Climate and Nature Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I would never seek to argue with my hon. Friend, but actually the Bill does not do that. What the Bill does is set a limit at 100 MW, which even the largest solar farm does not quite reach, so there would still be a presumption in favour of large solar park developments. Shotwick solar park on the Welsh border, for example, is the largest in the country, and it is at 72.2 MW, so it would be automatically approved. That again speaks to the contradiction at the heart of the Bill: we cannot say that we want to protect farmland and the great British countryside while seeking to approve at pace large-scale renewable projects that would do the exact opposite.

[Greg Smith]

It is slightly worse than that. We heard the debate earlier about the word “and”. Many of these large-scale renewable energy projects such as battery storage are surrounded by such severe fencing that local nature—for example, deer runs—is severely disrupted or destroyed.

[Andrew Bowie]

My hon. Friend knows that I am in complete agreement on that, given that a significant number of renewable energy projects, battery storage facilities, substations and pylons have been proposed for my constituency as a result of the plans brought forward by the Government. He is, as ever, absolutely right.

The Opposition obviously cannot support the Bill. It would see jobs lost and moved abroad, and it would see decisions taken out of the hands of democratically elected politicians and placed into those of judicial activists and vague, unaccountable bodies. However, I am sorry to say that the lack of seriousness and the inconsistencies in the Bill, including a lack of understanding of how government works and an ignorance of energy markets and of how an increasing reliance on imports is bad for us not just economically but environmentally, mean that we cannot afford it.

The Bill would do great harm to British industry, undermine parliamentary democracy and consign future Governments to goals that are not unachievable but would be achieved on the back of devastation to our energy, food, national and economic security. It would also not protect the great British countryside. Despite the laudable and admirable aims of many right hon. and hon. Members who support the Bill, that is why we cannot support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

All too often in this place and in politics at large, what divides us is not necessarily the end result—in this case reducing emissions, halting the decline of nature and supporting nature’s recovery—but the means by which we get there.

I have some serious issues with the Bill. I say clearly and categorically for the record that I spend most of my time in this place and in my constituency arguing against the very things that cause nature’s decline in the beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside. I spend most of my time arguing against the unnecessary greenfield housing developments that concrete over our countryside and destroy nature. I argue against the massive industrial solar installations, battery storage facilities and substation upgrades that take away the farms next door and have fencing around them that disrupts the deer runs and is harmful and dangerous to nature. So many in this House have argued that those things are the solution to some of the challenges we face, but I do not accept that at all, and I do not accept that the Bill will help us get to the end goal that I think the vast majority of people want to see.

I am grateful to constituents who have lobbied me in favour of the Bill, such as the Speen Environmental Action Group. I sat down with them over the summer and we had a good discussion. I do not think we agreed on everything, but we absolutely agreed on the need for the right sort of action and measures that will get us to where we want to go.

From a legislative perspective, I would argue, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), did in his excellent speech, that we already have a legislative framework in which we can work. We have the Environment Act 2021. Almost five years ago to this day, in the previous Parliament, I stood somewhere on the other side of the Chamber and delivered my maiden speech on the Environment Bill. It is now an Act of Parliament, and it has a section explicitly about halting the decline in species populations by 2030 and increasing populations by at least 10% to exceed current levels by 2042.

We have the legislative framework. We now have to allow our great innovators to come up with the real solutions—ones that do not bring about the destruction of our countryside and nature. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), who has left his place, give an impassioned defence of an ancient woodland. It is, in fact, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), but it was a good defence none the less. I thought to myself, “It’s quite rare that I agree with him, but I agree with him on this point.” But then I thought about my own constituency, and I thought, “Hang on.” There is a project that has destroyed many ancient woodlands, not just in Buckinghamshire but up and down the entirety of phase 1: High Speed 2. The vast majority of Members of the 2017 Parliament—the Labour Members, the Liberal Democrat Members, although there were not so many of them then, and the Members of other parties—all went through the voting Lobby to vote for the destruction of ancient woodland in Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and Warwickshire. It is a position that we all have to reflect upon. As I said at the start, we can disagree with the means of getting somewhere, but I invite every right hon. and hon. Member to reflect on what they themselves have proposed or supported in the past, and the impact that has had on the nature challenges we face.

I will touch briefly on some of the issues with the targets in the Bill, which would have severe unintended consequences. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister set out many of them in detail, but it is worth double underlining that if British industry is forced too far, too fast towards targets it cannot meet, that will simply drive those businesses, those jobs and those innovators overseas. It will not combat any global challenge; it will just move it somewhere else in the world. I cannot believe that the sponsors of the Bill, or anyone else, actually want to see that happen.

Fossil fuels will be needed for decades to come. I have been a vocal advocate of de-fossilisation, both in my time on the Transport Committee in the last Parliament and in this Parliament. My argument is that we have the technology out there, but Government regulation, not just in our own country but worldwide, is preventing us from enabling it to grow. We will need fossil fuels. We will need something to power the 1.4 billion internal combustion engine vehicles that will still be on the roads worldwide after the ban on new petrol and diesel engines in this country. I put it to the House that the solution is the synthetic fuel industry: making fuel literally out of air and water, using the Fischer-Tropsch process.

[Luke Taylor]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of Liberal Democrats in this place; I think that we were a very effective method of de-fossilisation on 4 July. On the point about synthetic fuels, does he agree that the measures in the Bill, particularly the ones to encourage sustainable aviation fuels and alternatives for internal combustion engines, will spur investment in those technologies exactly as he wants to see?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. On his first point, all I will say is: not in Mid Buckinghamshire. They tried, but they got 25% of the vote.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s serious point, I do not see anything in the Bill that challenges the zero emission vehicle mandate. The ZEV mandate is obsessed with testing at tailpipe rather than whole-system analysis, which gets in the way of developing synthetic fuels and greenlighting the great innovators in this country and worldwide to get on with developing that technology. If we put a synthetic fuel through an internal combustion engine, there is still carbon at tailpipe, but it is the same volume of carbon that will be recaptured through atmospheric carbon capture to make the next lot of fuel. It is carbon neutral. It is one volume of carbon in a perpetual circle, yet I see nothing in the Bill that will enable those great innovators to move ahead and get—as some of them claim they can—cost parity with the fossil fuel equivalent within a decade.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I would like to challenge the hon. Member. This Bill sets a very clear direction for what this country wants to achieve, and that will help innovators and businesses to know where to go, which they were not sure about under the last Government. I would like him to think about that.

[Greg Smith]

I hear the point the hon. Lady makes, but I fundamentally disagree. We already have the direction—it was the last Conservative Government who were the first in the western world to legislate for net zero by 2050 and who passed the Environment Act. The answers to the challenges we face in the development of synthetics do not sit in the Bill before us today. They sit in other legislation, which I admit I voted against in the last Parliament, but it is the ZEV mandate that gets in the way, because it fails to look at whole-system analysis. Who else wants to have a go?

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Businesses and car manufacturers said that the previous Conservative Government’s chopping and changing on car manufacturing made it really hard for them to achieve those scientific and technological innovations.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Lady makes a point about the change that happened in the last Parliament, but she is allowing the facts to get in the way of a good argument. The reality out there is that car manufacturers are finding that, aside from fleet sales, they cannot sell electric vehicles. Consumer demand for them is through the floor—nobody wants them. That is part of the fundamental problem. If we take the solution that this Bill wants to speed up and put on steroids, the innovators get blocked, and everybody simply jumps on the technology that is available today, which is sometimes not the best technology to achieve the climate and nature goals that we in this House all want to see.

The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) spoke of the value of nuclear, which is another great example. We should look at the damage that grand-scale solar and battery storage cause to nature. We need 2,000 acres of solar panels to produce enough electricity for about 50,000 homes on current usage, but we need only two football pitches for a small modular reactor that will serve 1 million homes, so why are we messing about with solar? That is the fundamental point we should all reflect on when we think about the Bill. We must think about the legislative framework we need to achieve these goals and then look at more practical solutions.

Storm Bert

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

It was a great pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and meet firefighters and other emergency responders so that, together with her, I could thank them personally for the work that they always carry out in circumstances like these. She has referred to the duty that may be required of the fire service and other emergency services to respond to such circumstances. Currently, there is a power but no duty. I will be engaging with colleagues in the Home Office to see whether we need to put in place such a duty. I will be sure to keep my hon. Friend updated as those conversations progress.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

A couple of weeks ago I held a roundtable with some Mid Buckinghamshire farmers on the measures required to mitigate flooding, especially after extreme weather events such as Storm Bert this weekend. At the top of the list was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made about dredging and river capacity. On top of that, however, communities in Buckinghamshire such as Calvert Green and Fleet Marston are being flooded for the first time in decades as a result of some of the big infrastructure that is being built, particularly HS2. It seems that HS2 will concrete over a field, completely unaware that that will have a knock-on effect on farmland next door. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with the Transport Secretary and, I suggest, the Deputy Prime Minister, given their plans to concrete over the countryside, to ensure that where construction takes place, there are proper—and I really mean proper—flood mitigation measures?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We need to look at dredging and other means of mitigating the risk of flooding, and he is quite right that that needs to be done across Government. We will have those conversations and will ensure that measures are taken to protect communities as much as possible from the more severe weather events that we are seeing as a result of climate change.

Rural Affairs

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I have appointed Dan Corry to lead a review of regulation across the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, precisely so that we can iron out such anomalies.

I am keen to ensure that we crack down on antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping and GPS theft through the first ever cross-Government rural crime strategy, and we will improve public transport by allowing authorities to take back control of their buses to meet the needs of their communities.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State mentions rural crime, and I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge. In the last Parliament, with Labour’s support, my private Member’s Bill got Royal Assent. It just needs a statutory instrument to be laid before the House to bring in the definition of “forensic marking”, which the police say will be a big power for them in combating rural crime. Will he talk to the Home Secretary to ensure that my Act starts to help him to deliver his rural crime strategy?

[Steve Reed]

I will convey the hon. Gentleman’s views to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

There are many issues I could raise in such an important debate on rural affairs, but in their Budget a couple of weeks ago, the Labour Government introduced a new threat on such a scale that it simply must be the topic on which I open my remarks. As I said in last week’s Budget debate, the changes to agricultural property relief are a threat to family farms and rural communities across the country, including in Mid Buckinghamshire. I cannot believe that Mid Buckinghamshire farmers are so different from the farmers found in Labour-held constituencies, but many of the farmers who have contacted me are absolutely petrified about what the change means for the future of their farm. They tell me that they may even have to sell up to a third of their farm to meet their inheritance tax bill. There is no way to sugar-coat this: it will be the end of British family farming if these changes are allowed to go through.

When I gave my maiden speech on Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill in the last Parliament, the now Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, who was then a shadow Minister, kindly said in summing up that I was “every Cambridge leftie’s nightmare”, and I agree. I gently suggest that, if he does not talk to farmers, to the NFU and to the people who are petrified about what these changes will mean, he may well become the nightmare of every farmer in this country.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

It may be that I am being generous, but I think this is happening because Labour Members have a patchy understanding of the issue. It is easy for those who do not understand rural Britain or agriculture to assume that assets and income are the same thing, but my hon. Friend will know that many farmers with considerable paper wealth do not actually make that much money.

[Greg Smith]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that British farming does not operate on mega margins. Our farmers do not have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds in the bank. They operate on such tight margins that, even if we play devil’s advocate and accept the Government’s argument—which, for the record, I do not—most farmers in this position will struggle to pay a tax bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds over a 10-year period. The margins simply are not there. Of course, there are many things that we can and should do to increase the profitability of farming, but it is fanciful to pretend that a 10-year payback period would be anywhere near enough. It would symbolise the end of British farming.

Of course, that was not the only threat to British farming in the Budget. There was the attack on basic equipment such as pick-up trucks, whereby farmers face paying an extra £5,000 simply for having the audacity to want back seats for their children. Then there is the carbon tax, which will see the cost of fertiliser rise by between £50 and £75 a tonne, which will have a detrimental impact on either farmers’ margins or food prices, or potentially both. Across the country, either outcome would be devastating.

Other Members have spoken about rural crime, about which I too am incredibly frustrated. I intervened to ask the Secretary of State about this subject. After being lucky enough to come quite high in the 2022 private Member’s Bill ballot, I spent two and a half years promoting my Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, which requires immobilisers on quad bikes and high-standard forensic marking, including GPS units, on agricultural equipment. It requires the passage of a statutory instrument that the then Policing Minister and now shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), said was ready to go when the general election was called, but it was thwarted by the Dissolution of Parliament.

The Act was passed with the Labour party’s support. Labour Members did not howl it down or attack it on Second Reading, in Committee or on Third Reading in either House. It is not as if the Act is in any way controversial. We just need the statutory instrument to be passed to give the police the powers they need. Police officers like Superintendent Andy Huddleston, who is the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on rural crime, say that these powers will make a huge difference.

I have raised this matter with the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House. I doubt that this simple SI would cause any controversy for any party or any Member of this House. Why can the Government not introduce the statutory instrument? I take their desire to tackle rural crime at face value, so why do they not get the ball rolling on passing this legislation? Every time I meet a police officer from Thames Valley Police or anywhere I go in the country, the first thing they ask is, “What is happening with your Act?” I cannot answer that question, because I just do not know the reason for the Government’s delay. I appeal to the Minister to work with his Home Office colleagues to find a way to get the Act functioning.

Finally, this Government’s approach to planning and energy is causing devastation across our rural communities. My constituency has been plagued by so many ground-mounted solar applications—the largest one is Rosefield in the Claydons. These projects take away agricultural land, take away the ability to produce food and in many cases displace farmers, including tenant farmers. And what for? It is an inefficient technology that requires thousands of acres of agricultural land, when other technologies, such as small modular reactors, which require the equivalent of just two football pitches, can produce far more energy. I urge the farming Minister or the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to go into battle with the Energy Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister on these planning changes, so that we can have a sensible approach to our countryside and keep it for what it is best at: the production of food.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The people of this country suffered gravely under the last Government, and we will do nothing to make their situation more difficult. In fact, this Budget protects the pay packets of the vast majority of the British people.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

There are already very low margins on every farm, including those in Mid Buckinghamshire. Will the addition of between £50 and £75 a tonne on the price of fertiliser, through the Government’s proposed carbon tax, increase food prices? Who will shoulder that burden? Will it be the farmer, or will it be the consumer?

[Daniel Zeichner]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, a whole range of factors go into food prices. What is very good news is the establishment of GB Energy and a move to a much more affordable and reliable form of power for farmers as well as our consumers. We will all be better off.

Farming and Food Security

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and can reassure her that I have had multiple conversations with the Welsh Deputy First Minister, who is also the Environment Minister in Wales, to ensure that those concerns are heard as we go through the spending review process. It is always difficult in the couple of weeks running up to the Budget, because I cannot give definitive answers, as she will understand, but that will become clear once the Chancellor has made her statement towards the end of the month. We will use the Government’s purchasing power to buy more British produce for our hospitals and prisons—again, putting money directly into the pockets of British farmers.

Crime was another issue that was running out of control under the Conservatives—and no wonder, after they took so many police off our streets. Crime in rural areas has skyrocketed by almost a third since 2011. Our new deal for farmers will see the first ever cross-Government rural crime strategy to crack down on antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping and GPS theft—issues that have repeatedly been raised with me by farmers and people living in rural communities.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

[Steve Reed]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will make a little progress. I have taken up an awful lot of time and am only about halfway through, and I want to leave time for others to speak.

It should be of huge concern to every one of us that the suicide rate among male farmers is three times the national average, and the highest among any sector in the economy. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to mental health charity the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution for its excellent work in tackling that alarming and unacceptable situation. We will tackle the mental health crisis in our rural communities by recruiting 8,500 more mental health professionals across the NHS and setting up a Young Futures mental health hub for under-25s in every rural community.

After fewer than 100 days in office, I chaired the first meeting of the new flood resilience taskforce. Funding allocated to flood defences had been left unspent for years, but we will speed up the construction of flood defences, drainage systems and natural flood schemes so that we can offer farmers and rural communities better protection from extreme weather in the long term.

Members are aware that the Government are currently conducting a spending review to fix the foundations of our economy after the previous Government crashed it and left behind a staggering £22 billion black hole in the public finances—[Interruption.] What they did is not funny; the problems that it has caused British farmers, and people living in our rural communities, are not funny. I think the Conservatives should show a little more humility after what they did.

While that process is live, there is little that I can say on individual spending areas. I can say, however, that we recognise the challenges caused by the wet weather earlier in the year and in recent years. That is just one challenge among many for farmers right now. A few weeks ago, I met a farmer in Essex who has a case of bluetongue in his herd. I am grateful to farmers for complying with movement restrictions intended to stop the spread of that disease. We will confirm plans for the farming recovery fund, investment in internal drainage boards and other grants as we complete the Budget process. We will also work with farmers to reduce agricultural water pollution from run-off, and to look at ways of improving their nutrient management and the effectiveness of regulations.

Boosting productivity in farming is hugely important. Grants and direct investment are part of achieving that, but we need to think bigger and look for more enduring solutions.