interlocking and crucial to consider before my hon. Friend and his colleagues consider whether to grant consent for large numbers of new overhead power lines. My opposition to the power lines proposed for North Yorkshire is founded not on Nimbyism, but on the well-founded view that the way we have structured our electricity and gas transmission systems will lead to waste and inefficiency, compounded by an unimaginative use of technology with serious consequences for the environment and possibly for the nation's health.
My hon. Friend the Minister should use his powers to withhold consent for new overhead power lines and new gas-fired power stations until those vital issues have been 587 resolved. If and when they are resolved, he may find that many potential future applications to build new overhead power lines will become unnecessary. Where they turn out to be unnecessary, he should insist on proper consideration of all alternatives and on the strictest possible approach to environmental and health matters. Although I do not expect him to be able to give me instant satisfaction or answers to every point that I have raised, I hope that he will show that he is now moving in the right direction.
§ The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) not only on succeeding in raising this matter on the Adjournment but on doing so for the second time, which is rare in the House. I also congratulate him on varying his argument from the first time that he raised the subject. As he kindly said, I was able to see him shortly after I took up my present responsibilities, when he put the case that he has made today on behalf of his constituents extremely powerfully in my office at the Department of Trade and Industry.
As my hon. Friend expected, I cannot respond to the points that relate to the public inquiry, which are of considerable importance to him, his constituents and the Government. As he rightly said, when the inquiry inspectors have completed their investigation, they will report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade with their findings and recommendations. I look forward to considering the arguments and what has been said. Given the nature of the inquiry, I must limit my remarks today to the general issues which my hon. Friend has raised and not take up the particular issues that have been raised in the public inquiry.
My hon. Friend talked about gas transmission charges. I am sure that he is aware that the entire function of British Gas—the way in which it and its different businesses operate—is currently the subject of an inquiry before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I am sure that, among other things, the commission will be taking into account the sort of issues that my hon. Friends have raised.
In any debate about overhead supply lines, account has to be taken of the statutory responsibilities of the companies concerned. The National Grid Company which is responsible for the 275kv and 400kv transmission lines, has clear obligations under the Electricity Act 1989, through its transmission licence, to offer terms within 90 days for any prospective new connections to the grid. If the terms are accepted, the NGC must provide, under the law, the link in to its system. In addition, the NGC must carry out any necessary extension or reinforcement work resulting from that connection by the power station. The regional electricity companies, which are responsible for the lower voltage lines, also have a statutory duty to connect to their network and to give a supply of electricity to any premises where the owner or occupier of those premises has made a request for such a supply.
All proposed overhead lines in England and Wales, apart from those to supply individual properties and a few other minor developments, require the consent under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, and of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in his capacity 588 as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. All applications for consent are fully and carefully considered by my Department.
The number of applications made for overhead line consent in England and Wales is now—this may surprise the House— around 1,500 a year. Most of the applications are fairly short lines, typically just a few hundred metres or less. Applications are often occasioned by the need to move existing lines to enable developments to take place. In consequence many newly installed lines once commissioned, are followed by the dismantling of existing lines, giving rise to little or no net increase in overhead line length. In fact quite often, through improved routing, and sometimes also partial undergrounding, companies are able to achieve worthwhile net reductions in the lengths of overhead lines in the areas concerned.
My hon. Friend raised the specific question of Teesside Power. He referred to it as Enron. The Electricity and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1990 to which he also referred, implement the relevant European Community directive, and provide that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade shall not grant consent for a power station under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 unless he has first taken environmental information into consideration. This environmental information is the environmental statement submitted by the applicant, together with any representations made about the likely effects of the development. While Teesside Power's environmental statement referred to the need for a link with, and uprating of, the grid, these matters are the responsibility of the NGC and not Teesside Power. Consequently, and not surprisingly, Teesside Power could not be expected to provide detailed information on them.
It should be appreciated—I think that my hon. Friendl hinted at it—that the NGC's programme of strengthening the grid in the north is not solely to meet the needs of Teesside power station; it also has to meet other needs, such as the upgrading of the Anglo-Scottish interconnector.
Of course, an overhead line may need to be able to cover not just one power station project but several. It makes no sense to require all projects that would involve an overhead line to come forward at precisely the same time. That is a recipe for inaction. A better way is to approve a power station and then consider overhead lines on their merits, if they are necessary. That does not preclude the turning down of an overhead line. There is always the option of re-routing or laying it underground, and of course the power station would not be able to proceed unless a satisfactory overhead or underground route for the connecting power line could be identified.
§ Mr. HagueIs there any reason why the company making the application, Teesside Power in this case, could not ask the National Grid Company what the implications for it would be if a power station were constructed? That could then be taken into account in the environmental assessment. That seems simple, easy and practical.
§ Mr. EggarAs I understand it, Teesside Power referred to the need for a strengthening of the grid, but it could not possibly give the sort of information that would be necessary for integration. It would be extremely difficult if all power generation projects were required to follow through the consequences of any affirmative decisions that 589 were granted, right the way through to any changes that might occur in the national grid. This is a complex matter and there are always compensating factors to be considered. We are not often dealing with only one project leading to one defined and dedicated line.
The EC environmental assessment directive requires an environmental statement to be prepared as part of overhead line applications that are considered likely to result in significant effects on their surroundings. The National Grid Company will provide an environmental statement for all its major new overhead line proposals. The United Kingdom's Electricity and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1990 also enable my right hon. Friend to call for such a statement with any other application, including those for lower voltage lines from the regional electricity companies, if he considers that they will have a significant impact on the environment. All overhead line applications at 132,000 volts and above must be advertised, as must the existence of an environmental statement, when one has been produced. A period of four weeks following the last advertisement for a project is allowed for representations to be made to my right hon. Friend.
The Government have an open mind about any possible health risks posed by overhead lines. Allegations of cancer resulting from overhead lines are unproven, despite continuing studies in a number of countries, including the United Kingdom. The incidence of childhood leukaemias is small and it is difficult to establish any correlation between that incidence and overhead lines. Measurements of electromagnetism are in any event similar at foot level from underground cables to those at head level from overhead lines.
In March this year, a review carried out by an advisory group headed by Sir Richard Doll, on behalf of the National Radiological Protection Board, concluded that there was no firm evidence of a risk of cancer or leukaemia from electricity supplies or ordinary domestic electrical appliances.
More recently, as my hon. Friend said, two reports have appeared from Sweden on this subject and those reports are interesting additions to the many studies that 590 were considered in Sir Richard Doll's report. The Swedish reports have been referred to Sir Richard Doll's advisory group and we now await its assessment of the new data.
My hon. Friend made a number of references to the National Grid Company's approach to new technology. He is aware of the technical issues relating to undergrounding, the costs of which are many times those of overhead lines.
Superconductivity, to which my hon. Friend also referred, is still—despite the CEGB's report of 16 years ago—an emerging technology, and requires further development before it can be commercially exploited by the NGC or others. The most promising area of commerical exploitation of superconductivity is submarrine propulsion—but even that is very much in its infancy.
The Government are committed, under schedule 9 to the Electricity Act 1989, to the preservation of the environment, which is a requirement of that schedule. Under that legislation, promoters of all overhead lines must take full account of the need to preserve beauty and to conserve flora and fauna when formulating their proposals. Promoters have a duty to do all that they reasonably can, subject always to their statutory duty to supply, to mitigate any effect that their proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any flora, fauna, features of special interest, buildings or objects.
Whenever my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considers any overhead line applications, he is required to take account of the environmental implications and the extent to which the applicant for consent has complied with his duty under schedule 9 to the 1989 Act.
I have taken careful note of my hon. Friend's concerns, but the procedures that I outlined provide a satisfactory and appropriate basis for the consideration of applications for overhead line consent and ensure that such considerations take account of environmental effects.
My hon. Friend is no doubt awaiting with considerable interest the inspector's recommendations and my right hon. Friend's decision. I assure my hon. Friend that his remarks in the House today and on previous occasions, as well as his comments to me in meetings, will be carefully weighed when I consider matters in the wider context. I am sure that my hon. Friend has served his constituents extremely well, both this afternoon and previously.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Three o'clock.