Independent Review of Net Zero
Debate between Edward Leigh and Ruth Cadbury(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on an excellent report. It is also a very long report, and very comprehensive.
Net zero is all well and good. Of course we need to make effective use of our natural resources—everyone agrees with that. Cutting out waste from our society and using what we have in better ways has always been a sound conservative principle, so none of us can disagree with it. However, we need to approach these issues holistically, and avoid making huge errors that would set us back in other respects for the sole purpose of chasing the goal of net zero.
Let me give an example. Since the second invasion of Ukraine last year, we have realised how tenuous our food security is. The world food supply is incredibly delicate, and it makes no sense whatsoever to take good land out of agricultural use to build huge solar farms. I know quite a lot about this, because in my constituency there are applications to build solar farms on 10,000 acres of good agricultural land. Each of the panels will be 4.7 metres high. Those 10,000 acres that will be taken out of agricultural use could feed two cities the size of Hull every year. Vast resources, in the form of financial compensation, are going to a very few people. Someone who owns 1,000 acres could receive £2 million a year, but tenant farmers, unlike landlords, are being put out of business.
This is a serious issue, and I hope that when people chase goals like net zero, they will try to think creatively. The report rightly says—on page 9, I think, and I have read it—that we must do much more to put solar panels on the rooftops of schools, factories, and logistics and distribution centres. We have millions of acres of flat-roof warehouses where they could go, but cutting the amount of land that feeds our families and communities is surely nonsensical. By all means have as many solar panels as you like and have them within scale, but the applications in a single district that I represent, West Lindsey, cover an area greater than the whole of the east midlands. Whatever anyone says, ultimately the consumer will not benefit from lower prices; the rewards will go into very few pockets indeed.
The excellent report refers to—I like this phrase—
“a clean and endless supply of wind blowing across the North Sea.”
In Lincolnshire, I can stand behind my house, on the top of the Wolds, and see in the distance huge arrays of wind farms in the North sea. They are built with virtually no objections, and we are becoming—perhaps already are—world leaders in this regard. However, when it comes to onshore windmills, while I assure the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) that I understand what she is saying, the ones for which there have been applications in my constituency would be taller than Lincoln cathedral, which for 400 years was the tallest building in the world. None of these huge windmills will be built in Brentford and Isleworth, I am afraid. If they were, there would be such fantastic opposition that it would never happen, so they will all be built in rural constituencies.
Ruth Cadbury
There are actually at least two windmills in my constituency, one on Ormiston Wire in Isleworth and the other, a large one that a great many people see when they see drive in or out of London on the elevated section of the M4, on Sky Studios.
Sir Edward Leigh
Well, if I am wrong I am wrong, but I do not think there is much enthusiasm for building windmills as tall as Lincoln cathedral in urban areas. We can say that in theory we are in favour of onshore windmills, but I assure the hon. Lady that every time they are proposed, there is a gruelling process of public inquiries and fierce opposition lasting many years. How much better it would be to concentrate our resources offshore. As I have said, we are world leaders in offshore wind, and there is never any objection.
The report also refers to achieving net zero through better public transport. It talks of the importance of getting more people to use sustainable public transport rather than making individual car journeys. When I am down in London I hate using a car; I would much rather use the tube, the bus or even a Boris bike. However, it is different in rural areas such as Lincolnshire, where we have been calling for better public transport links for decades. Little has been done; indeed, the services have become worse and worse. Too often, we have fallen victim to service cuts when budgets from central Government have been reduced.
If services for people who live in less built up areas are only two-hourly, or even once a day—or indeed, in the village where I live, non-existent—those people have to rely on cars, not just to socialise but for essential activities such as working and shopping. If the Government are serious about net zero in public transport, they must radically upgrade our rural transport links, and that includes the frequency of service. However, that is never going to happen, because it is so fantastically expensive, so I am afraid we will be reliant on cars for decades, or perhaps forever in rural areas such as Lincolnshire. By all means reduce the carbon footprint of buses—put solar panels on them if you want—but a net zero bus that arrives only once a day will not be of much use to you.
It is now 2023, but the sale of all conventional cars is to be banned from 2030, and the sale of hybrids by 2035. Lincolnshire measures 2,687 square miles, or 1,719,600 acres. The Government need to make clear how they are going to roll out charging points across such a vast area, because it is simply not going to happen by 2030. Are they in touch with the energy supply companies? Have they had discussions with rural councils about the transition? I put it to the Minister, who represents a Scottish constituency, that this is simply not practical in rural counties, and we need to think very seriously about it.
The excellent report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood points out that the UK’s housing stock is much older than that of most similar nations. More than 50% of homes in England were built before 1965, and almost 20% before 1919. As the report says, that has a huge impact on energy efficiency. I live in an old house, and I know very well how difficult it is to heat such houses. Nearly 50% of low-income households in England are in homes with energy performance certificate ratings of D or lower, and on average they use 27% more gas and 18% more electricity than higher-rated homes. These are the least well-off people, but there is no point in our preaching to them about the value of heat pumps, which they cannot afford. Lower-income households simply do not have the disposable income to pay for this kind of investment, unless we are prepared to devote massive resources to helping them.
We are also paying the price of decades of failure to invest in clean nuclear energy. In the wake of OPEC and the oil crisis in the 1970s, France’s Gaullist Prime Minister Pierre Messmer realised how vulnerable his country was, and ordered a huge upscaling of French nuclear energy. As a result, France now has a cheaper, cleaner energy supply, and is selling the surplus to needy countries such as ours.
As I said, we need to approach this issue holistically. The UK’s contribution to carbon emissions is minuscule on the global scale. I am not saying that is an argument for doing nothing, but it is a fact. If we achieve net zero, the gain for the planet can be wiped out by a tiny percentage increase in China’s or India’s huge carbon emissions. These are growing developing economies. Let us be realistic about it: they look at us telling them to cut their emissions and think we are cheating them. They both have complex relationships with the west. We are very friendly with India, but we are the former colonial power there. The rise of Hindu nationalism makes that relationship even more complicated and difficult.
As for communist China, it views us with distain. Judging by China’s actions, it is not wholly convinced by environmentalism. If people view the world from a totally materialist utilitarian perspective, as a communist Government do, why would they be as environmental as we claim to be? They would see all the leading developed and industrialised nations such as ours, which were totally reckless when we were industrialising, lecturing them. Now that we are on top, we tell developing countries to toe the line and not do what we did to get to the top—that is their view. They view our preaching as hypocritical on the one hand and patronising on the other.