Solar Farms

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

To understand this Government’s approach to solar farms, one should start by re-reading the Labour manifesto —page 59 of the Labour manifesto to be more precise. I know that it was only a year ago, but in its solemn promise to the British people, it said:

“Labour recognises that food security is national security. That is why we will champion British farming”.

That may now seem a long time ago, because a succession of announcements from this Government have made it clear that there is no commitment to farming or to food security. Indeed, that applies to many of their other commitments—smash the gangs, council tax bills will not go up, or energy bills will come down. On food security and its importance to national security it is clear that it was a fake promise. Indeed, there is an irony here, because we still have the ongoing covid inquiry. I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time of covid, and it was clear to me that at a time of national crisis, value for money changes; there is competing demand across nations for scarce resources. I assure Members that, at such a crisis point, food security becomes an issue of national security, which is why the carelessness of the current Government on their manifesto commitment matters so much.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend makes a brilliant point. Does he also recognise that the way that this Government have set up the arrangements—they are guaranteeing 10% to 20% returns on investment on these farms—is in effect bribing farmers to move away from farming?

[Steve Barclay]

Indeed, the Government are creating an incentive to do the exact opposite of own manifesto pledge, which is why I started with that point.

Let me come on to the second place where we can see Labour’s approach—in the Cabinet. Of course, we cannot witness the Cabinet in action at first hand, but it is very clear—certainly to someone who has had the good fortune to sit in Cabinet—how marginalised the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has become. We see the Prime Minister announce things such as the compulsory purchase of farmland in order to support infrastructure schemes; we see the former Labour leader, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, make a whole raft of decisions in his first few weeks of office on massive solar farms, overriding DEFRA; we see the Deputy Prime Minister riding roughshod over the DEFRA Secretary of State on housing schemes; and we see the Chancellor phoning officials at DEFRA the night before to say that the sustainable farming incentive had been reduced so quickly that the Government have now had to concede in a legal case that their approach was wrong and allow a further 3,000 farm applications to proceed—and that is without any clear commitments in this area.

When I warned at the election about Labour’s farm tax, the now DEFRA Secretary of State said that it was complete nonsense. Well, we have seen the Government introduce that tax and watched while the Treasury rode roughshod over the Department. We have a Department that is completely sidelined in the Government and failing to speak up not just for food security and farming, but for the very commitments that were made in the Labour manifesto.

We see a theme running across a whole range of policy announcements that shows the instinct, the values and the priorities of this Government, who always believe that top-down knows best. They do not believe in localism. The implication for solar farms can be seen in how the delivery of the policy is happening on the ground. We are seeing clusters in the east of England, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) would point out, in areas of the best food production. We are seeing a gaming of the system, where the developers bring in consultants to grade the land in ways that sit at odds with historic knowledge of the value of that land.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis]

I am listening with interest to what the hon. Member has to say, and I have some sympathy with it, but does he have any specific proposal for how we deal with the nationally significant infrastructure projects approach, which completely overrules what he is talking about?

[Terry Jermy]

I encourage the right hon. Member to let me get to the end of my speech, as I may answer his question. I will then be happy to have a conversation with him.

The fact is that renewable energy projects are not evenly distributed across the country. In Norfolk, our terrain is flat and quite sandy, so it is relatively easy to get things into the ground. With the likelihood of increased pylon capacity, we are attractive to solar projects and we are getting more than our fair share of applications for solar farms, which places increased burdens on certain communities.

One of my particular concerns about the influx of applications is the impact on food security. All too often, agricultural land has become the default option for solar farms because it can be cheaper than alternatives when deployed at scale, not because that is the right social and environmental option. Solar farms are not being sited on just any old agricultural land, either; they are being sited disproportionately on better-quality farmland rather than on poorer-quality land.

There is three times more grade 5 agricultural land in the UK than grade 1 land, with grade 5 being the lowest quality land, as mentioned earlier, and grade 1 being the best, yet solar installations occupy 20 times more grade 1 land than grade 5 land. That cannot be desirable, or indeed acceptable. I firmly believe that grade 2 agricultural land and above should be protected and prioritised for food production. The national planning policy framework considers grade 1, 2 and 3a land as the “best and most versatile” land, and prioritises its protection. Yet that prioritisation is clearly not influenced in the proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

May I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) on what he had to say? He was at least responsive to local interest in this.

We have heard a number of rather glib comments about this and that percentage of land. Let us just look at it from an individual point of view. Last Monday the East Yorkshire solar farm in my constituency, covering 3,150 acres, was approved. Not many policies make me angry in this place, but this one did for my constituents. Why? Because a decision rode roughshod over the desires, wishes and expressed complaints of my constituents. The solar farm will cover an area the size of Durham. Let us imagine, if we were applying to build a town the size of Durham, how long the planning would take. Yet this went through effectively on the nod, and the so-called consultation process was little more than a rubber-stamping operation. Why do I say that? Because there were a lot of sensible and constructive inputs from my constituents, and some from me, and no attention whatsoever was paid to any of them.

In trying quite properly to save the global environment, the Government are causing untold harm to the local environment in Britain, and in so doing they will fail in their first aim.

[Sarah Russell]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Conservatives’ failure to have proper national strategies for development means that we do not have enough prison places to lock up all of our criminals, and that not having sufficient solar energy will do the same?

[David Davis]

Unless the hon. Lady is talking about the suntans of the criminals, I am not quite sure what the relevance of that was. She was one of the ones who were picking numbers out of the air, with this small percentage and that small percentage. I am pointing out the actual effect on ordinary citizens, and it is not the bland view that she has put forward.

A 3,000-acre solar farm is disproportionate for any part of the country, because it surrounds villages and makes life miserable for people. Multiple towns and villages will be completely surrounded by the East Yorkshire solar farm. Another one, the Mylen Leah solar farm, which would cover another 3,000 acres, is proposed for right next door. That will effectively be 6,000 acres. I am not very optimistic about the attitude of the Government in the approval process.

We have also heard slightly sneering references to nimbys. What are we talking about here? We are talking about actual people in my constituency. They range from pensioners who have spent their entire life savings to go and live in a quiet part of the country with a beautiful view, who will instead have a view of black plastic, to people not very far from me who bought a place in the country because they have got a child who is severely autistic and needs the peace and quiet and the rural environment that is provided. We have people who take lower salaries to work in the country because that is what they want. We have people who are committed there in farms and rural industries. They are the so-called nimbys and they do not want their lives ruined. That is what we are here to defend.

When I surveyed my residents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) did, I found that 90% were against the size of the farm and against the overwhelming impact. They were not against the idea; they were against the ridiculous way this is being done.

I am running out of time, so I will make one other point about the ill-thought-through nature of the policy. It depends on access to the grid. Therefore, the reason I have farms of 2,000 acres, 3,000 acres—probably more—is that we are near Drax on the grid. That encourages a concentration of huge farms in concentrated areas all over the country, where ordinary people will have their lives destroyed by an ill-thought-through, rotten policy.