(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered windfarm development on protected peatland.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I am glad to be introducing this incredibly important debate, which I have personally secured. It is particularly timely because, right now, Brontë country—a delicate mosaic of precious peatland and an historic heritage landscape, straddling Haworth and Stanbury in the Worth valley in my constituency across to Hebden Bridge in the Calder valley—is under threat like never before. There is a proposal for a huge wind farm development, and I will spend my time in this debate stating exactly why we should oppose the disastrous scheme.
Before I begin, I put on record my thanks to the various local campaign groups that have been working tirelessly to oppose the Calderdale wind farm and get the proposals scrapped. There are too many to mention, but I particularly thank Lydia and Nick MacKinnon and Jenny Shepherd.
Today happens to be the 110-year anniversary of the birth of Charlotte Brontë, author of several books and poems, most notably Jane Eyre. The works of Charlotte and her sisters, Emily and Anne, are world famous, as is the iconic moorland that inspired many of their stories. If approved, the Calderdale wind farm would see up to 34 200-metre-high wind turbines erected across Brontë country.
This moorland is not just a site of famous literary heritage; it is also the site of irreplaceable protected peatland. I have been firmly against these proposals ever since they were first brought forward in 2023, and I have been inundated with correspondence from my constituents and local campaign groups who agree that this scheme will be hugely detrimental to our heritage landscape and our precious protected peatland.
Before today’s debate, I wrote to the hon. Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden), for Shipley (Anna Dixon), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) and for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), inviting them to speak in today’s debate, so that we could work on a cross-party basis to strongly oppose these development proposals. Like me, I am sure that they have been inundated with correspondence from constituents concerned about these proposals, so it is disappointing not to see all of them here today.
Before I outline in more detail my concerns about the Calderdale wind farm proposals, I want to be very clear that I am not against wind farm developments or renewable energy schemes. However, I am absolutely against wind farms being developed where they will have a huge impact on the environment, ecology, wildlife, heritage, flooding risk and the very carbon sequestration ability of our peat, which will be hugely negatively impacted.
It is with peat—and its carbon storage ability being severely impacted—that I will start. The peat in the south Pennine moors is generally considered to be around 9,000 years old; the mosaic of blanket bogs began forming thousands of years ago from sphagnum moss. For centuries, the peat has been absorbing the carbon emissions from the mills of our industrial past, our transport and our everyday modern life.
Peat is delicate and grows just a millimetre a year if we are lucky, and only when subject to a limited range of favourable environmental and climate conditions. The proposals of the Calderdale wind farm could cover approximately 2,300 hectares of protected peatland above Hebden Bridge and Haworth, and the impacts of disturbing such precious peatland will have disastrous consequences on the local area and beyond.
Peatland is a natural store of carbon, capturing and storing 26 times as much carbon as our forests in the UK. Almost all our UK peatlands have at least some blanket bog, with UK uplands containing around 15% of the blanket bog in the world. The Walshaw moor alone is made up of approximately 16,000 acres of it. Healthy peatlands will absorb and store carbon, and build carbon into the peat. However, if peatlands are damaged, which is unavoidable with huge infrastructure projects such as wind farms, it can release carbon back into the atmosphere, dramatically increasing carbon dioxide emissions. The amount of infrastructure required for the Calderdale wind farm is huge. It includes the foundations associated with each turbine, the complex road network that needs to be built across the peat so that each turbine can be fixed in place, the expansive base areas next to each turbine, the vast cabling routes that need to be buried underneath the peat, the man-made drainage cut-outs that need to be installed, the sub-stations, the weather monitoring and the fencing—I could go on. All of that will have a deeply damaging impact on our protected peatland.
As with any major infrastructure project, access routes will need to be created to the turbine sites, and those service roads will cut across blanket bog and seriously impact landscape hydrology. Long-established estate roads in uplands tend to avoid peatland because of the maintenance challenges, but wind farm roads simply cannot do that; they are constrained by the requirements of the turbine layout and the moorland topography. That is not just a short-term problem; once constructed, a wind farm road becomes a permanent feature of the landscape. Peat subsidence will continue indefinitely because of the need for our roads to be kept constantly dry and because of compression from the weight of roadway material. A very real example of that is the A5, which was built across peatland on the Welsh border nearly 300 years ago but continues to subside today.
I know that the developers and those supporting the Calderdale wind farm proposals like to say that the benefits of producing renewable energy outweigh the carbon loss caused by the development, but the justifications they have offered have been extremely poor. In fact, Professor Richard Lindsay, a world-leading expert on peatland ecosystems, who I spoke to just last week, has described those making this argument as
“clinging to the carbon calculator as a drowning man clings to a life belt”.
By that, he means that the system of measuring carbon storage impact is not fit for purpose. It simply does not consider all the influencing factors, or indeed the cumulative impact of onshore wind farm developments, the vast majority of which are north of the border in Scotland and in Wales.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and rightly highlighting the concerns about these developments. In my constituency in the Borders, we have wind farms, battery storage proposals and solar farms. As my hon. Friend said, developers talk at length about the supposed environmental benefits, but that is no more than greenwashing, because the wider negative impact these developments will have on the local environment where these developments are taking place is far greater than any benefit that might come from the developments proceeding.
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes an excellent point: the developers have failed to ascertain that the positives of the project outweigh its negative impacts, including the impact on the ability of the peatland to sequester and store carbon. That is before even considering all the negative impacts on highways, the impacts of the infrastructure that has to be developed and the impact on local communities. The renewable energy scheme will be incredibly detrimental; the peatland will hold more carbon. That is why I am firmly opposed to the development.
Another huge risk with the development of wind farms on sites of protected peatland such as Walshaw moor is the impact on both water quality and flooding. Peatland is 95% to 98% water—it has the same percentage of solid content as a jellyfish. Disturbing it through the construction of wind turbines on Walshaw moor will increase flood risk and damage water quality in Calder Valley towns and surrounding communities. Studies have shown that putting any kind of hard infrastructure on peatland has a direct negative impact on how peat interacts with itself; it prevents peat bogs from absorbing rainwater, which ultimately increases flood risk downstream and increases the likelihood of serious slipping incidents.
Peatland also plays a key role in regulating water quality. Around 72% of the UK’s reservoirs are fed from peat, and over 28 million people consume water from peaty catchments. Degradation and disturbance of peat is often accompanied by increases in dissolved and particulate organic carbon loads, which increases the treatment costs required to make water drinkable.
Another additional environmental risk associated with the Calderdale wind farm proposal is the risk to local wildlife. Walshaw moor is home to a number of protected bird species, including the lapwing, golden plover, merlin, short-eared owl and the curlew—today, in fact, is World Curlew Day. Those species use Walshaw moor as breeding grounds, and organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have warned that disturbing such populations with the installation of wind turbines will significantly damage overall numbers of the birds.
I return to the specifics of the Calderdale wind farm’s impact on local heritage and culture. Rebecca Yorke and her team at the Brontë Society, who look after the Brontë parsonage in Haworth in my constituency, do incredible work. Understandably, our much-loved Brontë Society is firmly against the proposed wind farm development across our heritage landscape, which encompasses Top Withens, believed to be the inspiration for the setting of “Wuthering Heights”. That landscape, I might add, has a live application worked up right now for UNESCO world heritage status, along with listed status for Top Withens. All that has widespread community support.
Our literary landscape offering to the world, which inspired the Brontës’ imaginations in their renowned novels and poetry, is under threat. If this wind farm proposal goes ahead, that landscape will be blighted forever. We know that because, even after the decommissioning stage of the wind farm, none of the infrastructure is proposed to be removed, apart from the turbines themselves. The road infrastructure, all that cabling and those deep foundations that sit beneath the turbines are not proposed to be removed once the wind farm comes to the end of its life, blighting our heritage landscape and the peat forever.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that with nuclear power stations, for example, decommissioning costs are built into the cost-benefit analysis of any such projects, and yet that is not the case when wind farms are built in environmentally sensitive areas?
Robbie Moore
The right hon. Member makes an excellent point. He is absolutely right, because the decommissioning costs are not necessarily built into what the impact will be on our environment, our protected peat or our wildlife. I know that because the developers themselves say that once the site finishes its usage, parts of the development will not be removed—such as the piles, the infrastructure for the road, the foundations—but simply remain in situ.
Worse than that, however, should an additional wind farm come down the line, it will use the infrastructure that is already in place, but is likely to have to be expanded. A further real live concern is because when the application came before us, the initial proposal was for 65 wind turbines, although that has been reduced to 35 wind turbines now. That creates the real worry of it potentially being only phase 1 of a much bigger wind farm coming down the line. Therefore, once the precedent is set of an application being approved by the Government —it will be the Secretary of State who determines it—stage 2 will therefore come down the line. That deeply worries me.
I am grateful that, last week, I had the opportunity to speak with peat experts, Dr Andreas Heinemeyer, Professor Richard Lindsay, Dr Emma Hinchcliffe and Jessica Fìor-Berry, all of whom pointed to the complete lack of research and evidence about the impact of wind farm development on protected peatland. I therefore ask the Labour Government why the Minister is in favour of pushing through development on protected peatland such as Walshaw moor despite the hugely damaging impacts I have outlined in this speech.
The proposals for the Calderdale wind farm demonstrate a glaringly obvious hypocrisy that this Government show when it comes to protecting our protected, precious peatland. The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to expanding nature-rich habitats such as peatlands. The Minister for Nature herself has repeatedly called our peatlands “this country’s Amazon rainforest”, so why do the Labour Government continue to support completely destroying them—when other options are available—given the scale of this development?
The development is being considered a nationally significant infrastructure project, so it will be the Secretary of State who determines the application. I ask the Minister, however, why have this Government permitted the developer to undertake its statutory consultation right now, during a period when the two local councils, Bradford council and Calderdale council, are in the middle of all-out local elections and cannot comment because of purdah? Will the Minister seek to extend the statutory consultation period, as I have requested of the Secretary of State? I ask all watching this debate who agree that this development will be catastrophic to participate in the consultation, which is open right now.
For the reasons I have set out, I am clear that this wind farm development must not be approved. My fellow Worth Valley Conservative councillors do not want it, my constituents do not want it, world-leading peat experts do not want it and I suspect the Nature Minister does not want it either, so why is the Minister enabling this proposal to continue under this Labour Government? What I am less clear on is the positions of my neighbouring Members of Parliament: the hon. Members for Halifax, for Shipley, for Calder Valley, for Pendle and Clitheroe and for Burnley. I urge them to join me in opposing this disastrous scheme.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
As the Member for Shipley and a neighbouring constituent, I want to make those listening aware that we have attended the debate and will shortly be giving our views on the proposals, as the hon. Member invited us to do, for which I thank him.
Robbie Moore
Perfect intervention there, but we have had an intervention from only one of the five neighbouring Labour Members of Parliament I invited to this debate, of which only two turned up. I wrote to all those Members of Parliament—crikey, it must have been about seven months ago—inviting them to join me in a cross-party consensus so that we could join forces in opposing this scheme. Despite the hon. Member for Shipley’s intervention, I am yet to hear that she is opposed to this scheme. I invite her, and the hon. Members for Halifax, for Calder Valley, for Pendle and Clitheroe and for Burnley, to join me in opposing this scheme.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
Order. May I confirm that the hon. Member has informed the Members he mentioned that he was going to mention them in this debate?
Robbie Moore
Sir Alec, not only did I inform them today to remind them to come to this debate, I wrote to them last week inviting them to come to this debate and I wrote to them maybe six months ago asking them to join me. They are well aware that this debate is taking place. It is very disappointing that they did not turn up to stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents.
Renewable energy could be an essential part of our future, but not like this—not here, and not at the cost of everything the Brontë country represents. This scheme must be stopped.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for the invitation to join him in Westminster Hall today. It is always a pleasure for me to talk about the fantastic peatlands and moors in my wonderful constituency.
As we have heard, peatlands occupy about 12% of the UK land area, including many areas in my constituency: Baildon moor, Harden moor and parts of Rombalds moor. We have some wonderful upland landscapes. I recently walked up to Top Withens, which has been mentioned and has a precious place as the inspiration for “Wuthering Heights”. I took some American guests, who were very inspired by the cultural heritage in the Bradford district, which we all so enjoyed celebrating in 2025 when Bradford hosted the city of culture. I was excited to hear the first curlew of spring, one of the pleasures of walking in the upland moors, and see the lapwings doing their amazingly flamboyant mating dance.
As the hon. Member has rightly highlighted, peatlands are crucial in our fight against climate change. They store a whopping 3.2 billion tonnes of CO2. They also reduce flood risk—something that particularly impacted constituents during the Boxing day floods over a decade ago—and support biodiversity. The Labour Government are acting to stop the decline in nature depletion.
However, as we have heard, both here in the UK and around the world our peatlands have been degraded and, according to the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, are now estimated to be a net source of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Stopping their degradation must be a really big priority. That is why I welcome steps that Bradford council has taken to scale up peatland restoration on the district’s moorlands. In 2023, some £200,000 of additional funding was committed to rewet areas of the moorland. If someone goes to walk there, they can see blocked drainage ditches and things called leaky dams, which slow the flow of water.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. She is absolutely right that the Government are committed to helping with the rewilding and restoration of our peatland. It is probably worth noting that that is done by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) was a DEFRA Minister for years, so it is somewhat of a surprise that he is a new convert to the environment.
Anna Dixon
These investments are critical, and it is pleasing that the Labour Government are taking nature actions so seriously. In addition to those I mentioned, there is also the planting of sphagnum moss—which is quite tricky to pronounce.
Bradford has recently published its climate action plan 2025-28, which outlines its comprehensive approach to working towards a low-carbon future. I also welcome steps taken by the Government at a national level with the environmental improvement plan, which was published just a few months ago. It says that we will—
“Restore approximately 280,000ha of peatland in England by 2050”.
Robbie Moore
The hon. Member seems to be dancing around the edges. This debate is on the matter of
“windfarm development on protected peatland”
but she has not mentioned anything to do with wind farms yet. I am keen to understand whether she is for or against the Calderdale wind farm.
Anna Dixon
I am just coming to that part of my speech. I will first turn to wind farms, and then I will come specifically to my views on the Calderdale wind farm, which lies largely outside of my constituency.
As well as restoring peatlands, which I have dwelled on in the first part of my speech, another key aspect of the comprehensive climate plan is ensuring that we invest in renewable energy. I am proud that this Government have pledged to make the UK a clean energy superpower, and as part of that have set up Great British Energy to produce cheaper and cleaner power for our country.
I will briefly make a political point, as the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also did, to remind him that his party ended a lot of the support for solar power and blocked the expansion of onshore wind. In its dying days, it seemed to attempt to create some sort of green wedge between the parties, and broke what had been a long-held consensus among at least the main political parties that we needed to tackle climate change. What I have heard from him—I will give my position shortly—is that he is opposed to the development, but he has pledged his support for clean energy, which seems at odds with some Members of his party.
I shall now discuss Calderdale wind farm. I would not say it was the most overwhelming issue in my postbag, but 22 constituents have contacted me about the proposals. They rightly believe that protected peatland should be protected. I agree with them, and I think that the Labour Government, and I hope the Minister, will give the same assurance. I believe that is why there has been a recent announcement that large infrastructure must also be covered by a biodiversity net gain. I hope the Minister will explain how that would apply to this particular project, if it were to go ahead, and how we would ensure that the peat was protected.
I urge the Government to listen to the arguments made in this debate. There could clearly be major negative impacts on our precious peatlands in this area of Yorkshire, and I ask that the Government look carefully and reconsider the proposals. I agree with the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley that it would be beneficial to extend the statutory period of consultation to allow all significant organisations that wish to feed into it to have their say. I support—as I know the Labour Government do—the protection of our special peatlands. We must tackle climate crisis, but at a local level we must balance our need to drive forward clean energy with the detrimental potential impact.
John Lamont
I am grateful. As I said earlier in my short comments, in my constituency I am inundated with wind farms, solar farms, battery storage and data centres. I now formally object to each of them. Previously, in my life as an MSP and an MP, I did not formally object to such applications, but the situation has gone so far and the environment has been damaged so much that I now do so. Will the hon. Lady formally object, on the council’s website, to Calderdale wind farm?
Anna Dixon
I am a fairly new MP, having come in in 2024. I think that the general advice given to MPs, as to the hon. Member previously, is not to get involved in formal objections. That is the approach that I have generally taken, but I have expressed views on other planning decisions in the local area, including on some of the battery energy storage facilities. I have had significant concerns about their proximity to residential areas, not least in relation to the facility in Cullingworth. I have expressed those concerns to the Minister. The proposed location of Calderdale wind farm obviously lies outside of my constituency. I have given an impression of the number of constituents who have contacted me. I will encourage them to lodge their formal consultation responses. I reserve my right to consider whether I make a formal objection to that specific proposal.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
Order. I do not intend to put a time limit on, but hon. Members can see who is standing to request to speak. I ask them to be mindful that I will call the first Front-Bench contribution at 3.28 pm.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this vital debate. I share many of his concerns. Mid-Wales faces a wave of wind farm proposals on a scale that would transform the landscapes that make mid-Wales so incredibly special. From Gilwern hill near Llandrindod Wells to Nant Mithil in the Radnor forest, Banc y Celyn, Garreg Fawr and Aberedw, our communities are being asked to absorb huge energy developments across some of the most unspoilt and environmentally sensitive parts of Wales.
Clearly we need clean energy. We need renewable energy and there are huge possibilities across Wales. Sir Alec, I know that you are a keen engineer and that you will be interested in the opportunities to develop tidal energy in Wales, and the bountiful opportunities to develop our offshore wind capabilities. However, destroying one of our most important natural climate defences in the process of developing onshore wind is reckless and irresponsible. That is the contradiction at the heart of wind farm development on peatland. Peatlands are not wasteland. They are among our most valuable ecosystems. They store carbon, regulate water and support biodiversity. When damaged they can release the very emissions that we are supposed to be preventing.
We already have evidence that such warnings are being brushed aside in Wales. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales—the Welsh countryside charity —uncovered internal Welsh Government documents that show there is serious ecological damage at existing wind farm sites. Peat soils are being excavated, dumped and
“left to oxidise, erode and degrade.”
Officials warned that further damage would occur, and that further public money would be needed to put that right. Despite all that, the Welsh Labour Government still approve projects such as the Garn Fach development in the north of Powys, on vital peatland that serves the catchment area of the River Severn—an area that we know is already vulnerable to causing severe flooding downstream. That decision sent a deeply worrying message: that promises to protect peatland can be overridden when it becomes politically convenient to do so.
When we look at the sites now proposed, the stakes become even clearer. Take Gilwern hill. Its open moorland is crossed by ancient drovers’ routes. It is home to species such as the curlew, the skylark and the red kite, and it is rich in archaeology. One of the specialities of Powys is the reintroduction and preservation of endangered birds. We have bronze age cairns and iron age hillforts that face not only turbines but access tracks, as previously mentioned, up to 100 metres wide cutting across the landscape.
At Nant Mithil, we have more than 4,500 acres of the Radnor forest, where the Welsh dragon supposedly lives—[Laughter.] Take my word for it; it is too dangerous. That landscape includes a special area of conservation linked to the River Wye, sites of special scientific interest and a network of public rights of way used by walkers and local communities. Around 80% of the site lies outside the Welsh Government’s own designated areas for wind development and yet they are threatening to allow Bute Energy to destroy it.
It is at sites such as Banc y Celyn and Garreg Fawr that the myth of low ecological value land is most clearly exposed. Those are not degraded or expendable landscapes; they are some of the last remaining habitats of their kind. Those ecosystems survive precisely because they have not been intensively managed. They have avoided the fertilisers and pesticides that have wiped out similar habitats across much of Europe. They support fragile and irreplaceable biodiversity, from waxcaps to breeding populations of curlew, skylark, cuckoo and raptor, as well as protected mammals such as the brown hare.
That is the crucial point: those habitats cannot simply be recreated somewhere else. They exist because of centuries of minimal human intervention. Once they are developed, they are lost for ever. In a global context, Wales is one of the last refuges for these species. We are told these are exceptional cases but when one exception follows another, people are right to ask whether any peatland or any sensitive habitat in Wales is truly safe. That matters not just for wildlife and landscapes but for the credibility of Welsh climate policy. How can Ministers talk about biodiversity targets while approving developments that official briefings warn could negate years of restoration work?
Wales needs a renewables strategy that commands public consent, protects irreplaceable habitats and recognises that not every hectare of land is suitable for industrial development. Otherwise, the Welsh Government risk undermining the very environmental goals they claim to champion. As I am sure we all agree, once those landscapes are gone, they are not coming back.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I wish hon. Members a happy World Curlew Day--tan, small, slender, often up to its knees in muck and at the risk of extinction in West Yorkshire--I also congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing the debate.
This debate, much like my constituency, comes under the shadow of plans to build England’s largest wind farm on protected peatland on Walshaw moor. I believe it is a uniquely beautiful landscape, resplendent with curlews, lapwings and other moorland birds. As a fell runner, I love that environment, which is one of the most special places on earth. From Top Withens to the open moorland, I am proud to have one of the most beautiful constituencies.
Its beauty and the curlews, however, are not in and of themselves a reason to block the development of any renewable energy project. I subscribe to the view that we face a climate and nature emergency. Climate change is real and man-made. Our energy use makes it vital to ramp up the building of green energy infrastructure for the future as quickly as possible. For that reason, there would have to be clear and compelling evidence for me to question the development of a wind farm or any other renewable energy project.
We must follow the science, however. The more we learn about peat and its role in absorbing carbon, the clearer it is that building on peat will do more harm than good. Peatland covers just 3% of the world’s land surface but stores around 30% of its soil carbon. Disturbing peat by building wind farms risks releasing that stored carbon, likely cancelling the carbon saved through wind farms, particularly bearing in mind that these wind turbines have just a 25-year lifespan.
Research by the University of Aberdeen, referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, suggests that developers should avoid building wind farms on peatland altogether. In response, the Scottish Government have tightened their policy in that area. In England, those considerations are not applied consistently, but that needs to be reformed and brought into line.
As I have said in multiple representations to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the fundamental problem that we face is, unsurprisingly, one of joined-up Government. Too frequently under the last Government, the environment and climate change were treated as an afterthought and not as central to the business of Government.
Just last month, the Environmental Audit Committee highlighted the lack of joined-up thinking between DEFRA and DESNZ, and the proposal that we are discussing is a clear example. On the one hand, DEFRA has committed £85 million to restoring and managing peatlands, preserving our environment and offsetting our carbon emissions. On the other hand, if DESNZ signs off projects like this, it will damage those peatlands without the same scrutiny as other developments, so we have to take a step back and assess whether it is truly the right course of action. Our Government’s revised national planning policy framework argues against developments that involve peat extraction, but that is contradicted if we continue to develop these projects. Although it is not okay for someone to dig up a bit of peat to put on their garden, it is okay to displace 8,000 cubic metres of peat to build a wind turbine.
Calderdale energy park represents a risk to a moor where in places the peat is more than 2 metres deep, according to Natural England’s peat map. As a fell runner, I can attest to that, because I have fallen into some of those peat bogs. My hon. Friend the Minister for Nature, put it starkly:
“Our peatlands are this country’s Amazon Rainforest and in desperate need of restoration and protection”.
She is absolutely right—more so, in fact, because peatland stores 30 times more carbon per hectare than the rainforest. Let us be clear: we would join in the international opprobrium if the Brazilian Government were to fell trees in the Amazon to install solar panels in the hope of securing carbon credits. We should apply the same seriousness to the protection of one of our most carbon-rich landscapes.
Robbie Moore
I know that on 30 March the hon. Member wrote to the Secretary of State asking for clarity on the guidance associated with the national policy statement for renewable energy infrastructure, EN-3, and its relationship with peatlands. I hear him speak about the importance of protecting peat, but I am less certain about what his position is on the Calderdale wind farm. Is he for or against the development of the Calderdale wind farm in his constituency?
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I think my position is fairly clear from what I am saying, but my point—this is the very clear thing—is not about a development in Calderdale, but about the principle of trying to tackle climate change and looking at that in the round with regard to developments on peat and whether any developments on peat make sense. I am more interested in the broad principle. I was never going to look for an outcome and find evidence to support it. I followed the evidence where it led me, and it led me to the concerns that I have expressed to Ministers fairly constantly, to the point where I have made clear my view that building on protected peat is counterproductive to our climate change aims.
In all seriousness, I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate, because many Members across the House appreciate the need for a green energy revolution and agree that we have to move at speed to respond to the scale of the climate crisis. I recognise the urgency to meet net zero, but we have to get it right. We have to accept that green energy that comes at the cost of our environment is not in fact green, and we must be clear that projects that will dig up peat are wrong, even if that is for homes or wind turbines. I urge Ministers to make clear our position on this and how we are looking at that, so we can come to a position that does not undermine what we are trying to do overall in our climate aims.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his clear passion on this matter and for reaching out to all the political parties to try to engage them and bring them together in the way he always does through his politics in this place. I do hope he is successful in that; perhaps we have yet to find out whether that will be the case.
I rise to speak on a matter that touches the very heart of the Northern Irish landscape. From the Sperrins to the Fermanagh lakelands, our peatlands are not just scenic backdrops but our greatest natural asset in the fight for good environmental space and to be good stewards of our land. We are given the task to look after what we have today; we are indeed the custodians for those who come after. What we do will have an impact on our children, grandchildren and generations to come.
Peat removal has taken place over many years. At the turn of the 19th century in Northern Ireland, peat was the heat source for many cottages and houses, but in the last 60 years, there has been a change and a different focus. I adhere to and support what the hon. Member puts forward in relation to wind farm development on protected peatland. In Northern Ireland, we are currently working towards an ambitious goal of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2030. We understand that this is a mammoth task, one that the Northern Ireland Assembly recently debated. Regardless of where the target is set, we need renewable energy and a sensible way forward.
There is a balance. We have to restore and hold on to the peatland—that is important. I refer Members to early-day motion 3168 on World Curlew Day tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff); if they look at the wording of it, they will see the importance of retaining that habitat. The peatlands are a breeding location for curlew, lapwing and snipe, critically important for their survival into the future. Wind farms, by their very nature, have the potential to kill many of the birds that fly. That happens to birds of prey, curlew and others when they are high in the sky—I am ever mindful that wind farms are tall.
I know my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) will refer to Glenwherry grouse moor in his constituency; it is a shooting moor, but it is also a peatland moor. I am very keen and interested in shooting; I know the gamekeeper there and the project that has been going on over Glenwherry for years. There were once no grouse there, and a magnificent project, in partnership with the landowner, gamekeeper and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, has ensured that Glenwherry is now a workable and harvestable grouse moor. That has happened because they have retained the peatlands and made the habitat suitable for all the bird life that is there—not just the grouse, but the curlew, lapwing, snipe and others.
We must recognise, however, that 86% of our peatlands are currently degraded. When we build turbines on these sites we risk further damaging our soil carbon pool, which accounts for 53% of all carbon stored in Northern Ireland’s soil. We support what the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley is trying to achieve, because we understand the importance of ensuring that these things do not happen. We cannot afford to save the planet by destroying the very ecosystems that naturally sequester its carbon.
Under the Northern Ireland peatland strategy to 2040, we have committed to restoring all semi-natural peatlands to functioning ecosystems, and that needs to be replicated throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The hon. Member referred to the importance of ecosystems in his introduction, and I reiterate that and support it. We must find a balanced path that prioritises degraded industrial peat sites for energy development, rather than un-degraded, healthy blanket bogs, and that integrates restoration funding into wind farm projects. That will ensure that developers do not just build but actively help re-wet and recover the surrounding land.
When we talk about the peatlands, we talk about their importance: they are historically and environmentally important, and we must do our best to ensure that developers do not have the upper hand when it comes to stretching out and taking over what we have responsibility for. Let us ensure that our wind farms are built in the right places, for the right reasons and with the utmost respect for the carbon vaults beneath our feat in the peatlands. We take a stand for those peatlands today.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who secured this debate, is probably surprised to have more response from Northern Ireland MPs than from those representing the constituencies surrounding his own, and he may wonder why that is the case. However, this problem is not specific to one area; it extends right across the United Kingdom. This problem will also only increase, exacerbating an issue that the Government have already accepted, that 80% of our peatlands have been either degraded or badly damaged, the impact of which has been outlined by other speakers.
The window of my house’s study looks on to the upper parts of the Antrim plateau, and it is almost like looking at an army of triffids marching across and destroying the peatlands. I have stood on the site of the most recent wind farm to be built close to my home, and the trenches created by the removal of peat would reach above a person’s shoulder, so there had obviously been a huge displacement of material.
I believe this problem will only increase because the Government, in their pursuit of net zero, have now proposed another 27 onshore wind farms across the United Kingdom, and they are giving incentives. Despite our being told that the price of wind power is going down, it actually went up in the last auction. Of course, wind farms are most suited to a certain type of upland, and it is very attractive to put them there. There is good wind, and the land itself is probably not all that valuable to farmers because it has quite a low agricultural value. Therefore, there is an economic incentive for farmers to allow, encourage and accept the locating of multiple wind turbines on such land. This problem has been caused, first, by Government policy, and secondly, by the kind of areas we are talking about and their suitability for these kinds of developments.
We have already heard about the value of peatlands, especially in upland areas. We have heard about the impact on drainage, wildlife, river systems and—this will be more important to others than to me—the release and storage of carbon dioxide. I take a different view from many others on the causes of climate change. It happens, but for multiple reasons, so we cannot identify only one cause.
The irony is that those who believe that the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is important are the very people who now encourage activities that release huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. As has been pointed out, we cannot have wind farms on peatland areas without causing significant disruption through the digging of holes to put in huge amounts of concrete—the making of which also generates a lot of CO2—the putting in of roads and the disruption to drainage. There is even the fact that the power must be taken through electricity cables that run across landscapes. All those things unavoidably lead to the release of CO2, which is the very thing we are told that net zero policy is essential to prevent.
Robbie Moore
The right hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Another key challenge in building the turbines is the infrastructure, because a huge amount of aggregate to facilitate the piling of the foundations and road infrastructure must be brought in from elsewhere, which could be a long distance away. That is exactly the challenge we are finding at the Calderdale wind farm, where aggregate will have to be brought from miles away—nowhere near the actual proposal. Does the right hon. Member agree that this demonstrates why it is so ludicrous to have wind farm developments on protected peatland in areas that are not suitable?
Sammy Wilson
These are all issues that should be taken up during the planning process, and I am not sure that happens. When I have objected to wind farm applications in Northern Ireland, the answer has been, “This is a way of producing clean energy.” I do not even accept that argument. It is not clean, in the way in which the landscape has to be disrupted. Most of the steel for wind turbines is produced outside the country, from sources that produce it in less clean ways than we do. Anyone who has taken any interest in the matter will be appalled at the environmental and human degradation caused by extracting the rare earth metals required for these wind turbines.
We are currently spending huge amounts of money on a huge new electricity infrastructure because, instead of bringing power from one station, we are bringing it from stations spread all over the countryside, hence the investment in the infrastructure, which individuals are paying for through their monthly bills. I have heard the defence today that this is the cost of getting clean energy. We have to ask ourselves, “Is it even clean energy?” Is it any more environmentally friendly than some of our other methods? If we look at the carbon intensity of each machine used to produce the energy, an individual turbine is more carbon-intensive than a generator in a power station. All those factors are not taken into consideration.
To the Minister, and to those who support the whole policy of net zero and what must be done to achieve it, I say let us at least be honest with ourselves. Do these projects achieve what we want to achieve? If they do not, whether in our constituencies or somebody else’s, there should not be any hesitation in saying that they prevent us from achieving the goal that we want to achieve.
Maybe the Minister can enlighten us. When applying to build a road, all kinds of environmental assessments, et cetera, have to be done. Since these developments are designed to reduce carbon emissions, a proper carbon calculation should be done when a planning application is made. If that had been done, I suspect that many of these projects would not have been given permission, as their carbon output would have been greater than is acceptable. If we are to stop this, we must pay attention to the carbon output and ensure that planning permissions are predicated on a proper assessment.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this important debate.
Peatlands such as the Avalon marshes and the Somerset levels and moors are globally rare ecosystems. They make up less than 3% of Earth’s surface, yet they hold 30% of the world’s soil carbon. They have been described as the UK’s Amazon rainforest. They constitute 12% of our land area and play a critical role in mitigating climate change, supporting biodiversity and regulating water flow. They also support important habitats of rare fauna and flora, such as sphagnum mosses, roundleaf sundew, cottongrass and invertebrates such as the large marsh grasshopper, micro-plume moths and various damselflies and dragonflies. The peatlands of the Somerset levels and moors host breeding waders such as snipes and curlews, plus bitterns, adders and the recently reintroduced beavers. Somerset’s county emblem is a dragon rampant on a yellow background, so my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) can keep his Welsh dragon, which I understand inhabits the Radnor forest.
Given that the UK faces a nature crisis, with one in six species threatened with extinction from Britain, it is vital that adequate steps are taken to protect and restore such rare habitats. Yet successive Governments have kicked the can down the road and failed to take the necessary action, with the Office for Environmental Protection rebuking the previous Conservative Government for falling far short of the action needed to improve the environment. Part of creating the healthy natural environment that lies at the heart of the Liberal Democrat approach requires continued renewable and clean energy investment, such as wind farms. While we strongly believe that renewables are key to the energy production of a low-carbon future, priority habitats such as peatlands must be preserved and protected.
Worryingly, in the UK and around the world, peatlands are a net source of greenhouse emissions due to how they have been managed over the years. Over 80% of the UK’s peatlands have been damaged by past or present management. The Somerset levels consist of marine clay levels along the coast and inland peat-based moors. The peat dries out when peatlands are damaged, and when exposed to the elements, instead of storing and locking in carbon, it is emitted back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
Restoring peatlands to health is absolutely vital so that they can continue to sequester carbon effectively. Once restored to a healthy and stable state where they can function naturally, peatlands will start to absorb carbon as they build up more peat, as well as providing an important natural flood defence.
I have long stated my concerns about the management of peatlands, and the development of wind farms on peatland risks further degrading these valuable habitats—negating any reduction in carbon emissions that would be produced by those wind farms. While previous research suggested that emissions could be reduced if strictly managed, more recent findings have found that wind farms on peatlands will not reduce carbon emissions, even with careful management.
Researchers have recommended that future policy should avoid constructing wind farms on undegraded peat. Environmental scientists from Nottingham Trent University have also warned of the need to better understand the impact of wind farms on peatlands, with evidence showing increased negative impacts on peatland hydrology, biodiversity, carbon storage and ground-level climatic conditions, and further cautioning that the carbon savings generated through wind energy may be negated by the emissions from the peatlands on which they are constructed.
I thank the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for its recent inquiry on this exact issue. It highlighted the inconsistencies and weaknesses in a Government policy that, on the one hand, recognises the importance of peatlands, yet on the other refuses to take action to manage the increasing infrastructure demands on them. Current Government guidance states that onshore wind farm sites in England may be proposed on peatland. However, any application should rule out other locations before siting developments on peatland.
I want to be clear that investment in renewable energy is a must. It will make homes healthy and cheap to heat, and it will support green jobs and economic growth. Another consideration is whether the development of wind turbines on peatland undermines the green energy transition, and whether the carbon lost from degraded peat outweighs estimated savings from renewables. There is planning guidance and a carbon calculator to address the issue in Scotland, but why not in England? The Government have also stated that they will publish an equivalent to NatureScot’s guidance on peatland habitat management for England, but we need to know when that will be.
That leads me to a broader concern regarding the Government’s approach to protecting our peatlands. In December, DEFRA published an updated environmental improvement plan, which included a commitment to restore approximately 280,000 hectares of peatland in England by 2050. However, recent analysis indicates that we may be significantly off track to meet those targets, and the Climate Change Committee has called for the UK Government to prioritise ramping up peatland restoration. Currently, the Government plan to spend £85 million by 2030 on peatland restoration. Although that funding is welcome, we must question why we still allow peat extraction to continue.
Hon. and right hon. Members may be aware of my Horticultural Peat (Prohibition of Sale) Bill, which would finally implement the horticultural peat ban that was first promised by Government in 2022. This Government recently committed to end the sale of peat in England, but they have yet to take concrete steps to achieve that ambition. I urge Ministers to do their bit to ensure that such a ban is included in the forthcoming King’s Speech.
Somerset is one of only two counties in England where peat extraction still takes place, with a few extraction licences still in place until 2042. Despite the immense potential of peatlands as carbon sinks, shockingly, extraction and degraded peatlands contribute to 10% of all carbon emissions in Somerset. Beyond the climate benefits, healthy peatlands store and slow water flows, reducing flood risk and creating a rich mosaic of habitat that helps prevent wildfires. There have been yet more devastating floods this winter in areas such as Mudford, Langport, Thorney and Drayton in my constituency, so it is important that we utilise the unique ability of peatlands as natural flood defences. We know that the construction of wind farms on peatlands disrupts their hydrology, which can lead to peatland drying out and vicious cycles of erosion, potentially aggravating flooding in the settlements below.
Peatland extraction for horticulture poses exactly the same risks. For several years, horticultural businesses have been working towards a peat-free future, with Somerset-based businesses such as Durston Garden Products, based just outside Street, and RocketGro supporting a ban and producing peat-free compost. They took the previous Government at their word when they committed to ban the sale of peat, believing that it was the right thing to do for their businesses and for the environment.
We need a joined-up approach to peatland protection and restoration, which recognises that both extraction and the placement of unsuitable infrastructure on peatland undermine our net zero objectives. We must instead focus on win-win solutions through strategic and spatial planning that can deliver for society and nature. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to invest in renewable power, so that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by 2030. We believe that with carefully planned development, we can achieve those goals while avoiding significant harm to nature and actively furthering its recovery. Rather than stripping local authorities of local decision making, we would give them a key role to cut emissions in their own area, including more powers and funding.
It is time for the Government to end the uncertainty, to act now and to demonstrate real leadership by implementing a well thought-out policy for peatland protection and restoration.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this important debate. Since this Labour Government came to power, they have been recklessly zealous in their commitment to net zero targets over all else, not least their willingness to trash our countryside for wind turbines, ground-mounted solar and more, when far less land-intensive energy solutions such as small modular reactors would deliver our energy needs in a much more sympathetic way to our landscape, food security and natural environment.
On the one hand, the Government promise to restore our natural environment, while on the other, they open England’s protected peatlands to industrial wind farm development such as Calderdale, which my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech. I wish him luck, and I support him, in his fight against that monstrosity as he sets out to protect his constituents and iconic Brontë country.
The consequence is that habitats storing more than 3 billion tonnes of carbon, formed over centuries and millennia, are now exposed to excavation, road building and the foundations of turbines. What do people get in return? They get not a ban, not a firm line, but guidance from the Government that says that deep peat should be “avoided”—a word that is not a prohibition, merely a suggestion. That will create irreparable damage to irreplaceable habitats, and it has been reduced to a footnote in a planning document.
In January 2026, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero published guidance permitting wind farm development on peatland. The national planning policy framework states that development on irreplaceable habitats, which includes a quarter of England’s peatland, should be refused, yet the Government have chosen just guidance over prohibition. It is shocking but unsurprising of this Labour Government—we find contradictions in their policymaking at every corner. Crucially, the new guidance on construction practices for wind farms on peatland has not even been published yet—the bulldozers may arrive before the policy framework lands.
That failure extends beyond one habitat. Peatlands supply more than a quarter of the UK’s drinking water and provide fertile agricultural land and habitats for rare wildlife. The Government’s secondary legislation, which came into effect in December 2025, removed the de facto ban on onshore wind, handing planning consent back to the corridors of Whitehall, rather than local communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said, that bypasses the consent of local people and empowers the Secretary of State to impose infrastructure irrespective of their concerns. Given that Labour controls the levers of national Government, energy policy and planning guidance simultaneously, that should give us pause for thought: what are they trying to achieve?
The Government hold a statutory responsibility to protect irreplaceable habitats, which makes it even more important that they demonstrate visible leadership on this issue, rather than convenient ambiguity. Instead, Energy Ministers tell us that existing protections are sufficient, yet those existing protections have not prevented the guidance from being issued. The Government cannot have it both ways. Over recent years, costs imposed on rural communities by energy infrastructure decisions have grown significantly. With the expansion of the NSIP regime, increases in centrally directed planning consent and innovations in bypassing local democratic oversight, the least that those communities could expect is that their most precious landscapes would be protected.
In addition, when the science itself warns against development on peatland, the Government should be able to point to a clear policy to reflect that. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has been unambiguous, stating that “modelling…suggests” that
“emissions from the windfarm development on undamaged peatlands…will not”—
I repeat, “will not”—
“be offset by…the green energy generated.”
That is not a fringe position, but the conclusion of the body dedicated to this very question.
As ever, I would like to be charitable, but it is hardly surprising that the Government have been slow to draw a firm line when their approach to net zero treats all means as justified by the end.
Anna Dixon
Will the shadow Minister clarify his own party’s position? Does it remain committed to net zero, and does it acknowledge there will be a lot of nature damage if we do not make the transition swiftly to generating clean and renewable energy by 2030?
Greg Smith
The Conservative party has been very, very clear on that. We believe in decarbonisation, but we need to do it in a way that people can afford and that does not trash our country in the process, in the way that ground-mounted solar and these wind farms do. The points I am making in arguing that damaging untouched peatland ends up causing more environmental damage than the supposed benefits of the wind farms that those who argue for them want to put there should make every Member of the House pause. They should think whether, in getting to decarbonisation, we are not creating more problems than we are solving by simply taking the first technology off the shelf or going for the convenient bit of land that might be available to build this on. It is a totally false economy to go down the rabbit warren of saying, “It looks green, so we must do it,” rather than doing a whole-system analysis, from the manufacture of parts to the destruction of habitat, land and place across our country. That may actually reveal that the results are not as green as they look on the metaphorical packaging.
The guidance does little to help the communities living along these landscapes, the wildlife that depends on them, or indeed the climate if carbon storing habitats are destroyed in the name of carbon reduction. In contrast to that inaction, there is a straightforward solution: prohibit wind farm development on protected peatland across our country—full stop. Despite the Secretary of State holding responsibility for both energy and net zero, it is preposterous that no such ban has been enacted. It is either that the Government do not wish to constrain their ambitions or are displaying sheer negligence towards the natural environment they claim to champion.
The reality is that this is not an abstract problem. These are living landscapes that once destroyed cannot be recovered on any human timescale. We need the Government to bring forward a clear prohibition—not guidance, balance or nuance deployed as a smokescreen, but a complete ban. Without the will to protect these habitats absolutely, the peatlands will be lost, and with them 3 billion tonnes of stored carbon, a quarter of our drinking water supply and the quiet, irreplaceable richness of the United Kingdom’s upland landscape.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this debate, which I know is very important for his constituency, just as it is for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn)—I know that he has done a huge amount of work in engaging Ministers on this topic and I thank him for that. He is probably the person in the room who has the greatest intimate knowledge of the bottom of a peat bog. I also wish everybody a very happy World Curlew Day.
The Government’s ambition of clean power by 2030 is critical for moving all of us off our costly reliance on fossil fuels and for protecting consumer bills. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), rightly said that we need more investment in small, modular reactors. That is true, but we also need to invest in our cheapest form of energy, which is solar; our second cheapest, which is onshore wind; our third cheapest, which is offshore wind; and full scale nuclear and small modular reactors. We need to do all those things for our energy security, to bring bills down and, of course, to tackle climate change.
Recent events in the middle east have reinforced the importance of producing home-grown clean energy. Delivering our clean power mission will help to boost Britain’s energy independence, protect bill payers, support high-skilled jobs and tackle the climate crisis. Onshore wind is a critical component to delivering those goals. Getting more low-cost renewables such as onshore wind on to the system reduces our exposure to volatile global fossil fuel markets, protecting British families from the effects of future price shocks. This Government will continue to support onshore wind. We have removed the damaging de facto ban in England that has been in place for almost a decade and reintroduced the technology into the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime.
Robbie Moore
The very point the Minister is making is the reason why the application for the Calderdale wind farm has come before us: because this Labour Government removed the onshore wind moratorium put in place by the last Conservative Administration. Given the concerns that I raised about the protected nature of that peatland and the impact on the precious peat, and all the concerns raised by Opposition Members, what is the Government’s position when there is an application that is on protected peat?
Chris McDonald
I hope the hon. Member will recognise that as I continue my remarks I will address many of the points that he made in his speech, including the point about peatland. From the contributions we have heard today, I would say there is strong agreement in this room on the need both to tackle climate change and to care for our special environments in the UK, including peatland. He will hear more on that from me shortly.
Removing the ban on onshore wind was a very early and important decision that the Government made. The onshore wind projects deliver a very low-cost form of energy and improve our energy security. The momentum is on our side. Last year, onshore wind power produced 12% of our total electricity. We recognise, of course, that poorly sited, poorly designed onshore wind farms have impacts on local communities in relation to wildlife, local heritage and residents’ sense of place. That is why our planning system has strong checks and balances to manage those impacts, including through requirements for extensive up-front surveys and statutory assessments on the impacts of the environment and important habitats. Those checks and balances extend, of course, to peatlands.
We know that peatlands are vital for biodiversity, for carbon and for water. Peatlands are sensitive habitats and are important for many species of flora and fauna. Because peat soils are rich in carbon, disturbances will have climate impacts. We therefore recognise that building infrastructure such as onshore wind on peatland can have detrimental impacts, and we appreciate that communities have valid concerns about that. An e-petition, to which the Government responded last year, called for a ban on building onshore wind farms on peatland in England, and we have heard those calls repeated in this debate. That is why we have protections in the planning system requiring careful consideration from developers and decision makers when onshore wind farm developments are proposed on peatlands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) also asked a question about the protection of peatlands. Approximately half of England’s deep peat and a quarter of all England’s peat soils are afforded special protection through being classed as irreplaceable habitats, as we heard earlier. That affords additional protection in the planning process. The Government have published specific guidance for onshore wind and peat in the national policy statements, which are used to assess the impacts of nationally significant infrastructure projects.
We heard earlier about EN-3, the national policy statement for renewable energy, which makes clear that, although onshore wind is permitted on peatland, applicants should seek and rule out other locations first. EN-3 guides developers to avoid peatland where possible, particularly areas of deep peat. Where that is not possible, developers are required to mitigate or compensate for peatland impacts. We are now going further to give decision makers and developers more tools to assess and manage the impacts of onshore wind on peatland. We committed in EN-3 to publish additional guidance regarding wind farm construction on peatland in England, something the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) asked about in particular.
I can confirm that we are in ongoing discussions with the Scottish Government about developing a carbon calculator tool for England similar to the one currently used in Scotland, which could inform policy decisions around developments on peatlands. I hope that my words have clarified the Government’s position and addressed some of the concerns. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley might be disappointed that I have not directly referenced the project in his constituency, but hopefully he realises that, given the role of the Secretary of State, I have constrained my comments to speak more generally.
Robbie Moore
I recognise that, but I have written to the Secretary of State urging the Government to extend the consultation period that is in place right now—it ends on 10 June. Given that the developer put this consultation in place in the middle of local elections, the two key councils, Bradford and Calderdale, cannot comment formally until after those elections, and it is also likely that there will be a change in leadership in those councils. Will the Secretary of State, via the Minister, consider at least extending that statutory consultation so that more people can get engaged and we can have proper responses from the two key councils?
Chris McDonald
I am grateful for that intervention, because the hon. Member is right; he mentioned that and I meant to respond to it, but I had forgotten. It is important to note that there is no role for the Government in extending the consultation—that is a matter for the developer, but I am sure that any responsible developer would listen very carefully to the voice of the local community and Members of Parliament, so it is important that he has put that on the record.
Our clean power 2030 mission is our route to lower bills, greater energy security and resilience, economic growth and the revival of regions that have been left behind, including our industrial heartlands. However, we also know that it cannot and must not come at an unacceptable cost to our natural world and our communities, so we are taking a balanced approach. We do not believe that clean energy must come at the expense of our environment. That is why we are investing significantly in protecting and restoring nature, including peatlands, while providing the protections and flexibility we need through the planning system to manage impacts and enable deployment.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley for securing this debate; I thank everyone who participated—and of course I thank you, Sir Alec, in the Chair.
Robbie Moore
The reason for calling this debate is that we are dealing with a real and live challenge, particularly in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. The debate has been very worthwhile, but I have major concerns. There was a moratorium in place under the previous Conservative Administration, which has been removed by this Labour Government, enabling these sorts of developments—wind farms on protected peatland—to take place. Yet all the Labour Government can offer is guidance, which simply refers to protected peat being looked at and referenced within any application. That is deeply worrying.
Secondly, the Minister referred to ongoing discussions on the carbon calculator with the Scottish Government. That is too late. An application is before us in West Yorkshire. Any ongoing carbon calculator discussions are too late, because the application is being considered right now.
My third point is that as far as I can see, my neighbouring Members of Parliament have not put forward a position on the Floor of the House on whether they will join me to campaign as strongly as we can against this application. Concerns have been raised, but there is no formal position. It is deeply worrying that some of the Labour Members of Parliament I wrote to—I gave plenty of notice—did not feel it was worth turning up to this debate. It is clear that this Government’s policy in pursuit of net zero makes absolutely net zero sense.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered windfarm development on protected peatland.