The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr. David Kidney): I beg to move,

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Miss Begg. I am sure that Committee members share my delight at the fact that we have the benefit of your wisdom and guidance for these important proceedings.

The Government are introducing the order to ensure that when the installation of electric lines of 132 kV and above becomes subject, from 1 March, to the development consent process under the Planning Act 2008, certain minor works to existing high-voltage lines that do not currently require either planning permission or consent under the Electricity Act 1989 will also not require development consent under the new Planning Act regime.

The order is therefore strictly limited to the technical changes needed to apply the overhead line exemptions to the new Planning Act system. The electric lines we are talking of here are transmission lines that effect the long-distance transfer of electricity through 275 and 400 kV lines and distribution lines of 132 kV that are lower-voltage lines carrying power from transmission substations to the end-user.

At present, the general rule is that the installation of any electric line above ground requires both the Secretary of State’s consent under section 37 of the Electricity Act and planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, although these can be applied for and given together by the Secretary of State.

The Overhead Lines Exemption (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 enable electricity network operators to undertake certain minor repair and refurbishment works to existing electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure in England and Wales, without the need to apply to the Secretary of State for a new consent under section 37 of the Electricity Act. Works that do not require section 37 consent are exempted from the requirement for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, which would otherwise apply.

From 1 March this year, the Government intend that the installation above ground of electric lines of 132 kV and above will require development consent under the Planning Act rather than section 37 consent and planning permission. Electric lines at that threshold have been defined in the Planning Act as nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIPs. Applications for development consent for NSIPs will be handled by the Infrastructure Planning Commission.

Since the enactment of the Electricity Act, it has been recognised that there are some classes of work on overhead lines for which it would be inappropriate to require ministerial consent. Accordingly, since 1990 there have been exemption regulations defining those types of work, which were recently revised in the 2009 regulations. The revision to the 1990 regulations was made following an energy review consultation in December 2006 that sought views on proposals to improve the resilience of electricity networks following storms that caused widespread damage to the electricity distribution network in 2002.

The latest update, which largely replicates the 1990 regulations, extended further the works that could be carried out by network operators without the need to apply for a new section 37 consent in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Therefore, the existing practices of network operators outside those sensitive areas now also apply inside them.

Improvements to the resilience of overhead lines are important for everyone in the UK, not just electricity companies, and are vital to maintaining the reliability and security of our electricity supply and its quality. As well as the vital work of connecting up new sources of supply, with which we are not concerned today, there is a steady stream of work to be carried out renewing ageing infrastructure and increasing the capacity of existing lines to meet increased demand.

The 2009 regulations replicate, with minor deregulatory changes, the 1990 regulations that they replaced. Examples of the works exempted include: replacing worn or damaged components with new generation ones to improve network resilience; installing additional supports to improve line safety; and minor repositioning of existing lines for operational purposes. The local authority has to be notified of certain works. If it has concerns, for example, on environmental grounds, it can insist that the network operator applies for a full fresh consent.

The 2009 regulations also include provisions in the case of emergency works where network operators can commence essential and urgent work in national parks and AONBs as soon as possible rather than wait for the section 37 process to be completed. This is an exception to the local authority pre-notification procedure, so that in emergencies, network operators are required to notify the local authority as soon as practically possible following commencement of such works. They can urgently instigate corrective measures such as reconnecting power supplies to homes, schools and businesses cut off by severe weather conditions.

If provision in respect of the new regime were not made, network operators would no longer be able to commence such works on lines of 132 kV and above without first applying to the IPC for a fresh consent that could take several months to process and determine. It would also add a regulatory burden where one does not currently exist.

It is also important that network operators can undertake such emergency repairs lawfully. Without the order, that would not be possible. The recent bad weather illustrated just how important is the application of these existing exemptions in future to electric lines of 132 kV and above under the new Planning Act regime if we are to ensure security of supply and keep the lights on in homes, schools and hospitals. That is of the utmost importance to everyone in the UK, not just the industry.

The proposal to transfer the existing section 37 Electricity Act exemptions for overhead power line consents to the Planning Act regime was consulted on during November and December last year. This was a shortened consultation period for two reasons. First, the exemption provisions applying to the section 37 regime, which it was proposed to extend to the Planning Act regime, had been consulted upon recently in the 2006 energy review exercise, the outcome of which was the introduction of the new 2009 regulations. Secondly, it was important to ensure that this order to extend the provisions to the new regime will be made by 1 March, the date that the Government intend for commencement of the communities and local government order that directs planning applications to the IPC under the new Planning Act regime.

This is largely a technical area of interest, with the consultation primarily targeted at industry, the IPC, the Local Government Association and other statutory undertakers such as Natural England. The responses received are all from industry sources and the IPC. All fully supported the proposals and agreed that the new planning regime should provide an identical regime for exemption of the specified categories of work for electric lines that will transfer from my Department to the IPC.

In addition to this order, a small change will also be made to the 2009 regulations to ensure that the definition of “an existing line” in those regulations refers to lines that have already been the subject of development consent under the Planning Act 2008, as well as those that have been consented under the Electricity Act 1989. That change will be effected by the Overhead Lines (Exempt Installations) (Consequential Provisions) Order 2010, which is intended to enter into force on 1 March 2010, under the negative resolution procedure.

I hope that hon. Members agree that this will prevent unnecessary delays being caused to essential works for existing lines and, in the case of emergency works, would not prolong the period customers would be off-supply, which would clearly not be in anyone’s best interest.

Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con): Miss Begg, may I first associate myself entirely with the Minister’s generous words in welcoming you to the Chair of our proceedings?

Reading the order and explanatory note was complex. I do not think they will win many awards from the Plain English Campaign, but I am grateful for the way in which the Minister set the matter out in detail and with considerable clarity. Can he give us more information about why we are considering the issue now? Has there been an oversight? Should the order have been included in other measures? Why have the Government now decided that this needs to be done if they had previously felt otherwise? I would be grateful if he clarified the type of work covered by the order. For example, when does a line upgrade become a renewal? The Minister said that renewal is exempt under the order, so I presume that the new pylon infrastructure that is being considered in different parts of the country would not be covered. Some aspects of upgrading would, however, be covered, so at what point would the IPC or his Department consider that an upgrade had moved from one category to the other?

The Minister replied to a debate in the House the other day in which concern was expressed about the new grid infrastructure proposed for Somerset. Other Members are concerned about the proposed infrastructure for Suffolk and Essex as a result of the proposed new nuclear power station at Sizewell. I assume from the Minister’s comments today that the order will not diminish local communities’ ability to express their views and influence matters of profound concern. I should be grateful, however, for clarification of those matters.

The Minister talked a little about the consultation process, which seems to be thorough. He said that Natural England had been consulted. Were the national parks consulted individually or through an association representing their interests? They have jealously guarded their ability to control planning matters, for which the order has significant implications. What was their reaction to the consultation?

The order seems straightforward and it would be sensible to give it our approval, but it would help to receive answers to those questions.

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): Not wishing to be outdone, may I joint the expressions of delight at serving under your chairmanship, Miss Begg?

I agree with the hon. Member for Wealden about the complexity of the order, with three interlocking measures making it difficult to understand what is going on. I share his slight concern about the consultation process. I am always a little suspicious when the only respondents to a consultation are large commercial companies with an interest. Who was invited to respond to the consultation, and was any attempt made to involve what we in political circles used to refer to as “the public” but who nowadays are presumably non-statutory stakeholders? Was any attempt made to involve the wider community, public organisations, environmental groups or some of the bodies mentioned by the hon. Member for Wealden?

The order covers a slightly controversial issue, because although routine maintenance is not controversial, overhead power lines are. Much scientific evidence suggests that there is no health risk and no plausible causal link between, for instance, overhead power lines and childhood cancer or leukaemia, yet a 2005 study conducted by the Childhood Cancer Research Group at Oxford university and what was then Transco suggested at least an association, albeit only a small one. Gerald Draper, from the university, said:

Such studies clearly show that there is much local concern, and where there is not a plausible scientific demonstration of risk but at least a public perception of risk, we as democrats must pay attention to it.

Secondly, does the order mean that any process that, under the current regime, is subject to local planning control and so to democratic input, will not now be subject to that planning regime and local democratic input? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, we may have a problem. If the answer to both is yes, we have a real problem. There would be a perception locally that something that causes fear of a health risk is being taken out of local democratic control, even if to scientists that is not a well-founded fear. That would be a worry.

My final question concerns the definition of “nationally significant”. What is the Minister’s latest definition of that? The IPC’s website says:

Again, the matter comes back to what the order covers, but if it does not cover the extension of infrastructure in the electricity sector, we are at the very least muddying the definition of “nationally significant” and starting to bring things within the remit of the new planning regime that had not been intended when Parliament discussed the IPC. That suggests a slight drift towards the extension of the IPC’s remit and its control over what had not been imagined to be nationally significant projects. It is difficult to see how maintenance of a local power line is nationally significant.

Mr. Kidney: Miss Begg, I am glad that everyone agrees that you are best person to look after our proceedings today.

On complexity, the simple message to keep in mind is that there has been a settled procedure since 1990 to allow energy companies to carry out minor works to existing infrastructure through exemptions from having to apply for a consent under the Electricity Act 1989 and a new planning permission from the local authority. The order seeks to ensure that that established procedure will also apply to those matters that will in future be referred to the IPC, namely nationally significant infrastructure projects. I will return to the question of the hon. Member for Cheltenham about their definition.

The one significant change is not in this order but in the 2009 regulations and it puts a good block on the energy companies pushing the boat out too far, as it were. I will return to the point the hon. Member for Wealden made on that. A local authority must have notice in advance that the works are intended to be done relying on the exemption. If the local authority objects, the exemption does not apply and the matter has to go through the usual consent procedure. The amendment made in 2009 was that, in the event of an emergency, such as everyone’s power going off, the energy company can start the works straight away, giving notice to the local authority that it has started the works.

The hon. Member for Wealden asked why we are doing this now. It has always been the policy intent that the same exemptions that have applied since 1990 to planning and to section 37 consents should also apply under the new Planning Act 2008 procedure involving the IPC. The fact is that the provision is not in the 2008 Act nor in the 2009 regulations. I hesitate to go so far as to agree with him that it was an oversight. I am told that it was a coincidence, whereby two teams were working at the same time, one on the new Act and the other on the new regulations. Happily, the problem was spotted in time for us to put it in place before 1 March, when the commission will start its work.

The hon. Member for Wealden referred to last week’s debate in the House on Somerset, which is still fresh in my mind. I am happy to assure him that the new major projects we are discussing would require new consent under the Planning Act regime, would go to the IPC and would not be affected by the minor works exemptions.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the national parks were consulted. The list of those consulted is: the IPC, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Energy Networks Association, the Local Government Association, Natural England, the Countryside Commission for Wales, the National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Association of National Park Authorities and the Campaign for National Parks. I hope that list is reasonably comprehensive. The explanatory memorandum that accompanies the order says that as well as being sent to those bodies the document was placed on my Department’s website

Martin Horwood: Will the Minister confirm that no organisations outside the definition of statutory bodies or energy companies were consulted at all?

Mr. Kidney: All the energy companies are members of the Energy Networks Association and therefore would have been consulted, and certainly most responded. In the list I gave, no directly related consumer group was consulted, but as keen watchers of Government, the groups would have seen the notice appear on the Department’s website or received notice from the local government alert that was sent. People who know to look out for these things look out for these things, but I confirm that no specific environmental group or consumer group was on the list. Perhaps that is a good point for me to take away from the debate in respect of who we consult in future, and I shall happily consider that.

I have answered the first question of the hon. Member for Cheltenham about who was consulted, but he mentioned the general point about health risks, about which, like him, I and indeed all members of the public are greatly concerned. Studies such as the one he mentioned are conducted from time to time—no one is complacent about the issue—and I agree that as new evidence is gathered we all need to understand the consequences for public policy.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the exemptions could be used to permit a new installation or a new erection. Again, the answer is absolutely not. However, a farmer, for example, asking for a slight repositioning of a line to gain access to a field could be covered by a minor works exemption, subject to the local authority, having received notice from an energy company, not objecting. A new installation or erection would be covered by the new Planning Act regime, depending on the kilovoltage involved: those under 132 kV would go to the Department for section 37 consent and to the local authority for planning permission.

Charles Hendry: In opening, the Minister said that a local authority can insist that the network operator apply for a full, fresh consent. Is that an absolute power, and if it is sought can anyone stop it?

Mr. Kidney: I am pleased to say that it is an absolute power: if a local authority says that it must go to consent, it must go to consent. That is a reassuring power for all members of the Committee.

Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): Is it not incumbent on those replacing or moving existing transmission lines, particularly in sites of special scientific interest or areas of outstanding natural beauty, to see whether the visual impact—the line of the pylons—can be improved?

Mr. Kidney: I need some help from the hon. Gentleman. What is the point of that question for me? Minor works to an existing line might be subject to an exemption, as long as the local authority does not object. A more major development would still be subject to the present procedures: if it is of sufficient size, it goes to the IPC for consent, and below the threshold it goes to the Department for section 37 consent and to the local authority for planning permission. Did the hon. Gentleman want to check something additional with me?

Mr. Swire: The Minister is clear that if one reads the order one sees that it is all about replacing and moving slightly, but this is an opportunity for the Government to do more about the siting of overhead pylons, of which we shall see more as offshore wind power is brought onshore. We have an opportunity to look at the issue rather more closely and to minimise the visual damage that is done to many areas of our countryside.

Mr. Kidney: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, no, this is not an opportunity to do those great things: this is a minor, technical change to the system of exemptions for minor works, and discussion of new means of delivering our energy supply—underground, or sub-sea, and overhead—would be way beyond the scope of the order.

The final question I was asked was on the definition of nationally significant infrastructure projects. The answer can be found in the Planning Act 2008, which contains the definition. Overhead lines above the threshold of 132 kV are nationally significant infrastructure and in future will be covered by the IPC and not by my Department, as they would have been previously under section 37, and will not go to a local authority for planning permission, as they would have previously. Those below 132 kV still go through that route to the Secretary of State for consent and to the local authority for planning permission. The exemptions proposed in the order apply to lines of sub-132 kV by virtue of the existing regulations, but currently there is a lacuna in respect of the new nationally significant infrastructure. There would be no exemption for minor works without the order, which is why I ask the Committee to pass it today.

Although no one has asked about it, I want to point out that the explanatory memorandum explains that this process is to be reviewed after two years. I confirm that if the order is passed today our consent will be part of the review in two years’ time.