Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I declare an interest: my home is off the gas grid and my boiler is fuelled by domestic heating oil. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers, and there have been significant gaps—there has been no mention of liquefied petroleum gas, for example. Although it is always right to support the most vulnerable in our society, I am not sure that he has fully understood that there are many households on modest incomes across rural communities that do not receive benefits and simply do not have £500, £600 or £700 lying around to meet a bill that they have not budgeted for.
Perhaps the Minister could answer a specific question on certainty. While the CMA investigation goes on, customers continue to place orders without knowing how much they will be charged when the oil is delivered. He could implement an interim measure before a wider set of changes to stop that practice. Will he do so?
Martin McCluskey
I think I need to start by correcting some of what the hon. Gentleman said. In my statement last week, I confirmed that LPG was part of the support—perhaps he did not hear that. Our priority, all the way through this crisis, has been to ensure that funding reaches people at speed. That is why we have delivered support in two weeks, not 200 days. On his point about means-testing, the funding is discretionary, so local authorities can decide how to provide it to people. I think he also called for a CMA investigation. We will look and study the results of the investigation to see what needs to happen to regulate the industry, but, as I said from the Dispatch Box a number of times last week, it is clear that the market is not functioning properly.
Draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) (Specified Period) Order 2026
Greg Smith Excerpts(2 days, 7 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker.
Energy efficiency in the home sits at the heart of our ability as a country to support those struggling with energy bills, protect consumers from volatile energy bills and maintain the skilled retrofit workforce that this country will need in the years ahead. Since 2013, the energy company obligation has delivered around 4.4 million measures in 2.6 million properties. Under ECO4 alone, around 949,800 measures have been installed in approximately 281,000 households. Whatever its imperfections, it has been a lifeline for millions of low-income families, and the supply chain that grew around it employs tens of thousands of people across the country.
As the Minister said, this statutory instrument will extend the ECO4 end date by nine months to 31 December 2026. The stated purpose is to allow suppliers additional time to meet existing targets, remediate non-compliant installations and avoid a cliff edge in delivery before any successor arrangements are in place. The Opposition support this extension. It is responsible and the right thing to do and we will not stand in its way this afternoon. However, support for the principle of orderly transition does not mean that the Government escape scrutiny and there are several questions that I would be grateful if the Minister could answer clearly.
On cost, the Chancellor was emphatic in her Budget statement last year that ECO costs households £1.7 billion a year through levies on their bills and that ending the scheme would save the average household £59 annually. She described it as a failed scheme and said that she was scrapping it. However, this nine-month extension means that the levy continues on bills for longer than households were led to expect. Ministers must set out plainly how much consumers will pay during this extended period, and whether that figure of a £59 saving remains accurate. As the shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), has rightly observed, moving costs from energy bills to general taxation is not the saving it appears on paper. Households are still paying; they are just paying from a different pocket.
On the issue of quality, a National Audit Office report published in October 2025 found that many of the home improvements funded under ECO were carried out to a poor standard, particularly those involving external wall insulation. Families have been left with damp, mould and homes made worse by interventions that were supposed to help them. That is not an abstract concern and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) has raised those failures directly in the House. The Opposition have committed to working cross-party to ensure that affected households receive proper remediation—and we stand by that commitment. However, the Government must confirm that Ofgem’s oversight is fully resourced, that installers and not consumers are funding that repair work, and that further audits will be carried out without delay.
Finally, on the supply chain, the Government’s own rationale for this extension acknowledges the need to protect the supply chain and jobs while continuing support for low-income households. That language reflects a real anxiety in the sector. Anna Moore, chief executive of retrofit company Domna, put it plainly when she warned that suddenly removing £1.3 billion of funding was “chaotic” and had
“created a cliff edge for thousands of low-income households in fuel poverty as well as SMEs employing some 10,000 people.”
Joel Pearson of Net Zero Renewables made the same plea directly to the Chancellor. These are not abstract economic arguments; they are real firms, jobs and communities that depend on this sector continuing to function.
The extension buys a little time, but time alone is not a strategy. The Chancellor has announced that there will be no successor to ECO4, and that future support will come through the warm homes plan—£15 billion over five years, funded through general taxation. The Opposition do not oppose the principle of that shift, but the warm homes plan remains, at this stage, more promise than programme. It has not yet been finalised, piloted or mobilised. This extension exists in part precisely because the replacement is not ready. This is an honest admission and we welcome it, but it underlines that the instrument is a holding measure, not a solution. ECO4 is also estimated to deliver carbon savings of around 0.38 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year once all measures are installed. Whatever replaces it must be designed to match and exceed that ambition—not simply to fill a political gap.
I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could address three specific points. Can he confirm the precise additional cost to bill payers during the nine-month extension period? Can he provide a full update on the remediation programme for substandard installations and give this Committee confidence that affected households will not be left waiting indefinitely? Finally, can he set out a clear timetable for the warm homes plan so that the supply chain can plan with confidence, rather than continuing to operate under uncertainty?
The households who have relied on the ECO scheme deserve an efficient transition, not the chaotic cliff edge that the Government are presenting; the retrofit workforce that will be central to this Government’s own climate ambitions deserve certainty, not managed decline; and taxpayers deserve full transparency about what this extension will cost them. We support this instrument, but the Government must use the time it buys wisely.
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I do not think the Minister fully appreciates just how much communities threatened by large-scale solar up and down the country feel that they are having things done to them and not with them. The No. 1 complaint that I have heard from campaign groups represented by Stop Oversized Solar up and down the land, including some in my constituency, concerns the threat to food security. When they try to engage, they keep being given this bogus figure of 1%, but if we carry on in the direction the Government are going in, by 2035 an area the size of Greater London will be covered in solar. That is equivalent to nearly 2,000 farms capable of producing 2 billion loaves of bread. When are we going to get the truth about the threat to food security from solar?
Michael Shanks
This is just the most absurd nonsense from the Conservatives, who I see are now crowdsourcing their energy policy on Twitter. It is not surprising that they come up with that sort of nonsense, when that is the information that they use. Even in the most ambitious deployment scenarios, all the statistics suggest that 0.4% of UK land would be occupied by solar. The Conservatives come to this House time and time and time again calling for bills to be brought down, but their policy would put them up and turn away the investment that is driving jobs and opportunities across the country. They had no answers in energy policy for 14 years, and they have learned absolutely nothing in opposition.
Local Power Plan
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell whether the Secretary of State is at the Dispatch Box as the Energy Secretary or rehearsing for a future move to perhaps No. 11. Once again, he is more distracted by personal ambition than concerned about the bleak reality families are facing across the country with crippling energy bills. Today’s announcement is being sold as a bold shift of power to local communities, but cutting through the fluff, this plan does not make electricity cheaper and it does not offer value for the taxpayer.
This plan does nothing to reduce wholesale prices, nothing to fix the grid connection backlog and nothing to tackle the structural costs. Instead, the Government are asking taxpayers to fund small-scale projects which, optimistically, will provide minor reductions in costs for a few local buildings while leaving families and businesses across this country still paying higher prices. There are no guarantees that the £1 billion committed through the Great British Energy scheme will deliver lower bills, no clear test of value for money and no convincing explanation of why subsidising small, piecemeal projects offers a better return for taxpayers than backing affordable, large-scale nuclear generation that would genuinely move the dial. Spread thinly across the country over several years and funnelled through yet another Whitehall-controlled body, this is not a serious intervention, but a press release masquerading as an energy strategy.
Alongside the local power plan, the results of allocation round 7 this morning raise serious questions that the Secretary of State has yet to answer. In the Government’s own press release, they rely on “internal analysis” to claim that additional solar and onshore wind procured through AR7 could lower bills in the early 2030s, but that analysis has not been published. It looks only at a narrow scenario, excludes wider system costs and does not give a full picture of future bill levels. If Ministers are so confident of their figures, why will they not release the full impact assessment? What exactly is the Secretary of State hiding?
AR7 also underlines the direction of travel under this Government: longer contracts, higher strike prices and greater risk locked in for bill payers. The extension of contracts for difference from 15 years to 20 years means that households will be tied into paying these costs for even longer, regardless of whether circumstances change. At the same time, the Government have relaxed planning requirements so some offshore wind projects can bid before planning consent has even been secured.
All of this points to the root problem, which is that electricity prices are already too high, and the policies pursued by this Government are only pushing them higher. Doubling down on carbon taxes and loading more expensive wind and solar on to a system that is not ready risks driving up costs for both households and industry, making British business less competitive and leaving families to pick up the bill. Families are being asked to pay more, not less. Labour promised to cut energy bills by £300; instead, bills have risen by £190 since Labour came to power. That is the reality behind its rhetoric, and that is the reality every family up and down the land understands as they open their energy bills.
At the centre of all this sits Great British Energy, an £8 billion taxpayer-funded quango that was meant to lower bills for everyone. So far, all we have is the promise of a highly paid chief executive, a new board and more bureaucracy. Why do we need another expensive state body to do what the market and existing institutions should already be delivering? That is the fundamental difference in approach. Our cheap power plan focuses on bringing down the underlying cost of electricity, saving the public sector and everyone else vastly more in the process, and doing so without costing taxpayers a penny. This Government are more focused on their own internal politics than on delivering the one thing people need: energy that is reliable, abundant and, above all, affordable for all our constituents.
Ed Miliband
Well, there were no questions, but I will reply none the less. Let me start with the AR7 auction, because this is very interesting and it will give the House a picture of what has actually changed. What has changed is the Conservative party, not the reality. We had the AR5 auction a couple of years ago, when the Conservatives were in power. In that auction, the price of solar was higher than it was in this auction. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) stated:
“our reliance on gas for electricity production today risks making power prices higher than they would be in a system with a greater share of generation from wind and solar…Moving to home-based, clean power mitigates risks to billpayers—now and in the future.”
What has changed? What has changed is that the Conservative party has gone full MAGA. Let us just be honest about this. It has decided to chase Reform into a ludicrous position, doubling down on fossil fuels and rejecting even solar and onshore wind, the cheapest, cleanest form of power you can possibly have. I guess the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) was just reading out the script.
On community energy, I have to congratulate the hon. Gentleman, because he has given a brilliant example of why the previous Government were so hopeless on community energy. He obviously thinks it is a terrible idea. He is very welcome to do so, but he is sending a message to every Member of Parliament and all their constituents that the Conservative party is against community energy projects and against the things that will cut bills for local community groups. To every sports club, community centre and library that will benefit from this funding, there is a very clear answer: the Conservative party says, “No, you don’t deserve it. We don’t want you to have those lower bills. We don’t want you to have that cheap clean power. We don’t want you to have the income and resources to reinvest in our local community.” If the Conservatives want that as a dividing line, bring it on, I say. This Government are on the side of local communities, on the side of cutting bills and on the side of reinvesting money into communities. The Conservative party, in its new incarnation, is against it.
Draft Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025
Greg Smith Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Lewell. His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the urgent need for transparency in the fuel market, something the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), took significant steps towards under the previous Government through the introduction of Pumpwatch—now called Fuel Finder—which received Royal Assent in 2024. That went alongside the work of Howard Cox from FairFuelUK, whose persistence has been instrumental in pushing for progress through 15 years of research into fuel pricing.
The regulations require every fuel station to register with the Government’s appointed data aggregator and report any change in pump prices within 30 minutes. That data must then be made openly available, free of charge, for use by third-party apps, navigation systems and consumer groups. The aim, as the previous Conservative Government set out, is to allow motorists to see in real time who is offering the best price in their area, enabling genuine competition across the fuel market. Fuel Finder is not a bold new idea from the Labour Benches. It is a continuation, albeit a delayed and diluted one, of the Conservative commitment to ensure that motorists can finally see in real time who is charging what and where. This is a rebrand, not a positive policy change.
It was the Conservatives who commissioned the Competition and Markets Authority’s landmark investigation into road fuel pricing, which revealed that retailers were increasing margins at the expense of consumers. The study showed that average supermarket fuel margins had risen by around 6p per litre since 2019 and that a typical family driving a car could save up to £4.50 a tank by driving just a few minutes further to a cheaper station. It exposed a market that was not functioning as it should—one where falling wholesale costs were not being passed on to consumers and where, in some cases, motorists on motorways were paying 20p plus more per litre than they needed to.
There are several areas where the Government fall short, starting with margin transparency. Motorists will see today’s prices, but not how they have changed over time, nor whether any increase reflects market forces or simply wider retailer margins. The CMA’s evidence shows that it is precisely those margins that have driven up prices in recent years. Without addressing margin transparency, the real cause of the problem remains hidden. Across Europe, in Austria, Germany, France, Italy and Spain, Governments publish not only live pump prices, but also historical and margin data, allowing drivers and regulators to see whether retailers are passing on savings or quietly padding profit. By comparison, this Government’s fuel finder offers only partial transparency. It tells motorists where fuel is cheapest today, but not whether the price is fair.
The Opposition also object to the lack of a legal requirement for fuel stations to report when a fuel type is unavailable. Drivers need to know not only the cost of a litre of petrol or diesel, but whether diesel or petrol will actually be available when they get there. Making that optional undermines the very purpose of transparency.
Enforcement is also left vague. The CMA has powers to issue civil penalties and pursue criminal sanctions, but the Government have not set clear thresholds or standards for when those powers will apply. Nor have they addressed the risk that some operators may plead technical failure or poor connectivity as an excuse for not reporting prices promptly. That kind of leniency invites abuse. If the Government truly want transparency, they must ensure that IT issues cannot be used as a standing excuse for non-compliance.
The same potential penalties—up to 1% of global turnover or 5% of daily turnover per day—apply to all data reporting obligations under this legislation. While sanctions for non-compliance in price reporting were anticipated, it is notable that the same provisions extend to non-price data. The Association of Convenience Stores, for example, has raised concerns that this could include reporting on the availability of coffee machines, baby changing facilities and even microwaves. I am sure people do want to know if such things are available, but we believe that level of reporting goes beyond the original policy intent and imposes unnecessary burdens on retailers already facing significant compliance pressures.
Furthermore, there has been no formal engagement with industry ahead of publishing the non-price data requirements. With the obligation to report on 30 additional categories, that introduces unnecessary cost and complexity for retailers, not only during the initial registration window which runs from 18 December to 2 February, but also on an ongoing basis, given the requirement under the regulations to update information within three days. That directly contradicts the Government’s own target of reducing the regulatory burden by 25%, penalising businesses that are already operating in a challenging economy and diverting resources away from delivering value and service to consumers.
Then there is the question of smaller, rural fuel stations like those in constituencies like, to pick one at random, mine of Mid-Buckinghamshire. The regulations are set out to apply universally but there is little evidence the Government have considered the burden on low volume operators, or how those will be supported to comply. Transparency should not come at the cost of driving independent rural stations out of business.
Finally, we must look at timing. The Government intend to launch Fuel Finder by the end of this year, two years after the CMA’s recommendation and a year later than originally planned under the previous Conservative Government. For motorists already struggling with record living costs and high fuel prices under this Government, progress has been far too slow. Every month of delay means that families continue to overpay at the pump and competition remains weaker than it should be.
The Opposition do support the principle of open data for fuel prices. We welcome the continuation of a Conservative policy that sought to bring transparency for drivers, encourage competition and deliver accountability in a sector that too often escapes scrutiny. But we will not let the Government claim credit for a policy that they did not originate, nor overlook that its implementation has been slow, cautious and incomplete. Conservatives began this work and in opposition we will continue to press for its full and timely delivery for fuel, with stronger enforcement, real transparency and genuine competition for every motorist in Britain. I hope that when the Minister concludes this debate he can address some of the shortcomings I have highlighted this afternoon.
Martin McCluskey
That was detailed, if nothing else. It is refreshing to hear those on the Conservative Benches back their own policies in opposition. At the moment in my brief, I am more used to hearing Conservative Front Benchers disavow the policies of the previous Government in my Department. The shadow Energy Secretary could learn from this breakout of consensus.
I will begin by responding to the points of the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. If I neglect to answer any of those points, he should please intervene to remind me of anything I did not scribble down quickly enough.
The CMA annual report will address margin transparency and the other issues that he laid out. It would likely be quite difficult to put margin transparency in place in the current scheme until we have Fuel Finder operational, but it will be included in the CMA’s annual report. On the legal requirement around whether or not fuel is available at a particular filling station, that point was raised during the consultation and examined by officials. A thorough analysis was done of how easy, or not, it would be to collect that information. The determination was made that, although the request for inclusion is well intentioned—and I can understand it; it would be useful information—it would be very technically difficult to include it on a real-time basis in the scheme, which could potentially undermine a lot of the other measures that we are trying to ensure as part of the scheme. On enforcement, I would point the hon. Member towards part 6 of the instrument, which gives details on enforcement. I do not share the hon. Member’s concerns.
Concerns were raised about amenities. It is clear, both from what the CMA has already published and from the impact assessment and explanatory memorandum, that a proportionate approach will be taken to any enforcement, on a case-by-case basis. The published guidance has been clear about that, which hopefully reassures those who have raised concerns about the amenities being included. We are, and have been, actively engaging on amenities, but it is also important to note that amenities were consulted on as part of the consultation exercise that was undertaken, so it is not quite right to say that there has been no consultation with industry on this point.
Greg Smith
The Minister has said that there needs to be proportionality, but he supports some of the other amenities being reported on. If it is possible for any fuel retailer to say whether they have a current working coffee machine or microwave, how is it not possible to report on whether they have any petrol or diesel in the tanks?
Martin McCluskey
That is why we are, and will continue to be, in constant engagement with industry on amenities.
Let me address the points made by the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston. The rationale for worldwide turnover is commonly understood, and already used within the industry. That is why that measure was selected. On the concerns around rurality, there will be other mechanisms for people to feed in that do not rely on, for example, an internet connection. People will be able to text the price in real time, and able to use a telephone service—though we do not actually think that there will be an issue with wi-fi, because lots of rural fuel stations will use wi-fi for their payment systems.
VE3 Global was appointed as the successful supplier to become the aggregator of Fuel Finder. VE3 Global specialises in digital transformation, data aggregation and cloud-based solutions, so it has lots of experience in this area. The right hon. Member also asked a final question on guidance. We will publish the guidance and training before the whole programme is rolled out, so that people can have some certainty and assistance. As I said, we understand that this is a change for businesses, and certainly represents a change to business as usual, so we want to make sure that people are properly guided and trained.
I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate and the questions they raised. I also thank the Lib Dem spokesperson for her support of the statutory instrument. I conclude by reaffirming our commitment to creating a firm and transparent UK road fuel market. Now more than ever we need to protect households and businesses from pricing practices and deliver change to reverse the sharp spikes in road fuel prices in recent years. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Smith Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
On grid infrastructure, the Chinese wind turbine manufacturer Ming Yang has said that it is looking to set up a wind turbine factory in Scotland. Our security services have warned us about the risks of Chinese state-sponsored hackers trying to infiltrate and destroy energy systems in the west, and hidden kill switches have been found in Chinese solar installation technology in the United States. Can the Minister provide the House with a very clear assurance that neither Ming Yang nor the Chinese state will be able to remotely control our energy infrastructure—yes or no?
Michael Shanks
First, I will take no lessons from the party that brought Chinese investors right into building our nuclear power station. This Government are delivering a nuclear power station with British Government funding, not Chinese funding, so I will take no lessons from the Conservatives on that. Many companies want to come and invest in the UK, and we absolutely welcome investment into this country, but every single decision and investment obviously has to pass stringent national security tests. I will not engage right now in what those tests will be, but we will say very clearly that no decision we make will ever compromise our national security.
Nuclear Power: Investment
Greg Smith Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
Absolutely right—there will be no decommissioning of you, Mr Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on showing incredible leadership for his constituents on this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with him and other colleagues on these questions. He is right about the potential; he is also right about the regulatory question. We have some of the highest standards of regulation in the world, but it is always right that we look at how we can improve standards of regulation and avoid changes in regulation during the course of projects, which is crucial for success. That is the work we are getting on with.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. To give credit where it is due, I totally welcome today’s announcement on nuclear. Where I disagree with the Secretary of State is on his persistence to plough ahead with inefficient technologies such as solar and the associated paraphernalia, such as battery storage, which trash the Buckinghamshire countryside and, indeed, the wider British countryside. Nuclear works 24/7; solar works about 10% of the time. Will he have greater courage and plough ahead with this much more efficient 24/7 nuclear technology and drop solar?
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Member for part of what he said, if not most of it. We have a fundamental disagreement. Solar and wind offer cheap power for our country—why would we possibly say no to that? The biggest threat to the countryside is the climate crisis, and solar and wind alongside nuclear are the way to tackle it.
Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations
Greg Smith Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on bringing forward this important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in it, because this is a matter of considerable concern to the many rural communities in the Mid Buckinghamshire constituency, particularly given the safety risks posed by battery energy storage systems.
Let me be clear from the outset: this is a debate not about the principle of energy storage, although I am in principle opposed to such schemes taking agricultural land and challenging our food security, but about—and this is deeply concerning and the House must urgently address it—the real, growing and too often overlooked safety implications of these installations, particularly when placed in close proximity to villages and rural road networks that are ill-equipped to support them.
The most pressing risk, and one that has already led to devastation elsewhere, is the danger of thermal runaway, as others have said. These are not hypothetical risks; they are documented, real-world events. In Merseyside, a fire at a battery site in 2020 caused an explosion that shook nearby homes and required a major emergency services response. In Arizona, a BESS fire led to an explosion that seriously injured eight firefighters, and in Belgium, a BESS fire burned for over a week and forced the evacuation of nearby businesses.
These systems contain highly reactive lithium-ion batteries. When one cell fails—often due to manufacturing defects, overheating or damage—it can cause a chain reaction across the entire installation, releasing toxic gases, generating intense heat and creating a fire that cannot be extinguished with conventional methods. In rural areas, where response times may be slower and firefighting resources more limited, the consequences could be catastrophic.
In my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, we are increasingly seeing applications for these industrial-scale storage sites in rural settings near homes, farms, schools, conservation areas, watercourses and rivers. These are often justified in the name of green energy, but residents rightly ask: green for whom and safe for whom? It is not just the risk of fire; the cumulative impact of associated infrastructure—substations, cabling, transformer enclosures —often means miles of narrow rural roads being torn up by heavy goods vehicles, with lasting safety implications. Roads that were never designed for such weight and volume are left with potholes, uneven surfaces and subsidence. For local motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders, or schoolchildren walking along rural lanes, this poses a daily and wholly unnecessary danger. I have received multiple reports from parish councils, residents and emergency services who are concerned that the access routes used for construction and maintenance of these sites are not fit for purpose. My constituents in the Claydons and in Little Missenden are at risk from convoys of lorries, with junction visibility reduced, verges destroyed and road surfaces degraded if BESS projects planned for those areas go ahead.
Should an emergency arise at the site itself, one has to ask: would a fire engine or ambulance even be able to reach it safely and quickly? Could the fire service even attempt to deal with such a fire? That is why I am pleased that Buckinghamshire Council rejected a 500 MW site in the Claydons last year. I trust that other speculative developers, such as the one planning a site just outside Little Missenden, will take note and spare my constituents from these unacceptable fire risks and road safety risks.
We must take a more precautionary approach. At the very least, the Government should introduce clear national guidelines on the siting of BESS installations, including minimum separation distances from residential properties, fire resilience standards, mandatory site-specific risk assessments, and restrictions on placing these facilities on or near rural roads. I urge the Government and local planning authorities to take these concerns seriously. Safety must never be sacrificed on the altar of speed or ideology, or the first technology that happens to be on the shelf that day. Our rural communities in particular deserve better protection.
Solar Farms
Greg Smith Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I should declare that prior to entering this House, I spent the better part of a decade working in renewable energy finance. While I would not claim to be a solar expert, I could certainly write a whole speech debunking things that have been said today. For the record, solar panels have a lower carbon footprint per unit generated than the equivalent fossil fuel. They are 95% recyclable, and any solar farm development requires a glint-and-glare report before it gets approval if it is anywhere near an Air Force base or an airport. I will move on, because I could go on for a long time.
Those of us who believe in science know that tackling climate change means making bold, practical choices about how we decarbonise our economy. If we are serious about reaching net zero, tackling fuel poverty and protecting our countryside, we have to make renewables work for people as well as the planet. I have often made the point that the solar sector is not particularly good at communicating the benefits of a just transition to the population at large, so let me be clear: solar power means cheaper bills for consumers, protection against geopolitical insecurity and a greener future for the next generation.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. So that we in this House and the whole country can hear clearly, is he saying that the Liberal Democrats fully support solar farms?
Edward Morello
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the answer is in my speech.
We have made substantial progress on decarbonising our power grid: a decade ago, just 6% of our energy came from renewables, and today, the figure stands at 42%. That is a national achievement we should be proud of, but we must go further, not just because the climate emergency demands it, but because renewables are the cheapest source of energy available.
Liberal Democrats believe strongly in expanding use of solar and other renewables to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, improve energy security and bring down bills. Crucially, we believe that this must be done while protecting our natural environment. A strategic land use framework is essential if we are serious about delivering net zero while safeguarding our ability to produce food and restore nature.
We are asking more and more of the countryside—to produce food, capture carbon, generate clean energy, support biodiversity and provide space for housing, tourism and recreation. Without a joined-up approach, we risk pitting these priorities against one another. It is vital that a framework gives clear national guidance on where solar is most appropriate; sets out that solar should avoid high-quality agricultural land wherever possible; and encourages dual-use solutions that support both energy generation and nature recovery. It must enable local authorities to plan ahead with confidence, and to balance competing pressures in a way that reflects the needs and character of their communities.
Planning policy should not be dictated solely by where grid connections are available, but by a long-term vision of how we want our land to be used. It is a common claim that instead of putting solar panels on fields, we should put them on rooftops and car parks. I do not disagree, but having worked in the sector, I feel obligated—I make this point a lot—to explain the commercial realities. If utility-scale solar costs 50p per unit to build, rooftop solar is roughly double that, and carports double that again. Meanwhile, energy companies pay as little as 5p or 5.5p per unit for energy exported to the grid. That means that pure-export rooftop and carport solar does not stack up financially for investors, but that is something that the Government can fix. By mandating a minimum export price, we could unlock rooftop and car port investment, reduce pressure on farmland and cut consumer bills. Yes, wholesale energy buyers would earn a little less, but consumers, communities and the climate would all benefit. This is an easy win for a Government who have stated their commitment to net zero.
Ground-mounted solar will invariably remain part of the energy mix, and we cannot reach our climate targets without it, but projects must be done right, which means prioritising lower grade land and ensuring that new schemes come with tangible benefits for the communities they affect. Community benefit funds should receive a fair share of the wealth created. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) has tabled new clauses to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to deliver just that, alongside local authority powers to invest in energy efficiency and support street-by-street upgrades to reduce bills. In Scotland, for example, community benefit is worth £5,000 per installed megawatt per year. That means that a controversial large-scale solar project, such as the Kingsway solar farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), would provide £2.5 million annually to the local community. That is the scale we should be talking about, and it must be the community that determines how and where that money is spent.
Today, about two thirds of UK solar is ground-mounted, but rooftop solar has a critical role to play and the Liberal Democrats are proud to be leading on that issue. We welcome the Government’s decision to adopt our policy of mandating solar panels on the roofs of new homes, which is a core part and first step of our rooftop revolution. We also call on Ministers to go further, by requiring new homes to meet net zero building standards and include provision for solar generation. When it comes to delivery, Liberal Democrats in local government are showing what can be done. From Barkham solar farm in Wokingham to Sandscale park in Westmorland and the thousands of car park panels installed in Portsmouth, we are delivering clean energy at scale, backed by communities.
Delivery must also be responsible, and I know that many of us are concerned about the number of solar farms being approved on our best agricultural land. Let me be clear: I am yet to meet a farmer who got into farming because they wanted to grow solar panels; this is happening because making a living from farming is increasingly impossible. We must ensure that farming is sustainable, profitable, and properly supported, so that farmers can keep doing what they do best, which is producing brilliant British food and looking after the land. I also share concerns about the use of nationally significant infrastructure project schemes, which are taking land out of use. That raises questions about long-term land use and oversight, particularly given the level of foreign investment in the sector.
Finally, a very quick word on standards—I appreciate that I am testing your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are genuine concerns about labour practices in the global solar supply chain, but the industry is taking action. Having been part of the Solar Energy UK supply chain sustainability working group when it was first constituted, I can personally attest that the industry is taking the issue very seriously. Through the solar stewardship initiative, robust environmental, social and governance and traceability standards are being applied to ensure compliance with UK and EU laws. By the end of this year, certified facilities will be producing 100 GW of panels annually, which is five times the UK’s current capacity. As a result, we can be confident that we can meet our targets without compromising our values. The potential of solar is enormous. It can drive down bills, reduce emissions and create thousands of jobs, as well as protect our countryside.
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am sorry to hear about the case of Lesley, and I know there are people across the country who have this frustration with standing charges. I reassure the House that we have a commitment to reducing them. We are working with Ofgem on a set of options. Our challenge is to ensure that standing charges do not penalise some households and that they are as fair as possible. That is what we are committed to doing, and that is what we are working every day to deliver.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not just on this question, but on securing an Adjournment debate last night on exactly the same subject. As I stated last night, clean power projects in his constituency and across the country are vital to achieving our clean power mission, which will give us energy security and bring down bills for families. Of course, all proposals are assessed on their individual merit through the planning system, and where communities host infrastructure, the Government believe they should directly benefit from it.
Greg Smith
In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) earlier, the Secretary of State completely dismissed the legitimate concerns of rural communities and farmers who are being asked to take on energy projects. Yet last night in the Adjournment debate, the Under-Secretary found a more reasonable tone, accepting the point on cumulative impact in constituencies such as mine that are being asked to take up to 3,000 acres of projects. Will the Under-Secretary go into more detail about how the Government will put in mitigations on cumulative impact to protect communities such as mine?
Michael Shanks
I would be testing the patience of the Deputy Speaker if I were to go into more detail than I could in an Adjournment debate. The point I made clearly to the hon. Gentleman was that it is not a credible position for him to take that there should be absolutely no infrastructure built anywhere in his constituency. The reality is we need to build new infrastructure, not just energy infrastructure but right across the public sector. I have said clearly that the work we are taking forward on the strategic spatial energy plan and on the land use framework by colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is about trying to ensure that we manage the best use of land, but we will have to build new infrastructure, and communities will have to host it.