Solar Panels on Agricultural Land

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, as always, Ms Jardine. I thank all hon. Members for coming to this debate. Obviously, many colleagues from across the House have raised concerns about projects in their constituencies. I understand entirely why, but given that those projects are subject to planning processes, I will say at the outset that I cannot comment on the positives or negatives, or the decisions through the NSIP—nationally significant infrastructure project—process, in relation to any of those particular applications. Those are rightly matters for the Secretary of State to make decisions on in due course.

I will touch on the general points that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) made. First, we should recognise an area where I think we have common agreement: building infrastructure across our country is necessary but it should be done in sensible locations and take account of local impacts. I have said throughout that I find much of the nimby debate coming up in this a bit redundant, when we are actually trying to bring communities with us. But I have also said clearly that we need to build infrastructure as a country, and it is not possible to just build all of it “somewhere else”. Inevitably, in these debates, we often get back to the argument that people are in favour of the technology, but “just not anywhere near my constituency.” There has to be some common ground in the middle that recognises that we need to build infrastructure somewhere.

Solar is particularly important because it tackles our energy security issues, and is also by far the cheapest electricity generation to deploy in the country at the moment. With affordability at the forefront of all our constituents’ minds, it is right and proper that we try to deploy as much solar as we possibly can.

[Graham Stuart]

Of course, I had the Minister’s role just two and a half years ago. I think I agree with pretty much everything he has said so far, but there is a backlash because we are seeing so much high-quality land lost. We are seeing a cumulative impact, which, again, notionally, the Government say should be looked at, but they never seem to stop a project. There is also the issue of slave-labour supply chains.

I therefore invite the Minister to tighten up the rules on best and most versatile land, given that 60% of the land is not the best and most versatile. I also invite him to tighten up the rules so that there is real protection around cumulative impact, and to tighten up the rules on slave-labour supply chains. I think that he can still fulfil his ambition to see the infrastructure built and make sure that we have a system that is sufficiently rigorous so that communities are quieted. It will not stop every nimby everywhere, but at least it will give reassurance and show that there are real rules providing real protection, because right now that absence is causing scepticism right across this House and across the country.

[Michael Shanks]

I will come to several of those points. The right hon. Gentleman has always been more pragmatic than his party on many of these issues—I hope that does not do him a disservice—and I have always appreciated that. He is right that we want to try to find a place where we can build the infrastructure that we need but bring communities with us and not turn them away from the energy transition. That is really important.

I want to share some statistics, because individual applications often paint a picture of a much greater use of land across the country than is actually the case. At the end of September 2024—the latest set of figures I have—the land devoted to solar farms covered an estimated 21,000 hectares, which is around 0.1% of the UK’s total land. Even in our most ambitious deployment scenarios in the clean power action plan, we expect to get to 0.4% of deployment and 0.6% of agricultural land in the country. I recognise that there are local impacts from all these projects—I speak as a Member of Parliament from an area very close to some of the biggest onshore wind farms built under the previous Government—and that land use is a challenge across communities, but this is nevertheless a very small proportion of land across the country overall.

The right hon. Member’s second point was about supply chains, on which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) rightly challenged us, and I will say two things. First, it was right that we accepted the amendment but also set up Great British Energy to not only be a leader in how we build supply chains, but to try to get a supply chain on solar panels here in the UK again and do due diligence on supply chains coming in from China. There is much more work to do and I do not pretend that the work is complete yet. Some initiatives, such as the solar stewardship initiative, need to go further to ensure that we get into the detail of supply chains.

Secondly, when we left Government in 2010, three companies were building in solar supply chains in the UK and, when we came back, there were none. That comes back to a really important point about re-industrialisation: if we want supply chain security, a line of sight on things such as human rights, and to create good jobs across the country, we need to invest in manufacturing capability. We need to nurture it and not let it go to the wall, which is where we get to particular risks.

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Michael Shanks]

I give way first to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the Minister accept that one of the reasons why so many UK firms disappear is that they cannot compete against firms, especially from China, who have cheap labour or labour at no cost at all? That is why it is so important that the Government tighten down on where the supplies of this equipment come from.

[Michael Shanks]

I give way to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The main point I want to make to the Minister is that China thwarts all the rules around commerce. It subsidises all its industries, including the solar industry. It uses slave labour, which we have mentioned. The thing about slave labour is that America does this in a much cleaner way: it assumes that the companies are using slave-made solar panels and leaves it to the company to prove, using serious checks including forensic science, that it is not. The Government should look at and adopt that process; it would kill the supply of slave-made solar panels tomorrow.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman; he made similar points during the passage of the Great British Energy Bill. We continue to look at and review that across Government in relation to procurement and Government investment in these projects. We want to incentivise, as much as possible, supply chains to be here in the UK.

I do not accept the point from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that cost alone is the reason why we do not have supply chains here in the UK. We must use the mechanisms we have to encourage manufacturing in the UK. That is why such things as the clean industry bonus are about saying that, alongside contracts for difference to build renewable energy in the UK, companies can also get investment to make sure that manufacturing is here in the UK, too, and the jobs that go with it. We also need security at a time when supply chains are critical. No doubt this is a challenge and I accept that point, but there is more we can do.

I want to come back to what the right hon. Member for Tatton said about net zero zealotry. I think there is quite a lot of anti-net zero zealotry in this debate. At the end of her speech, she said something that I completely agree with. I hope there is recognition that solar is part of an energy mix, not the entirety of it. We need a mix of technologies, but the quicker we can get off fossil fuels, the better it is for our energy security in a very uncertain world, as we are all experiencing, and in terms of bringing down bills. Solar is a crucial part of that, and although we absolutely want to see solar panels on as many rooftops as possible and to support innovative projects such as floating solar, we also recognise that ground-mounted solar plays a critical role in this.

The right hon. Lady also made a number of points about food security, and of course, I absolutely agree with her. Food security is national security. We need to back British farmers and agriculture is really important in this country. I understand that it is important that we work to preserve the beauty and character of rural areas, but that is precisely what the planning system exists to do. It weighs up different impacts with opportunities, looks through specific projects and takes account of local views, all of which are considered in these processes.

The planning system is also really clear that a number of projects in a particular area will have cumulative impacts on the nationally significant infrastructure project pipeline, and that is taken into account in these processes. Whether it is visual amenity, protected landscapes or the natural environment, all of these things are taken into account. As the right hon. Lady said, the planning system already steers developers to use brownfield sites wherever possible, and the development of agricultural land can take place only where it is absolutely necessary, and even then, lower-grade land should be used first.

[Adrian Ramsay]

rose—

[Esther McVey]

rose—

[Michael Shanks]

I will give way briefly to the right hon. Lady, but I will then have to conclude.

[Esther McVey]

As the Minister has heard today, that is not the case. I was asking what specific steps he is taking to tighten up the planning process, or to have oversight so that what he thinks is happening is actually happening.

[Michael Shanks]

It is not for me to litigate individual planning applications; that is what the planning system exists for. We have given very clear guidance on this, and we keep these things under review. At the moment, we already have a planning system that takes these things into consideration, and I will not open up the debate on individual projects. Indeed, the National Farmers’ Union has said that solar poses no threat to food security.

I must also highlight the most glaring point in all this: clean energy is about us trying to get off fossil fuels, and although part of the reason for doing so is to reduce all our constituents’ exposure to the impacts on bills, the summer we have just lived through was a perfect example of climate change in action. It made the impact of not tackling the climate crisis on food security very clear and present for us. To exclude that from the debate misses the crucial point that climate change is far more likely to impact our food security in Britain than any infrastructure that we are building.

I have already told the right hon. Lady that I agree that we should be building much more rooftop solar, and that is why the future homes standards encourage new houses to be built with solar installed. That is also why I am working to see whether we can get even more solar on warehouses, supermarkets, car parks and everywhere else we possibly can, which I am entirely open to, but ground-mounted solar will nevertheless remain important.

I also want us to look much more at innovation in how we farm alongside solar farms. I have visited a number of solar farms where the two go alongside one another, such as where livestock grazing can go alongside solar deployment. There is also a lot of emerging science in agrivoltaics on developing new ways to make sure that we have arable farming alongside solar.

[Sarah Bool]

In the Green Hill solar farm application, one of the arguments made was that we could also have sheep farming, but the Secretary of State’s decision actually said that this was irrelevant and would not be considered, because they could not guarantee it. Actually, the promise of them sitting side by side is not a guarantee.

[Michael Shanks]

I am not making any guarantees here, and I have not pretended to do so. I am saying that there is much more opportunity to do these things side by side, and I have visited and seen some places where it is working, including places where there is a net gain in biodiversity from the deployment of solar panels.

In this focus group on solar, we will clearly not have support from everyone who has spoken in the debate today, and I entirely understand that. As I have said in a number of debates—I hope fairly—we want to ensure that we bring communities with us on this as much as possible, and the planning system is important. The right hon. Member for Tatton also talked about community benefits, and it is really important that those are meaningful to communities. We will say more soon about our expectations on developers for community benefits. We want those to genuinely invest in the future of communities, rather than be tokenistic. It is important to say that they are not compensation regimes; they are about saying, “You’re hosting infrastructure on behalf of the country, and we thank you for that. Here is a community benefit.”

Contrary to how it seems from my speech, I think there is much that we agree on. We want to preserve the character of the countryside across the country, but I also genuinely believe that we have to rapidly increase the amount of electricity that we can generate from clean sources. We have to ensure that we have renewables alongside nuclear and other technologies, and the planning system exists to balance that with continued food production and protecting communities. I am very open to looking at any further reforms that are necessary, but I think that the balance is understood at the moment. I hope we can continue this conversation in the manner in which we have had the debate today.

Question put and agreed to.