Solar Farms: Agricultural Land

Debate between Sarah Jones and Richard Fuller

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Jones]

The previous Government messed around with solar quite a lot—we are building on what the previous Government did, up to a point. The answer is to look at all the technologies that are available to us. SMRs are enormously attractive in lots of different ways, and lots of colleagues have been talking to us about them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a process for the development of SMRs. We need all the tools in our armoury and we need to make sure we are using the most modern technology available. He makes a fair point on that front.

Sustainable power generated here in Britain will reduce our contribution to the damaging effects of climate change and our dependence on the volatile global fossil fuel market. It is already creating thousands of highly skilled jobs and will continue to do so. Instead of delaying the inevitable, we have set ourselves a target to push to clean power by 2030. The clean power action plan, published last month, sets out how we will get there, including the likely technology mix required. It is clear that solar will play a major role.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

On the Minister’s comments about the Government’s announcements in December and the subsequent announcement by the National Energy System Operator about moving forward rapidly with renewable energy, and in relation to East Park Energy, which is a proposal in my constituency whereby 74% of the land used would be best and most versatile land, in neither the December statement nor the January announcement by NESO was there any reference at all to the criterion on use of best and most versatile land. Can the Minister just affirm that that criterion is still used in the assessment of which projects the Government will move forward?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I cannot comment on the individual case in his constituency, of course. But of course when developers are applying for planning permission, they go through a series of criteria and have to adhere to a series of criteria, whether that is for the development of smaller solar plants, where it goes through local authorities, or whether it is through the nationally significant infrastructure project process. The solar taskforce is looking at all these issues as well. We are making sure we are mindful of all of the range of issues that we need to consider when we are looking at bringing infrastructure into communities. I will come to this later, but it is really important to say that we want to do this with local communities—with consultation of local communities and with consideration of what other options are available to us as well. That will continue.

Solar is one of the cheapest sources of power available to us, which is an important consideration when we are looking at the full range of options that we have between us. We are setting a target for around 45 GW to 47 GW of solar power by 2030. That is up from the 17 GW that we have today and it is a substantial increase.

I want to tackle the issue that a number of Members mentioned—the rooftop versus ground-mount issue. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds is right to talk about how we need to be going further to make sure we are putting solar panels on our roofs, and to ask what Government can do to encourage that. We are bringing in new building standards to ensure that all newly built houses and commercial buildings are fit for a net zero future. We expect those standards to encourage the installation of solar panels on new developments. We are issuing later this year a call for evidence on the construction of solar on outdoor car parks. The reconvened solar taskforce is focusing on rooftop solar, and further actions to increase deployment will be set out in the road map this spring.

I was talking to one of our big mayoral authorities yesterday about the power purchase agreements that people could potentially have in this space. If people look at public sector roofs and the collaboration they could have across some of our transport infrastructure and some of our public sector infrastructure, they could do more ambitious projects when it comes to solar, and of course we want to push that as much as we can. If we can put solar panels on rooftops, that is what we want to do. But we consider that we need a mix of both: we need ground-mounted and rooftop panels to get to the numbers that we want to see.

Let me turn to the planning system. All proposed solar projects are subject to a rigorous planning process, which considers the interests of local communities, as I said to the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sarah Jones and Richard Fuller

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

That is correct. It will mean, on average, an extra £29 a week, putting right a wrong that has persisted for far too long. Although the money is important and a key part of it, we have done the right thing—and about time too. Some 112,000 members across the country will benefit.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for permitting me to raise this important constituency matter from the Back Benches. On 2 July this year, during the installation of a ground source heat pump in a constituent’s back garden, a gas field was struck and gas was released. On 19 October there was an explosion, which resulted in the deaths of two of my constituents and the continuing evacuation of 50 households. Matters related to the period between 2 July and 19 October are subject to investigation. I am advised that this is the first such instance of gas being encountered, but given that ground source heat pumps are expected to play a significant role in decarbonising home heating, will the Minister undertake to review the regulations covering the installation of ground source heat pumps, and will she arrange a meeting for me with the relevant Minister to discuss these matters further?

Draft Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Extraction of Information from Electronic Devices) (Amendment of Schedule 3) Regulations 2023

Debate between Sarah Jones and Richard Fuller

Tuesday 9th May 2023 General Committees

[Sarah Jones]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. As the Minister stated, this relatively straightforward statutory instrument adds a new group of authorised persons—members of the Royal Navy Police, Royal Military Police and Royal Air Force Police—to part 1 of schedule 3 to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. The Opposition will not vote against it today.

The regulations give those authorised persons the power to extract information from a device, when the user has died, for the purpose of an investigation or inquest into the person’s death, as well as for the purpose of investigating crime and safeguarding others. When we debated the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—the Minister is correct that he was the Justice Minister and therefore debated some aspects of the Bill and not others—we had extensive debates about the changes it introduced, and Labour tabled several amendments that would have placed new checks on the police powers to extract data from electronic devices. We agreed with the direction of travel of the Bill, but we were concerned about vulnerable people and about those who do not want to hand over phones and the like because of the intrusive nature of such searches.

We spent months urging the Government to protect victims, particularly victims of rape and sexual abuse, from painful and often unnecessary intrusion into their lives by the mining of their phone data. In the end, the Government accepted some vital changes that mean that the police officer or other authorised person must “reasonably believe” that information stored on the device is relevant to a “reasonable line of enquiry”. It took the Government time to accept those amendments, but they did so in the end.

In this case, of course, the situation is slightly different as the owner of the device is deceased, but that person must still be treated with respect and we have to ensure that we are not too intrusive in how we mine people’s devices. I would like an assurance from the Minister that information will be used sensitively, because people deserve that even after they have passed away.

Serious problems remain about the lack of resources available to the police when it comes to carrying out data extraction from electronic devices—in this case, when a user has died. We know that there is a real problem with a lack of digital resources in forces. Just last year, a report by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services found a raft of errors in this area. The inspectorate found

“delays...so egregious that victims were being failed”,

and a system of digital forensic examination that was “slow” and “ineffective”, and where

“the needs of victims were rarely taken into consideration”.

It noted that

“there are no set standards or oversight services”,

with victims let down by a postcode lottery.

At a time when most, if not quite all, crimes have some form of digital footprint—the Minister gave us the stats—the delays, oversights and lack of professionalism exposed by the inspectorate are unacceptable.

[Richard Fuller]

If I can drag the hon. Lady back to the regulations we are discussing today, they are about expanding the number of people who can extract information from devices. She has listed a litany of concerns, but can she answer the question that I put to the Minister, as I think she was involved in the scrutiny of the Bill? Why did Labour agree to this separation and why has she changed her mind today?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I suspect that it was an oversight in the legislative drafting that is being rectified, and I would rather it was rectified than not. The emphasis in our discussions on the Bill was on living people, particularly rape victims, who were loth to give up their electronic devices but who needed to. We needed to ensure that the legislative framework was right for them so that they could give up their devices in a way that they were prepared to and that protected them. We did not have a debate about inquests or about cases where people had passed away, but clearly that is increasingly a consideration as digital devices are used more and more.

Specifically on the Royal Military Police, the inspectorate recommended in a separate investigation that a formal digital investigation strategy should be introduced, because:

“RMP investigators don’t give enough consideration to how digital investigation would help the specific cases they are working on”.

That statement does not give me much confidence. I would like some reassurance from the Minister that he has faith that extending these powers to these forces will have tangible positive impacts on inquests and on the investigation of crime. Does he have evidence to suggest that the situation in the military forces, covering the Army, Navy and RAF, is any better than in the 43 territorial forces?

On recommendation 5 of the HMICFRS report, what progress has been made on reviewing digital forensics budgets and funding? I note that a formal consultation has not taken place, but the views of three military forces were captured on why this amendment is necessary; I do not know whether the Minister can share any of those findings with us. I would be grateful if he indicated when the code of practice for the extraction of information from electronic devices is likely to be updated, and if he explained how the forces that this statutory instrument relates to—the RAF Police, Royal Military Police and Royal Navy Police—will be trained to exercise their new powers, but we will not be objecting to this legislation today.