Floating Solar Panels

Debate between Mark Francois and Lincoln Jopp

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope we are going to give hope across the House and therefore across the country that this alternative solution to putting solar panels on grade A agricultural land is, to a certain extent, an answer to a maiden’s prayers. Not only does floating solar remove the opportunity costs of putting it on agricultural land, but one of its beauties is that it is twice as efficient as a land-based system. Land-based systems warm up because they are on the land, and as they warm up they become less efficient, whereas floating solar panels, because of the evaporative effect on the underside, remain automatically cool and 100% efficient throughout a sunny day.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is not here, unusually, perhaps I can fill in for him. We have already heard from one of my Essex colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), about the controversy in Essex over a number of solar farm developments on land. Before the 2010 boundary changes, I had a very large reservoir in my constituency at West Hanningfield, which would be ideal for the technology my hon. and gallant Friend is suggesting. Does he not believe that many hundreds of other reservoirs across the country would be so suited?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I do, indeed. I was not 100% sure which Minister would respond to this debate, so I have had only the briefest of moments to look at the lake in Burgess park in the Minister’s Peckham constituency to see whether that may be suitable for floating solar.

We have talked about the opportunity costs and about doubling efficiency. I am sure hon. Members will have worked this out, but the 2,000 acres of reservoir in my Spelthorne constituency are raised, which means no one can see the top of them unless they are flying off to Torremolinos or landing from Dubai. Therefore, there would be none of the visual vandalism that people object to so much, and the carpeting of our beautiful country in solar panels would go away too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. The Queen Mary reservoir in my constituency has a plug-in point to the national grid at one end of it. The ability to minimise the disruption that is caused by placing solar farms away from where the power is needed is certainly a consideration that plays into this.

Hon. Members will think, “Well, that must be his list complete. Those must be all the benefits of floating solar, because there can’t be any more.” But I say to the House that one of the most astonishing things about floating solar is that it improves the water quality underneath, as it is denuded of light and heat. There are things that grow in the water which the water companies subsequently have to filter out to make it tap-ready for us and our constituents. The water companies have to use fewer filtrants where the surface has been covered by floating solar. We have covered the evaporative effect, so I think I have made the case for floating solar.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point about being able to use floating solar to obviate the need for development on green-belt land in other parts of the country. Is he aware that a development has been proposed by Bloor Homes at Dollymans Farm in my constituency for up to 1,300 houses, which is a major issue in the ongoing by-election in Wickford Park? Does he agree that to prevent the housing at Dollymans Farm, people should vote for the excellent Conservative candidate, Lewis Hooper, before the polls close tonight?

[Lincoln Jopp]

We have gone from Cooper to Hooper! I am delighted to follow my right hon. and gallant Friend’s endorsement, and wish everyone there the opportunity to get to the polls today to exercise their democratic right.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Mark Francois and Lincoln Jopp

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very pithy intervention. He pays me a back-handed compliment. How outrageous that His Majesty’s Opposition should try to raise a difficult issue in the middle of a Bill Committee; if I were to go back through the annals of Hansard down the centuries, I am sure there would be some precedent for that.

This was a timely opportunity, if I can put it like that, to table the issue. There is a consultation coming up, and I suspect, looking at his face, that the Minister was not really au fait with this issue—I am not being rude to him—but he is now, and I will be very interested to hear what he has to say.

The key point here is that death in service benefits have traditionally been payable if someone dies while in the armed forces or in the service of the Crown, whether or not they were on active service. A person who died back at home with their family would still qualify for the money. Under the armed forces pension scheme, they would still qualify if they had a regular partner. Under the Bill, however, because we are now dealing with the inheritance tax rules, unless the individual is married or in a civil partnership the exemptions do not apply. That is the critical point. I suspect the Ministry of Defence had not picked up on it. The Forces Pension Society, which exists for exactly this kind of eventuality, has done what it says on the tin and raised an issue that could materially affect armed forces pensions. In some ways, I am acting as their factotum this afternoon in tabling the issue.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I do not think it is, actually. This is important, because as written—without the amendment—the provision refers to a matter that

“arises in connection with ongoing service of persons subject to service law”.

As soon as someone is killed, therefore, they are not within the purview of the Armed Forces Commissioner and nor are their families, because there is no more ongoing service. Is that not the point?

[Mr Francois]

I think it is. Those who have left the service, are by definition no longer subject to service law; they are subject to the laws of the country like any other civilians, as that is what they have become, albeit they are civilians with the special status of being a veteran, which we should respect. But they are no longer serving in His Majesty’s armed forces. The amendment would allow the commissioner to expand their remit little bit in order to look at pension-related issues, which are something that armed forces personnel regard as part of their general service welfare. When they are taking that stick or twist decision, weighing up the pluses and minuses of whether to stay or leave—particularly if they have been in the service for some years and have accumulated a reasonable pension pot—that is definitely something that they will take into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I only have two points to make. First, if it reassures the hon. Lady, I did read into the record that she had a conflicting appointment downstairs in the main Chamber and that that was why she was not here. I am not so sure about her colleague, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), but I did place it on the record that she had to be downstairs.

As I understand it, recruits would be subject to service law once they have taken the oath and joined the armed forces. If one takes that as one’s handrail, they should already be covered by the Bill. None the less, I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, so perhaps the Minister could kindly clarify whether my understanding is correct.

[Lincoln Jopp]

It occurs to me that, prior to taking the oath, there is a body of people who are prospective recruits. They have a material impact on morale, because if they take months and months to get through the pipeline to become recruits, the wastage rate increases and fewer people turn up in training, which means that the armed forces are undermanned. I would have thought that that was something the Armed Forces Commissioner might want to do a thematic investigation into. It is tricky, because these people are not subject to military service, but maybe the Secretary of State could nevertheless consider the issue in defining the role with the new commissioner.