Solar Farms

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered solar farms.

I must first inform the House that my husband is a farmer and agricultural contractor.

I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me time for a debate on large-scale solar farms. There are some things that Members across the House can agree on: we all want cheap and reliable energy, we all want food security and affordable food prices, and we want to live sustainably and to protect our natural surroundings. Whether or not we agree on how we should achieve those goals, I think we can at least agree that these are desirable aims, so why is the issue seemingly so controversial? It is controversial because it is doubtful that large-scale solar farms on prime agricultural land can achieve any of those aims.

First, how good are solar panels? In principle, solar energy is green, but the reality is murkier. The journey of a solar panel, from raw materials to installation, is far from carbon neutral. The production process demands substantial energy, often sourced from fossil fuels. It requires the mining of silver and zinc. It requires energy to produce the intense heat needed to melt quartz for polysilicon, and the transportation of components and finished panels across vast distances by diesel-powered trucks, trains and ships. What happens when the panels reach the end of their lifespan? Recycling should be the obvious answer, yet they are notoriously difficult to recycle. A constituent of mine who dedicated their master’s research to this issue found that most solar panels, once they finish their lifecycle, cannot currently be effectively recycled.

Solar energy is not morally clean either. Most solar panels sold in the UK—an astonishing 97%—contain materials sourced from places where there are concerns about forced labour. Baroness May of Maidenhead, the former Prime Minister, did so much to champion the cause of combating modern slavery during her tenure, and we must not be complicit in human rights abuses in business supply chains. The Government’s decision to U-turn yesterday on the Lords message on the Great British Energy Bill is welcome, but it is shameful that it came only after so much pressure.

Even if the challenges with production, transportation and recycling could be resolved, there are concerns about whether solar energy is the right option for the UK’s energy production at all. Solar energy is most effective in sunny places, where there is high demand for energy when it is sunny. But in the UK the highest energy demand occurs when it is cold and dark. That means energy must be stored, leading to the need for large battery storage systems, which bring their own problems—we would require another debate just to discuss those. In fact, the UK is ranked as second to last on a list of 240 countries in terms of its suitability for photovoltaic electricity production.

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

There is a further point about suitability. My hon. Friend, as a Lincolnshire MP, will know that our county produces a hugely disproportionate amount of the nation’s food. Compromising food production puts food security at risk, because the solar farms, which are industrial developments, use up land that could otherwise feed the nation.

[Dr Johnson]

My right hon. Friend is of course right, as usual, and I will address that point in more detail later in my speech.

Even if we could resolve all those production, recycling and transportation issues, and so accept that solar is viable for the UK, ground-mounted solar projects are not the right approach. Panels installed so far are relatively inefficient. Despite a currently installed capacity of 17.8 GW, the total output last year was less than 10% of that.

Our current approach is also centred around technology that is outdated. If Members can cast their minds back to 1984, when the first Apple Mac computers were put on the market, and then look today at the present advances in technology, they will see that technology has evolved at a rapid pace. Solar panels planned for fields today are already being superseded by cleaner, more efficient technology that does not need farmland. Researchers in Japan are developing next-generation panels made from iodine. They are flexible and 20 times thinner than existing panels. They would make it realistic to build solar installations on urban infrastructure such as stadiums, airports and office buildings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me so early on, Madam Deputy Speaker, at the sunrise of the debate.

I believe there is not only a climate and biodiversity emergency, but real insecurity in our energy market. That is why I absolutely back the Government’s plan to triple our solar capacity and reach the clean power target by 2030. We need to look at the whole gamut of renewable energy out there, including tidal—although perhaps not so much in Bedfordshire—wind and solar power. I am very lucky that my constituency is home to the joint tallest wind turbine in the country, an honour I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones). When I visited, I suggested that we put a Union flag on top of the one in my constituency so that it would be the tallest, but there was no agreement to that—never mind.

My constituency is also home to a solar farm in Eggington, as the Minister knows, because he visited it with me. It produces enough power for 2,000 homes every year. What is interesting is that as well as producing that clean, green power, it retains an agricultural use; as the Minister may remember, there are also sheep grazing between the solar panels, nibbling at the grass.

[Sir John Hayes]

Just to be clear, this is not about what, but where. Of course it is important that we have a diverse energy mix, but the hon. Lady must know that if we put solar panels on the best-quality agricultural land, we will have to import more food and extend supply chains, and so damage the environment.

[Alex Mayer]

I think we need a mix, but we cannot rule out using solar panels on large chunks of land.

When the Minister came along to visit our solar farm in Eggington, he not only met the sheep, but saw that some of the land around the panels has been transformed into wildflower meadows. In my constituency, AW Group —the people with the turbine—is branching out into solar. In the next couple of months, it will build another solar array and again put in wildflower meadows. Those meadows are so important for biodiversity in our country, as our pollinators and other insects face real problems. I learned on my visit that solar farms can also be useful to some of our ground-nesting birds, which find shelter and sanctuary underneath the solar panels.

In essence, I just wanted to say that I really welcome what the Government are doing. I welcome what they did yesterday; the new rules make it easier for some of the smaller amounts of power generated from solar panels to be linked to our grid. I urge the Minister to go full steam ahead on this, and to make sure that our solar industry has a really bright future in this time of biodiversity and climate emergency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

Indeed, the Government are creating an incentive to do the exact opposite of own manifesto pledge, which is why I started with that point.

Let me come on to the second place where we can see Labour’s approach—in the Cabinet. Of course, we cannot witness the Cabinet in action at first hand, but it is very clear—certainly to someone who has had the good fortune to sit in Cabinet—how marginalised the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has become. We see the Prime Minister announce things such as the compulsory purchase of farmland in order to support infrastructure schemes; we see the former Labour leader, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, make a whole raft of decisions in his first few weeks of office on massive solar farms, overriding DEFRA; we see the Deputy Prime Minister riding roughshod over the DEFRA Secretary of State on housing schemes; and we see the Chancellor phoning officials at DEFRA the night before to say that the sustainable farming incentive had been reduced so quickly that the Government have now had to concede in a legal case that their approach was wrong and allow a further 3,000 farm applications to proceed—and that is without any clear commitments in this area.

When I warned at the election about Labour’s farm tax, the now DEFRA Secretary of State said that it was complete nonsense. Well, we have seen the Government introduce that tax and watched while the Treasury rode roughshod over the Department. We have a Department that is completely sidelined in the Government and failing to speak up not just for food security and farming, but for the very commitments that were made in the Labour manifesto.

We see a theme running across a whole range of policy announcements that shows the instinct, the values and the priorities of this Government, who always believe that top-down knows best. They do not believe in localism. The implication for solar farms can be seen in how the delivery of the policy is happening on the ground. We are seeing clusters in the east of England, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) would point out, in areas of the best food production. We are seeing a gaming of the system, where the developers bring in consultants to grade the land in ways that sit at odds with historic knowledge of the value of that land.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am delighted to endorse everything that my right hon. Friend and neighbour has said about national economic resilience. The point about grading land is critical. To be fair to the Government, they have said that land at grades 1, 2 and 3a at least should be protected, but the problem is that the solar developers deliberately attempt to distort those distinctions by regrading land using organisations that are part of their own corporations.

[Steve Barclay]

My right hon. Friend is completely right; the issue is hiding in plain sight. When I was in the Government and sought to strengthen the protections for farmland, changes to the guidance were made, including bringing forward independent certification for agricultural land classification in soil surveys. We know at a constituency level that malpractice is going on and is not being challenged. The point is that that is not by accident. This is not an error of delivery. This is by design, and we can see that design in the raft of decisions made by the Energy Secretary in his very first weeks in office. Indeed, close to our constituencies, just near to Cambridge, there was an important announcement on a mega farm, which was made by the new Secretary of State against official advice. This matters because it is related to wider trust in our politics. A clear commitment was given to rural communities by Labour in its manifesto that is being broken.

I will close, conscious that many colleagues want to participate in this debate, with this comment for Labour Back Benchers. It may be that Nos. 10 and 11 have simply decided that, with their majority, they can afford to sacrifice a number of their rural MPs who had not been expected to win the election, and it may by that they decided that those MPs were not essential, but it is baffling that there is so much silence. These MPs are voting for measures that are having such a harmful effect in rural constituencies, and those measures are so short term that they are putting our food security, which does indeed matter to our national security, at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

rose—

[Tony Vaughan]

I will not take any further interventions at this stage. [Interruption.] Members will hear what I come on to say.

We have a decommissioned nuclear power station in Folkestone and Hythe, and I strongly believe that it should be brought back for energy generation. The site has the right location, with proximity to the grid, and a local skills base for these technologies, such as advanced modular reactors. I am grateful to Lord Hunt, the Minister responsible for nuclear energy, for his continued engagement on this issue, but I urge the Government to move faster to create the conditions for advanced modular reactors and other new technologies to become a reality.

On solar, Folkestone and Hythe must play our part in delivering the Government’s clean energy mission, but it should not come at the expense of the fundamental character and beauty of the rural community. People visit Romney Marsh for its tranquillity and beautiful landscapes. We must take our fair share of solar developments to support the Government’s clean energy mission, but covering a large area of Romney Marsh with multiple developments will affect the character of the area. One of the projects would occupy 2.3 square miles of countryside, and there are four more in the pipeline. It is entirely consistent to support the Government’s mission and accept our fair share while saying that there need to be principled limitations and a reasonable amount of development. That is the right position to take.

Solar farms need to be evenly spread across the country. The clean energy mission is a national endeavour, and we cannot have one community in Romney Marsh facing it on their own. [Interruption.] If any hon. Members want to intervene and make legitimate points, they are free to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan); let us all play our fair share—and I will support him on Romney Marsh if he supports me on Gainsborough. That is a fair deal.

The distribution of solar farms across the country is, as has been made clear, highly uneven. Of the 650 parliamentary constituencies, 310 have more than 0.1% of land taken up by solar development, while 151 have more than 0.6% and 96 have more than 1%. The five most affected constituencies are Newark, with 8.85% of land taken up by solar farms, Sleaford and North Hykeham with 6.95%, Newport East with 5.12%, my own beloved Gainsborough with 5.08%, and Selby with 4.22%. I say to the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe that this is a debate not about solar farms or green energy but the sheer concentration of solar farms in some parts of England.

[Sir John Hayes]

That concentration is ironically on some of the best land for growing. That is the problem. There seems to be a correlation between the most productive farmland and the concentration of solar applications.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

New Nuclear Projects: Wylfa

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Llinos Medi]

Nuclear is an important component of reaching our clean energy goal of net zero and bringing costs down, which I will touch on later in my speech.

Wylfa is located in a perfect site. It is on higher ground with hard bedrock, ideal for construction of a nuclear power station. The risks of coastal flooding, erosion and sea level rises are considered to be low. Its proximity to seawater means there is a readily available and abundant supply of cooling water. The site has nuclear heritage, with an existing grid connection established in 1971. However, that is at risk of being taken up by a large solar farm on the island—all the more reason for the Government to commit to the site before the opportunity is lost.

Significant work has already been accomplished at the site by Horizon to characterise the site and to seek licences and planning consent. There is considerable public and political support for the project, both nationally and locally. Vendors are serious about the site. The Nuclear Industry Association has told me that it has hosted several interested vendors who want to build at Wylfa, but are waiting for the Government’s plan. What discussions has the Minister had with developers regarding the Wylfa site? Is the Government’s lack of clarity deterring investment?

The Government have argued that regulations are stifling new nuclear. They claim that

“The industry pioneered in Britain has been suffocated by regulations and this saw investment collapse, leaving only one nuclear power plant—Hinkley Point C—under construction.”

Rather than overburdensome regulations, in fact political will is the reason Wylfa has been left behind. During the 2024 general election, Labour pledged to

“end a decade of dithering that has seen the Conservatives duck decisions on nuclear power.”

At present, it seems that this pattern of delays and false dawns is continuing, which is all the more shocking when we consider the fact that the original planning application was lodged for Wylfa B in April 1989—36 years ago.

Let us compare ourselves with other countries that are pushing ahead with new nuclear projects, such as the Czech Republic. Within five years, the Czech Government have gone from endorsing new nuclear at Dukovany in July 2019 to issuing tenders to developers shortly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, recognising the urgency of developing domestic energy generation capabilities, and are now on the verge of signing a fixed-price contract for two gigawatt nuclear power reactors at the price of $17 billion, which comes with a guarantee of at least $10 billion in work for the local area. Why can my community, which has been promised new nuclear at Wylfa for 50 years, not have the same benefits as Dukovany? What lessons are the Government drawing from the decisive steps that countries such as the Czech Republic have taken to invest in their nuclear industries in recent years?

What benefits would new nuclear at Wylfa bring to local people? It is estimated that a gigawatt plant at Wylfa would create 850 long-term jobs and 10,000 in the shorter-term construction. It would generate £90 million in wages annually for the local economy and likely nearly £40 million in business rates. The impact would be incredible, given that the decline of stable, well-paid employment in north Anglesey has left the area with fewer than 2,300 jobs. The project would bring good, well-paying, long-term jobs to north Wales, an area in desperate need of opportunity and new industry.

The Horizon project plan for Wylfa also estimated that 45% of the operational staff at the site would have come from north Wales and Anglesey, helping to draw back and retain Welsh speakers on the island. Wages would be well above the Anglesey average of £630 per week, helping to reverse the rising deprivation, low wages and economic inactivity in the region. Nuclear workers in Wales and the whole of the UK contributed around £102,300 per person in gross value added in 2022, four times the Welsh average of £23,804 per person. Construction of a large modular reactor at Wylfa would generate £5 billion in opportunities for the supply chain. A gigawatt project would be the single biggest inward investment in Welsh history.

The Government say that their No. 1 priority is growth. Backing investment in Wylfa is an obvious way to improve livelihoods and secure our energy supply for the long term. Despite those clear advantages, however, I am concerned about the Government’s approach: they have removed the list of designated sites, which included Wylfa, from their new nuclear planning policy. Their decision to consult on a new planning policy without committing to established sites such as Wylfa is creating damaging uncertainty and deterring the very investments we need.

I reiterate that Wylfa is the best site in Europe for a new nuclear project. What we need now is a clear strategic business case, a funding commitment and a timeline that gives developers the confidence to move forward. Of course I am supportive of future nuclear developments, including the next generation technologies such as small and advanced modular reactors, being prioritised at existing sites approved under the previous nuclear planning policy documents, which includes Wylfa, before other sites are looked at.

I will conclude by saying that it is astonishing that Wylfa, a site with proven capability, global potential and cross-party support, has been stuck in limbo for decades. People in Ynys Môn are fed up with the Labour Government, and the Tories before them, dragging their feet on this. Investors are ready, the community is supportive and the need for clean, secure energy has never been greater. What we need now is leadership, a clear decision, a funding commitment and a timeline to match the urgency of the moment. Will the Government finally give the people of Ynys Môn assurance that Wylfa will play a central part in their mission for the UK to become a clean energy superpower? Diolch.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks).

Cost of Energy

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Joy Morrissey]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The Conservatives have an excellent track record of putting in renewables. We were the first to bring in the coal-free plan to tackle energy, so that is an important way of moving forward. I would like to continue moving forward with cheaper energy bills to make sure that we protect our energy security while ensuring that costs are low for both the consumer and industry.

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

I apologise for arriving at the debate rather late, Mr Western. Needless to say, as a former Energy Minister, I take an interest in these matters. Anyone who shares that interest will understand that we need a mix of energy between renewables and non-renewables. Renewable energy has to be tested on the basis of whether it is cost-effective. Some renewables are and some are not; it is as simple as that.

[Joy Morrissey]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Some renewables are cost-effective and some are not; and some are a lot less energy-dense than gas or nuclear.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

Good morning; it is a pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Western. May I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this debate and, actually, for all our engagements over the past seven months? She always helpfully challenges the Government from a place of real passion and commitment, and I appreciate her words of wisdom, even if I do not always entirely agree with them. In fact, we have had countless debates on energy policy with a number of people in this room—it is beginning to become a bit of a weekly club here in Westminster Hall—and I appreciate all the points that have been raised.

May I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I just cannot get enough of his contributions? Having not spent enough time in the Commons yesterday, we are back again today, but I am appreciative none the less. I will come to his points about Northern Ireland later.

I will start where the hon. Member for Bath started: on the public’s view about the cost of energy. She made an important point about how central energy costs are not just to the cost of living crisis that our constituents are still living through, but to their belief in the Government’s ability to change things, so it is important that we tackle these issues. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) rightly said, this Government were elected on a manifesto that contained pledges on energy. I am privileged to have the job of Energy Minister, because for the first time in a very long time we have a Government with a key mission to fix the energy system in this country. The truth is that it needs to be fixed because of what we inherited from the previous Government.

The energy crisis in 2022 was just the peak that highlighted how vulnerable we are to the rollercoaster of the fossil fuel markets. The cost of energy continues to have a devastating impact on our constituents and communities right across the country. Although consumers are protected to a certain degree by the energy price cap, our energy costs are determined by volatile markets outwith our control. As long as we remain exposed to that, the risk to our constituents is that we will face yet another price spike in the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) made the point well that after 14 years of Conservative Government, we have to not just turn around one bit of the energy system, but deal with the whole series of occasions on which the previous Government failed to make decisions that would grapple with the scale of the problem. That is why I announced yesterday in the main Chamber our transitional support for Drax and biomass. The truth is that we got a good deal for consumers and for sustainability, but we had to make that decision. We had no other options because the previous Government left us with no long-term plan for energy security.

That is why we believe so firmly in our clean power by 2030 mission, which, by creating home-grown renewable energy, will help us to reduce our dependence on volatile fuel markets and will protect bill payers for good. Great British Energy will play a vital role in that mission by accelerating our deployment of clean energy so that Britain can become a clean energy superpower. Crucially, it will also invest in the supply chains that bring manufacturing jobs for renewable energy to our country.

[Sir John Hayes]

I understand the Minister’s desire to create more economic resilience by ensuring energy independence. By the way, I should refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of this contribution and the previous one. The key thing is transmission and distribution costs, which make up 15% of every energy bill. No Government have looked at that seriously. If we distribute energy production to small solar plants spread right across the kingdom, we will maximise the costs and damage the resilience that the Minister seeks. Will he focus on the concentration of energy production and bring it as close to consumption as possible?

[Michael Shanks]

I will come to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about transmission costs later, because it is important, particularly when it comes to how we grapple with constraint costs. The truth is that we will have to build more network infrastructure. I hope he will support the construction of that, although I suspect he will not. We also want to review energy market reforms to look at how we deal with some of these issues. I will come back to the important point, which a number of hon. Members raised, of how we build an energy system for the future. The question of balance is key. We do not want a renewables-only system, although renewables will be incredibly important. We announced last week our commitment to rolling out much more nuclear to provide the baseload and the security of supply. We have the ability to place small modular reactors across the country near centres of demand, such as the data centres that we will see in the future.

Electricity Grid Upgrades

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Ms Billington]

I am perfectly happy to acknowledge when the Opposition are right and I am afraid to say that on this one they are not. We need to preserve the nature we have, while increasing efforts to restore nature. To restore nature by 2030 by 30% is one of our manifesto commitments, and that has to be taken into account with planning and national infrastructure projects. We will not reach our ambitious climate targets without it. I am disappointed there was no reference to the impact of this kind of infrastructure on nature by the hon. Gentleman. Reaching our targets will require a strong land use framework that intersects with an energy special plan, to which we have committed, and an updated national planning policy framework. I am delighted that the Government are currently working on all three of these documents and I look forward to seeing more detail on them.

It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the importance of public consent and support. For anyone who is aware of my work before I came to Parliament, public consent and support are absolutely vital for us to be able to undertake the transformation that we are discussing. That also involves benefit for communities, and ownership and accountability for those communities, in the form of local energy projects to help us build a more resilient grid.

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

As a former Energy Minister and therefore someone who has been involved in strategic energy policy, including introducing, through the Energy Act 2013, the capacity market—still a critical part of what is used to determine from where we get our energy—and through my long experience in this House, although not as long as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), I say that public support for these things, linked to public benefit, is often an illusion. I have seen many developers, not just on energy projects, who have promised great public benefits and then they disappear like dandelion seeds on the wind.

[Ms Billington]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is unusual that we agree—it is certainly the first time, although perhaps not the last—that developers end up having far too much say in these things and that the community does not have enough. I agree that we need to talk about how we change that.

An important part of the assessment by NESO and by the Government is that 8 GW of energy could be generated by local and community projects, reducing the need for further strengthening of the grid and enabling smart, local, flexible energy. That would increase our resilience and, if we stop the idea of developers simply trying to buy off local communities with either compensation or spurious benefits, instead having proper, locally owned energy projects, would build public consent and support. Putting energy closer to where it is used will alleviate stress on the grid and help to handle bottlenecks. It is crucial to point out that that needs to be done as well as grid upgrades.

The idea that grid upgrades will not happen is wrong. GB Energy is crucial in helping to develop those projects across the country. I note that Opposition Members voted against GB Energy. I would be interested to know how they think we are going to be able to achieve our goals without it, especially when the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentions the vagaries of private developers and their ability to bulldoze local communities.

Locally led energy is going to be crucial, and GB Energy will be able to do that, embracing a locally led approach to building grid infrastructure. By integrating a focus on local place-based energy projects, we can build the grid we need by working with local authorities and communities across the country.

A locally led approach is crucial for building consent among communities, whose members want to see infrastructure built—the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex mentioned that—but want to be included in how it is built. That is why the rules need to be changed. I am pleased to see that there is at least consensus on that. If we are talking about the risks of damage to the environment as well as public consent and support, we need to be aware that a significant amount of undergrounding is more damaging for our climate goals and for protecting nature than some of the proposals on pylons.

This is not a debate about if we upgrade the grid; it is a debate about how we build it. I am assured that the Government will hear my representations on combining our ambitions on a clean energy superpower with restoring nature by 2030.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and to speak in this debate. I am going to speak about five things: the environment, efficiency, energy, economics and ergonomics.

I will start by talking about the environment, because this debate is clearly couched in a critical and shared understanding that the environment matters. But what is the environment? At a philosophical level the environment is, in a sense, our connection with reality. It is our link to the natural world through the experience and character of the places we live, and the places we live matter because they inspire us or disappoint us; they encourage us or leave us wanting.

Everyone deserves their chance to experience beauty. I make no apology for making the case for beauty; I have done so many times as a Minister, shadow Minister and Back Bencher. Everyone deserves their chance to experience beauty because, as Keats understood, beauty and goodness are inseparable. Beauty and truth are indelibly imprinted one upon the other. So when we speak about the pylons, let us speak about the effect they have on the places in which people live.

In Lincolnshire, particularly in my constituency, a row of huge pylons as big as Nelson’s column in a flat landscape will have a devastating effect on the vistas and views of not just the people who live in their immediate proximity but people from miles away. We will see those structures across the flat fens for 5, 10 or perhaps even 15 miles, which is unacceptable. It is an imposition on a flat landscape that historically has never enjoyed tall structures, with the exception of the churches, and they were built to the glory of God. The pylons certainly are not that, and I do not think even the Minister would defend them on that basis—their holiness, that is. So when we think of this immense row of pylons stretching down the east coast, let us understand their connection to the day-to-day environment and the things that affect people’s local sense of wellbeing. I hope the Minister will recognise that, for that reason, the more we can mitigate their effect, the better.

[Patrick Spencer]

May I put on the record my apologies for fluffing my speech a moment ago? One of the points I wanted to make is that we take into account our natural environment when we look at housing and planning policy. The reality is that when we want to build a development on the side of a village, put an extension on a house or expand our housing stock, planning authorities demand that we take into account the natural environment. That importantly includes the aesthetic, which we talk about a lot, as well as the preservation of our landscapes.

[Patrick Spencer]

If the Government choose to solve the housing crisis by taking into account our environment, why can we not do that with energy policy as well?

[Sir John Hayes]

We can and do. Contrary to what was said earlier, the existing planning policy does take into account the effect on the environment. That is why, for example, we do not build unsuitable things in areas of outstanding natural beauty. That is also why sites of special scientific interest matter in the planning system, as we mitigate what we can do by them, in them and near them. By the way, these pylons will run alongside one of the most precious natural environments in our country: the salt marshes that run along my constituency. They are a site of outstanding importance because of the bird life they sustain, which makes them a unique environment.

Let us be clear about the need to mitigate all else in the pursuit of maintaining those things that are already embedded in our planning system as highly significant, such as those of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) in his pithy and powerful intervention.

[Ms Billington]

Salt marshes are very much a unique environment. Does the right hon. Gentleman have concerns about the possibility of trenching through salt marshes as opposed to using pylons, which actually have less impact on the environment, particularly given the climate sink value of salt marshes? Would he concede that there might be a need for us to reconsider the way in which we tackle fragile environments such as salt marshes, rather than simply trenching them, which has done long-term damage?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

That is a good point, and it is why Lincolnshire county council’s submission to National Grid specifically takes into account the trenching problem that the hon. Lady raised. It suggests an offshore grid, but obviously one that avoids the damage she mentioned. I recommend that she studies that submission—it is in the public domain—to see how we can offshore that grid without damaging the salt marshes in the way she suggests.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made the relevant point that there are balancing factors. First, once cables are undergrounded, they are maintenance free, but pylons require constant maintenance, which therefore adds to their carbon footprint. Everybody has seen that. Secondly, salt marshes are very often Ramsar sites and migration bird sites, and we do not want overhead power lines interfering with the migration of birds. We often see that scores of swans have been killed on power lines because they are not very good at navigating around these things.

[Sir John Hayes]

With the insight for which he is known, my hon. Friend has anticipated two of the points that I was going to make. The problem with pylons being so close to SSSIs is that the birds do not know boundaries. Of course, the salt marsh in Lincolnshire matters because, exactly as my hon. Friend said, it is important as a site for geese and duck in particular. To run the pylons so close to that is at best highly contentious and at worse wholly destructive. The offshore grid that my hon. Friend describes can be run further out to sea, which is what we do with cables routinely. If we were able to see the ocean bed around our islands, we would see any number of trunked cables that run through them, which provide vital power and communications infrastructure.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

There is an interesting discussion about the balance of trade-offs. One of the other considerations is cost, and the cost of undergrounding is multiple times the amount of overhead pylons. The previous Government were not able to demonstrate that they could do it at the same cost, so how does the right hon. Gentleman balance that factor? Does he not think that his constituents, and constituents throughout the country, might consider the loading of those costs on to them unacceptable?

[Sir John Hayes]

There is a big argument to be had about costs because we are planning a project that will last decades—perhaps even longer. When I was the Energy Minister, I was very conscious of the fact that we might be making 100-year decisions. It is very hard to gauge costs over time because of two things. First, there are the ongoing maintenance costs associated with any line that runs above ground, and given the changing climate, it is likely that extreme weather events will become more frequent, and extreme weather events will have an effect on anything above ground. Secondly, the relative costs of underground and overhead cables vary according to the kind of cable laid, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said; and indeed some of the evidence from other places in Europe and elsewhere suggests that the cost of trunking cables underground is falling, whereas there is no similar reduction in the cost of overhead cables, which, on pylons, have been at the same cost for a very long time indeed.

The final point is about consent. The longer these things take, the more they cost. Certainly in Lincolnshire—and I imagine this is true in Essex, Suffolk and other places—there will be protracted legal challenges to the pylons, whereas, with local support and the support of local authorities like Lincolnshire county council, undergrounding would be a much more straightforward affair. Factoring in those costs is complex, but it needs to happen.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Very briefly, the ESO review of the east of England network demonstrated that there is a higher up-front cost for undergrounding of an extra £1 billion from Norwich to Tilbury, but in the longer term it saves money. It is just not correct to say that undergrounding is automatically much more expensive. That is a departmental mantra that is now discredited—just read the ESO and NESO documents.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention—he is being very generous in giving way—can I just say that we have to move on to the Front-Bench speakers at 10.30 am and there are many people who wish to participate? I have not imposed time limits; all I am saying is that there are 13 minutes left and probably seven people who want to speak.

[Sir John Hayes]

On that basis, Sir Christopher, I will not give way again, for as you have noted, I have been immensely generous. I will abbreviate my remarks without missing out any of the other four subjects that I promised to speak about. Let me deal with them very rapidly. Efficiency is critically important in delivering energy policy. As I have already said, if we want to get that policy pursued and delivered quickly, we need an approach that avoids the protracted debates and disputes I have described.

Let us speak more strategically about energy policy, on which the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made a powerful point; we need to understand that bringing supply closer to demand is vital at a strategic level. Successive Governments have failed at this. A lot of people have made comments about the previous Government—the previous Government would have done a lot better if they had listened to me more often. I hope this one will; then they will not go wrong. It is important to reconsider the relationship between supply and demand. No Government have done that with sufficient vigour, and I hope this one will.

On economics, putting in the pylons will also have a displacement effect, because Lincolnshire is perhaps the most important county of all in respect of food production. I understand that about 30% of the fresh produce we consume goes through my constituency. South Lincolnshire produces 20% of the vegetables we consume, 20% of the sugar beet, and so on. The displacement effect of energy infrastructure, including pylons and solar, will have a devastating effect on food production and therefore food security. I simply say to the Minister that energy security must not be made the enemy of food security, and vice versa. That is why the economics are more complex than they perhaps first appear.

Finally, on the cognitive ergonomics of Government, it is really important that in winding up, the Minister assures this Chamber that the Departments across Government are working closely together. We have talked about land use studies, and that is a good thing, but given the commitments that the Planning Minister has made to beauty and the commitments that the Environment Secretary has made to food production and security, it is important that we do not simply pursue a policy that is invidious because it contradicts the other priorities of Government. In my long experience as a Minister in a variety of Departments, I have found that lateral thinking in Government is a rare and precious thing; I simply recommend to the Minister a more lateral approach in combining those critical priorities.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is right: we need to approach this in a bolder than partisan way, because we are speaking about fundamental decisions in the interest of our country. This is a matter of national interest, but it does not have to be a matter of national interest that compromises the common good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

I will finish my point because it is directly related to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Central Suffolk. We already have pylons running through that part of the world. We have Mendlesham mast, which can be seen from miles around. We also have Eye airfield, big business parks, warehouses and farm buildings. We already have infrastructure in place.

[Sir John Hayes]

We already have horror; let us have more.

[Jack Abbott]

It is not horror at all; it is infrastructure that people desperately rely on. The right hon. Gentleman might want to live in a fantasy in which costs do not matter and there are no trade-offs. Well, that is not the case.

I also say to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex: East Anglia and the fenlands, which he mentioned, are critical, because if we do not build the energy transition infrastructure that we need, guess what? There is no landscape. We will be surveying everything from a boat. That is the reality.

National Grid Proposals: North East Lincolnshire

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise the issue of National Grid’s proposals for the Grimsby to Walpole route, which, if realised, will see stretches of pylons constructed across the countryside in Lincolnshire and neighbouring regions. There can be no doubt but that this would have a major impact on the environment and economy along the length of the route. My focus today is on the section passing through North East Lincolnshire, though I note the presence of Members from other affected constituencies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) led an excellent Westminster Hall debate on this matter on 2 May, and I fully support the points that he and others raised, but such is the concern—and to some extent anger—of local residents that I wanted to wait for an opportunity to focus on the effect on North East Lincolnshire. I am pleased, thanks to Mr Speaker, to have the opportunity to put on record my concerns about National Grid’s proposals.

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

My hon. Friend is generous in allowing me to intervene to emphasise the case for South Holland and The Deepings, which faces exactly the menace he describes. What is proposed would compromise food security by using valuable agricultural land and blight the landscape, as well as endangering, in my judgment, the wildlife in the site of special scientific interest that covers the saltmarsh on the coast. This must be stopped, in the public interest and for the common good.

[Martin Vickers]

As my right hon. Friend says, it must be stopped, and that is what I and my constituents want.

My concerns reflect those of my constituents, a significant number of whom have been in touch with me in recent months to voice their understandable anger and concern at the National Grid plans. The main villages impacted are Brigsley, Ashby cum Fenby, Barnoldby le Beck and Waltham. These are attractive traditional villages that face being blighted by monstrous metal structures and cabling. While it may not be the legal case, the reality is that projects on this scale require popular consent if they are to be delivered well. There is no point in bulldozing through public opinion; this will lead to further resentment and distrust. There are alternatives and they must be considered. Decisions such as these are an opportunity for Governments to show that the views of local communities matter and that there are ways of delivering the much-needed improvements to the grid that take account of those views.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

The hon. Member and I agree that we must champion the importance of delivering cheaper bills for consumers. This does not have to be a binary choice between tackling climate change and delivering cheaper consumer bills. By investing in a cleaner, more efficient energy system, we can do both.

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

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The benefits of renewables cannot come at any cost. In that spirit, I welcome the commitment of the Secretary of State and in particular the Minister to protect food security through the additional protections of versatile and productive agricultural land. Will the Minister also affirm the Government’s determination to protect areas that are particularly affected by energy infrastructure—pylons, wind and solar—such as the Lincolnshire fens, the Somerset levels and Romney Marsh? Food security matters just as much as energy security in the national interest for the common good.

[Justin Tomlinson]

We are proud to have taken renewables from just 7% under the last Labour Government to 47% today, but my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the need to tackle clustering. The Secretary of State reiterated clear guidelines and advice for local authorities and planning committees up and down the country to make sure that we safeguard, wherever possible, our key agricultural lands as part of our commitment on food security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

With the final question, I call Sir John Hayes.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now that the Government have recognised the importance of versatile and productive agricultural land in respect of solar, will they recognise too the threat of a monstrous string of pylons stretching right down the east coast of England? We either care about our green and pleasant land or we do not—for, as Keats understood, truth is beauty and beauty, truth.

[Justin Tomlinson]

My right hon. Friend will know that we value taking communities with us and working with them. I am having a number of meetings on this very subject to look at new technologies to see what additional options there could be to support local communities as we rapidly upgrade our national grid network.

Large-scale Solar Farms

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Westminster Hall

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

My hon. Friend has done a great service to the House by bringing this debate to our attention. As she will know, my constituency contains a disproportionate amount of that very fine agricultural land, even by Lincolnshire standards. To compromise food security in the interest of energy security is a nonsense. We will make our country more dependent on imports, damaging the environment and robbing our people of the chance of buying and consuming domestically made food.

[Dr Johnson]

As is usually the case, I completely agree with my right hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour. He will be aware that 12 nationally significant infrastructure project applications are currently in progress in Lincolnshire for large solar projects. That includes Beacon Fen, Springwell, Heckington Fen and Fosse Green Energy, all of which are in my constituency. Those solar schemes alone would cover 9,109 hectares of farmland; such an area would otherwise produce 81,000 tonnes of wheat, which would make 57 million loaves of bread or 1.5 billion Weetabix.

Despite the Government’s guidance that solar prospectors should avoid using the best and most versatile land, many of the proposals would cover enormous swathes of it. Fosse Green will use 2,479 acres of prime farmland, thereby reducing the UK’s valuable food production capacity and exacerbating food insecurity. The best and most versatile land makes up 30% of the Springwell solar farm and 49% of the Heckington Fen application.

Lincolnshire undoubtedly has—I am sure that hon. Friends will agree—the best farmland in the country, but it is not the only place affected by the menace of these massive, farmland-consuming solar applications. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who is unable to attend today, has been campaigning assiduously against Mallard Pass solar plant in her constituency. That project is to be located on 2,105 acres of agricultural land, 70% of which is grade 1 —our very best farmland. That is the equivalent of 1,300 football pitches and will be 10 times larger than the current-largest solar farm built in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

Surprise, surprise indeed. There is a clear incentive for a developer to report a lower grade of land in this context. The Minister has said to me that he would take steps to review that; will he update the House on what progress has been made?

[Sir John Hayes]

I am delighted to get a second bite of the cherry, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me that. There are three deceptions. The first, which she described, is of dodgy surveyors and agronomists reclassifying land so that it can be developed. The second is that these large developments include land of different grades. Even if part of the land is grade 1 or 2, because some is not, the developer prosecutes their case accordingly. The third, of course, is that by having these large developments, local authorities and local people are taken out of the frame altogether. Those are deliberate deceptions, and it is up to the Minister, who I know is a fine man with a strong sense of diligence in this regard, to take action to end them.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He summarises large parts of my speech succinctly.

Another issue that I want to raise is that although large-scale solar may technically be classified as clean energy, many tell me that the companies that supply it are neither morally clean nor environmentally green. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton had an Adjournment debate earlier this week in which she made an interesting but rather disturbing speech relating to the use of forced labour in supply chains of solar panels. Her debate highlighted the fact that many solar panels also use vast quantities of coal in their supply chain.

Fosse Green—one of the organisations trying to muscle in on rural Lincolnshire—appears as a British company, but its structure is rather complex. It is actually a joint venture involving two established solar developers: Windel Energy and Recurrent Energy. The latter is, according to the firm itself, the

“wholly-owned subsidiary of Canadian Solar incorporated”.

As highlighted by my hon. Friend, Canadian Solar gets its panels almost exclusively from China, where about 60% of the grid is accounted for by coal-powered energy plants. The plants will have a significant carbon footprint of their own, and once the panels are produced they will have to be transported to and within the UK on ships and lorries powered by hydrocarbons.

The other allegations made against Canadian Solar, which I understand the Minister will be investigating, are particularly worrying. What are the Government doing to investigate the actual benefit of solar projects, taking into account the panels’ production, transportation, regular cleaning and ultimate disposal, and to ensure that we are not complicit in the use of forced labour?

It is self-evident that the companies have little time for the views of those who will be most affected by them. I recently conducted a survey in my constituency in the areas most affected by large-scale NSIP applications. Letters were sent directly to thousands of households in Sleaford and North Hykeham, and I received over 2,000 handwritten responses. These were not simple online forms that could be clicked and submitted multiple times; they were thought-out responses, many of which contained pages—and I mean pages—of heartfelt comments. Of the respondents, 90% were concerned about the enormous scale of the proposals, 68% were extremely concerned about the use of productive farmland, and 55% were extremely concerned about the visual impact.

The accusation often levelled against people who are against the proposals but have to live next to the projects is that this is merely nimbyism: “We like solar panels, but just not next to us.” Actually, although visual impact was a considerable factor in the responses, the far greater concern was about the loss of productive farmland. A significant proportion of my constituents are veterans, serving military personnel and those who work in agriculture, and they more than anyone else understand the extreme importance of food security. The most common response was that we must protect our prime agricultural land in the interests of food security.

That said, I also have sympathy with the aesthetic arguments. Lincolnshire is a particularly beautiful county, and the countryside has inspired much of our nation’s best art and literature. Lincolnshire’s pre-eminent literary figure, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, felt his deepest sympathies for an unaltered rural England, and found himself a stranger in the rapidly changing industrial and mercantile world of 19th-century England. His work remains remarkably relevant to our situation today. His much-loved poem “The Brook”, a memorable personification of a stream, ends with the following lines:

“For men may come and men may go,

But I go on for ever.”

What do we allow to go on forever? Do we allow the industrialisation of our countryside, or do we honour the landscape that has inspired so much of our great literature? Edmund Burke noticed that happiness is the promise of beauty, and it is clear that rural communities will be far unhappier after being deprived of the natural beauty of their surroundings.

Solar prospectors often hide behind claims that their panels will be hidden from public view, but that is often not the case. The panels are often more than 4 metres tall—twice the height of the tallest gentleman here—and especially visible from higher areas. Even in a relatively flat area like Lincolnshire, enormous solar seas such as the Fosse Green project could be seen from the limestone cliff running down the county. Their glint and glare could disturb any onlookers, and they are a particularly big threat to our national treasure, the Red Arrows.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend has made some excellent points. He is right that commercial pressures and the legislation we signed up for—I was happy to vote for that to reach net zero—are driving this between them. We have a lot of unintended outcomes from the policy; it was introduced for laudable aims, but it is time to pause things and look at the matter again.

People have talked about nimbys. It is a really interesting issue, because people will ask, “Where would you put the solar panels instead? Where would you put the additional ones required to fulfil our solar capacity targets?” Our British energy strategy includes ambitions to have 70 GW of solar capacity by 2035, and we are at something like 15.7 GW as of January this year. I believe that if we oppose something and do not like what is in front of us, we should suggest what should be done instead. We should be constructive. We should not just oppose things and not come up with a solution; that is what Labour does, and that is not my style.

On the subject of Labour, by the way, it is unclear to me and local residents what Labour’s position locally is on the solar power project. It should not really surprise anyone that locally Labour is sitting on the fence—or on the solar panel, if I may stretch the metaphor—on the issue. That is what Labour does on every issue: says one thing and does another, or changes its mind every five minutes. It is certainly doing that locally.

People will probably say to me, “Aren’t you just a nimby?” Maybe I should ask myself that as well. As some Members may know, I had the great privilege of serving as the Housing and Planning Minister, and I am familiar with these debates. However, I say to my hon. and right hon. Friends that that is the wrong question and the wrong way of looking at the problem. I will briefly explain why. Deciding where to put infrastructure, whether it is housing, roads or solar farms, will always be controversial. We need to build these things. Nobody wants them next to them and, certainly to my knowledge, nobody has ever campaigned for more development next to them, be it housing or infrastructure.

It is therefore often said that those people must be nimbys and their views should be pushed aside in the interests of progress. There is no easy way around this, even if we prioritise the views of local communities, because the idea that there is anywhere else in the country where somebody will not object to something being built is a fantasy. It is idiotic to divide people into two camps of nimby and not nimby—unless they are Liberal Democrats, of course, who are bananas. That stands for “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone”—that is their policy.

I have the greatest respect for the yimby movement— I really do; it is doing some good things. However, I suspect that were those people to move to a different area, out of the city and into the countryside, next to a development site or into the green belt that was about to be built over, they might change their view. I speak as someone who has a little understanding of the area; I think all of us MPs do. We understand human nature, and we know that people will deceive themselves and others. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but the evidence in front of me strongly suggests that I am right. It is pointless and wrong to attack nimbys when everyone essentially feels the same about our landscape and our area.

[Sir John Hayes]

That is indeed right. If a Member of Parliament does not defend their own area, surely they are not really doing their job, are they? My backyard is South Holland and the Deepings, and I will certainly defend it to the death from the kind of menace represented by this kind of large-scale solar.

[Rachel Maclean]

I really enjoy hearing my right hon. Friend speak about the matter, because more than anyone else he has brought the concept of beauty and its impact on our wellbeing into public policy. I thank him for that.

I will deliberately move away from the concept of blaming people for being nimbys, because unless we understand how human psychology works, we will not be able to solve the problem of where to put things that nobody wants. There is another way to think about this. It is much easier and cheaper to install infrastructure on a virgin field, rather than to engineer it somewhere else in the built environment or on brownfield. That is more favourable, but it will take cash.

If anyone tells us that we can simply complete a project on brownfield for the same cost as on greenfield, they have no idea what they are talking about. Yes, I am looking at Labour, because that is essentially Labour’s plan for reforming the planning system. Why? Brownfield is brown for a reason: something else was there before. That something else needs to be removed and the site put back to a clean condition, which involves removing toxic materials and engineering problems.

That costs money, and that is why we have Government agencies and grants funded to the tune of £10.5 billion, in the case of Homes England, to do exactly that. However, that money is our money; it is taxpayers’ money. If we want more of it, we must spend more money on it, which means less money to spend on all the other things that voters want and the Opposition have promised, such as the NHS and so on.

By the way, Labour has repeatedly said that it wants to build on the green belt, or the grey belt, whatever that is. I will be honest: there is some merit in that argument, but that is because we are already doing that. It is Government policy, when it is done sensibly and in consultation with local communities and backed by Government funding. It is happening all over the country. Where it is not happening is in—surprise, surprise—Labour-run planning authorities, most notably London. Sadiq Khan is woefully behind on all his housing targets, even though he has been generously subsidised to the tune of 4 billion quid by taxpayers from around the country who are not lucky enough to live in London but are subsidising his frankly useless delivery record.

What is sad and shameful about this is that the need for housing and the cost of it is acute in London. The so-called housing crisis, which is just as much an immigration crisis as a housing crisis, is worse in London. In fact, if the Labour Mayor of London built enough houses in the capital, we could meet the annual national quota with room to spare and prevent speculative green belt development in the home counties and around the country, such as in the areas we represent. If we want a planning system that works with local people, we need to take a step back, look at our policy landscape and ask ourselves about the incentives that are driving these unfavourable outcomes.

Taking all the politics out of this, we are talking about human nature and behaviour. It is an illustration of the tragedy of the commons. Projects such as solar farms are needed to meet communal goals such as net zero, and most people agree that renewable energy is a good idea.

Energy Bill [Lords]

John Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The campaign that he may be referring to was signed up to by the Minister when he was not a Minister; he may have some other views on that these days, but the new clause is not too far from the original document that he signed a while ago. I am going to have to make some rapid progress, so I am sorry to say that I will not be able to take any further interventions. However, I will try to get through the measures we are proposing as quickly as possible, in order to allow other Members who are bursting to get into the debate the time to do that.

Our new clause 56 deals with delinking renewables and gas prices. A mechanism should be in place to ensure that the dividend from renewable power costs and prices can come through to customers. However, as we have seen in the recent power crisis, that is not the case at the moment. Gas prices surged to nine times the price of renewable power at some stages during the energy crisis and are still substantially more expensive than those of renewables, but they rule the roost as far as energy prices for the retail market are concerned, through marginal cost pricing. We think that needs to change through delinking the process and we wish to put an amendment in that would ensure that that happened, so that the benefit of renewable power can come to customers in the way that the whole House would intend to happen.

New clause 57 deals with onshore wind. Three minutes before the Bill came to the Floor of the House, a written statement on onshore wind was made by the Minister. I have had a chance to read it quickly and it seems to me as though it still treats onshore wind as a special case and not as an ordinary case of a local infrastructure project, which should receive no better and no worse consideration than any other such project. Onshore wind is essential to the decarbonisation of our energy system, but we have just let it collapse over a considerable period by, in effect, banning it. The Government are taking grandmother’s footsteps back from the ban, but this is still not good enough.

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

I was one of the architects of what the hon. Gentleman described as a ban. He will understand that, when onshore wind was no longer permitted across the UK, this catalysed the offshore industry and we became a world leader in offshore wind precisely because developers then chose to go offshore. Offshore wind has many advantages, not least its scale, the size of the turbines and the single point of connection to the grid. Onshore wind has none of those virtues.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is remarkably like saying I am encouraging you to use your second car because I shot the tyres out of your first car. The right hon. Member makes a quite ridiculous statement.

First, onshore wind is the cheapest form of power available. Secondly, it can be available for community and local energy, in the way described earlier. Thirdly, through CfDs, it can systemically provide a cheaper power environment for the population as a whole. It is a disgrace that only two turbines have been commissioned in this country since February 2022. It is a golden opportunity for decarbonisation that we are missing completely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Lack of investment does indeed have a direct impact. If we go back and look at what could have been the case and look at what is the case now, there is a direct link between energy prices now and the lack of development of onshore wind. Our amendment, which we hope to push to a vote, would make the way that onshore wind was treated simple and straightforward: it should be treated no differently from any other local infrastructure project. There should be the same protections, safeguards and concerns for people who have that local infrastructure coming their way. It should not be a special case, over and above other projects, which I think will produce an explosion of investment in onshore wind in future.

[Sir John Hayes]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Whitehead]

No. I have to make progress.

New clause 61—

“National Warmer Homes and Businesses Action Plan (No. 2)”—

addresses another area in which the Government have set out their aspirations. The Minister has said that the Government are making progress on their aspirations to retrofit homes, as set out in their national energy plans and the White Paper, “Powering our net zero future”. Those aspirations include having all homes at an EPC band C standard by 2035 and all private rented properties at band B by 2030. However, nowhere are there any plans about how we are actually going to do that or how homes that are among the worst insulated in Europe can be lifted to the levels needed by 2035. The Government are stuck with aspirations but no plan.

Our new clause puts a plan in place. It puts those aspirations into legislation and requires a Government plan to bring them about, which would be another enormous win for decarbonisation. People’s energy bills will fall, fuel poverty will be tackled and gas supply in retrofitted properties will reduce by perhaps 25%. It would be a win all round.

The Government have no plan. Labour has a substantial plan, which has already been put forward, including a 10-year programme to uprate and retrofit 19 million homes, costing £6 billion per annum by the second part of the next Labour Government, with a local authority and community base getting it done. That will transform the present, pretty paltry progress that has been made. Admittedly, there has been good progress in some areas, including the energy company obligation, the local authority delivery scheme, the home upgrade grant and other schemes, but who can forget the spectacular failure of the Government’s green homes grant a little while ago? Our new clause will transform the way that works and we want it to be added to the Bill.

New clause 62 is closely associated with new clause 61, but addresses the private rented sector.

New clause 59 is very important. We want to see the decarbonisation of our energy, power and electricity systems by 2030. The Government’s ambition at the moment is mostly to decarbonise the power system by 2035, but, again, they have no plan as to how that will actually happen. They have given no indication as to what steps they will take to achieve this, and they are certainly beginning to fail in the implementation of carbon budgets. Bringing forward the decarbonisation of the power system would greatly enhance that and allow us to meet our targets. Labour wants to see the complete decarbonisation of the system by 2030. That does involve massive uplifts in the rate of progress—for example, in offshore wind by five, in solar by three, and in onshore by two—and, indeed, the development of other renewables. In that regard, I recommend that hon. Members have a look at new clause 51.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: farmers want to conserve and to grow the food of this nation. They do not want to turn to solar, which landowners are often doing.

[Sir John Hayes]

Further to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), meanwhile, solar on buildings is absent. One drives around the country and sees huge warehouses, commercial buildings and office blocks with not a solar panel to be seen. Those panels are going on to land that should be growing food to produce the food security that this country needs. Food security and energy security combined means national resilience.

[Alicia Kearns]

I absolutely agree. That is why I still urge the Government to bring forward a strategy on rooftop solar—they can do so.

Turning to new clause 47, the UK has tough modern slavery laws. It is evident that we want to do something about that issue, but we cannot outsource the protection of human rights. There are developers who utilise forced labour in their supply chains—who not only violate our ethical and moral values but, as I say, pose a commercial risk. We cannot be reliant on Uyghur slave labour. Alan Crawford and Laura Murphy recently released landmark reports into the use of Uyghur forced labour in solar supply chains. They have made very clear that across the UK, there is just too much. Some 40% of all solar that is built in the UK is affected, and 45% of all polysilicon and solar panels around the world come from Xinjiang—they are made with slave labour. It is shocking to see that five pages of the recent report from Sheffield Hallam were dedicated to just one supplier, Canadian Solar, which is planning to build in this country and is a serial applicant. These same companies are tariff dodging repeatedly and trying to hide the reality of what they are doing.

My new clause 47 is very straightforward: it seeks to increase transparency. When a Minister makes a decision on a proposal of this magnitude, they should have full sight of whether there is forced slave labour within the application. Currently, a Minister making a decision on a nationally significant infrastructure project has no idea if the vast majority of the product to be put on British soil will be made with slave labour. I hope this will deter these companies and force them to finally choose to produce polysilicon without slave labour. There is no onus on the Government, there is no cost implication for them and I am not forcing their; I am asking for transparency, not least given that the US and the EU have both brought forward enormous Bills that deal with forced Uyghur labour in their countries or their areas of influence.

We have done nothing, and the reality is that we never walk the walk, but just talk the talk when it comes to the Uyghur. I cannot think of one piece of legislation that this Government have brought forward since my election that deals with Uyghur slave labour, yet we go to Beijing and then claim that we have raised it, based on no reality. Unfortunately, I have heard absolutely nothing today to reassure me that we genuinely want to deal with this, and that we recognise that it is not just in solar but across the energy footprint and is not just in China but in other places where components are made with slave labour. Therefore, at the moment I am minded to press the new clause to make sure that we finally deal with the reality of what we are facing and get some transparency within the system for our Ministers.

Planning and Solar Farms

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dr Johnson]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. In some respects, he has paraphrased my speech into a few sentences very eloquently, so I thank him. I ask the Minister to ensure that when the Government improve infrastructure they do not destroy the countryside in the process. The scale of these applications is quite difficult to imagine from a map alone, though I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has brought a map with him today. Each covers around 2,000 or more acres—that is just over 3 square miles. Some of these NSIP applications are larger than that, sometimes substantially.

I would also like to raise the threat of glint and glare from light reflecting off solar panels. In Lincolnshire this is especially significant due to the presence of the RAF. The Red Arrows operate from RAF Waddington, which sits on the edge of my constituency. The limestone cliff top means that the Fosse Way site that is being proposed will be an especially visible eyesore from across the constituency. Many of my constituents choose to live in a rural setting because of the superb views, which solar farms threaten to spoil entirely. The impact will also extend to house prices. Many of my constituents fear that houses with unburdened views will sell for much more, leaving residents individually out of pocket as well.

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

Before my hon. Friend moves to her next incisive and powerful point, I wonder whether she might recognise, given her expertise in this field, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) said, that arable land available to grow the food that we need to be secure is at its lowest level since 1945 and is being lost at around 100,000 acres a year; we lost over 750,000 acres in the 10 years to 2019. We cannot have it both ways: either we have food security from the production of domestically produced foodstuffs or we give up land for solar and onshore wind.

[Dr Johnson]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is right and has read my mind—I was going to move on to talk about food production.

I am particularly concerned about the use of good agricultural land because farming is a cornerstone of my constituency. It does not just form the backbone of the economy in my constituency, but it has evolved to underpin the area’s very culture. The pandemic and the war in Ukraine have revealed the fragility of the global food market, so it is more important than ever that we make strides towards becoming agriculturally self-sufficient.

I am informed by the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership that Lincolnshire alone produces 30% of the UK’s vegetables and 18% of its poultry, and is responsible for 12% of the country’s total food production—all from a county covering less than 3% of the UK’s land mass. Lincolnshire, without a doubt, has some of the UK’s best and most versatile farmland, yet it seems to be particularly targeted by large solar farms.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler) is not able to take part in this debate today, but she told me that she has similar issues in her constituency, and is particularly aggrieved by the loss of good agricultural land. I am aware of the concerns of Members of the House of Lords, too, including Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who told me of his concerns about the use of good-quality agricultural land local to him for solar farms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord]

The Liberal Democrats in general are, and I in particular am, very much in favour of renewable energy, and I am happy to put that on the record. On solar in particular, some of the proposals for solar farms, as they are called, are too large; we need to distribute and disperse such renewable energy projects so that they do not take up vast tracts of land, as they do in my constituency.

[Sir John Hayes]

I was going to ask the same question as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray). To clarify further, is the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) saying that he is against large solar developments on prime land? Or is he is saying that he wants many more of them and for them to be spread, meaning he would presumably like many more applications, in many more places, for smaller solar farms that eat up agricultural land?

[Richard Foord]

I am certainly in favour of more and more distributed solar energy generation. I am not in favour of some of the enormous solar complexes, including in my part of Devon, where an enormous amount is foisted on sometimes very small communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am worried about where those companies come from. This has all grown up very suddenly and they have huge financial resources. I suspect that they are not very interested in Lincolnshire; they are based in London. They are a group of entrepreneurs who are going to make shedloads of money and then sell the planning application on. They do not care a damn about us.

[Sir John Hayes]

When I became the Energy Minister, I assumed that the renewable industry would be full of people like Richard Briers of the Good family. Remember the Goods in “The Good Life”? They were people interested in keeping goats in their garden and doing a lot of composting. In fact, they were the kind of people who drove flashy sportscars and had been selling double glazing the week before. It is clear that this is not about the environment and renewable energy; it is about getting rich quick.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

In that brief period of the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), tried to change the definition to include 3b land. A huge mountain of well-funded lobbying money was put in immediately to frustrate the whole process. Make no mistake: this is not about the countryside and it is not about producing green energy in the right controlled way. It is about money. Some people are going to get very rich indeed.

Solar power has a vital part to play, but solar panels belong in moderate amounts—perhaps—on poor agricultural land, atop buildings and on brownfield sites, not on good farmland. Put them on top of large logistics centres at the side of motorways. Sit them on top of factories and industrial buildings. Put them on schools and houses, by all means, but good land needs to be kept in agricultural use.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, Ms Nokes, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing it. Like her, I take a profound interest—as she and certainly my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) will know—in all matters that concern the great county of Lincolnshire. They are right to say that Lincolnshire is disproportionately affected by this matter. Similarly, Lincolnshire is disproportionately the area that grows much of the food that is consumed across our country and which fills shop shelves and pantries in homes, so it is right that we take a profound interest in the use of its land to grow the crops we need to assure our country’s energy security.

I will speak about three things in this brief but telling contribution: energy, the environment and agriculture. When I was the Energy Minister, I discovered that it is critical for any country’s energy policy to have an energy mix—some baseload energy of the kind provided with nuclear power and some flexible energy that can respond to changing patterns of demand, because demand for energy is unpredictable. Of course, it is true that we heat and light our homes more in winter, but we can get sudden surges of demand, for instance, in a particularly cold snap, so we need flexible energy provision of the kind provided, for example, by gas.

Renewables are an important part of that mix. They do not have the flexibility of fossil fuels but are important in delivering our ambitions on carbon emissions. Renewables are not a good per se; they need to be in the right places and deliver the right volume of energy.

On those terms, when I was the Energy Minister and later in Downing Street and in the Cabinet Office, I was partly responsible for the moratorium on onshore wind. That had the effect—I would not want to suggest that I knew this at the time; I was not prophetic—of driving wind power offshore and catalysing the extraordinary success of our offshore wind industry. When the developers could not build onshore, they looked to how they could maximise offshore production and developed specialisms in doing so, which became world beating. Offshore wind is infinitely preferable to onshore wind for many reasons: first, because of the volume, size and number of turbines and the amount of energy that can be produced; and, secondly, because there is a single point of transmission back to the grid, rather than multiple points.

That brings me to solar, because solar is much the same: it is important but it needs to be in the right place. For the most part, solar should be on buildings. It is extraordinary that we drive around our country and see a proliferation of every kind of large building, particularly warehouses, without a solar panel anywhere near them, yet, simultaneously, we have these applications for large-scale solar farms on prime agricultural land. By prime, I mean grades 1, 2, 3a and 3b. Even grade 4 land is actually not entirely unproductive, but certainly in Lincolnshire, where there is a great deal of grade 1, 2 and 3 land, it is preposterous that on that very land, which could be making more of the food that our country needs, we put these huge solar developments.

I say to the Minister, who is sensitive to these subjects—I met him recently to discuss them, and I know that he is an extremely good and diligent member of this Government—that we need to refocus our efforts on developing on-building solar. Successive Governments have been inadequate in that respect.

What about the environment? The environment and an interest in the climate are related but not synonymous. Of course, the climate affects the environment, but the environment is more than just the climate. The environment is a matter of ergonomics, but it is also a matter of aesthetics. We either want to preserve what my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) called our green and pleasant land, and believe in our landscape and its use, or we do not. I do, frankly; I want our countryside to continue to be productive and beautiful. Why should we not make a case for beauty? I have been doing so in relation to buildings for years, so let me now do so about our landscape and countryside.

Do we really want to continue to industrialise the countryside? People say to me, “These solar developments will not last long.” How long, and why would another application simply not be put in at the end of the life of the solar development? As for onshore wind, it is not the turbine but the concrete that anchors it that will last forever. Solar panels on buildings are therefore essential to protect our environment.

The third thing I want to talk about is agriculture. Colleagues across the House understand, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, that a combination of the covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine has refocused attention on how we can be more secure, both in energy and in food production. That is a delight to those of us, like my right hon. Friend and I, who have wanted to protect our economy for years. We have started to see the liberal obsession with free trade unravel, and that is a very good thing. In essence, that means that whereas the proportion of food produced in this country has declined over our lifetimes—we used to make more of the food that we consume here in Britain—we now need to move in the opposite direction. That will not happen if we use up all the land for these other things.

In the 30 seconds I have left, let me say this: this is an argument about energy, but it is actually an argument about much more than that. I hope that the Minister will be characterised, as he looks back on his legacy, as being the man who for the first time took seriously our concern for the environment, our need for an appropriate energy mix and our belief in British food for British consumers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes and to respond to what has been a genuinely interesting and thought-provoking debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing the debate and thank all hon. Members who have participated this afternoon.

Last year was the UK’s warmest on record and one of the sixth warmest ever recorded globally. The record-breaking temperatures we experienced last summer, including our first ever 40-degree day, caused an unprecedented number of heat-related deaths, wildfire incidents and disruption to infrastructure. Yet the occasionally severe weather we experienced last year is only a foretaste of what is to come, unless our country plays its full part in decisively slowing the rate of global heating to prevent it reaching catastrophic levels. On that, I think the room is ostensibly agreed.

The science, as we all know, is unequivocal. Bold action is required and it is required now. However, when it comes to the UK’s net zero emissions target, the Government have consistently been long on aspiration but short on tangible progress. The UK’s nationally determined contribution requires emissions reductions of 68% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels and the Government’s sixth carbon budget requires them to be slashed by 78% by 2035. Yet in their June 2023 progress report, the Climate Change Committee states plainly that its confidence in the achievement of both targets

“has markedly declined from last year.”

Put simply, the overall pace of climate delivery under the Government remains woefully inadequate.

If our country is to meet its interim targets, reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and lower energy bills for consumers, the Government need to do far better, including when it comes to the domestic deployment of established low-cost technologies such as solar. Having over recent years subjected solar to a series of erratic policy changes and reductions in support, including slashing rates for the feed-in tariff scheme in 2015, the British energy security strategy published in April of last year finally provided a welcome measure of certainty, committing the Government to a fivefold increase in solar deployment by 2035 and taking levels from the current 14 GW of capacity, the bulk of which is ground-mounted, to 70 GW.

The Government have also been clear as to the scale of solar deployment likely to be necessary to meet the UK’s wider net zero targets, with a technical annex to the “Power Up Britain” policy paper published in March suggesting that approximately 90 GW of solar will ultimately be necessary. Yet last year saw just 0.7 GW of new solar deployed, in a rate of installation that falls well short of what is required to meet the Government’s target. As the Climate Change Committee has stated in its 2023 progress report,

“The deployment of solar capacity is significantly off track to meet the Government’s target of 70 GW by 2035.”

To get on track for that target, the committee makes clear that the Government need to facilitate the delivery of

“An average annual deployment rate of 3.4 GW”.

This House can debate what the precise split should be between large and smaller-scale projects, what types of land should be prioritised for solar deployment and how we best maximise the efficiency of land that is utilised. However, the only fundamental question is precisely how we markedly drive up solar deployment rates, not whether we need to. Moreover, every hon. Member who is engaging with the debate today in good faith needs to at least have an answer as to how the extra 3.6 GW of annual solar capacity implied in the Government’s target should be accomplished.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Surely he recognises that by far the best way of doing so is to put solar on buildings. Every public building, warehouse, agricultural building, office and industrial estate could have and should have solar. The advantage of that would be to bring energy production and consumption into closer union and reduce transmission and distribution costs that make up about 15% of every energy bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The right hon. Gentleman has a lot of expertise in this area, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. He pre-empts a point that I will come to. We think the Government should be far more ambitious and creative about rooftop solar, which we think can meet the bulk of our solar needs.

As the House is aware, the Labour party has committed to delivering a zero emission power system by 2030—five years ahead of the Government’s target date—and we assess that honouring that commitment will require us to triple the deployment of solar by the end of this decade to up to 50 GW of capacity. We are under no illusions: we know that is a stretching target, but it is essential to achieving zero carbon power by the end of the decade, and a Labour Government will do what is necessary to meet it.

Our plans are premised on a significant uplift in solar photovoltaic deployment on rooftops, which analysis suggests could provide the bulk of the 50 GW of capacity that we want to be installed by 2030. I think hon. Members are broadly in complete agreement on that point. As I said, we want the Government to be far more ambitious and creative in how they do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

Absolutely not. There is no automatic green-light system, and I am assured that every proposal is looked at on a case-by-case basis and on its merits, taking into account the opinions and concerns of the local communities it will affect.

The NPPF makes it clear that local planning authorities should have a positive strategy for producing energy from renewable and low-carbon sources, such as solar farms. It sets out that where a significant development of agricultural land is shown to be necessary, areas of poorer quality should be used in preference to those of higher quality. If it is proposed to use any land that falls under Natural England’s BMV classification—best and most versatile agricultural land—that needs to be justified during consideration of the planning application. As defined in the NPPF, “best and most versatile agricultural land” constitutes land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification planning decisions, and decisions should continue to be made based on that definition. However, I have heard the concerns raised by hon. Members, and I will ensure that DLUHC Ministers are made aware of them.

[Sir John Hayes]

I know time is brief, but can we take it that there is a presumption against development on prime agricultural land—certainly grades 1, 2 and 3a? I take the point about 3b, but let us just deal with the first three. Is there a presumption against the kind of development that takes valuable land out of food production?

[Andrew Bowie]

My right hon. Friend will have heard my earlier contributions. We are determined to ensure that land is protected for food security reasons and that this green and pleasant land that we are all so proud to represent continues to be just that. However, I understand the concerns of right hon. and hon. Members, so I will ensure that DLUHC Ministers hear them loud and clear.

Before I conclude, I will briefly turn to the issue of slave labour and China. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton knows my personal position on the issue, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will have heard loud and clear her representations here today. We are supporting the UK solar industry’s main trade association, Solar Energy UK, in leading the response from business to include securing the solar panel industry’s commitment to a robust supply chain traceability protocol, supporting a global co-ordinated response from the solar industry—the Solar Stewardship Initiative—and communicating relevant UK and international human rights frameworks. I will meet my hon. Friend in due course to discuss her proposed new clause to the Energy Bill.

I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for attending today and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for securing this important debate. I will of course ensure that DLUHC and DEFRA Ministers are made aware of the issues and serious matters raised this afternoon. We are committed to reforming policy so that it continues to complement wider Government ambitions: food security and preserving agricultural land, reforming the infrastructure planning system that focuses on improving community engagement, and introducing a new framework of environmental assessment through DLUHC’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I once more thank everybody for their contributions this afternoon.