Cleve Hill Solar Park

Debate between Rupa Huq and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) on securing the debate and giving us a chance to discuss an important topic, not just for her constituents. I hope she will understand, however, that due to the quasi-judicial role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plays in taking decisions on applications for development consent for energy infrastructure proposals, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on matters related to any specific proposals.

Although the development consent order for Cleve Hill solar park was granted by the previous Government in 2020, as she said, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero may still be involved in any proceedings relating to the implementation of that order. As a result, I cannot comment today on the details of that project. The reasons for the decision and details of supporting plans are available on the Planning Inspectorate’s website, as the hon. Lady knows. I am afraid I cannot elaborate or speculate on that published material.

The hon. Member spoke eloquently about the importance of the site to her constituents—the views, the biodiversity and the birds, and the importance of wetlands. My colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I are working closely on nature-based solutions to climate change, and wetlands play an important role. I am also glad that the hon. Member acknowledged the importance of reaching our net zero objectives, with that mission for clean power, by 2030.

As I said, I cannot speak specifically about Cleve Hill, but I hope I can reassure her by speaking in general terms about Government policy. First, it ensures that all local impacts are considered in the planning process. Secondly, it makes a steadfast commitment that those who host clean-energy infrastructure should benefit from it. In order to achieve our goal of clean power by 2030, we will need to deploy various renewable energy sources. According to the recent National Energy System Operator clean power pathway report, we need to increase solar deployment from 15 GW to 47 GW. Along with onshore wind, solar is the cheapest clean power option available to us right now, making it an essential part of the UK’s energy mix. Without a substantial increase in solar deployment, the clean power mission becomes very difficult.

That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State relaunched the solar taskforce earlier this year. It is also the reason that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who has this portfolio, cannot reply to the debate, because he is at a meeting of the solar taskforce. The taskforce brings together the industry and Government to discuss the actions needed to rapidly increase the deployment of solar panels on rooftops and in solar farms, and it will publish its recommendations in a solar road map very soon.

We should never lose sight of the core motivation behind our clean energy mission. Clean power generated here in Britain will reduce our dependence on volatile imported fossil fuels. It will provide lower bills in the long term and create thousands of highly skilled future-proofed jobs across the country. Delivering those benefits for the British people requires the development of new infrastructure. We accept that a top priority should be the deployment of solar on rooftops. That is why we are bringing forward new standards to ensure that all newly built houses and commercial buildings are fit for a net zero future. We will encourage the installation of solar panels on those buildings where appropriate.

But we know that our mission will require more ground-mounted solar too, and decisive reform to the planning system is urgently needed to support that. As the Prime Minister said last week, we will streamline the approval process in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill. As part of the new plan for change, in which the Prime Minister set out the milestones in how the Government will deliver on our national missions, we will work towards the new target of 150 major infrastructure projects, including energy projects. That will mean tripling the number of decisions on national infrastructure, compared with the previous Parliament. We recognise the impact that such new energy projects can have on local communities and the environment. The Government are committed to striking the right balance between those considerations when delivering the clean power mission.

All proposed solar projects are subject to a robust planning process. Most projects are assessed by local planning authorities themselves, and those assessments are governed by the national planning policy framework, which encourages developers to engage with local communities before submitting an application. Local planning authorities will continue to seek representations from local communities and will continue to weigh local considerations against the need for renewable energy.

As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent said, larger projects such as the Cleve Hill solar park are decided centrally through the nationally significant infrastructure regime. That is a rigorous process. Developers whose projects qualify for the assessment must complete considerable community engagement before any decision is taken, and decision makers take into account its level and quality.

We recognise that new infrastructure can have an impact on the local community, and the planning system is designed to take account of the social, cultural, economic and environmental effects. Indeed, all large-scale solar developers are legally obliged to complete an environmental statement as part of any application for development consent. The hon. Members for Faversham and Mid Kent and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised disruption, which will be considered as part of the environmental statement.

The statement requires the developer to consider the potential environmental impact of a project, not just during the construction phase but during its life. It spans pre-development, construction and operation, all the way to decommissioning. The statement is a helpful tool that allows planning authorities to review any significant effects on biodiversity or the environment. I know the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent is committed to improving the natural environment, and she spoke eloquently about her vision for that part of her constituency. There is some evidence to suggest that solar can improve biodiversity when installed and managed appropriately. The environmental management plan for Cleve Hill includes commitments to build a habitat management area of 56 hectares, which is predicted to increase on-site biodiversity by 65%.

I want to touch briefly on the use of agricultural land for solar. I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady that the Government recognise that food security is linked to national security, and that we will always back British farming. In previous years, we worked together on the all-party parliamentary group for fruit and vegetable farmers, which she chaired, so I gained some knowledge of the importance she attaches to standing up for farmers in her constituency.

Planning guidance makes it clear that developers should situate their projects on brownfield or industrial sites whenever possible. Where the development of agricultural land is shown to be necessary, developers are steered away from using the best and most versatile land, and we have no plans to change that. We do not believe, however, that the accelerated deployment of solar power poses a threat to food security. The total area of land devoted to solar farms nationally is very small. Even in the most ambitious scenarios, less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land would be occupied by solar farms. My colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are developing a land use framework, which will consider issues such as food security and how we can expand nature-rich habitats. The framework will work hand in hand with the strategic spatial energy plan.

May I just ask, Dr Huq, will the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent be given a minute to respond?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Not in a 30-minute debate.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Okay.

I come on to the issue of battery safety. I note that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent said that members were given some reassurance at the community meeting she held but still have significant concerns about fire safety. As she knows, batteries are regulated by the Health and Safety Executive. The framework requires battery designers, installers and operators to take the necessary measures to ensure health and safety through all stages of the system’s construction, operation and decommissioning.

The Government have updated the planning practice guidance to encourage battery storage developers to engage with local fire and rescue services and for local planning authorities to refer to guidance published by the National Fire Chiefs Council, which I note the hon. Lady said was represented at the meeting she held. The health and safety framework for batteries is kept under review to respond to changing circumstances. In 2018, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy set up an industry-led electricity storage health and safety governance group, whose members include the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Environment Agency and DEFRA. That group is responsible for ensuring that an appropriate, robust and future-proofed health and safety framework is sustained. My Department worked with it to develop and publish health and safety guidance for grid-scale batteries that aims to improve the understanding of existing health and safety standards, which the battery storage industry should apply to its own processes.

The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent mentioned DEFRA. As I understand, DEFRA is considering further options, including environmental permitting, for managing the environmental and public health risks from fire at grid-scale sites. I am happy to speak to my colleague in DEFRA who is responsible for that and get back to the hon. Lady on her specific question—she will appreciate that I cannot answer on their behalf today. If her constituents require any further reassurances on the safety issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) will be happy to follow up on that in writing.

In the few minutes I have left, I turn to community benefits. We absolutely understand that we need to fully engage with communities and bring them along with us on our clean power mission, which includes public engagement and consultation. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent asked specifically about community benefits. We know that communities are providing a service to the country as a whole when they host clean energy infrastructure, so there need to be benefits for them. Sometimes there is a direct benefit where the infrastructure is owned by the community—the benefit goes straight back into the community, whether it is through solar panels on a village hall or one of many other examples—but we are considering how best to deliver those community benefits to host communities. That includes looking at existing examples in Europe and further afield to see what has worked well.

A wide variety of community benefits can be delivered, including funding for local projects, investment in the local area, direct benefits to individuals and, as I said, opportunities for community ownership. Great British Energy will build on existing community energy schemes, helping communities to unlock opportunities through the local power plan. In the hon. Lady’s constituency, up to 1,400 homes are powered by Orchard Community Energy, which is a community-owned solar farm near Sittingbourne that provides power to Swale and Medway. That puts communities at the heart of the energy transition and gives them a stake in the transition to net zero as owners and partners in clean energy projects.

As I said, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North, is today at the meeting of the solar taskforce, which brings together industry and Government. It is considering the question of how a community can benefit from the infrastructure that is hosted on their patch, and its recommendations will be published in the solar road map.

To conclude, the Government are committed to considering the interests of local communities affected by proposed energy infrastructure. I thank the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent for securing the debate and for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government’s vision. We will work to balance the local impact of new projects with the delivery of our clean power mission. The renewable energy transition will always be done through co-operation rather than coercion, ensuring that all parties benefit on our journey to net zero.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rupa Huq and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

My constituent Konnie Huq, with Arts Council and Lottery funding, has compiled a kids’ climate guide, with Jamie Oliver among the contributors. Will Ministers join forces with her to get it out there, preferably to every school in the country, because we have got to start young?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I would be more than happy to meet with my hon. Friend and her constituent, who sounds rather familiar, to discuss what more we can do to support climate education among children, including in our schools.

Public Order Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Rupa Huq and Kerry McCarthy

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

At the last count, 35 other right hon. and hon. Members, from seven parties, including at least one Member of every party of England and Wales, had signed up to the new clause. I do not know whether the number has gone up since then.

We have talked quite a lot in Committee about what could happen. We have talked about what could happen if someone was carrying, as I am today, a bike lock— I thought I would have to cycle in; I cycled part of the way, to the house of another Member who gave me a lift the rest of the way—and whether I could be criminalised for having that on my person. Could two little old ladies from the Women’s Institute be arrested for linking arms? The new clause, though, addresses what is actually happening every day, up and down our country, at abortion clinics.

Some of the fanciful stuff we have talked about, such as members of Extinction Rebellion gluing themselves to trains, or the blocking of the A40 in my constituency, which I have spoken about, are pretty rare and the exception, not the rule; but every day, women are unable to make their way into abortion clinics to have a perfectly legal procedure. It has been legal in this country since 1967 or 1968, I think—for more than 50 years, anyway. There is disruption not just to the women who use the clinics, but to users of the public highway and local residents. The figures are there—the Home Office has done the crunching—and they show that tens of thousands of women, at a number of locations, are affected every year.

I have previously ventilated this issue through a ten-minute rule Bill and a letter to the then Home Secretary, Amber Rudd. Loads of MPs from both sides of the House signed up to those, because they know, as do their local police forces, what a waste of time it is for the police to have their people tied up in adjudicating between two groups of protesters. There are two groups. There are the anti-choice people, and then there is a group in my constituency called Sister Supporter; its members, who wear pink hi-vis vests, want to escort women into the clinic. There is friction, and the police, who should be fighting crime, are tied up there.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the impact of the people outside the clinics on the people going into the clinics, and the obstruction of the pavement and passers-by, but does she agree that there is a difference between the two? As we have discussed in Committee, protests that cause people inconvenience are legitimate, but there is quite a difference between that and the harassment of people making a possibly difficult life choice. Does she agree that there is a difference in the impact on people, and that protesters could hold a protest without being close to the clinic?

[Dr Huq]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point. When is a protest not a protest? These women are subject to harassment. There is a time and place for protest. If someone wants to attack legislators, they should protest here, or they could protest at the Department of Health and Social Care, wherever that is now—I know it is not in Richmond House anymore, because my office is there. There are legitimate places where people can hold a protest without shaming individual women and rubbing their noses in it. We have heard how these things are filmed and put on Facebook Live, and the new clause takes that into account.

The Minister has chided me on this before, but last time there was a Labour amendment on this issue, it also concerned anti-vax protests. The former Minister for vaccines used to have a Friday call with all of us that was very popular, and he pointed out that stuff has been done in law to stop those protests. This is not dissimilar. We said after the horrible Sarah Everard episode that women should be able to go about their lawful business, to use the public highway and to walk down the street without being impeded by others. Some people would describe what is happening outside clinics as a protest; the people doing the “protesting” would say they were holding vigils and offering advice to the women, but there is a time and a place for that, and it is not at the clinic gates when women are making the most difficult decision of their life, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East said. They are not doing it lightly, and it may be for all sorts of reasons, such as fatal foetal abnormality.

Other jurisdictions have similar legislation. The French legislation brackets the offence with causing psychological distress, and the amendment is lifted from British Columbia. Several American states have such an offence, as does Australia. I have given the example of Ealing before, and I am proud that my local authority was the first to set up a public spaces protection order, or PSPO. Ministers have told me, “Well, councils can do that,” but that order was set up in 2018, and only three other councils in the country have done the same, although new locations for such action are popping up all the time. The Minister might not understand, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central, will know that walking past certain unpleasant things will send a shiver down a woman’s spine anyway. Imagine how that might be magnified when they face a difficult medical procedure. Women can sometimes be uneasy about using the public highway; such activity adds a whole new dimension.

As I say, only three other councils have used a PSPO. Why have other councils not done so? Because setting them up is time-consuming and clunky for local authorities, who have quite a lot on their plate. In Ealing, we have the west London Marie Stopes clinic. It is not just my constituents who use it; women come from all over the country, and women from Ireland historically have used it. We are lucky in Ealing: protesters are moved away from the clinic gates. They are moved only 150 metres away, because there is a main road boundary there. We could be flexible about the limit; it could depend on where the clinic gates are, and where women have to pass. As a mother, I have taken little ones past these groups. We are not just talking about protests; there can also be gruesome images of foetuses and 3D dolls. I have been asked, “Mummy, what’s that?” People who are not even using the clinic have had to divert and use other roads so as not to pass that distressing scene.

Other councils have not followed Ealing because doing so is very resource intensive. We had this situation for 24 years in Ealing before the council took the imaginative route of using antisocial behaviour order byelaws; that is what PSPOs are thought of as being. The order is only temporary; it lasts three years before it has to be renewed, and a huge burden of evidence is needed. There is the principle of consistency before the law. We are lucky in Ealing, but this should not be a matter of luck. People should have equal protection under law, wherever they live, and there should be such restrictions for every clinic. I understand that Birmingham has two clinics, one in the north and one in the south; sometimes the protest gang will be at the north clinic, and sometimes at the south one. The element of uncertainty needs to be eliminated. Life has enough uncertainties as it is.

We are often told in Committee, “There is sufficient legislation.” Opposition Members have at times asked the Government, “Why do you want to create a new offence? There is sufficient legislation out there. These people can be stopped.” In this instance, it is proven that there is not sufficient legislation. Whenever I have ventilated the issue, the idea of taking action has been popular on both sides of the House. As constituency MPs, we all know about the complaints we get in our postbags when a street becomes unusable and police are tied up in dealing with unnecessary stuff. I was discussing this offline with a Committee member who I cannot see in his place today. He has an issue with abortion, but this is not about abortion at all; it is not about the number of weeks before which a person can have an abortion, or about being anti-abortion or pro-abortion. It is just about people not having a protest within the buffer zone, however many metres wide we define that as being. People can make their protest in a way that does not interfere with women’s right to walk into the clinic and have the procedure.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East pointed out, having an abortion is a huge, difficult decision, and women should be informed of the pros and cons and their choices by medical professionals, counsellors and family members. These things should not happen in the street, in a pressurised environment, and in a distressing and confrontational way that is about trying to bring on all these feelings of guilt and shame.

This issue is just not going away. The number of protest sites is growing year on year. The stuff going on across the Atlantic, where Roe v. Wade is being revisited, is very regressive. I do not want us to take a polarised position in Britain. As I have said before in this Committee, the Ealing decision has been challenged at every level—in the High Court, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal—and it has always won. Judges have seen that someone having a medical procedure has a right to privacy that trumps freedom of belief, thought, conscience and expression. The two do have to be balanced, and people can have their protest, but not in a way that interferes with women’s right to use the public highway, and to have a procedure to which they have been legally entitled for decades—for longer than my lifetime. All the medical opinion supports this approach; it is supported by the British Medical Association, all the royal colleges, the nurses and midwifery people, and even good old Mumsnet, who are not normally seen as militant crazies.

I think I have said my bit for now. As I say, this measure was massively popular when it was a ten-minute rule Bill, and that was at the height of covid, so not everyone was in the building, but I think the numbers in support of it were crushing. If there was a free vote on the measure, I think that the House would support it. The Government should adopt it; they can then show that the Sarah Everard case was not in vain, and that something has been done for women and girls, even though there are zero mentions of the issue in the Bill.

Touring Musicians: EU Visas and Permits

Debate between Rupa Huq and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 18th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq, although it is a shame that you are not contributing to the debate because I know what a music fan you are. I do not think that I have to declare my membership of the Musicians’ Union but I will, although, as I always say on such occasions, I have no musical talent whatsoever, unlike some of my colleagues who are speaking in the debate.

The fact that we are here in November 2021—well over five years since the UK voted to leave the European Union—is a damning indictment of the Government’s failure to prepare for the consequences of Brexit. I think that is, in part, political. The Government just did not want to concede that there could be negative consequences to no longer having freedom of movement and to leaving the market. I have seen that in other sectors, too—the labour shortages in food and farming, for example—and the ostrich approach of burying our head in the sand has had real consequences for the people who are affected.

That approach has included ignoring the warnings from the industry. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said, so many people from across the industry—not just performers, but road crew, lighting engineers, truck drivers and so on—have come forward to try to tell the Government that action is needed, but there has been a refusal to host anything by way of meaningful discussions. An EU official told The Guardian in January that when the EU proposed a standard range of travel exemptions,

“the UK refused to engage in our discussions at all”.

I know there was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing and trying to blame one another for that, but according the EU sources, by June, the UK had still made no approach to remove travel barriers for creative workers.

As well as being political, I think there is an element of incompetence to the Government’s approach. Quite frankly, that is a hallmark of this Government. It is also another sign of the Government’s failure to acknowledge the importance of our creative industries. We have heard about the statistics and the pound signs attached to those industries: we are the world’s second-biggest exporter of music, with an export revenue of £2.9 billion. The value of music, as others have said, is far greater than that. We not only have some of the biggest-selling music artists in the world, but some of the best—those are not necessarily the same thing.

I remember, when I was a student in what was then Leningrad, in the summer of 1984, being besieged by young Russians who were just absolutely desperate to find out more about UK music, which was a lifeline to them and their connection to the west. I remember being asked, on the beach on the bank of the Neva river, how many children Paul McCartney had. I must admit, I did not know, and it was before the internet, but that just shows the soft power connected to our worldwide reputation for music.

We also know that the sector has been incredibly hard hit by covid, which is all the more reason why the Government should pull out all the stops to get it back on its feet. To an extent, the Government have been saved by covid, because people being unable to tour has masked the impact of Brexit on the live music sector. Now that we have, I hope, emerged from the worst of the pandemic, it is absolutely vital that the Government step up the pace on progress.

I am pleased that we have made some progress on visas, although I think it is a bit audacious for the Secretary of State to try to claim credit for that. We need agreements with the remaining six member states, and we also need bilateral discussions, because at the moment, any work is still restricted over all member states to a total of up to 90 days in any 180 days. As we have heard, there is still so much bureaucracy around that.

I will mention carnets and merchandise briefly. We have heard about the costs of taking unaccompanied instruments across borders—those costs are just for the paperwork. We know that smaller and up-and-coming bands in particular do not have lawyers, agents and managers to do all that for them; they have to deal with it themselves, and it is a real deterrent. Tim Burgess from the Charlatans tweeted earlier this week that the band was unable to sell any merchandise during its recent Dublin gig. We know that so many bands rely on merchandise to make a living because of streaming and everything else.

I will finish by talking about cabotage, as I know that that is what is expected of me as a member of the shadow Transport team. UK tour trucks made up close to 80% of the EU market prior to 2016 and Brexit. The three-stop rule for UK trucks forces them to re-route back to the UK, which is incredibly costly and time-consuming if they bother to do so, but most do not, making UK-led tours impossible. The band Public Service Broadcasting recently had to book a German bus for their European tour—something that they described as maddeningly stupid and self-harming. Big US acts have traditionally started their EU tours in the UK, so they fly into Heathrow, pick up the trucks, road crew, sound, lighting, caterers—everything—here. Why would they do that now? They are just going to go to Germany or somewhere else.

We have seen limited progress. The small splitter trucks have been ruled exempt from cabotage rules, and cabotage easement has seen inbound rules suspended on EU-flagged trucks to help the HGV crisis here, but that makes things even worse for UK music hauliers, as it is not reciprocal. UK hauliers have had no Government support to relocate to the EU either—I do not want them to relocate to the EU, but that proposal was put forward by the Government as an answer to the problems back in the earliest stage of the negotiations—so they cannot get around the restrictions that way. The music industry is part of what makes this country great. Why would we want to throw out an integral part of that, and tell it to go and set up shop in France, Germany or Portugal?

UK Music is calling for a derogation from cabotage for all trucks used for cultural events, so I conclude by asking the Minister whether there are active discussions in her Department and the Department for Transport about this issue. When I have tried to talk to the DFT, it has told me that it is a matter for her Department, but when I have tried to talk to her Department, it has told me that it is a matter for the DFT. I rather feel that that has left a big, gaping void in which there are no discussions at all.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I call the only person I know who had an album out last week: Kevin Brennan.