National Grid: Pylons

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and John Hayes

Thursday 2nd May 2024 Westminster Hall

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) has done the House a service by bringing forward this matter for our consideration. I want, in the time available, to speak about three things: utility, beauty and legitimacy.

T. S. Eliot said:

“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important.”

Such people invariably use utility to justify their claim: “This must be done. There are no other options. There is no choice. This is necessary.” But the truth is that very often there are competing necessities. Certainly, it is necessary to think strategically about a grid fit for the future. I try, as a matter of a mix of good taste and good judgment, to resist the arguments of Liberal Democrats, but the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is frequently irresistible, and today the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) made an excellent point about the relationship between supply and demand. This is too rarely considered, and because it has not been considered enough—I first encountered the argument when I was the Energy Minister —transmission and distribution costs have grown and grown, so that they are now roughly 15% of every electricity bill. We do need a grid that works; that is a necessity. But there are other necessities too. In terms of utility, let us just think about the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made about sites of special scientific interest on the Wash —a unique habitat for migrating birds. Is that really compatible with 87 miles of 50-metre-high pylons? Of course it is not. That is a competing necessity.

Let me say a word about beauty. Those who do not know the fens will not necessarily appreciate the glory of the open landscape and the big skies that are justly celebrated. They have never been filled by tall structures, apart from churches—of course, churches are about God, in a way that pylons could never be. Let us not fill those big skies and destroy that precious, unique landscape in this way. It would be a crime, in my judgment, to do so. Let us believe in the beauty of the fens and the glory of our countryside—our green and pleasant land—and defend it. I hope that that is what my hon. Friend the Minister will do when he winds up this debate. National Grid does not seem concerned about that and, when challenged on cost—because cost-effectiveness is of course important—it frequently insists that no other option is viable, yet the Germans are looking at just such another option.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, given that I was so nice about her earlier.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I will be very quick. Should National Grid not recognise that all these objections actually increase the costs, because the timelines get much longer, and that is usually where the costs increase dramatically?

[Sir John Hayes]

Absolutely, and as Lincolnshire County Council has pointed out, National Grid’s calculations underestimate the compensation that would be paid, the damage to the environment—all the other additional costs that are associated with putting pylons on land, but that will be avoided if cables are put under the ocean. That is what I gather the Welsh Government are now considering, and it is what the Germans have already taken as their default position. And yet we are told that pylons are the future. My goodness, when that was said, I could not help but laugh—without meaning to be impertinent in any way, Mrs Latham—because they are anything but the future. Surely that is yesterday’s approach to tomorrow’s problems.

Let us glory in beauty, in the way that the planning system now increasingly does. The new national planning policy framework, I am delighted to say, states:

“Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by…recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services”.

Furthermore, when I asked the then Minister of State at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), about the fens in particular, she said:

“Special consideration will…be given to preserving the landscapes of, for example, the Somerset levels, Romney Marsh and the magnificent fens of Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire and Norfolk.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 1013.]

That is precisely what we want.

The third thing that I said I would speak about is legitimacy. I have a petition, initiated in my constituency and beyond, which has already attracted 1,200 signatures against the pylon proposals. Popular consent is essential if we are to get the support that we need for an energy policy that works. People do not want this. It is not necessary, it can be avoided and we expect the Minister to do just that, in the name of the people, of utility, of beauty and of legitimacy.

Renewable Energy Providers: Planning Considerations

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and John Hayes

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on introducing this important subject with such knowledge. She will not be surprised to hear that I too face a lot of abuse online, but for sometimes taking the opposite position. We on the Opposition Benches are concerned that what the Government call a pragmatic approach to net zero means further delay, which is the one thing we cannot afford.

Net zero should be non-negotiable. At a time when we should be strengthening our climate commitments, it is folly to weaken them. The UK has done well to lead the way on climate change, but recently this Government sadly seem to have given up on the country’s leadership position. How unnecessary! Renewables are the cheapest form of energy and would secure our energy supply. Moving rapidly towards renewables is central to reaching net zero by 2050, and will help to limit the devastating impacts of climate change. The Climate Change Committee has said that we are not moving fast enough towards renewables. Offshore and onshore wind development has been slow, and solar is particularly off-track. It is just not good enough.

The proportion of renewable projects being delayed is on the rise. Grid capacity, which the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, is the obvious issue. However, the planning process must also be improved. My region of the south-west built the UK’s first transmission-connected solar farm. Despite its success, the developers said that planning was one of the most significant hurdles to delivering renewable energy at scale. Speeding up the planning process is vital; it takes up to five years to gain approval for an offshore wind farm after the application has been submitted to the planning system. We do not have the time for that in this race to net zero.

Resourcing needs to improve. The Planning Inspectorate and statutory consultees do not have enough resources to carry out timely and accurate reviews. It is all well and good saying that there is a debate, and ping-pong about what or who is responsible—is it the national planning framework, or is it local planners? However, if we do not have enough local planners to make these decisions, all these things get desperately delayed. Local government needs more resources and funding to make sure that planning decisions are made in a timely manner; otherwise, there are delayed projects, and delayed progress towards net zero.

The Government must make proper funding available. Local authorities depend on national Government to give them more money, so that the Planning Inspectorate can also do its job. That resource is also missing at national level. That is simply about funding.

[Sir John Hayes]

On a point of clarity, is the hon. Lady saying that local people should have more say, and local communities should be more empowered, or that they should have less say, and that there should be more direction from the centre? I could not quite understand the point she was making.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am happy that the right hon. Gentleman made that intervention, and happy to clarify for him. We Liberal Democrats believe passionately in local decision making, so that is obviously what needs to be strengthened, but local decision making cannot happen if we do not have the resources in our planning departments.

We have also been talking about consultation. I was a councillor for ten years, and was always appalled at how poor consultation was, mainly because councils had statutory obligations to consult only in a very small area. Why do we not widen that out, particularly in rural areas? If the obligation is just a matter of distance, then 10 people will be consulted, and awareness of big planning applications will spread only through local knowledge, rather than as a result of the council approaching people directly. Why do councils not do that? Because they do not have the money. If they do not have the statutory obligation to consult widely, they will consult only a small number of people. If we want to strengthen local decision making, that must change. I absolutely believe in local decision making, and if a planning decision does become a national decision—if an inspectorate comes in—then, of course, we do not want delays there either, because delays are unacceptable either way. That applies to any planning decision, by the way, not just renewable planning.

The Government must also do more to remove the barriers to renewable energy. Renewables developers still face a planning system that is stacked against onshore wind. It is treated differently from every other energy source or infrastructure project. If that persists, we will not get the new onshore wind investment we need to rapidly cut bills and boost energy security. Onshore wind farms are actually popular: 74% of voters are supportive of onshore wind, and 76% of people would support a renewable energy project in their area. That support holds strong in places that already have an onshore wind farm; 72% of people who live within five miles of one support building more. That addresses a problem that we have: people are anxious about things that they do not know, and a lot of political hay can be made with that, but when people actually have a wind farm development nearby, they support it. That is not surprising: communities benefit massively from onshore wind, both directly—for example, from developers, through bill reductions—and indirectly, through the wider socioeconomic benefits that such investment can bring.

Carbon Brief calculated that the de facto ban on onshore wind cost consumers £5.1 billion last year. That is unforgivable during a cost of living crisis. Planning rules must not block the benefits of renewable energy. The Government must bring the planning rules for onshore wind in England back in line with those for any other type of energy infrastructure, so that it can compete on a level playing field, and so that each application is determined on its own merits.

We Liberal Democrats recognise the importance of community buy-in. We need to win hearts and minds, and to persuade people that renewable projects are good for their communities. Yes, good consultation is part of that; if local communities feel that they have not been properly consulted, they will get their backs up. I absolutely believe in proper consultation. Only with consent from our communities can we deliver the path to net zero. That is why empowering local communities is so vital. More and more power and decision making has been eroded from local government—I can say that, because I was a councillor between 2004 and 2014. We still had a lot of decision-making powers, but they have been eroded in the last 10 years.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Member for the intervention. A long time ago, when I was a councillor, a big wind farm was built in my ward. I remember well the local objections to it; people said, “Oh, the beautiful, natural environment of our hills!” The natural environment of the hills had been destroyed decades or centuries ago. There were no trees any more. Local people come forward and talk about our beautiful natural environment, but the natural environment had become like that, and wind farms are now becoming part of the landscape that we are creating for people. Once wind farms are there, people stop objecting to them; surveys are very clear on that.

Of course, it is clear that people are always worried about change. We are building something new and taking away something that was there, but if we are doing so for something that is so important, why can we not make the case that a wind turbine might be a much nicer thing to look at than, for example, a coal-fired power station, which we also need to put somewhere if we need energy? What we do as humans creates some disruption to our local environment, and it has done so forever, so what do we want? We need to get to net zero, build this infrastructure and build wind turbines, including in places where we can see them. As responsible politicians, it is up to us to make the case for that. We have no time to waste: it is a race to net zero, and it is difficult. Yes, some people do not like to look at wind farms.

[Sir John Hayes]

So much for local decision making!

[Wera Hobhouse]

But this is something of which we can persuade people, and I believe in persuading local people. Yes, that sometimes takes time, but it is for us to do, because we have that persuading power and are in the position of influencing people. That is where we should be, rather than always being on the side of the nay-sayers. That is my honest position. I know that it is not easy; I have been there, too, in my time.

I commend the Liberal Democrats on Bath and North East Somerset Council, which has become the first council in England to adopt an energy-based net zero housing policy. That requires that all new major non-residential buildings must achieve net zero in operational energy. Research from the University of Bath indicates that the policy is likely to establish significant carbon savings in new buildings and reduce energy bills for occupants. Again, did my local council sometimes have difficulty persuading people? Yes, it did, but our local election results show persuasively that where we go out and make the case, we win—even as local councillors. Let us ensure that we persuade people and take them with us. I absolutely believe in that, but I also passionately believe that it is possible to take people with us if we confront people with the alternatives.

Unfortunately, Government funding cuts have forced many local authorities to make sacrifices on climate change policy, as climate change does not come under their statutory duties. That must change. Planning legislation must be bound to our climate change legislation, so that climate change takes greater weight in planning decisions. A major reason why renewable projects are waiting up to 15 years to connect to the grid is that the planning approval process is not adequately focused on the urgency of delivering net zero. The Royal Town Planning Institute argues that nothing should be planned unless the idea has first been demonstrated to be fit for net zero. The Government should certainly consider the institute’s proposals further.

We cannot wait any longer. The UK needs to move further faster towards renewables. Improving the planning system to quicken the building process is an important place to start.

--- Later in debate ---

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

When societies and civilisations lose their sense of the spiritual—their sight of God—the void is filled by causes, which, like the divine, are immense, inspire guilt and are pursued with intolerant zeal. Our cause, rather like the ancient people who danced for the rain or worshipped the sun, is the weather, which is now almost always described as “the climate”. All can be sacrificed, rather like religious fanaticism, in the name of the pursuit of our climate goals. Whether that is the wellbeing of people in London, who face ULEZ and not being able to get to hospital, school or work, or people across our constituencies who will have to replace their gas boilers with air pumps, costing thousands and thousands of pounds that they can ill afford, or whether it is eating up our most precious agricultural land with acres of onshore solar plants—they are not farms; they are industrial structures—all can be defended, as communities are ridden roughshod.

With his typical skill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) teased out of the remaining Liberal Democrat in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), the dilemma for those whose zeal is such that they want to impose these things on local communities but dare not say so. The truth is that communities are ridden roughshod because of that zeal. Across the country, a blight is coming. That blight will be pylons in Essex, trunking in Devon and the eating up of tens of thousands of acres of the most precious agricultural land in Lincolnshire. That is unacceptable, communities do not want it and their views should be respected.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but what are the alternatives? Does he not recognise that we need to get to net zero by 2050? We need to provide political leadership to take our communities along with us. We are making the case for community energy, for example, which is a wonderful way to take communities with us. Does he not believe that that is our job—that we take communities with us, rather than denying net zero?

[Sir John Hayes]

Denying “our goal”, “our God”—I believe it is the hon. Lady’s God, certainly. She is right that it is important that what we do in respect of energy, which I spend a great deal more time thinking about than she ever has, needs to reflect a balance. Everyone who understands energy provision knows that renewables can and should be an important part of an energy mix. Yet they are not nirvana for all kinds of reasons—we need the flexibility provided by the kinds of energy provision that can be switched on and off, in a way that solar and wind cannot—but it is vital that we invest in renewable technology.

That is why, for example, I have been a passionate supporter of offshore wind, which is a very effective way of generating energy in a way that does less harm to the environment than onshore wind, which the hon. Lady champions. That essentially means littering the countryside with small numbers of turbines, which are much less productive, much less concentrated and with countless connections to the grid. That greatly increases transmission and distribution costs, which already represent 15% of every energy bill. It is both economically foolish and environmentally damaging to site wind turbines in presumably thousands of locations across the country, when we can concentrate large numbers of much larger turbines offshore, producing much more energy, with a single point of connection to the grid.

There is a similar situation with solar. I imagine that the hon. Member for Bath will know, as others may, that in Germany a much higher proportion of solar power is located on buildings. In this country, our record is very poor, and I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I would be interested to know what further steps he intends to take to incentivise, indeed oblige, adding solar panels to buildings. Warehouses are springing up all over the country, but I do not see a solar panel on any of them. There are large numbers of industrial sites, commercial sites and all kinds of other places where we could have solar panels.

[Sir John Hayes]

Absolutely. That brings me to—I do not know whether my hon. Friend anticipated this by a kind of telepathy or just through her wisdom—the next point that I intended to make. Recent worldwide events have taught us of the need for national economic resilience. We are moving to a post-liberal age—thankfully—when we will no longer take the view that we can buy whatever we want from wherever we want and it does not matter how much is produced locally or how far supply lines are extended.

We know that domestic production and manufacture of goods and food is vital for our resilience and security; in order to have that, we need to preserve the best agricultural land to grow the crops that we need. If people were really worried about the environment, they would have thought these things through a little more fully and so understand that shortening supply lines reduces the number of air miles and, indeed, road miles between where food is made and where it is consumed—as we once did—rather than extending supply lines endlessly, with the immense cost to the environment and in every other way. We need more domestic production, but to have more domestic production we must recognise that there should be no industrial solar or wind developments on grade 1, 2 or 3 agricultural land, yet that is exactly what is proposed.

[Wera Hobhouse]

No one can deny that we need an explosion of rooftop solar panels; we Liberal Democrats absolutely agree. But can the right hon. Gentleman give me an example of where good agricultural land has been used for solar farms? I ask because outside Bath, my constituency, a good solar farm has been built on land that cannot be used for food growing.

[Sir John Hayes]

Let me give the hon. Lady a precise example. In Lincolnshire, there are currently applications for large-scale solar developments equivalent to 62 Hyde Parks, totalling 9,109 hectares or 1.3% of the total land across the county. She may know that Lincolnshire boasts the highest proportion of grade 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land of any county. These solar plants are proposed on the best growing land in the country. Once that land is lost, it will never be regained. There is this nonsense that the solar panels will be there for only 20 or 30 years. What about the 20 or 30 years while they are, when we cannot grow the crops that we need to survive? This is a preposterous circumstance.

I had a meeting this morning with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), and I met at the weekend a Minister of State in the same Department. Those Ministers responsible for the environment and agriculture recognise that it is unacceptable to lose this scale of land—the best growing land in the country—because of these developments, largely by businesses that have no connection with the locality whatever and are entirely careless of the impact that this will have on food production and local communities. This rides roughshod over the wishes of local people and local councillors. It is frankly a scandal that we should do that while simultaneously claiming that we want to build more national resilience through food security. Let us make more of what we consume in this country, here in this country; let us reduce our dependence on places far-off of which we know little—and in many cases wish we knew less; and let us have a Government who respect the interests of local communities and defend our land from this blight.

Finally, there is also the sensitive matter of aesthetics. Do we really value the English landscape, or do we not? Is this going to be a green and pleasant for the generations to come, or is it going to be a place full of industrial wind turbines and large-scale solar developments? I know which of those futures I want for my children and grandchildren. Because I know that the Minister is a fine man with a strong sense of the aesthetic, I rather suspect that he sees that future too, but we need urgent policy to make clear to planners and others that we will not simply allow communities to be beleaguered by blight.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and John Hayes

Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Committee: 1st sitting
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

There are well-established ways of differentiating people in those terms, different ways of dealing with them in law, different ways of dealing with them once convicted, and different ways of dealing with them in the community. The psychologists and psychiatrists associated with the probation service and the Prison Service are well-accustomed to that differentiation, but in the public debate we need to be bold and brave enough to say that there are some very wicked people who want to do wicked things, and it is our job not only to deal with those things by anticipating, deterring and punishing them, but to reinforce public faith in the rule of law by saying so. This is an opportunity to do so as the Bill gives that life.

The second amendment is the one proposed by the shadow Minister. Again, I have great sympathy with it. All legislation relating to such matters benefits from pre and post-legislative scrutiny, both because we need to get it right, for the obvious reasons we have debated—its salience, its significance, its importance—and because, in order to build the consensus necessary across the House to proceed in a way that maintains public faith, pre and post-legislative scrutiny is important. As recognised by all the contributors to this debate, the emergency we face is such that that has not been possible on this occasion. I would resist the shadow Minister’s amendment, not because I do not believe in the principle or the sentiments behind it but because there is a very good case for the Select Committees—notably the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee—to look at this matter once the Bill has become an Act. I would be surprised if they did not. I know the Minister in his winding-up speech will—I will not say “invite that kind of scrutiny”, as I am not sure it is appropriate for a Minister to ask a Select Committee to investigate or scrutinise the Government—want to say that he would be surprised if they did not. That kind of reassurance would give great comfort to the House in measuring the effect of this important legislation.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We are having a very interesting and mature debate about getting this right, and of course it is paramount that we make sure the public are safe, but I do not understand what speaks against a review to make sure we get it right. Even if other legislation comes further down the line, why not have that double security?

[Sir John Hayes]

We have well-established mechanisms, of the kind I have just described, for doing exactly that. Sometimes the Government build a review mechanism into legislation, but much more often the Committees of this House designed for that purpose consider the effectiveness of what the Government do and how legislation is working. Our Select Committee structure is now long established in the House—even longer established than my hon. Friend the Member for Stone—and fulfils that function well. Particularly in respect of legislation relating to terrorism, the Intelligence and Security Committee has, time and again, played an important role in considering these matters, reflecting, reporting, and influencing Government policy, as I know from my time in the Home Office. So I think that there is well-established practice. If it ain’t broke, why fix it?