Sir Edward Leigh
I will make some progress and give way in a moment—I must be fair to other people.
There are solar schemes totalling 13,000 acres within a 6-mile radius of the small town of Gainsborough. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I please use a visual aid here? This map shows loads of solar farms—[Laughter.] I think I got away with it!
The Secretary of State approves these projects immediately; they go through his desk within a week. The cumulative effect of these solar installations is colossal in one small area, with numerous sites having been proposed and accepted in Lincolnshire. I want to say something to the Minister. Can he concentrate on what I am saying for a moment, because this is terribly important?
Sir Edward Leigh
We are not arguing against solar farms. All we are begging the Minister to do is take them together. We cannot have all these separate public inquiries. We have to look at the 13,000 acres all over Gainsborough. Is that not a fair point? Otherwise, it is totally unfair on one particular area. That is the only point we are making.
This is all done on a cheat—a so-called nationally significant infrastructure project, which was a device brought in by Tony Blair for nuclear power stations and that sort of installation. The Government are bypassing local democracy. That is what is so unfair, and it is why people feel disenfranchised in certain parts of England. I agree that if the Government distributed solar farms fairly all over the country, as the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, there would be no argument, but the fact is that they are concentrating them so much in one small area of England. That is the argument.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing a debate on this important issue. It is the first day in a while that Westminster has not been basking in sunlight, although I did note—contrary to some contributions made by Conservative Members—that solar is currently generating 30% of this country’s electricity, more than any other technology. Solar plays a critical role in our energy mix. The hon. Lady asked whether I would meet her to discuss proposals in her constituency; of course, I am very happy to meet her to discuss these issues, as I meet Members across the House.
I welcome all—or perhaps I should say some—of the contributions to today’s debate. When the debate began, I was not expecting the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) to endorse the clean power mission so comprehensively, not only endorsing our rooftop solar revolution but leading the way in his own industrial empire. I will include him in the next newsletter on the clean power mission; I am sure he will happily receive it. I know that we are short on time, but I am happy to briefly outline the Government’s position and respond to some of the numerous points that have been made. I also hold the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), in high regard, and I will respond to some of her points over the course of my speech.
The clean power mission that this Government have embarked on is not about ideology. It is about delivering energy security, climate leadership, and the only way in which we can move away from volatile fossil fuels setting our constituents’ bills, which is what so many have faced over the past few years. It is the only way to create well-paid industrial jobs and deliver the clean power mission right across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) referenced community benefits and the benefits to individuals of installing solar panels on their own roofs; he is absolutely right about that, and I will return to the issue of rooftops shortly. I welcome my hon. Friend’s contributions, as he is a former pupil at Park Mains, where I used to teach—although for the record, he was not a pupil when I was teaching there.
My hon. Friend also made the point, which I want to reiterate, that this is not a battle between food security and energy security. I will just say one thing, which I am sure Conservative Members will strongly endorse:
“Solar projects and agricultural practice can co-exist. For example, the science of agrivoltaics is developing, in which solar is integrated with arable farming in innovative ways. That is coming on in leaps and bounds.”—[Official Report, 18 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 184WH-185WH.]
We can achieve food security and energy security together for our United Kingdom.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister and I have had this conversation a number of times. He will be aware that paragraph 2.10.29 of EN-3 states that “best and most versatile” land should not be used for solar farms. He has already informed me that no solar farm in the country uses more than 50% of best and most versatile land; will he commit to a hard limit on how much of that land can be used for a solar project?
Michael Shanks
As I think I said the last time we had this exchange, I always welcome the hon. Gentleman’s numerous written parliamentary questions to me—it is a treat to see them every morning, and he does raise important points. I am not going to put a figure on it right now, but we have clearly said that it is important to find the right balance when it comes to best-use agricultural land. I will come back to that issue.
The hon. Gentleman did not let me get to my point. I just spoke about this not being a competition between energy security and food security; those were the words of the shadow Energy Secretary, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), not that many months ago, before the Conservatives went down the hole of denying that the climate crisis is a real thing and that our energy security and food security can co-exist. That was their policy when the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham last brought this debate to the House, which I think was nine months ago.
Dr Johnson
The Minister says that this is not a competition between energy security and farming security. It should not be; the reason it is becoming one is that his Government are allowing our best and most versatile farmland, used for growing crops, to be taken over by solar farms.
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but it was not me saying that this is not a competition—it was her own shadow Energy Secretary just a few months ago. I do not accept her point, either; I will come to that very briefly, but in a bit more detail, in a second.
Let us not forget that this is also about tackling the climate crisis. The Conservatives might be willing to ignore that crisis, but the truth is that time and again they forget that climate change will have a devastating impact on agriculture and on land across this country. We have to do something about that, and this is part of it. Solar will be part of our energy security in the future, although it will not make up the entirety of our clean power system.
Michael Shanks
I will make a bit of progress, because I am conscious that another debate is to start soon.
Rooftop solar, as many Members have raised, is important. It is not an either/or. We see a real opportunity to put solar on every possible rooftop right across the country. We have announced our ambitions for new homes and for industrial buildings. We recently launched a consultation or a call for evidence on car parks, too. If there is a rooftop that we can put solar panels on, we are keen to do so, but there will also be a role for ground-mounted solar to play.
Finally on this point, the public also support solar. Many Opposition Members have said that they have done their own surveys—where, funnily enough, they get the result they hope to get. In the most recent poll, 88% of people said that they support solar, and that figure has never dipped below 80%. There is a question about balance, as I have said in this House on a number of occasions and will say again. We want to build a clean power system that brings communities with us. That requires a balance of different technologies in different parts of the country, but it is not credible to come here and say, “We support the building of infra- structure, but please do not build it in my constituency.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Shanks
I will briefly give way to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont).
John Lamont
I am grateful to the Minister, but what is he saying to my constituents who are genuinely terrified by these large-scale wind farms, pylons and solar farms coming to our area of Scotland, which I am sure he knows well? Just as importantly, what does he say to the hon. Members for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) and for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), who raised the same concerns as Members on the Opposition Benches?
Michael Shanks
First, I say to the hon. Member that I have one of Europe’s largest wind farms on my doorstep, so I know exactly what it is like. I would also say that bringing down bills and delivering energy security matters to his constituents as much as it matters to mine, and a robust planning system is in place. Opposition Members speak as though there is no process for local communities to be consulted, but there absolutely is; they are frequently consulted, and that plays a critical part in the decisions made about these projects.
Michael Shanks
I will not, because I am conscious that there is another debate to come.
These questions about the planning system are important. There is a rigorous process in place. We recently raised the threshold for solar projects going into the NSIP regime. I seem to remember a number of Opposition Members opposed that, but the whole purpose was to ensure we do not have the issue that we have at the moment, where a lot of projects are deliberately 49 MW, which is just below the threshold. By changing the threshold, we have more projects going through local, democratic council planning considerations, so those Members should welcome that decision. Those planning decisions also consider biodiversity, the local economy, visual amenity, protected landscapes and many other things, and those considerations also include, as a number of Members said, cumulative impact where more than one project is planned in close proximity.
Members raised many other points that I am afraid I will not have time to come to in this debate, so perhaps we should have another debate on some of them. On land use, the guidance makes it clear that wherever possible, developers should utilise brownfield, industrial, contaminated or previously developed land. Where development on agricultural land is necessary, lower-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land and so on. On questions of food security, I defer to the president of the National Farmers Union, who says that it is
“important that we’re not sensationalist about the impact on food security”.
I trust his judgment on this question above some others in this place.
I am moving through a number of points as quickly as I can. On land use, a number of Members have asked about how we bring together the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan. I had a meeting about that just this week. The Government should have had a serious look at land use in this country many years ago and at how we strategically plan our energy system right across the country. They will come together. We are also looking at regional energy plans that give a more localised view, too. The National Energy System Operator is currently taking that work forward, and that is an important step.
On community involvement, it is important that communities feel like they have a voice in this process. I have frequently said from this Dispatch Box that I do not for a second underestimate the strength of feeling for communities that have any infrastructure built near their houses or villages—whether that is prisons, the electricity system or new housing—but as a country, we cannot simply say that we will not build any new infrastructure because some people might oppose it. If we did that, we would never build anything, we would never deliver economic growth, and we would hold this country back, so I make no apology for saying it is about the balance between how we bring communities with us and how we get on with building in this country again, and that is important.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about glint and glare, the impact on the loop-the-loop was one of my highlights of the debate. As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said, solar panels are designed to absorb light, not reflect it, and glint and glare is considered in the planning process already, so it is taken into account.
I am conscious of the time, and I apologise to hon. Members who raised serious points that I will not be able to address in this debate. I am happy to follow up in writing on a number of those points.
Solar power is one of the cheapest forms of energy that we have in this country. It is deployable at scale, and can play a critical role in delivering our energy security and in our delivering the climate leadership that we need—to tackle not a future threat, but a present reality that will affect farmers up and down the country if we do not do so. I acknowledge that any infrastructure project has impacts on communities. The planning system does all that it can to mitigate those impacts, but we need to build stuff in this country. Infrastructure has to be built, and our electricity system has to be upgraded. We will build on rooftops, we will build a mix of energy technologies right across the country, and we will take on all innovations that are possible. It is fantastic how quickly we are innovating in this space, but hon. Members cannot simply say, “Let’s not build in my constituency”, because that is not a credible option.
I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham once again for securing the debate. Although we might not agree on everything, I take her points very seriously. It is important for me to say that I hear the points that she and others have raised, and I am happy to meet her to discuss them further.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Dr Caroline Johnson has one minute to wind up.