Electricity and Gas Transmission (Compensation) Bill Second
Reading. 9.35am Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a Second time. Electricity transmission
is something on which we all depend and, simultaneously, tend to
take for granted. The upgrading of the network is necessary to
ensure that we improve the efficiency and resilience of our system.
It will enable us to improve our energy security by bringing in new
capacity,...Request free trial
Electricity and Gas
Transmission (Compensation) Bill
Second Reading.
9.35am
(North Somerset) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Electricity transmission is something on which we all depend and,
simultaneously, tend to take for granted. The upgrading of the
network is necessary to ensure that we improve the efficiency and
resilience of our system. It will enable us to improve our energy
security by bringing in new capacity, such as in the nuclear
field, and our renewable capacity by increasing the use of
elements such as offshore wind. On that much, all hon. Members
will agree.
At the same time, farmers, homeowners, local communities and
individuals should expect to have their rights and interests
protected while that programme unfolds, and to be treated fairly
and equitably when disputes arise. It is the failure of those
elements that necessitates today’s Bill. In the UK, National Grid
owns and operates our electricity and natural gas transmission
networks. It is one of the largest investor-owned utility
companies in the world: in the United States, as well as
operating transmission networks, the company produces and
supplies electricity and gas, and provides both to customers in
New York and Massachusetts.
Let me be clear to the shareholders of National Grid that it is
the intransigence, abrasiveness and downright disrespect of
elements of the company’s management that has led me to introduce
the Bill, on behalf of not only my constituents who are currently
affected but those of many other representatives in this House
who will be affected in future. Where disputes arise between one
of the world’s most powerful companies and our constituents, it
is essential that we have a means of resolving them in a way that
is clear, affordable, fair and enforceable.
I believe that the Government share those objectives, so the
Bill, as with the Down Syndrome Act 2022 that I introduced last
year, has been kept deliberately simple at this stage to enable
us to reach agreement on the specific mechanisms that can be
incorporated at later stages as the Bill progresses through
Parliament. It is true that a range of dispute resolution
mechanisms exist, but it is clear from experience that they are
not capable of dealing in an acceptable way with disputes that
arise. If they were, there would be no need for the Bill.
Mr (South West Hertfordshire)
(Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his impassioned speech.
Does he agree that we in this place should always encourage
people to do the right thing, as the Bill hopefully will? I am
concerned that it sounds, from his introduction, as though that
company is not doing the right thing.
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.
(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?
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.
9.55am
Sir (North Herefordshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset () has proposed a mechanism to ensure fairer treatment for
those whose rights or land are subject to acquisition. I declare
my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I have
a wayleave on my little farm, and I receive money for that. It is
not a great deal, but it is important to announce that, so that
no one hears what I will say without knowing that.
My right hon. Friend’s Bill relates to projects that concern
electricity and gas transmission. In the south of my constituency
is the National Grid high-pressure gas pipeline, which runs
underneath, or near to, Upton Bishop, where I live. Such projects
are of vital national importance, and I would not wish them to be
hampered by long, drawn-out negotiations between stakeholders.
The time that the High Speed 2 rail link has taken to progress
and its expense demonstrate the need for speed and efficiency
when proceeding with publicly beneficial projects, but those who
face vast inconvenience and an emotional impact as a result need
to be treated as fairly as possible, and with the utmost
consideration.
I was horrified to read in an article in Farmers Weekly that
months, and even years, can pass without landowners seeing a
penny of compensation when their land and access rights are
subject to acquisition. It stated that, in some cases, people
have been left waiting for up to 10 years for payment once a
compulsory purchase order has been served.
Without a mechanism that is separate from the negotiations
surrounding a purchase of land, landowners are forced to take
disputes to the Upper Tribunal lands chamber. If they lose their
case, they may be forced to pay the legal costs of the acquiring
body. The main thrust of what my right hon. Friend said is that
it is a David and Goliath-type contest that is deeply unfair to
the David part—that is, the landowner. In complex cases, when
business viability is called into question, that can amount to
tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of pounds. That makes the
legal route both expensive and risky, as my right hon. Friend
pointed out. It is not fair that landowners who, through no fault
of their own, are separated from their land or rights are dragged
through a demoralising legal process. In many cases, they cannot
even afford that, especially given that the outcome of legal
proceedings are not certain, and the landowner may still feel
aggrieved about the loss of his land in the first place.
Farmers are disproportionately affected by the projects that are
addressed by the Bill. Agriculture accounts for 63% of land use
in England, so farmer are, of course, most affected by gas and
electricity supply lines. A farmer’s land, however, is also his
greatest asset, and it is very difficult to quantify the cost of
disruption that an infrastructure project may cause. The basic
principle of compulsory purchase compensation is that the person
affected should be returned to the position that they were in
before the acquisition took place. For farmers, that is often not
what happens. The separate components of compensation payments do
not adequately address the injuries that farmers may face.
For example, not only do the huge 400kW pylons that are required
to transmit electricity take up about 60 square meters during
construction, but their placement reduces crop yields for years
to come. In some cases, pylons are obstacles for farmers driving
combine harvesters or other farm machinery. When builders put
transmission lines in place, they may cause damage to crops or
leave gates open, leading to animals escaping. My local paper,
the Hereford Times, reports that at least one agricultural
accident involving overhead lines, posing a threat to life for
farmers and livestock, is reported nationwide every day. A
one-off severance payment does not take those effects into
account, as they are difficult to quantify.
The current system benefits only the acquirer of the land or
rights. National Farmers Union rural surveyor Louise Staples has
claimed:
“Acquirers have too much power. There should be a greater
understanding that the purchase affects people’s homes,
livelihoods and family history.”
I hope that any system proposed by the Secretary of State looks
more favourably on farmers than the current system of
negotiation, in which there is a huge imbalance of power.
Part of the south Wales gas pipeline, which transports
high-pressure gas from Gloucestershire to Pembrokeshire —actually
from Pembrokeshire to Gloucestershire, I suspect—runs through my
constituency. Herefordshire is one of the main entry points to
Wales, as the Wye valley is more suitable for infrastructure
projects than the Cambrian mountains. For the same reason, the
percentage of land used for agriculture in Herefordshire is far
above the national average, so Herefordshire’s population density
is very low—the fourth lowest of any county in England. That
creates issues with gas and electricity provision, with a need
for electricity cables that are not as high-voltage but are none
the less disruptive, as they cover large distances between
substations.
A 132 kV overhead cable runs from Herefordshire to Worcester,
through the south of my constituency. Hon. Members will be
familiar with overhead cables of that kind, as they are
frequently held up by ugly steel lattice pylons, which can look
very similar to 400 kV pylons. The network distributor, Western
Power, published a document last year suggesting that the
existing 66 kV lines are ageing and may be replaced by 132 kV
lines. Of course that is welcome, because it is important that we
maintain our electricity lines and that they be up to standard,
but I am concerned that those whose livelihood will be affected
by the works will not be compensated fairly.
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something strange in how
there are built-in compensation mechanisms for projects such as
HS2 and Crossrail, which tend to affect more urban populations,
but there is little protection, if any, for projects such as
those he describes, which affect more rural locations?
Sir
That is the reason I am here today: the system is skewed to
disadvantage rural populations, who carry quite a lot of the
burden of energy distribution. What we are looking for is
fairness.
I praise the work that Western Power does in my constituency to
supply homes with the energy that they need. I listened to my
right hon. Friend’s speech about National Grid; I could not feel
more differently about Western Power, a fantastic company that
goes the extra mile for my constituents every time. I hope it is
listening to this effusive praise, because I really love these
guys—they are fantastic. However, the principle behind our debate
is the need for compensation. Although Western Power has been
fair in its dealings with me, I agree with my right hon. Friend
that those who are subject to acquisitions of rights or land
deserve fair compensation.
10.04am
(Meon Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. May I
congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset
() on introducing the Bill. We recently co-operated on what
became the Down Syndrome Act 2022. He has again found an area
where there is a need to support people through better
legislation.
Representing a mostly rural constituency, I am aware of the need
for ensuring a robust and resilient distribution network for our
utilities. We are in that period of the year when strong winds
and driving rain can threaten infrastructure, and thousands of
miles of cable criss-cross the constituencies of everyone here
today. The weather makes it more difficult to repair damage, so I
thank the people who put a lot of hard work into mending our
infrastructure. I appreciate the speed with which they are
usually able to make repairs.
Given the challenges, naturally, the utilities will want to
develop the infrastructure and build more resilient networks.
There are also areas where development requires greater capacity.
I am aware of one mooted development in Hampshire that is
threatened by the lack of national grid and feeder capacity on
the lower voltage lines. We cannot have development that is not
backed by infrastructure at all times. However, it has to happen
on a fair basis, and respect the communities and people whose
lives could be temporarily or permanently disrupted by this work.
There are also private companies trying to get into the market
with their own speculative projects that give rise to
applications for development and compulsory purchase.
I have a particular concern about wider issues of utility
provision and the disruption that it can cause, which I think the
Bill can help with. I am thinking of water. In Hampshire there
are proposals to lay a pipeline across the county. A new
reservoir is being built in my constituency to the north of
Havant. Since that application was granted, there is a new
proposal for a development consent order so that a pipeline can
be built from that reservoir to the Otterbourne water treatment
works in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for
Winchester ().
Southern Water is already sending letters to residents warning
them that their land may be needed. I have been contacted by
distressed constituents who are worried that they will be
presented with compensation that does not represent the damage
that the loss of the land will do to their business—as my right
hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset said, that is
particularly the case for farmers of animals. I was quite
distressed to hear what my right hon. Friend said about the
farmers. One of my constituents has some very valuable llamas and
has no idea where she will put them. I hope that it will be
possible to arrive at a pipeline route that interferes as little
as possible with such constituents. There is some way to go
before the route is finalised and the DCO begins.
If the Bill proceeds, I hope that it will be possible to have an
amendment that considers water. It need not add to the complexity
of the Bill or of the operation of the compensation mechanism.
The movement of water is massively infrastructure-heavy. The work
required is every bit as intrusive as that for gas pipelines and
electricity pylons. I hope that Ministers will not only listen to
pleas from my right hon. Friend for action on electricity and
gas, but keep in mind water companies. We must have the
infrastructure that we need for secure, modern utility provision,
but things have to be done fairly. People who have to give up
part of their land must be compensated fairly for the loss, and
for any ongoing impact.
10.07am
(North Devon) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset
() on introducing the Bill. The transmission of electricity
is at the heart of our energy security in the UK. Energy sources
are an essential part of our move towards net zero, which is
crucial if we are to limit the effects of climate change and
insulate ourselves against shocks to the global energy
market.
The south-west is a natural powerhouse, but the lack of efficient
connections in the grid limits how much energy can be moved
around the system. I have farmers in North Devon who have been
working to install solar panels on their dairies, only to be
prevented from connecting them because the national grid does not
have enough capacity locally. Farmers who are working hard to
provide the British public with high-quality British produce are
being prevented from accessing more sustainable and secure forms
of energy. That is contrary to what should be happening. Instead
of putting in place barriers to the development of the national
grid, we need to work on a strategy to increase capacity, while
fully recognising the needs of landowners and people near to
where that capacity may be installed.
The Celtic sea offers a fantastic opportunity to develop a
significant amount of renewable energy for the UK. However,
installing pylons should not be our default for increasing grid
capacity. Undersea cables have been proven to work, with offshore
wind sites and now with floating offshore wind. Residents along
coasts in the UK have demonstrated their preference for a
strategic offshore grid in place of pylon schemes. The effects of
pylons on environmentally significant areas and areas of
outstanding natural beauty are a concern, as they can damage the
landscape and people’s access to the countryside—that is in
addition to what we have seen in the horrific cases detailed by
my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset. In North
Devon, we are fortunate to have the UK’s oldest biosphere
reserve, and to damage our biodiversity, outstanding landscapes
or scientifically significant areas, such as Braunton Burrows,
because of the lack of a strategy on how to upgrade our grid
capacity effectively would be unforgivable. If we are considering
a strategic offshore grid, we must ensure that it is installed
sensitively.
We have made great strides towards a net zero future, but it is
crucial that we do not unnecessarily disturb stored carbon. The
ban on peat use in domestic gardening products recognises the
benefits of keeping stored carbon in the peat, alongside the
unique habitat that is provided to a diversity of species. As
peat is the stored carbon of animals that died in wetlands
millennia ago, carbon in our seabeds is stored from the marine
lifecycle; phytoplankton photosynthesise and take carbon out of
the atmosphere, and, through the lifecycle of the sea, it is
ultimately stored in the seabed.
Storing carbon is one of the key pillars of reducing the effects
of climate change. When we have incidents such as the recent
methane gas leaks from the Nord Stream pipeline, which are
estimated to release as much gas as one and a half days of global
methane emissions, we need to ensure that we do not unnecessarily
contribute to releasing stored fossil fuels. I would like budgets
for installing an offshore strategic grid to include blue carbon
when assessing how and where these cables could be installed, and
I would like us to minimise blue carbon disruption through the
use of cable corridors. There is much to celebrate as we develop
an energy grid for the 21st century and beyond, but I very much
hope that strategies and legislation will take into account our
precious nature and landscapes, alongside increasing the capacity
and efficiencies of our grid.
10.11am
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for North
Devon () and for North Herefordshire
(Sir ), and my right hon. Friend the
Member for North Somerset (). There seems to be a theme; perhaps what we are debating
only affects people in the north of their counties. Representing
north Staffordshire, as I do in Newcastle-under-Lyme, it may be
appropriate that I am speaking as well. It is always a pleasure
to be here on a Friday doing important work on Bills such as this
one. I pay tribute to everybody who is here doing so,
particularly the hon. Member for Newport West (). Instead of listening to me,
she could be watching Gareth Bale—I wish Wales well and I am sure
she is not following the game on her phone. [Laughter.]
I pay tribute to the Bill’s promoter, my right hon. Friend the
Member for North Somerset, not only for what he is doing today,
but for what he did with the Down Syndrome Act 2022. He referred
to it today, as have colleagues, including my hon. Friend the
Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond). I noticed the other day
that he won campaigner of the year at The Spectator awards, which
goes to show that the legislation will really make a difference
to the lives of many people with Down’s syndrome and their
families throughout the country. That is what these sitting
Fridays are all about. If he could tell me how to win the
ballot—he has been lucky twice in a row—that would be greatly
appreciated.
My right hon. Friend is right to say that we need to upgrade our
grid. As we move to decarbonise our sources of heat and
electricity, more will be delivered through electricity, because
heat pumps and transport—electric cars and so on—will put an
increasing demand on the grid. The Government consultation on
land rights and consents for electricity network infrastructure,
which was held in August and September, summarised the scale and
pace of change to electricity networks that is anticipated; peak
electricity demand is expected to go from 58 GW in 2020 to
between 130 GW and 190 GW in 2050 to meet both our net zero
targets and, increasingly in the light of Putin’s illegal
invasion of Ukraine, our energy security targets. The report went
on to say:
“Over the next decade and beyond, this means an unprecedented
build of new electricity network infrastructure and
reinforcement, especially of the existing distribution network
where between 200,000-600,000 km of additional distribution
network cabling could be required by 2050.”
My right hon. Friend is at the sharp end of that, with his
constituency near Hinkley Point C. That is because these big new
developments will put a lot of demand on the capacity to get that
electricity out and across the country more widely, as we on the
Science and Technology Committee have heard in our current
investigation into nuclear. We are generating a huge amount of
electricity in one place in Hinkley, as we will be in Sizewell
following the Chancellor’s welcome announcement last week that we
are going ahead with that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset is right to
champion his constituents. Although I have not had the cases he
has had, I am sure the criticism of National Grid is warranted,
because we see this kind of thing all too often. I do not have
the data, and one thing I noted when preparing for this debate is
that we do not have good data about how often such consents are
sought in our constituencies. Perhaps the Government could look
to get Members of Parliament more information about how much of a
problem this is in our areas.
The constituency represent is not nearly as rural as those of the
Members who have spoken before me, but the principles remain the
same—solid, Conservative principles of justice, fairness and
people’s property rights. As my right hon. Friend said in his
opening speech, sometimes it feels as if the odds are stacked
against individuals. As my hon. Friend the Member for North
Herefordshire said, the principles that ought to apply with
compensation—putting people in the same position as they would
otherwise have been in—often do not seem to be observed. That is
why Bills such as this, which create independent means for people
to seek redress and compensation at an appropriate level, are so
important.
That does not make me a member of an anti-growth coalition, or
anything like that. If we want infrastructure in this country—if
we want to build things for the overall betterment of our
national population and build national infrastructure—we need to
be more constructive and work with people affected. My hon.
Friend the Member for North Herefordshire said that HS2 was
better than what we have here, but in truth HS2 has caused no end
of trouble as it carves its way through the countryside, and,
indeed, through Staffordshire.
People have to fight so hard even to get back to the position
they were in. We perhaps need to offer them more than 100%, as
France does. In France, they make sure that affected people are
not only made whole, but get some compensation and
acknowledgement of the disruption that is caused when their land
is concreted over or they have to sell their house subject to
compulsory purchase. In this country, we do not work with the
grain enough when it comes to housing or infrastructure.
I welcome the Bill, which is all about ensuring that we treat our
constituents fairly. My right hon. Friend the Member for North
Somerset has been an undoubted champion for his constituents in
this Bill and in the speech he made today. As he said, this will
flow to other people. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley
said that this could usefully be extended to other utilities, not
just water but perhaps broadband—sometimes the disruption that
that causes is quite substantial. I look forward to further
progress on the Bill, and to what more can be done in Committee.
I welcome the fact that the Government will work with my right
hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset in pursuing this
important piece of legislation, and I hope that it goes through
its further stages in this place and the other place.
10.17am
(Darlington) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset
() on bringing forward this Bill, and for his incredible
luck in the private Members’ ballot in two consecutive
parliamentary sessions. I know only too well what a privilege it
is to guide a Bill through its legislative journey to the statute
book. As has been mentioned, my right hon. Friend’s Down Syndrome
Act was a hugely important piece of legislation. I am pleased to
see that in his Bill for this Session, he is taking the
opportunity to raise another important issue that impacts his
constituents.
Following the declaration of interest by my hon. Friend the
Member for North Herefordshire (Sir ) in respect of his wayleave
agreement, I will mention that I was once lucky enough to receive
a one-off payment from National Grid for a cable that crossed the
end of my garden.
An unprecedented level of new power generation is planned over
the next decade to meet the demand for electricity, and to meet
our CO2 reduction targets. The national grid must therefore have
sufficient capacity. As the cost of transmitting electricity
ultimately passes to customers, it is important for National Grid
to find the best way of connecting new sources of power
generation consistent with its duty to maintain an efficient,
co-ordinated and economical system of electricity
transmission.
The national grid is a nationally significant piece of
infrastructure, and as such, I know National Grid will seek to
obtain from the outset, by negotiation, permanent land rights for
all new electricity transmission assets. That is consistent with
National Grid’s approach for new underground electricity cables
and gas transmission pipelines, where permanent land rights are
also sought and obtained. Once National Grid has identified a
final route alignment for proposed new electricity transmission
assets, it will seek to enter into an agreement to grant an
easement with owners and tenants of the land across and within
which the new electricity transmission assets may be
constructed.
The agreement enables National Grid to take entry on to the land,
with notice and following the grant of the development consent
order, to construct the new electricity transmission assets. The
agreements also provide for changes in the final route alignment
within a specified corridor as a consequence of public
consultation, and during construction as a consequence of
engineering requirements, surveys, and other routing factors. One
construction is completed, the agreements permit National Grid to
call for an easement in respect of the new, as-built electricity
transmission assets.
The payment schedule for new electricity transmission assets sets
out the amounts that will be paid for an easement. In return for
a signed agreement to grant an easement, National Grid will pay
50% of the easement consideration to the landowner. On entry for
construction, a further 25% of the easement consideration is
paid, and the final 25% will be paid if and when the easement is
completed by National Grid. National Grid also offers incentive
payments for the early return of signed agreements. Those
incentives are set out in the payment schedule for new
electricity transmission assets. They are available only during
an 18-week period after a notified date, once agreements are
issued by National Grid to landowners for their approval and
signature.
After the agreement has been signed, up to either completion of
the easement or expiry of the agreement itself, landowners,
tenants and occupiers are restricted from doing anything that
would adversely affect National Grid’s ability to take and
benefit from the easement should it need to do so. If landowners
transfer their interest in the affected land, they must oblige
the incoming owners to enter into a new agreement with National
Grid on exactly the same terms.
Where National Grid is unable to obtain a voluntary agreement
from a third party following the grant of a development consent
order for new electricity transmission assets, it will seek to
acquire the relevant land, or land rights over the land, through
the compulsory acquisition powers granted to it through the
development consent order. A copy of the order and a compulsory
acquisition notice will be served by National Grid on the
relevant third party and the notice will be posted on, or near
to, the relevant land. Compensation will then be calculated and,
if due, payable to the relevant third party in accordance with
the relevant provisions of the land compensation legislation.
There is a dispute system in place, but where cases go to the
Upper Tribunal, high legal costs are paid by not only our
constituents but National Grid—costs that, as my hon. Friend has
said, are ultimately passed on to electricity payers. Would it
not therefore be in the interests of all parties to have a clear,
efficient and affordable dispute resolution system, rather than
cases going to the Upper Tribunal and ultimately costing those of
us who pay our electricity bills, as with this system?
I am grateful for that intervention. My right hon. Friend makes
an important point. My right hon. Friend’s Bill is born out of
issues that his constituents have faced whereby they have been
unable to get fair compensation for distributions to their
property or business in cases where land will be, or has been,
subject to the acquisition of rights or land, through compulsion
or by agreement, for the purposes of electricity and gas
transmission.
This is an important issue and I completely agree with my right
hon. Friend that we need to see improvement in this area. The
Bill seeks to establish an independent mechanism to determine
claims for compensation in cases such as the ones that have been
outlined, where people or businesses feel that they have been
unfairly treated.
I know that the Minister will have listened closely to all of the
contributions from Members across the House, and I look forward
to hearing her response on the various points raised. I know,
too, that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset will
be seeking members for his Bill Committee in due course, and I
happily put my name forward.
10.23am
(Bury North) (Con)
It is an honour to speak in this debate. I was one of the
sponsors of the Down Syndrome Act 2022, which was introduced by
my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (), and it was an honour to be part of that groundbreaking
piece of legislation. I have learned more about how this
Parliament works from him than from many other people here, and I
thank him for that. I agree completely with everything that
colleagues have said about this, but I have a few comments about
development consent orders and how the principles behind the Bill
can perhaps be developed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme ()—a good friend of mine—made an
important point about how the principles may affect construction
and other areas. We are talking about development consent orders
for nationally significant projects, which generally involve
constructions of a certain size— 48,000 square metres, I think.
In my constituency, we are seeing a proliferation of 5G masts,
and the construction of one, in Greenmount, was proposed for
unregistered land. The mast itself would have been in a
residential area and would have been bigger than the surrounding
houses. If the planning application had been granted, there were
no means for local people to claim compensation, or at least no
means to challenge the application other than through the
planning process.
For significant infrastructure projects—be they those that my
hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned, 5G
masts or all sorts of other things—we must consider independent
mechanisms that allow members of the public a way to claim
compensation. Quite clearly, in the context that I am describing,
a huge 5G mast suddenly towering over somebody’s house will have
a huge impact on them.
(Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
The 5G mast issue my hon. Friend is talking about is happening
across our constituencies. They have presumed consent in most
cases. Is he bidding to join the Bill Committee and table an
amendment to include 5G masts?
As my right hon. Friend knows, I am open to anything, so I will
certainly give that due consideration.
For infrastructure projects that are not related to residential
use and have a negative impact on people’s everyday lives, their
property and its value, my right hon. Friend the Member for North
Somerset () has included in his Bill an important general principle
that we can look at further. We need to find ways to ensure that
constituents who are impacted by the actions of commercial bodies
have the means by which to challenge and claim compensation. I
wholeheartedly support the Bill, and I am very much open to all
suggestions being put forward.
10.27am
(Stalybridge and Hyde)
(Lab/Co-op)
I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for North
Somerset () on his success in the ballot and on bringing his Bill to
the House today. He can perhaps now be described as a private
Member’s Bill specialist, and the skill in that is to pick issues
that allow the House to come to some sort of agreement and for
which people want private Members’ Bills. I listened intently to
what he had to say and—I will be honest with him—I have some
concerns about his Bill, but I can tell him that I have amended
my own speech in response to some of his points, so I genuinely
listened to the case he put forward.
The right hon. Member gave a detailed account of how these
matters have affected his constituents. He was right to say that
the proposals are of national significance. That is because the
debate comes at a time when this country faces several converging
emergencies: the energy bills crisis is impacting deeply on
millions of families and businesses across the country, the
energy security crisis has been exposed by Russia’s illegal
invasion of Ukraine and, of course, on the climate crisis, the UN
tells us that we are on course for 2.8° C of catastrophic global
warming.
Those crises all call for a sprint to renewable and nuclear
energy. That is why the Labour party has set out our plans to
make Britain a clean-energy superpower by 2030. I think we all
agree that that is also the best way to keep energy bills low,
tackle the climate emergency and create good jobs for the future.
Achieving that mission is not just about building more kit—more
nuclear plants, wind turbines or solar panels—but about
establishing storage capacity to manage peaks in energy demand,
new ways of balancing the grid and, most of all, very
comprehensive improvements to our electricity infrastructure to
expand the grid to new sources of energy. That is why the Bill is
particularly relevant and important.
My understanding from listening to the right hon. Member is that,
fundamentally, he wants to create an independent process whereby
compensation can be determined for landowners whose land is
required for the transmission of electricity or gas. I assume he
intends that compensation to involve increasing the price
currently paid for the land above the agricultural value that is
commonly applied when such land is acquired through a compulsory
purchase order. He made an excellent speech, and the way in which
he articulated the specific cases of his constituents was very
powerful—particularly when he pointed out that local property
searches had not revealed the Hinkley infrastructure, which would
impose a considerable burden on people.
I cannot say to the right hon. Member that I am fully convinced
that what we need is new legislation to do this better. Expanding
the transmission of electricity and gas is vital for the future
health of our economy, not just as the bedrock of our clean
energy future. In my role I have the privilege of meeting
representatives of a range of companies every day, and they all
tell me that one thing that holds them back from investing in the
UK and growing their business is the time that it takes to secure
the necessary expansions of the grid network. A few weeks ago,
representatives of a company in Newcastle told me that it had
been offered a grid connection by 2040.
It is generous of the shadow Minister to give way again. I have
been sitting here quietly listening to the debate, and I share
some of his concerns about more regulation delaying the
infrastructure projects, but I think that this proposal could
actually speed them up, because in many cases it would remove the
need for stuff to go to a tribunal. I do not think that the Bill
is designed to delay—far from it—although I am sure that if I am
speaking out of turn, my right hon. Friend the Member for North
Somerset () will tell me so. I think that this could be the fairer
mechanism to speed these projects up, rather their being
subjected to a long tribunal process with the massive delays that
all of us, as constituency Members, have experienced.
While I accept the point that the shadow Minister is making about
his scepticism—a point from which I started—I fully support the
Bill, and I think that, in the end, he will support it as
well.
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention,
because if it were clear that this was the way in which to
resolve issues and speed the process up, that, for me, would be
the deal-breaker. In the 12 years for which I have been in
Parliament— I think the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for
saying this—I have often heard Conservative colleagues express
strong opposition to housing developments, energy infrastructure,
HS2 and other rail projects. It is important for us to get to the
crux of the matter, which is whether this is about resolving
things more quickly for people or whether it would delay the
system further. If we are to meet the ambitions that Members on
both sides of the House have held dear, we will all have to
recognise the problems that are involved.
I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of drafting
the Bill in this way—without specific legal recommendations, and
asking the Government to come up with a solution to the
problem—is not to encumber us with further legislation but to
open the way for the Government, for example, to introduce, under
previous legislation, mechanisms that would enable disputes to be
resolved more quickly. Let me say, for the avoidance of doubt,
that the way to kill a private Member’s Bill is to include too
many specific measures on Second Reading. Requiring the
Government to come forward with a solution offers us options that
will not necessarily impose on our constituents legislative
burdens that are enforceable only through the courts.
I did say that the right hon. Member was a private Member’s Bill
specialist, and I think he has just given us all a little insight
into how to handle these matters. I hope that once more detail is
available, we will see an analysis of the way in which any
changes in the process would affect our projections in respect of
the future financial viability of grid expansion projects and key
elements of national infrastructure.
I recognise the arguments advanced by many Members about how
various issues involving infrastructure and other such matters
have affected them and their constituents, and I hope I have been
candid in expressing our concerns about how those might be
overcome in future. I close my remarks by addressing some of the
broader points this raises. If we are to deliver a clean and
secure power system, we need the Government to address some of
these issues, as there will clearly be major impediments if they
are not addressed. We face considerable issues in providing
business with stability and confidence to invest in this country.
Members will be aware that we currently have the lowest level of
business investment in the G7, so it is essential that we resolve
such matters.
We need more clarity, leadership and direction from the
Government. We do not need a Prime Minister who has to be dragged
to COP27, an Environment Secretary who opposes solar energy or,
frankly, a windfall tax that gives enormous, untargeted tax
breaks for fossil fuel investment. Taking these matters
seriously, and taking seriously the concerns that Members have
articulated today, is essential, because achieving this is not
just about new electricity or gas generation but about planning
reform, new contracts for difference and the regulatory
environment. The Bill sheds light on how we can bring local
people on that journey.
Making sure these concerns are addressed is essential. Although
the right hon. Member for North Somerset has done a tremendous
job of moving the Bill’s Second Reading today, this debate is
worthy of mainstream parliamentary time and requires a
comprehensive approach from the Government, which is currently
lacking.
If I could make one plea to the Minister, it would be to ask her
to bring back the Energy Bill urgently. We will need some of the
tools in that Bill if we are serious about cutting bills,
creating jobs, growing our economy and providing energy security.
Whether it is these matters about transmission or the other tools
we need, we simply do not have the legislative foundations in
place to meet the Government’s ambitions or the British people’s
expectations.
10.36am
The Minister for Industry and Investment Security ( )
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset
() for raising awareness of this important issue and for
his serious, measured and thoughtful contribution, as have been
so many contributions from both sides of the House. He is,
indeed, a private Member’s Bill specialist and, in my experience,
it is best not to go against what he wants to achieve with his
Bills. Hopefully I can satisfy him today.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Broadland (), for North Herefordshire
(Sir ), for Meon Valley (Mrs
Drummond), for North Devon (), for Newcastle-under-Lyme
(), for Darlington (), for Southend West (), for Bury North () and for South West
Hertfordshire (), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel
Hempstead ( ), for their thoughtful
contributions. If I have time, I will go through each of their
questions.
The Government have a clear long-term plan to accelerate our
transition away from expensive fossil fuels and to meet our net
zero targets. The electricity network is fundamental to this
transition, and it needs to be transformed at an unprecedented
scale and pace to allow the system to accommodate new renewable
and low-carbon generation. The network also needs to accommodate
an expected doubling in overall electricity demand by 2050, as we
electrify sectors including transport, heat and industry. My
right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset identifies a
clear problem that needs to be addressed.
To give colleagues an idea of the scale of the challenge we face
in this country, the onshore electricity network had more than
20,000 km of high-voltage transmission cables and approximately
800,000 km of low-voltage distribution lines in 2021, which is
enough to stretch around the world 20 times. By 2050, we will
need between 1 million and 1.5 million km of distribution network
cabling.
As more renewable generation joins the network, its physical
capacity to transport electricity can be exceeded if new network
infrastructure is not ready in time. National Grid, the
electricity system operator, has to monitor and sometimes curtail
generation to ensure it does not overload the network. Building
new network infrastructure reduces these constraints and,
therefore, the cost of managing them by enabling electricity to
move more efficiently from where it is generated to areas of high
demand.
However, it currently takes between 11 and 13 years to build or
reinforce new onshore transmission network infrastructure, from
initial planning to final completion and commissioning.
Consequently, the system operator estimates that constraint costs
funding via consumer bills could increase by £1 billion per year
in 2022 to £4 billion per year in 2030. That explains why the
electricity network is such a critical enabler of our net zero,
affordability and energy security objectives and why the
Government aim to dramatically accelerate these build
timelines.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset mentioned the
meetings he has had with the energy Minister, which I believe
have been incredibly productive, and they will continue. He is
right that we must bring people with us as we ramp up delivery of
this critical infrastructure. He raised the important issue of
determining claims for compensation in cases where land has been
subject to the acquisition of rights or land either through
compulsion or by agreement for the purposes of building
electricity and gas transmission network infrastructure. I have
highlighted the importance of network infrastructure for our
climate and energy security ambitions. However, we recognise the
concerns raised by my right hon. Friend. An unprecedented
expansion of our electricity network is required, but the
Government agree that this new network infrastructure must be
built in a way that protects the rights of landowners and
communities. If landowners are not happy with their settlements,
there must be an avenue for redress.
I agree that the upper tribunal can be expensive for claimants
who lose a case. While the vast majority of cases between the
network operator and the landowner end in amicable agreement,
disputes do arise. That is where the alternative dispute
resolution that already exists and is in use can play a valuable
role. It can provide a quicker, cheaper, more flexible route of
resolving a dispute. The upper tribunal encourages the use of
alternative dispute resolution before a case is referred to it.
Indeed, failure by a party to pursue alternative dispute
resolution without good reason can have cost implications in
tribunal proceedings—for example, limiting the ability of a party
to recover costs or potentially leading to an adverse cost order
being made against the refusing party.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
published a call for evidence earlier this year seeking views on
whether the current land rights and consenting processes for
electricity network infrastructure are fit to accommodate the
rapid, transformative change that will be required in the coming
decades. Our call for evidence closed on 15 September, and
increasing the use of alternative dispute resolution was
mentioned by many respondents. The evidence suggests that the
issue here is about both raising awareness of existing
alternative dispute resolution and increasing its use where
relevant.
We wish to see a clear, cheap, quick and enforceable solution, in
line with what I understand to be my right hon. Friend’s
objectives. We agree that there should be a quicker, affordable
alternative to the upper tribunal readily available for
landowners, and I thank my right hon. Friend for raising these
issues for us to consider. As alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms are already in use, we want to ensure that any
legislative approach avoids prescribing a specific mechanism that
duplicates existing options, creating unnecessary bureaucracy and
costs for bill payers or taxpayers. In addition, different
situations will suit different types of dispute resolution—for
example, mediation, evaluation or arbitration. Prescribing a
one-size-fits-all approach would likely increase costs and
timescales for certain types of dispute.
In summary, I hope Members will agree that alternative dispute
resolution should be encouraged. The Government are prepared to
work with my right hon. Friend to develop the best solution to
this issue, and we look forward to working with him in
Committee.
As I have a few minutes, I will try to address some of the points
raised by Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington
raised the issue of land rights, the rights of landowners and how
legal costs can constrain constituents in bringing their cases
forward. Hopefully, through this private Member’s Bill, we can
try to resolve that. My hon. Friend the Member for
Newcastle-under-Lyme talked about the luck it takes to win the
ballot. I am not sure what is involved there, but he raised an
important point about infrastructure, distribution, network
cabling and compensation. We hope that, by taking the Bill
forward, those issues can be addressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North talked about the
mechanisms to allow constituents to access compensation. We have
discussed how important it is to make people aware of where this
compensation is available. He also mentioned 5G. That sits with
the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, but he will
no doubt get a response on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon talked about stored
carbon in peat and seabed. As she is an expert on these issues, I
am nervous to touch on what she already knows, but we will work
with colleagues to understand their issues with regard to water
infrastructure, and we encourage discussions on this matter. I
will ensure that meetings take place with my right hon. Friend
the Secretary of State, so that she can continue to represent her
constituents on that issue. My hon. Friend the Member for North
Herefordshire, who is a farmer not just a landowner, talked about
compensation and access rights. Of course, he raised the
grassroots perspective; we are all here to represent our
constituents—the David against the Goliath—when we are dealing
with big energy and infrastructure companies. He said that 63% of
land is used by farmers, so it will be incredibly important to
ensure that the new process puts in place arbitration,
compensation and communication.
I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset that
we agree that he is right. We need to make sure that we have
appropriate processes for compensation, and that any compulsion
agreements are in line with the laws that are already established
and in place. We want to make sure that the process is clear,
affordable and fair. I recommit that the Government are prepared
and will work with him to develop the best solution to the issue.
We look forward to working with him in Committee and I hope that
he is pleased with the outcome of the debate.
10.45am
With the leave of the House, I thank my hon. Friends the Member
for North Herefordshire (Sir ), for Meon Valley (Mrs
Drummond), for North Devon (), for Newcastle-under-Lyme
(), for Darlington () and for Bury North () for being ahead of the curve
in recognising the problems that may be coming to their
constituents at some point in the future and that now is the time
to deal with the problem.
I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stalybridge
and Hyde (), for his broadly
supportive approach and, especially, my hon. Friend the Minister
for recognising that we have taken a consensual approach in the
formation and writing of the Bill to give the Government maximum
flexibility to meet the anxieties that have been expressed in the
debate. I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member
for Newcastle-under-Lyme any advice on how it is possible to come
top of the ballot for two consecutive years. Had I such a
mechanism, I assure him that having won every lottery available,
I would be hardly likely to be here on a Friday morning.
I hope that the House will recognise that I am unlikely ever to
be categorised as a class warrior in this place, and I recognise
that we need to have development and renewal of the
infrastructure in our country if we are to become the
competitive, green, efficient and energy-independent nation that
we all want to see. This debate is not about those things,
however. It is about natural justice. Where disputes arise,
powerful multinationals cannot be the judge and jury of the
compensation that our constituents may or may not get in a
dispute.
The current system that my hon. Friend the Minister described is
not good enough. It is not working adequately, so we need a
different system that is, as I set out, clear, so that people
unequivocally know what their rights are; fair, so there is a
balance between the public good and individual interest;
affordable, because it cannot be right for the powerful to use
their financial and therefore legal might to bully others into
submission; and, above all, enforceable, because, as we discussed
at length during the passage of the Down Syndrome Act 2022, there
is no point having rights in this country if they are not
enforceable. We have today identified a problem that exists and
is likely to become more widespread if we do nothing about it. We
can act now to deal with an injustice and put it right.
Ultimately, what else are we in Parliament for?
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a
Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
|
