Heating Oil Prices: Rural Areas

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. During the autumn recess I had the opportunity to tour villages in my constituency. Heating oil costs were the issue that came up time and again. Over 30% of households in Waveney Valley are off the gas grid—the highest percentage of any constituency in the east of England. As many hon. Members have said, heating oil is unique because, unlike households that use mains gas and electricity, heating oil users are not protected by the energy price cap and are therefore exposed to global energy shocks, geopolitics and market volatility. Hon. Members have all heard cases of people having to choose between heating and eating, and of pensioners and children going to bed at night cold. That simply cannot be right in 2026. We cannot allow large swathes of our citizens to have to make, at the whim of Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, that choice between heating and eating.

The Government’s response so far has not been adequate. As we have heard, the £53 million that was invested last April amounts to only £35 extra for each household. That hardly scratches the surface. Even scrapping VAT on heating oil, which would be welcome, would save only £50 for a £1,000 purchase. What do we need most? First, regulation of prices in the sector; secondly, far more significant assistance through councils, which are having to stretch the funding they are given further and further; thirdly, as other hon. Members have said, proper investment in home insulation measures. Announcements in last week’s Budget that seemed to suggest cuts to the warm homes plan take us in the wrong direction. We also need investment in things such as renewable heating systems that can work in rural communities. Those green measures are essential but they are, of course, not enough for this winter. Efforts to reduce costs and to help people right now are absolutely needed.

Solar Panels on Agricultural Land

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that issue. He spends a lot of time and energy investigating and pursuing it and I am glad he has brought his expertise to this debate.

The Government have made it clear that solar energy will be central to their clean power mission, with solar capacity expected to increase from 17 GW to between 45 GW and 47 GW by the end of the decade. However, meeting that target should not come at the expense of the country’s agricultural land.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Solar energy must continue to make a huge and growing contribution towards our clean energy future, and that must include far more solar on rooftops and car parks and a considered approach to the use of land for energy generation. There are competing demands in respect of food production, renewable energy generation, nature and rural livelihoods, and I am concerned about the lack of an integrated land use framework and strategic spatial energy plan to guide solar expansion, which is resulting in lots of speculative applications. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we must move towards a co-ordinated spatial strategy that balances energy security, food security and nature recovery, and seeks to enhance all three?

[Esther McVey]

I agree that the Government need to have oversight of what is going on. It seems that our farming land and our food security are currently being put at a lower level of priority than a net zero mission and vision. As we have all agreed, solar panels should be put on appropriate brownfield land, on top of roofs and on industrial land, not on agricultural land.

Does the Minister know how much prime agricultural land the Government are prepared to sacrifice to meet their green targets? Supposedly, Tabley Hill solar farm is a temporary development, yet a scheme expected to remain in place for 40 years is not temporary—and other Members have talked about 60 years. It will determine how the land is used for a generation.

I recognise the financial pressures that many farmers face, particularly under the Government’s savage policies, and why the certainty of a long-term income from solar development may be attractive. The fault does not lie with individual farmers. It lies with a system that can make generating electricity more profitable than producing food on some of the country’s highest-quality agricultural land. There are impacts on tenant farmers, who are threatened with eviction, and there is further pressure on land values, which makes it harder for new entrants to join the sector and begin farming.

Aukera, Tabley Hill’s developer, points to a community fund that it has established—which I think is derisory, at £10,000 a year—as evidence that it is bringing benefit to the local area. Local residents are entitled to ask whether £10,000 a year is proportionate compensation for a development covering 150 acres, occupying green-belt agricultural land and altering the character of the area for decades. I say that it is not. Community benefit funds have their place, but should not be treated as a substitute for meaningful community consent or as a suitable replacement for our food security.

The burden of development will not be confined to the site. Construction traffic is expected for around two years, with every construction vehicle accessing the site via Chester Road. Heavy goods vehicle movements are expected to increase by 60% for up to a year, placing additional pressures on local roads and nearby residents. It is a rural community, and local people are understandably concerned about increased traffic, noise, disruption and the danger of such traffic on rural roads.

Tabley Hill is about more than just one planning application in my constituency; it raises broader questions about how we meet our energy needs without undermining food production, eroding green-belt protections and placing unnecessary pressure on rural communities. There are also questions about whether land used for solar farms will—or ever could—be returned to agricultural use. Many people are questioning that, and they do not have the answers.

I support a balanced energy mix, and I recognise that solar power has a role to play in our energy future. But I do not support the unnecessary loss of some of our highest-quality agricultural land when brownfield sites, commercial rooftops, warehouses and industrial land remain available alternatives, as other Members have said. Productive farmland should be protected wherever possible, and the alternatives should be exhausted before land of such quality is taken out of use for a generation. In my mind, though, it should never be used.

The Minister presumably agrees with me about this issue. Solar planning guidance says that planning authorities should encourage the development of solar farms on non-agricultural land, but that is clearly not strong enough, as it is not working. What does the Minister propose to do to save our vital agricultural land? Stopping his Government’s assault on farmers would be a good start. Will he toughen up official planning policy to protect more agricultural land against solar-farm developments? If not, how much agricultural land is he prepared to see lost from our nation’s ability to provide food for its people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

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

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

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

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

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

[Adrian Ramsay]

rose—

[Esther McVey]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman and I have had this discussion before. This is a very, very important point: of course, we have to do more on adaptation, but the idea that we give up on tackling the climate crisis is grossly irresponsible. Why? Because the costs will become enormous and unmanageable. We have had this discussion at the Select Committee before. We have got to do both. He will see, as somebody who is concerned about our economy, that we simply cannot say, “We’re going to just let climate change run away to 3.5° or 4°,” as he was saying, which would have massive impacts on our population. We have to keep to the Paris agreement and adapt as well.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

The Secretary of State has referred to the number of people who are already losing their lives annually due to excess extreme heat, and that number will reach 10,000 by mid-century. The Climate Change Committee has been clear that the costs of putting in place the adaptations that are needed are less than the costs of not putting those adaptations in place. Will he be adopting the Climate Change Committee’s “A Well-Adapted UK” recommendations and investment plans in full?

[Ed Miliband]

Well, that is obviously a matter for discussion across Government, but the hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and I do agree with it. The May 2026 report of the Climate Change Committee is an incredibly important, landmark report. We know that adaptation has essentially been in the past a poor cousin when it comes to government, and it needs more priority; I absolutely agree with him about that. He is also right to talk about the emergency, because we often say, “This is hotter than it has ever been before,” but as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) said, this is a cooler summer than we will have in the future—that is the reality that we face. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said on all these matters.

Climate Change

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I thank the Minister and the Government for allowing a good length of time for us to debate and give due consideration to this issue of national security, just as it demands. On the day that we are debating the draft Carbon Budget Order 2026, which aims to balance our carbon emissions from 2038 to 2041, it has just been confirmed that we have surpassed the UK’s record June temperatures, which were set in 1976. The record has been surpassed in Charlwood in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan). The Met Office has also issued a red warning for extreme heat this week, with temperatures likely to hit 40°C, but once again the UK is woefully unprepared because we keep putting our head in the sand.

Climate change is no longer a future threat; it is here with us today and the consequences are already being felt. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), asked about costs. This week alone, hundreds of schools have closed. GCSE and A-level students are taking what may be the most important exams in their lives in sweltering conditions, in schools unfit for the current temperatures. Public transport is gridlocked and trains are being cancelled today. Telecommunications are down and the economy faces hundreds of millions of pounds of lost productivity and infrastructure failures.

Turning to the public health costs, last summer’s heatwaves contributed to an estimated 16,500 avoidable excess deaths across Europe, with 1,504 heat-associated deaths last year in the UK alone. We know that that is affecting our elderly and the most vulnerable.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

The hon. Member is making an important speech. She highlighted the record-breaking June temperatures, and I heard Members behind me talk about how it is lovely and warm, but she highlights the very real human cost and the number of deaths per year that we are already seeing. Did she hear the Climate Change Committee highlighting that on the current trajectory, if we do not take action by mid-century, we will see 10,000 unavoidable deaths per year due to heat? Does that not show how serious the situation is?

[Pippa Heylings]

Absolutely, I agree with the hon. Member.

Let us no longer hide from this, but look it clearly in the eye: there are clear costs. They are no longer in the future; they are here now. There are costs to our economy, but also to our communities.

Let us talk about food costs. Food supplies are coming under increasing pressure. Three of the UK’s worst harvests on record have occurred within the last five years, hitting our farmers and driving up costs for families at every shop. Floods and wildfires are making homes uninsurable and putting lives and livelihoods at risk. But this is much more than a story about a few hot days. If we think that this week’s heat is uncomfortable, the difficult truth is that what today feels exceptional will increasingly become normal, and without purposeful climate action, it will keep on getting worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I declare an interest as vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the environment and as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee. Green MPs will back these critical climate change orders and regulations. I want to recognise, as others have done, the strength of the cross-party consensus that has given us the historic and world-first Climate Change Act and then the net zero target. As the temperature outside soars to record highs, we must renew our commitment to working on the basis of evidence. It is therefore deeply regrettable to see attempts from the Conservatives and Reform to dismantle Parliament’s climate consensus. We must not go back to the days of denialism; neither must we tolerate any rowing back on climate ambition in response to a perceived electoral threat from the deniers and the delayers.

The Paris agreement committed the world to holding global temperature rise to well below 2°C. The science has only become more alarming since then. Global emissions did not peak when many of the international climate policy experts predicted; instead, they continued to rise. As a result, the remaining global carbon budget available to meet the Paris goals now faces an ever smaller window. I support the seventh carbon budget, but we should be honest about the challenge before us, and I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that specifically.

I welcome the seventh carbon budget, but it is imperative that we move with the urgency that the climate reality demands. We are experiencing increasingly frequent and severe periods of extreme heat, with temperatures reaching levels that pose risks to public health and essential services. The Climate Change Committee is clear that we are not prepared in any shape or form for what is to come. Greens are today specifically repeating our call for heat-proofing measures: cooling for hospitals, schools, prisons and care homes, including air conditioning where needed; a maximum temperature limit for workplaces and classrooms; and a street-by-street programme to insulate homes to ensure that we keep them warm in winter and cool in summer. We need a long-term policy framework to support that.

Members of the Environmental Audit Committee have heard that mitigation and adaptation cannot be treated as separate challenges. Neither can climate action be separated from action on inequality and the cost of living. Nowhere is that clearer than in our continued dependence on oil and gas. Expanding oil and gas operations will not materially improve UK energy security or protect us against price shocks, and it will not lower household bills. The huge growth in renewables is hugely welcome, but the science demands that we avoid new oil and gas fields. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to unequivocally rule out expansion at Rosebank, given that it would emit emissions equivalent to 28 low-income countries.

[Caroline Voaden]

The hon. Member rightly talks about our not going back to the days of climate denial, but does he agree that there are legitimate questions to be asked about offshoring, and that we need to include the carbon emissions of everything we import, as that will be a general reflection of the carbon that we as a country are consuming?

[Adrian Ramsay]

I strongly agree with the hon. Member on that point, and we must ensure that our emissions account for all our activities, whether that is offshoring, shipping or aviation. As she pointed out earlier, any Government plans for airport expansion could bust their own climate targets and need to be carefully reviewed.

Finally, nature is crucial to this debate. Healthy peatlands, native woodlands, salt marshes and restored ecosystems are among the most effective climate tools available to us, yet we are one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth. I encourage the Government to recognise that in their carbon budget delivery plans. Not only can we build a strong resilient economy at the same time as restoring nature, but we will do so only if we successfully put nature front and centre. The science is becoming starker, the impacts are arriving faster, and the time for cautious incrementalism has passed. This House must back the seventh carbon budget, and we must all work together to increase our ambition to the level needed to protect the public.

Cost of Heating Oil

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone]

I wish my hon. Friend’s constituent well in his recovery. This is just not something we had to think about 10 or 20 years ago. I am sure price-sensitive households were always thinking about every line on their household budget, but for somebody going from hospital to convalescence to home, continuing healthcare probably thinks about everything under the sun—except the cost of energy, because it has not been a thing for that long. We have to do more, because this issue is so urgent right now.

We finally have to say, “Enough is enough.” Heating oil customers need to stop being seen as an afterthought in energy policy. We need to reform properly how we support these people, so that they are never again forced to find vast sums of money just to keep their heating on because of global events that are totally out of their control.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I thank my fellow Member from East Anglia for securing this crucial debate. He is right to highlight the vulnerability in our energy system that this war has exposed and the particular impact on rural communities. Does he agree that older people in rural communities are particularly impacted? As he says, we have seen a doubling or even tripling of costs and a huge financial outlay, which is resulting in some of my constituents having to pay by credit card because they do not have the cash. According to Age UK, 28% of pensioners were already struggling before this crisis. Does he agree that this is further evidence that although the Government’s package is welcome, they need to go further and put in place a price cap to ensure that constituents, including older constituents, are supported?

[Steff Aquarone]

The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to upgrade his geographical reference to “fellow Member from Norfolk”, as a decent quarter of his constituency is in the same county as mine. He will know that a disproportionate percentage of the population in Norfolk is older. There is a tragic, understated reality. When I visit households in my constituency—I am sure he can relate to this—I can just tell whether they are suffering from fuel poverty, because they will be living in one room. That is all too common for older people, and we have to take it seriously. I do not want to indulge in cheap soundbites, but the reality of how the older, retired generation live is quite different from the perceptions that are often peddled. I am grateful for his reminder of that point.

On policy, let me turn first to the support the Government have announced during this crisis. The money is welcome, but I cannot help but wonder how they thought that £53 million was adequate for the millions of people who are affected. I accept that they sought to prioritise those in greatest need, who must receive support, but do the Minister and the Government recognise that even if someone is not on the lowest income or relying on benefits, a sudden extra bill in the hundreds of pounds just to keep the heating on can cause real problems?

State of Climate and Nature

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the role of the City of London. There is also its potentially positive role. We are consulting on a mandatory transition plan for large companies and financial institutions, including in the City of London, precisely so that we can make sure that investment goes to the right places.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, including what he said about the importance of Britain showing leadership and rebuilding cross-party consensus. Even if we have not quite got cross-party consensus on the need for a transition to a green economy, does he agree that the fact that we have seen hundreds of deaths in London alone in the second heatwave of the year, that our farmers are facing the driest start to a year in my lifetime, and that people around the country have suffered from floods in recent years means that our need for resilience in the face of a changing climate cannot be a political football? If so, would he support a sixth Government mission—a mission to protect the British public from changes in the climate?

[Ed Miliband]

On that last bit, that is very much part of our mission to tackle net zero. The first part of the hon. Member’s question was very important. We hear what some folks say in the House, but we see what is happening all around us. It is not like we are gazing into a crystal ball, because some boffins have told us that something bad might happen in the future. This is happening now. If anyone had said 15 years ago that we would have wildfires in Surrey and in Scotland, people would have said, “You’re mad. There’s no way that’s going to happen. We’re not going to have wildfires in Britain.” The hon. Member spoke well about something very important. We need to look with our own eyes at what is happening.

Nuclear Power: Investment

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises such an important point. There is a good tradition of apprenticeships in nuclear. I have seen it at Hinkley Point C and we will see it at Sizewell. I am sure, and I will make sure, that we will see it in the SMR programme as well. These are fantastic opportunities for young people and opportunities that we intend to make happen.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Will the Secretary of State tell the House a bit more about the regulated asset base funding model for Sizewell C? In particular, will he assure the public that the construction phase of Sizewell C will not be funded by increases to people’s bills, given that it will be well over a decade—potentially nearer two decades if we look at Hinkley Point—before it produces any new electricity?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the RAB system that was passed through this House involves the role of bill payers. We believe that that is the right system and will cut the cost compared with Hinkley Point C. The hon. Gentleman appears to oppose many different forms of clean power. He opposes transmission infrastructure for offshore wind and solar, he opposes solar farms, he opposes carbon capture and storage, and I guess he opposes nuclear. I have an all-of-the-above position on clean energy; he seems to have a none-of-the-above position.

Solar Farms

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I am proud that Britain has set ambitious targets for clean energy. We want 95% of our energy to come from low- carbon power sources by 2030. The Government are changing the planning system, as we have heard, so they can deliver the renewable energy of the future.

It is important that the benefits of that ambition are felt by us all, and I am keen to ensure that my constituency of North Northumberland is not overlooked in the new energy race. That means that our solar farms should be local, farmer friendly and effective so that they serve my constituents as well as the whole country. We have heard phrases such as “large-scale prime agricultural land” a lot. We just have to think through where the solar farms are going to be. It need not be an either/or, as seems to have been suggested here at times.

First, it is crucial that solar farms have local support and are rooted in communities. I know many in North Northumberland want renewable community energy that directly benefits them and their neighbourhood now. I have spoken to very small rural communities in my constituency that are well on their way in their attempts to get local solar farms. They want to sign up to the ambition of Great British Energy for the future.

We want to make sure that solar panels are a part of everyday life. In 2013 the Government estimated that there were a quarter of a million hectares of south-facing commercial roofs in the UK. We should make good use of those roofs to ensure that new build homes, for example, have solar panels for the benefit of their owners and their neighbourhood. That is entirely legitimate.

Secondly, solar farms must go hand in glove with farmers. In North Northumberland we have highly productive land that is outstanding for local farmers and for our national food security. It is therefore crucial that we use our scarce land for the best possible purpose. However, let us be clear to the Conservative party, which claims to be for farmers and the party of free choice and small businesses: it is for those farmers and landowners to decide whether they want to diversify.

Early research by Lancaster University suggests that sheep farming, sheep grazing and solar farms—actually called “agrovoltaics”—can go hand in hand. Solar farms could represent one strand of healthy diversification for many farm businesses, and I welcome that.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s points, including about the opportunities for agrivoltaics. I suspect that a lot of residents would be more open to solar farms if they were combined with food growing in the ways that he has described. Yet those are not the sorts of applications that I see coming forward in East Anglia. Will he ask the Government to be stronger in their planning policies to encourage and require solar farms that are combined with food growing?

[David Smith]

I was just about to say that I welcome the Government’s proposed new land use framework, which I think is key. The land use framework, which no Government have had before, will help landowners make sensible and effective decisions with their land. I trust that will include a strong focus on both food production and renewable energy.

Finally, and most importantly, solar farms must lead to lower bills. I am optimistic that as we ease the influence of foreign dictators off our energy supply and generate more of our own renewable energy, the British people will begin to see the benefit. Skilled jobs and lower bills will be the reward for the countries that win the clean energy race, and the best reward for investment in solar and wind power will be lower bills for my constituents in North Northumberland.

We have heard a lot of what I think is a false dichotomy here today, for instance from the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay). Setting up that false dichotomy between food security and energy security is not the way forward. We must do both together. I want my constituents to be part of the national conversation as we move towards net zero. They are keen to see lower emissions, lower bills and local jobs, and that means ensuring that solar farms are local, farmer friendly and effective so that they serve the British people well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

Ynys Môn is known as “energy island.” However, support for clean energy should not undermine our communities. The current plans for huge solar farms on Ynys Môn do exactly that. At present we have a proposal for the Alaw Môn and Maen Hir solar farms, which would cover 3,700 acres. That is nearly 2% of the island’s total land—a huge area. Those solar farms would be built on good-quality agricultural land. Ynys Môn is not opposed to solar energy—the island already hosts several solar farms, such as Bryn yr Odyn, Bodorgan and Porth Wen. In addition, Traffwll solar farm awaits construction. We are playing more than our part in the green transition, from solar to wind, from marine to nuclear.

Ynys Môn is also known as the mother of Wales, because the island’s fertile land has served as the breadbasket of Wales. Building these projects on good agricultural land undermines food security and the agricultural sector, which is a vital part of our economy.

[Adrian Ramsay]

The hon. Lady highlights food security and energy security, which are often highlighted as being in competition in this debate. Is it not the truth that both are crucial for a sustainable future and that it is not clear how the Government will relate the strategic spatial energy plan to the land use framework? Does she agree that both have to work together under a clear national strategy?

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I talk every day to my hon. Friend about her constituency and I am very happy to meet whoever she wants me to, because we think this is an incredibly important matter. The opportunities for her area and the Humber are great if we can harness the talents of the people in her constituency.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Requiring developers to include solar panels in all new homes and buildings would be extremely popular with the public and help deliver net zero targets. Can the Secretary of State give an update on his discussions with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, including those on mandatory solar as part of the future homes and buildings standard?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We are actively working on that in government. Whatever one’s view on ground-mounted solar—we in the Labour party think that it has a role—we do need solar panels on rooftops. It is an important opportunity. While we are about it, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can start supporting our plans on planning and infrastructure so that we can build the clean energy infrastructure that we need.

Electricity Grid Upgrades

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I welcome the chance to discuss matters like this in Westminster Hall—where, in my experience, there is an opportunity to look at the issues and options calmly and without party political point scoring. We must deliver the energy transition at speed, and with community inclusion. The upgrades to the electricity grid are vital for net zero, but how this is done will shape public trust. We can, and must, achieve rapid progress and meaningful community engagement.

My constituents in Waveney Valley—like much of East Anglia—face floods, droughts, and farmland at risk of submersion: they understand the urgency, and voted for action in the election. The grid upgrade is essential to connect renewable energy capacity and end reliance on fossil fuels. Indeed, I have spent the last 10 years leading national environmental charities advocating for and advancing renewable energy, speeding up the transition, and advocating for strengthening the grid. The question is how we can best do that.

There are significant concerns over this proposed pylon route, as we have heard—concerns about the impact on sensitive nature and heritage sites, including the rural landscape, about the impact on farming, and about the implications for local traffic. This is not just about convenience. We need to make decisions that are right for the long term and resilient to the future climate changes that we face.

I want to zoom out, as other speakers have done, and talk about the overall climate emergency and climate breakdown that we are grappling with and working to address. We have seen in Parliament over recent decades a broad consensus on the need for action to be taken: the Climate Change Act 2008 was passed with cross-party support, and the 2050 net zero target was embedded by a later Government, with broad support across the House. We have not had the kind of polarisation that we have seen in the US, and we need to maintain that strong support and to avoid the issue being weaponised so that it becomes divisive and is used for political point scoring, but we risk that happening if we do not take people with us and if people are not heard.

The energy transition must be done with communities, not to them—communities need to feel engaged and heard to maintain their support. People want to see action taken. Speed and proper community consultation can go hand in hand; indeed, they must. The best way to accelerate the energy transition is for communities to feel consulted and involved from the outset. If people believe projects are imposed on them without proper engagement, there is a risk of slowing progress and undermining trust in the renewable energy revolution—a revolution that must happen.

That is why I want to see us use the time that we have right now. The National Grid consultation closed in July and we face a long delay until a planning application is expected at some point next year—we are not sure when. During this time, other options can be properly considered, and that is all I am calling for: a proper consideration of all the options. National Grid has acknowledged that undergrounding is possible—it is doing it in two small sections of the route—but there remain significant concerns.

[Jack Abbott]

Will the hon. Member give way? That is an important point.

[Adrian Ramsay]

As the hon. Member knows, we are about to move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople, so I would like to finish my points. These issues need to be properly considered and the alternatives must be properly examined, including undergrounding more or all of the route, as we have heard, or an offshore grid. Such things are being done in other countries. Indeed, a 2020 National Grid study indicated that an integrated offshore approach could be more cost-effective than piecemeal alternatives. That is why all the options need to be properly considered, and why constituents need to be listened to. People are saying that they feel let down. One of my constituents said:

“So far, we have been subjected to a series of lies, called NIMBYs, and told our rural area is unimportant.”

Another said that there is a failure

“to engage with the local community and…to prove the pylons are better than other more sensible alternatives”.

They want the Government to start listening.

The rapid deployment of renewables must happen. The principle is clear: decisions about infrastructure must be made with communities, and we must maintain and build public trust. All connectivity options must be properly assessed. My constituents are keen to support the energy transition, but they need respect and consultation, and to be shown that the impacts are being properly considered and any compensation packages are clearly set out. The energy transition is not a choice between speed and community support. With thoughtful planning and meaningful engagement, we can, and must, achieve both.