Electricity and Gas Transmission (Compensation) Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I am not questioning whether the company wishes to do the right thing, but in practice it has not behaved in a way that is acceptable to me as a representative of the people of North Somerset. I therefore suggest that we need new mechanisms to ensure that what I regard as genuinely fair practice is enforceable. That is one of the problems with the current system. I shall now illustrate the generic case with some specific examples from the experiences of my constituents.

For those who are unfamiliar with the background, in preparation for the Hinkley C nuclear power station coming online, the Hinkley connection project is a new high-voltage electricity connection between Bridgwater and Seabank, near Avonmouth. The new connection will be 57 km long, consisting of 48.5 km of overhead lines and 8.5 km of underground cables, mainly through the Mendip hills area of outstanding natural beauty. The existing 132 kV power lines will be replaced, as they will be across the country, by new 400 kV overhead lines using very much larger T-pylons, with the removal of most of the existing pylon system, which we are used to seeing in our towns and countryside.

It is not my intention in the Bill to argue the pros and cons of the new pylon system, controversial though that it is, or to argue for the relative merits of pylons or undergrounding of new cables. My intention is to ensure that where the interests of our constituents are materially affected they are given due protection. A number of my constituents in North Somerset have been battling with National Grid for over 10 years now to try to protect their homes and livelihoods.

My first constituent’s circumstance has resulted in the value of their property being materially impacted by the project, which is perhaps an unavoidable consequence of this type of infrastructure upgrade. My second constituent is a farmer whose livelihood is being destroyed by the same scheme. In both cases, National Grid seems to believe that it has no responsibility to take due regard of the emotional, social or economic consequences facing my constituents, whose only redress is therefore through the courts at the Upper Tribunal. In the case of my first constituent, who was forced to pursue that route, that ended up costing them a staggering £200,000 in legal fees.

In that first case, the family bought their home in January 2008, with the intention of knocking down the old house and building a new one. They carried out all possible searches from a conveyancing perspective, as the project was their magnum opus that was going to use their life savings and ultimately provide their pension in years to come. The Hinkley scheme never showed up on any searches undertaken and, by its own admission, National Grid accepted that the Hinkley connection project would not have been visible in any searches undertaken at that point in time.

Once the project was formerly announced in 2010, my constituent made representations at every possible hearing, to both National Grid and the inspectorate, asking factual questions around pylon location and impact. For years, no one was able or willing to provide any specific answers or assurances on whether and to what degree the project would have a material impact on the value of their house. As hon. Members can appreciate, that caused, and is still causing, an unimaginable amount of stress for the family. The feeling of being effectively powerless in a stand-off with one of the world’s most powerful multinationals has left them with a level of fear and anxiety that I leave the House to imagine.

The detail of the scheme was to put two 132 kV lines under their drive, which includes their garage come office, and a 400 kV T-pylon close enough to the property that, were it to fall, would fall right to the edge of the house itself. That is in addition to building an access road that now abuts their property. Where once there were only fields and sheep, there will now be a massive new pylon outside their home.

Additionally, they have been served with restrictions around permitted development rights of their property and National Grid and supplying parties have been granted access rights to their property, which would allow them to break down their gate or knock down their garage and office in order to carry out any necessary reparations to the undergrounded line. Perhaps those are necessary rights, but they have a detrimental effect on the sale price of the property.

Although my constituents were constantly engaged with National Grid, all conversations were completely ineffectual as National Grid did not have to listen or provide any answers to their questions because it was able to point to the development consent order—the DCO—that seemingly gave it carte blanche to do what it wanted. Unlike other large infrastructure schemes such as High Speed 2 or Crossrail, no discretionary compensation scheme was established for the project, so National Grid has simply focused on what it has been legally allowed to do, with little regard for the impact on individuals’ existing properties, and irrespective of the personal or financial impact. Hon. Members may want to think about that in respect of future potential cases. Consequently, the only route left open for my constituent to protect their home and life savings was to pursue a blight claim through the Upper Tribunal—which for reasons that are readily apparent they did not want to do.

Given the rarity of statutory blight claims, my constituents recognised the enormous risk in undertaking such an action, and they did not take it lightly. However, since they had no other avenues to pursue, they were compelled to do something to avoid financial ruin. To be clear, all they were trying to protect was their right to sell their house at a fair market value at a time of their choosing. I would like to think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would regard that as a basic right.

The odds are stacked against individuals in such cases. Even the small win that my constituent made in the judgment—the recognition that there would be a 5% diminution in the value of their property—was pointless, because National Grid will no longer accept and pay compensation as it says that the rights that it now requires over the property have changed. A constant moving of the goalposts as well as a refusal to accept responsibility for its actions—or decisions that go against it—have been constant features in National Grid’s behaviour. Its response is all too typically to challenge individuals to take it to the Upper Tribunal, with a potentially huge new tranche of expense.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

As the country moves to decarbonise and away from fossil fuels, a conservative estimate is that the requirement for electricity will double—it may triple—in the next 20 to 30 years, and an inevitable consequence is that we will need many more pylon routes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is therefore a particularly opportune Bill and that it is important for hon. Members who perhaps do not think it applies to them yet?

[Dr Fox]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so clearly. At the moment, it is a relatively small geographical problem that affects a relatively small number of us, but it is going to be a much bigger problem in the future, affecting many more constituencies across the country. As so often happens, we are able today to anticipate a problem and do something about it. What I hope will not happen—all too often it does—is that we try to kick it into the long grass. It is far better that we find a solution to the problem now that is fair, reasonable, enforceable and equitable and bring that forward with Government action. We otherwise face long fights on behalf of our constituents in the House and potentially through the legal system. The current system of forcing constituents to the Upper Tribunal is neither fair nor affordable, and access to justice is not possible where one side can use its financial and therefore legal might in effect to intimidate those who stand in their way. That is exactly the point that my hon. Friend was making.

My second constituent is a local North Somerset farmer who has some of his land adjacent to my first constituent. His family have been farming in the area for generations. As with so many of our farmers, they love and care for their land and the local environment, and they focus on farming in an environmentally friendly and regenerative manner. The preservation of soil is key to the whole business model. As a consequence of the scheme and the flagrant disregard for that preservation, his land has been ruined for generations to come. Haul roads have been constructed over peat bogs, and they have caused material drainage issues. National Grid has consistently refused to agree a workable drainage strategy. This will impact future yields and render it less productive and less valuable as farmable land, not just for a couple of years but for generations. What is worse is that a compensation scheme agreed with National Grid’s land agent at the start of the scheme has now been reneged on, as National Grid is now questioning the formula agreed by its own land agent. When my constituent challenged that approach, he was faced with a bullying and abrasive response, and is constantly told that he could pursue the matter through the courts, which, quite obviously, he is not in a position to do.

In addition, as a consequence of the company’s inadequate and seemingly ignorant and ill-thought-out approach towards the resettling of badgers, setts have been blocked off. That forced badgers on to his land and infected his herd—something he told the company could happen, but it chose not to listen. As someone who had never had a single case of TB on his farm for 30 years, he was forced to cull 110 cattle out of a herd of 350. Seventy of those were in calf, so not only did he lose a huge proportion of his stock but his stock has been massively affected for the next three years. In turn, that has cost him tens of thousands of pounds. And that is without taking on board the suffering farmers endure when they witness the suffering and slaughter of their own animals.

A third case involves another farmer across whose land an access road was driven. Promises were made to return the land to its previous condition, which was, incidentally, part of the best quality farming land in the area. When I visited the farm recently, I was horrified at the condition of the fields. Building debris was so widely scattered that it would be impossible to utilise a range of farming vehicles without undue damage. Yet again, the response from National Grid, or at least its local agents, was that it had done what was required of it and that if my constituent was not satisfied it would see them in court—a very regular chorus being developed in this particular song.

A fourth case involved an elderly constituent who has a single piece of land, which is her chief financial asset. This has effectively been taken out of use for the next seven years by National Grid perfectly legally as part of the access programme for the installation of the new pylons and underground cables. Again, there has been a callous disregard for the fact that this effectively renders her biggest source of potential income inaccessible. Here again, the response has been that if she is not happy, she can pursue the matter through the courts. The disregard for individual interests and natural justice appals me.

Members across the House will be able to see from these relatively simple examples a clear pattern of behaviour developing. Some might say that from the point of view of National Grid shareholders, the approach is not irrational, as they will be able to proceed with their electricity transmission project at minimal discretionary financial cost. The rest of us, however, will surely believe that we have to put in place measures to fulfil the four tests I set out earlier, giving our constituents a system of dispute resolution that is clear, affordable, fair and enforceable.

I am grateful to Ministers for the discussions that we have had thus far on the subject and their understanding that there is a clear problem that needs to be addressed. The current dispute resolution mechanisms are not adequate. That cannot be allowed to stand as the solution to the problem. A range of options is available which I hope we can continue to explore as we move towards the Committee stage and subsequent stages of the Bill. I have noticed in recent weeks a growing awareness from Members representing constituencies across the country who recognise that this will become a problem for them if we do not find adequate solutions now.

As I said at the beginning, we all understand the need for an effective, efficient and resilient electricity transmission system, but it cannot be built at the expense of our constituents and the natural justice to which they are undoubtedly entitled. We cannot allow large multinationals to bully those who have legitimate interests and grievances, and to use their financial, and therefore legal, might to crush resistance underfoot.

Today, my North Somerset constituents are, largely, the most affected, but many more constituencies will be affected in the future. We in this House have a duty to protect, in any situation, those who are weak from the excesses of those who are stronger, and to ensure that decency, social responsibility, rights of property owners and environmental protection are given their proper place. Last year, in the passing the Down Syndrome Act 2022, this House showed that it understood that it could unite for the common good. I ask colleagues to do the same today.

Shale Gas Extraction

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is definitely not outdated; it is a very effective, modern way of extracting energy. I would say to people: do they want cheaper and more secure energy or not? If the answer is yes, fracking is going to be part of the answer.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has repeatedly referenced a 2012 report that identified considerable potential reserves. How significant might those be in achieving energy security?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend; that is an important and fundamental question. The answer is that we need to do the test drilling first to see whether the reserves can be achieved in the way that the 2012 report hoped, but I cannot give a firm commitment on that, because we have not done enough test drilling yet.

New Pylons: East Anglia

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[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.

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent, highly technical and very important speech. Is it not true that in our recent discussions with Ofgem, National Grid and others that officials from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy confirmed on the call that none of the current contracts could in any way predetermine the planning application? Therefore, the question of how the electricity is ultimately shifted through the onshore grid is still open.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a question of law, it must be open because it is subject to planning.

The Minister has a great opportunity not to make the errors that we made in 2015 and to be bold about the anticipatory infrastructure that is required, which is being implemented for the holistic network design elsewhere in the country. It is ironic that the only part of the country that is not part of the holistic network design is East Anglia, given that East Anglian MPs pushed the Government into adopting the policy.

We have an opportunity to create the infrastructure that will allow us to connect without more devastating impacts on our environment and communities; to save money in the medium term, as pointed out by the National Grid ESO position paper; and to accelerate the early adoption of additional wind farms, because once the offshore transmission network in place, the connection process will actually be quicker and easier. Additionally, if we take the offshore route via “Sea Link 2” down to the Isle of Grain, there will potentially be additional benefits in relation to international interconnectors.

I question the rationale behind the assumptions that went into the consultation paper, and I make this one further request. In the very constructive call that a number of us had with National Grid Electricity Transmission Operator yesterday, it committed to generating a like-for-like offshore replacement for East Anglia GREEN, but I have one concern about that. If we literally have a like-for-like replacement, we would be taking energy from Norwich South to Tilbury. That is not the question that should be asked. The question that should be asked is what is the cost of taking advantage of an offshore route to deliver electricity to the Greater London area? It is not an exact like-for-like comparison with Dunstan in south Norfolk to Tilbury. How do we take advantage of the benefits that National Grid ESO identified in its position paper to maximise the dynamism of our electricity provision while minimising the cost to the taxpayer and to the constituents of our three counties?

Employment Agencies and Trade Unions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Member for his point. I promise him that the Labour party will always support Welsh devolution and support the Wales Government in what they have been trying to achieve. Actually, as we have seen with the industrial action on the railway, we have avoided that in Wales, where we have a Welsh Labour Government, because Labour Members respect devolution. This Government want to break up the Union with their petty squabbles, sleaze and scandal.

Let me move on to the second motion. I congratulate the Minister’s new team on finding one of the lesser-known industrial regulations. It is funny that the Government are proposing to increase fourfold the damages that could be claimed under a measure that has not even been used. The Conservative party is wasting precious parliamentary time in a week when piles of legislation have had to be postponed due to there being no Minister to deal with them. This is an empty gesture or a threat. Whether the Minister and her party like it or not, everybody has the right to join a trade union in this country and to take strike action. This measure is either pointless or yet another attempt to undermine that right by the back door.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is not open for trade unionists to entertain illegal strike action in this country?

[Angela Rayner]

We have some of the strictest trade union legislation in Europe. Members have to go through strict balloting. This is the myth that Government Members do not get about trade unionists and industrial action: it is a last resort and it is often when all else has failed. It would be good if the Government got round the table and tried to deal with the disputes rather than stoke them up.

Let us take a step back to examine what this is really about: the Government are set on breaking the strikes that they are causing themselves. We saw it with the RMT strikes last month, when the Government did everything they could to avoid the negotiating table and find the resolution to bring the strikes to an end. Instead, this is a flagrant attempt to do something by a zombie Government that are out of answers, out of options and out of time. They are about a race to the bottom on standards. They are about further eroding British workers’ rights. They are about dividing the country they claim to lead. Undermining strike action will make it harder to find a resolution, resulting in more and longer strikes to the detriment of the public, businesses and workers. This will also empower bad bosses and we will see more cases like P&O Ferries.

We have not just determined that this is bad policy. It is also clear that it is deliberately harmful to workers and their employers, and it is an absolute fault of this Government. I should not be surprised by it. The Conservative party may be trying to get rid of their leader and may want to try and press the refresh button and get a better image, but this Government and that party have shown us time and time again who they are. This is a Government that have no answers to the cost of living crisis. This is a Government that have no answers to backlog Britain and the chaos that it is causing for ordinary working families. This is a Government that have no answers to the spiralling inflation that is on our backs. And this is a Government that have not only failed to prevent the chaos, but have indeed caused the chaos. The party opposite is in disarray and this is no longer good enough. It is the Labour party that is pro-worker and pro-business, and I urge the whole House to be the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I rise to support both statutory instruments, but I will speak in support of only one: the liability of trade unions in proceedings in tort and the increase in the limit on damages. To set the context, we need to look at the rights and obligations under the law of tort—the common-law duty under tort—so that we can understand the rationale behind the measures. As many Members will know, for a liability under tort to become established, we first have to have a duty of care for one organisation or individual to another. There needs to be a breach of that duty and then evidence to demonstrate that the breach was causative of identified damages. That is a standard part of the law of tort and of our common law. It is worth making the point that it applies to all of us in all our relations with one another; it is not unique to the unions. The starting point is that every organisation is responsible in damages for a tortious breach of its duty of care.

I turn to the specific problem with trade unions and trade union-inspired strikes. Although the withdrawal of labour is a fundamental right, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) made clear, it can lead to a huge number of breaches of tortious duty if a strike is illegal, because public sector work has an impact on so many other organisations. In previous legislation, the Government created an exemption for unions on legal strikes—the official protected industrial action clauses—but illegal strike action is not protected under the law, so the risk remains that trade unions are open to crippling damages being awarded against them. Why should they not be? If through their illegal actions they have caused identified losses to other individuals, why should they not be responsible for them?

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

Could the hon. Member identify the last time that there was an illegal strike, please?

[Jerome Mayhew]

Since 1982, there has been effective legislation to dissuade that kind of act, but the effectiveness of that legislation has diminished over time to such a level that it is no longer worth applying. The damages cap is so low in real terms that it has become ineffective as a disincentive.

[Barry Gardiner]

Does the hon. Member understand that as the normal remedy is an injunction, what he proposes might, ironically, make injunctions against strikes more difficult for employers to obtain? One of the conditions for the grant of an interlocutory emergency injunction is that it must be shown that damages, if awarded at full trial, would not be an adequate remedy, so raising the level of that remedy makes it less likely that an employer could get an injunction. The hon. Member’s argument has therefore undermined itself.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention, but I fundamentally disagree. As the hon. Member will know, when someone makes an interlocutory application for an injunction, they often have to give an undertaking in damages. The cap, which I have not yet come on to, will not be raised to a new level; the order merely restores what was put in place, which was the will of Parliament when the legislation was enacted back in 1982.

There is a very strong argument that an organisation that causes loss to another through its breach of a duty of care should be responsible for 100% of damages, but the Government have not taken that view. They have capped the liability in damages for trade unions, even when strikes are illegal. They have tried to balance the disincentive from strike action, for which I make no apology, with protection for trade unions from the full consequences of their actions, even though they might be illegal. The reason is that the Government are in favour of trade unions and do not want crippling damages being awarded against them. There is a balance of rights and obligations, which in my view is absolutely reasonable.

The cap was set by Parliament under the Employment Act 1982 at between £10,000 and £250,000, based on the size of the union and its ability to pay. It seems quite wrong, in 38 intervening years, for the caps not to have been increased by the rate of inflation or by any other amount. The rights of unions and the rights of damaged businesses and individuals have now, in my submission, become unbalanced. The legislation is no longer acting as proposed, and I think the Government are quite right to take action to rebalance it, as it originally required. I have looked up, on the Office for National Statistics website, the retail prices index figures for inflation between January 1982 and May 2022. The multiplier, to be entirely accurate, is 4.31963. The Government’s proposals, which use a multiplier of four, are actually less than the inflationary increase.

It is entirely right that the order restores the original intention of Parliament. The legal right to strike is wholly protected, and it is disingenuous for Opposition Members to suggest that the right to strike is being in any way affected. The order merely restores the balance of rights between the damages available to the victims—and they are victims—of tortious losses caused by illegal strike action and the protection of trade unions from crippling losses. That is right: it is an incentive to avoid illegal strikes, which I think is a good thing.

This is good government. I support the order; I only suggest that from now on, the limits should rise automatically with inflation to avoid having a repeat of this debate in 2060.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

Sub-Postmasters: Compensation

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. In terms of loss of liberty, that comes up with the overturned convictions. In terms of the overall losses, as I said, the HSS works by looking at the past losses as well as what is ongoing and making an assessment of that with an independent panel behind it. I envisage that there will be the same scheme for the 555 so that there will be parity in their compensation.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

As Back Benchers, we often ask Ministers for action and get absolutely nowhere, but today is different. I join the tributes to the Minister for how hard and how successfully he has been working in Government to get to a solution. I also put on record my recognition of Therium’s decision not to seek its extra compensation. This week of all weeks, it is nice to have a business doing the right thing. Can he give some indication to my constituents and others of the rough timeframe for receipt of the compensation payment?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. It is difficult for me to say, because it depends on what scheme we come up with. If it is the scheme that I am envisaging, which is similar to the HSS and runs alongside it, I expect those payments to be largely out of the door and in people’s pockets by the end of the year. I do not see there being a long time delay from adding the 555 to that, because we know so much about them and can include them in that scheme or something similar.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Again, I have to completely refute what the hon. and learned Lady says. The position is absolutely clear: Acorn was an excellent project and is on the reserve list, and I am looking forward to working with her constructively to make sure we land this very exciting project.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The sooner the offshore transmission network is constructed in the southern North sea, the better. It will save money for consumers and limit the damage to local communities and the environment. So will the Minister commit to restarting the previously planned consultation on a regulated asset base finance model for renewables and low-carbon energy-generating assets as soon as possible?

Draft Green Gas Support Scheme Regulations 2021

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 General Committees

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The subject that we are

talking about this morning is, as the Minister mentioned, green gas and how we can best incentivise the processes by which it is produced, which is primarily anaerobic digestion. He mentioned that biogas plants and biomethane plants are predominantly situated in rural areas. Indeed, a fair amount of the biogas produced in this country essentially comes from farm AD plants. Those who follow “The Archers” will remember the considerable controversy about a biogas plant around the village. Essentially, it is an arrangement whereby waste—farm waste, food waste and a number of other processes—can contribute through a biodigestion process, which does not involve burning or emissions in the sense that incineration has previously, and can be converted into biogas, which can, under many circumstances, be injected into the system.

As part of my exciting life as shadow energy Minister, I visited a large anaerobic digestion plant near Poundbury that has for a number of years very successfully processed food waste particularly and crop waste, which I will come on to in a moment, into biogas, which is then injected into the system, initially around Poundbury but covering quite a lot of the grid on a good day. The system works really well and, as the Minister said, produces substantial carbon savings by the process of injecting biogas into the system, thereby replacing the gas that is going into it at the moment. I therefore thoroughly endorse the intention behind the green gas support scheme, designed to bring on further those anaerobic digestion plants, which can substantially replace elements of our gas distribution system by the process that I described.

I do not have many criticisms of how the scheme has been set up, save for two potentially important ones. The scheme is set to last, as the Minister said, until March 2041, and the individual support that it will produce will be for 15 years, so the producers will have a good line of support in green gas plants as they build them and production gets under way. However, as he also mentioned, that is being underpinned by what we might say is yet another levy. The Minister mentions that the cost of the levy will be perhaps £2.50 a year on gas bills. This is a gas bill levy for green gas production, which sounds a fairly neat connection, but in practice the vast majority of bill payers pay a dual fuel tariff for energy, so in that instance, a levy is a levy is a levy; it will go on that dual fuel bill in exactly the same way as the substantial levies that are already on electricity bills.

I understand that the Government are considering a migration of levies from electricity bills to gas, but this is not a migratory levy; it is a new levy. Some while ago, the Government told me that that would not happen—there would be no new levies. Indeed, I have had some fairly arcane discussions in Committees and elsewhere about what is a new levy and what is not. The principle that we should not continue to put levies on customer bills as a way of funding new schemes was reasonably well established in those discussions. However, here we have a new levy. By the way, this afternoon, as I am sure the Minister is absolutely aware, we will discuss a possible further substantial levy for new nuclear build. We have a situation in which levies on customer bills are pretty substantial. I appreciate the Minister stating that this is not what he might call a serious and heavy levy, but it nevertheless represents a not insubstantial increase on customer bills over the period.

The previous support scheme—the non-domestic renewable heat incentive—which at least to some extent supported anaerobic digestion production was not a levy; it was funded from general taxation. I would be grateful if the Minister briefly expanded on the decision to make this transfer from general taxation, as was the case for the renewable heat incentive, to the levy that we are discussing. On reflection, the Minister might consider that, certainly in the long term, this scheme might be best funded through general taxation, rather than continuing with the levy.

My second question for the Minister is rather more detailed and relates to the purpose of the levy, which is to produce biomethane for injection into the grid. The explanatory notes for the draft regulations state that support payments will only be made for biomethane injected into the grid. That sounds fairly straightforward, but we need to reflect on two things. First, biomethane does not necessarily go exclusively into the grid. That is a substantial part of its purpose, but it has a number of other destinations as well. Biomethane can and is being used to fuel gas engines for district heating schemes as a replacement for the gas going into the engine, so the replacement arrangement is exactly the same as if that green gas went into the grid, but it is going into a mini-grid, as far as district heating is concerned.

There are a number of instances whereby methane is being used on-plant for purposes related to industrial commercial activity. Near my constituency, there is a biomethane plant that is associated with a water company’s sewage treatment arrangements, which produce biomethane that is used in the plant to continue the water company’s activities. As the Minister will know, the gas grid by no means covers the whole country. There are a substantial number of properties that are off grid and there is certainly the beginning of an industry where biomethane can be supplied as a replacement for tanked or bottled gas going into those properties for heating purposes.

Important as those categories are for reducing carbon emissions, driving out traditional gas and replacing it with low-carbon gas in exactly the way the scheme intends, none of them would, in my understanding, qualify for support because of the suggestion in the guidance that only direct injection to the grid would qualify for support. Can the Minister reflect on that and let me know whether he is prepared to consider—not necessarily today but for the future—a review of those arrangements so that where biogas is being produced and is not necessarily going into the gas grid, it can nevertheless remain supported or be supported? I think we can all agree that the direction of the biomethane is essentially the same. It is a scheme that undertakes reduction of emissions through biogas production in substitution of gas.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

In support of that latter argument, I draw attention to British Sugar’s Cantley factory for sugar-beet processing in my constituency, which wants to put in an anaerobic digester. It is on the gas grid but it is a mile away from the main pipe. It is currently faced with the prospect of building a new pipe for a mile to connect the anaerobic digester to the grid, then take it back off the grid a hundred yards further down the pipe and bring it a mile back to the factory.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member emphasises the point that I was making, which is that quite a lot of biomethane production cannot easily be categorised as simply going into the grid. He has given a good example near his constituency, which substantially underlines my point.

The other matter that I want to raise briefly is the definition of feedstock for anaerobic digestion plants. According to the guidance notes, biomethane producers will be required to produce

“at least 50% of their biomethane from waste or residue feedstock.”

I assume that that means primarily food waste, but also farm waste and other residues. However, as I am sure the Minister understands, it is a little difficult accurately to determine what is and is not waste in relation to those categories. For example, I assume that forest trimmings, which can be used in certain circumstances for biomethane production, would be regarded as waste, but chopped-up wood would not be regarded as waste. Food waste, as the Minister will know, can be categorised both as proper food waste and as food waste that actually has not been used for food production but could quite well be used for food production in different circumstances. Therefore I wonder whether the Minister is satisfied that the definitions that there are in the scheme adequately determine what is and is not waste in relation to the 50% requirement.

I support the 50% requirement, because we do not want to see crops that could go into other activities being used to feed biodigestion either because the supply of waste is not good enough or just because people want to put the crops into the biodigester as an easy way of producing bioenergy, at the expense of feedstock that could be used for other purposes. It is a question of ensuring that the scheme is as well defined as it can be. I wonder whether the Minister has any comments to make on that in order to ensure that we get off to the best start possible with the scheme.

Other than having those hopefully brief and not very taxing questions, the Opposition support the green gas support scheme and we support that scheme starting as soon as possible in order to ensure that biodigestion takes its proper place in the panoply of measures that can lead us towards net zero in a coherent way.

Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Lady raises very important points about the situation facing ethnic minority employees, but that is why we are acting. It is why we sought quantitative evidence from ACAS. It is why we charged ACAS to come up with guidance in the first instance. There are plenty of other things we can look at, but as well as giving employers certainty in knowing how they should approach the situation, the guidance allows employment tribunal judges to make sure they are consistent with their judgments, too.

We receive lots of correspondence—I get a lot, not least from Members of this House sharing their constituents’ concerns—and I can see how deeply distressing it is for those who face changes to their pay, working hours, sick pay or other benefits. That may happen after years of service to their employer or to those new to the world of work. Losing one’s job through redundancy and dismissal is clearly something everybody wants to avoid. I speak to businesses every day and I know the vast majority of employers want to do the right thing by their employees. For most employers, decisions to change terms and conditions are not taken lightly, nor is the choice to let members of their workforce go. Good employers know that investing in their workforce and not treating them badly is the best way to increase productivity.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

We have heard in the debate, from right across the House, that the Bill is aimed at bad employers and at removing this as a negotiation tactic. The problem with the Bill, however, is that it would actually damage the ability of every single company—every good company—to survive when faced with an emergency. It would lead to higher unemployment, as this has where it has been tried, both in Ireland and in Spain. Does the Minister agree that the high youth unemployment in Ireland of 31.7%—[Hon. Members: “Speech!”]

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill (Fifth sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Chi Onwurah]

As I have said, Labour is the party of national security.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has said on a number of occasions that Labour is the party of national security. I would be very interested to hear her views about what date it became the party of national security. If my memory serves me right, Sir Richard Dearlove, to whom the hon. Lady has referred approvingly, said that the former leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), was a personal risk to national security, particularly if he ever got the keys to No. 10. He said:

“Do not even think of handing this politician the keys to No10.”

If that was the Labour party’s approach under his leadership, at what stage did it change its mind about national security?

[Chi Onwurah]

I am really disappointed in the hon. Gentleman for trying to make our national security an issue of party politics, and in particular for quoting a supposed critique of politicians by our intelligence service from previous years. I do not think that such comments have a place in this debate. We have elected leaders. I could go into a long list of quotations about our current Prime Minister and the concerns that he raises in many people’s minds, including from when he was Foreign Secretary.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill (Sixth sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

I would certainly like to do that, because we have a Government who have been unable to insulate our homes for a decade, but never mind. There are many musical references that could be made, including to The Mothers of Invention, with whom I grew up, but I suspect their notion of invention is rather different from the Government’s.

There is a serious point here, and it is a theme to which I return. We really think there is a problem with not having a clear definition. It seems to us that there are two very different approaches. The Government’s view is basically that our structure of accountability, and the way we deal with public money, is a problem for innovation. It is a difficulty that should be got rid of. I am afraid it goes back to the Dominic Cummings question, because that is his view of the world too. We take a very different view. Far from thinking that it is a problem, we think it is actually part of creating an innovation landscape—a community of people who are working towards shared goals.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I, too, was very tempted to make an intervention about the change in name, but I scanned through the entire Bill and noticed that there was one other mention of the word “invention” in the body of the text, so we were not able to move on that. But words have natural and ordinary meanings. The hon. Gentleman would perhaps refer to the “Cambridge Dictionary”, which defines “invention” as

“a product or a way of doing something which has never been made or never existed before”.

What is wrong with relying on the “Cambridge Dictionary” definition?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Absolutely right, and I have no objection to ever relying on anything that has been developed in Cambridge through a collegiate, collaborative approach of people working together. I was just about to say that we would be very happy to negotiate a definition of “invention”—I am very happy to take that one. We are just trying to help the Government to provide some clarity in the Bill. I suspect the Minister will not be tempted to take up the offer.

I will conclude by mentioning the public money point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central referenced. I can barely believe that I am saying this to Conservative Members, because I have been lectured many times over the years in various places about how it is taxpayers’ money and every penny needs to be spent carefully. It is absolutely right and proper that that should be done—£800 million is at least £10 per person. I suspect that other Members are knocking on doors at the moment and having a conversation with people, asking them how they are going to vote. I just wonder how many Members over the next week or two would like to end the conversation by saying, “Can I have a tenner, please?” When people ask, “What for?”, they offer the back of an envelope and say, “I don’t really know—I’ve no idea—but it might produce something wonderful.” And then they look down the list and find six others in the household, so they up it to £60. I do not think so. I think the public are not going to be convinced about this. Maybe—just maybe—a wonderful innovation will come through this, but I fear that, in years ahead, we will find that we are back discussing this again and will be putting in some of the checks and balances that are actually required.