Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
There are products in respect of which we have really good relationships with the EU and obviously want to align closely to it, but for some products we surely want to align with our bigger export markets. For example, we export a lot more of certain products to Japan and the USA. Why would the hon. Gentleman want to ensure that our alignment is purely with Europe, rather than with our major markets?
Is one of the nicest things about CPTPP not that it is continuing to expand into those new growing economies? My hon. Friend describes the impact today, but the impact will be even greater in years to come.
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that not only does it undermine the Union, but it undermines some of our other international and domestic political agreements, such as the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. These small but practical new clauses would help small and medium-sized businesses, so I hope the Minister will acquiesce to the Liberal Democrat motion, which will be supported by Conservative Members. New clause 6 would ensure the publication of simple and clear guidance for SMEs on day one of the Bill becoming law, to be updated every time new regulations are made. Such guidance would set out the key provisions of the Act, provide practical advice and list the available support and contact details for further assistance. New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for SMEs, helping to consider the costs, availability of providers and market access barriers. SMEs often lack the compliance resources of larger corporations. The previous Government’s £4.5 billion advanced manufacturing plan and broader support for British innovation demonstrated our commitment to helping small and medium-sized businesses to grow and compete. The current Government say they want to help such businesses grow and compete, and new clauses 6 and 7 would be practical measures to help them do just that. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy and are important drivers of innovation and export growth. New clauses 6 and 7 would give them a fighting chance to innovate without being buried in red tape. I urge colleagues to support both new clauses as sensible and practical improvements.
Surely one of the best ways to ensure a level playing field for business is to ensure that SMEs, which do not have the heft of large businesses that can lobby directly, get a practical update when changes are made. That is all the new clause would do.
I thank the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for securing this debate. I know that she has regularly championed this issue since coming to this place. As Lord Cameron famously said, “I was the future once.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 294.] Although I am no longer viewed as one of the younger Members in this place, I am grateful for the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, and in the limited time available, to close today’s important debate on the long-term funding of youth services. This subject goes to the heart of how we support the next generation to thrive, contribute and belong, and it is crucial to the future of our great country. In government, we allocated £560 million over three years to the national youth guarantee, which ensured that every young person in England aged between 11 and 18 had regular access to clubs and activities, something to do after school, experiences away from home, and opportunities to volunteer. As part of that, we allocated £300 million to youth facilities, improving and developing over 300 of them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) always made sure that young people were around the table when we made decisions that would affect them. We made sure that young people were not just talked about but listened to, and next week the shadow ministerial team will host a youth roundtable as part of our wider policy renewal. I want to be clear that Conservative Members believe passionately in the power of civil society. We believe in the social fabric that holds this country together—not just the big institutions of state, but the small charities, volunteers, faith groups, sports coaches and mentors who give their time not for profit, but for purpose. They include such organisations as the National Citizen Service, which the Labour Government have cancelled. More than 750,000 young people participated in that programme over 13 years, and it had a 93% satisfaction rate, which is something that this Government can only dream of. We recognise the vital role of youth workers, who are often unsung and under-resourced, but who are always on the frontline. We must be honest: money alone will not solve all the challenges facing young people. A cheque from Whitehall, however large, will not guarantee that a child finds a mentor, stays off the streets or gets a first step on the ladder. However, since coming into office, this Government have made it more difficult for every single charity in this country to provide their essential services. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) recognised that in his speech, and he was the only Member who spoke about the national insurance hike. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as the Chancellor knew when she made her decision, youth charities, like all employers, pay national insurance contributions, and they need to find additional funds to cover the rise in those contributions. According to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the changes could cost the charity sector an additional £1.4 billion per year. For smaller charities with limited reserves and limited core funding, that will seem like an insurmountable challenge. Yesterday, we heard from representatives of Place2Be, a leading children’s mental health charity that has provided expert, school-based mental health support over the past 30 years. They told us that thanks to this Labour Government’s national insurance hike, they now have to find an extra half a million pounds every single year, just to pay tax. As a direct result of this Government’s decisions, it is likely that fewer children will receive the care and support that they need in an environment that is familiar to them. That is why we supported exempting charities with an annual income of less than £1 million from the national insurance rise. However, Labour Members cruelly voted against that, and they must reflect on that, now that they are in government; they are in control. When the Conservatives were in government, we did not just talk about aspiration; we built the conditions for it. We empowered local communities and launched countrywide programmes, such as the National Citizen Service, which had a proven track record of success before this Government closed it down. The Labour Government are dismantling the NCS. In doing so, they are actively and deliberately limiting the life chances of this generation and generations to come, without giving us any answers on what comes next. I hope that this Government will start to think properly about young people. Instead of making young people’s lives more difficult, the Government should put them at the heart of policymaking, and should reverse their callous tax on charities, youth organisations and businesses, which will likely mean a rise in youth unemployment this year. It is time for actions, not words.
On-street parking has an effect on our local roads. In Kings Langley, my local high street is suffering significantly from the Liberal Democrat-led council imposing parking restrictions in a way that has caused confusion not just to businesses but to local residents. Can the Minister give any guidance to Dacorum council on how to communicate better with residents to ensure that on-street parking is properly adhered to, but not to the detriment of our high streets?
As the House will know, I have been raising the prospect of a direct service from Cleethorpes and Grimsby to King’s Cross since 2011. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that he and the Rail Minister will seriously consider the importance of that and actually deliver a service? We do not mind whether it is run by LNER or Grand Central; we just want a direct service to boost the local economy.
The 7.58 am train from Sunbury to Shepperton is used by a lot of schoolchildren in my constituency to get to school, but it was cancelled for four days during a recent six-day period, which meant that children were late for school. That appears on their attendance register, which follows them throughout life. The Secretary of State will own South Western Railway by the end of the month. Will she commit to improving the reliability and punctuality of that section of the line?
The Minister has been slightly equivocal in answering this question, which I have asked on two previous occasions; third time lucky! Prior to announcing this policy change yesterday, did the Government meet and consult the Domestic Abuse Commissioner about it—yes or no?
The Leader of the House knows a great deal about my constituency because I never tire of telling her about it during business questions, so she knows that it is in the administrative county of Surrey, but she may not know that it is in the historic county of Middlesex. Tomorrow is Middlesex Day. I wrote to the Government on Monday to remind them gently of that fact and to suggest that the Middlesex flag be flown over Downing Street. I have not yet had a reply to that letter, but I do not really mind about that as long as they fly the flag.
My constituency has 2,000 acres of raised reservoirs and there are 402 Members in the House from England alone who have raised reservoirs in their constituencies, but the debate has not covered the potential for floating solar. Does the shadow Minister agree that if the forthcoming Government solar road map does not contain a substantial amount on floating solar on raised reservoirs, then we will have missed a massive opportunity?
To clarify, if lots of environmental delivery plans are amended, who checks that Natural England and the responsible bodies in this process recommend the right things in the first place? I assume that we do not expect loads to be amended, but if plans consistently need amending because they are not producing the environmental benefits and the protection of nature they set out to, who will look overall at how many are amended in totality?
On a point of clarity, if the nature recovery strategy includes land or a scheme that is not next to or near the development where the developer has paid into creating that nature recovery strategy, who does the Minister intend to consult when these plans are changed? The people where the proposed nature site is, the residents of the development that contributed to it or both?
Does the Minister share my concerns? When developments are proposed, there are obviously negotiations under section 106. Although I agree with the principle of the levy, I do not want developers to move money from other 106 obligations —healthcare, roads and education—into it. Has he given any thought to how we can prevent that from happening? This levy should be additional, rather than cutting the pie in a different way.
As Broxbourne’s emblem is a badger, I would like the Minister to write to me so I can have some more reassurance that these powers will not be used unnecessarily.
May I pause to pay tribute to those Back Benchers who were not able to contribute today? The passion about this issue is evidenced by the number of Conservative Members present. Two minutes was an inadequate amount of time in which to describe the distress that many of their constituents feel. I will try to encapsulate what I have heard them say, but it will not do justice to the amount of anguish that rural communities are feeling. In this solar farm debate we are talking about an attack on rural communities. It is an attack on farmers, on tenant farmers and on the English rural way of life. I did not hear people complaining about solar farms being built in industrial areas or on rooftops; I heard complaints about 3,000-acre solar farms destroying the countryside, destroying villages, and being built with no concern for the communities they will leave behind. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). By securing a debate on this important subject on the Floor of the House she has done the House a tremendous service. Moreover, my hon. Friend has done much more, and she deserves recognition for that. She has worked tirelessly on the issue over a number of years, fighting for her constituents. I can testify to that, as I was the designated Whip when we were in government; no Member, from any part of the House, bothered us more on the issue of the importance of protecting rural communities from solar farm expansion. She secured vital changes from the last Government to limit where solar farms could be built—changes that this Government have now undone. Solar has a role in our energy mix, including on rooftops and in south-facing industrial areas, but it carries significant costs and brings a dependency on China and forced labour supply chains that are questionable and should concern us all, despite what the Lib-Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), may say.
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent point. May I suggest that he applies to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on that topic? There is such interest today that I am sure that a debate on floating solar would be welcomed by the House. Many people are affected by this issue. I pay tribute to Members on the Labour Benches for their bold willingness to stand up for their constituents. It is difficult to do that and I am very impressed that they have done so. The Government may struggle to understand that it is possible to be pro-solar energy while raising legitimate concerns about where and how that expansion affects communities, our countryside, farmers and food security.
As the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs represents a constituency in Croydon, it is perhaps understandable that he may misinterpret the needs of rural communities. We need to continue to highlight the plight of rural communities and how such issues affect them, and we must allow for proper debate in the House about these important topics. I hold the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), in high regard, and I hope that his response will recognise and encompass the concerns and issues that have been raised today. I know that his brief covers several Departments and that that brings challenges, but the Government need to address three key areas of concern: the loss of high-quality agricultural land, the clustering of development applications linked to solar farms and the importance of community consent. On the loss of high-quality agricultural land, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham eloquently set out why that matters to her constituents. It also matters to constituents in Mid Norfolk, where a 7,000 acre development is proposed.
I could not agree more with what my hon. Friend said. There is a lack of compensation for rural communities and no offer of lower energy bills or a discount on offsetting the cost of energy. These local communities will sacrifice their green spaces, livelihoods and way of life for energy that will not give them a direct benefit. In Lincolnshire, this issue has a huge impact. We see solar applications in constituencies, particularly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, where they cover 7% of the overall available land. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) in Lincolnshire faces 5% of land in his constituency being consumed by solar. That is shocking. Across the country, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) faces 9% of land in his constituency being consumed by solar farms. Lincolnshire’s agricultural land is vital to our food security, but it is under threat. Developers see this land as the fastest and easiest pathway to solar farm development, enabled by a Government who seem to place no importance on our food security. The Countryside Alliance recently highlighted that tenant farmers face threats; I appreciate that that was raised by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), and I appreciate his boldness in doing that. Those tenant farmers are being evicted to make way for solar farms. Tenant farmers are not landowners: they work the land, and they are being evicted so that solar farms can be put in place. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, pointed out, we are losing farmland and farmers and our food security in the reckless ideological pursuit of net zero. That is why His Majesty’s Opposition have tabled new clause 47 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which would limit where solar farms can be built on agricultural land. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of solar farm applications on the loss of agricultural land and tenant farmers in areas such as Lincolnshire and on our national food security? Will the Minister look at ways to incentivise the development of solar capacity away from agricultural land? As developers seek easy access to agricultural land, this leads to a clustering effect, which many Conservative Members mentioned. We heard mention of a 3,000-acre development in East Yorkshire, which, coupled with another 3,000-acre development, means that 6,000 acres of land in East Yorkshire are being consumed by solar farms. The need for these applications to cluster around substations for cost-effective grid connection is creating an overwhelming impact in areas such as Lincolnshire, Suffolk, Buckinghamshire, East Yorkshire, Norfolk and across our rural communities in England and the south of Scotland. I particularly want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend—
I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that we can address this issue in the House again very soon, because there is much more to be said on this important matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) was not able to make all of his remarks, and many Members were not able to raise their concerns. Finally, I will talk about community consent, which has been raised so many times already today. We need to ensure that we are listening to these communities, not ignoring them and bulldozing over our green spaces—our countryside and our agricultural land—for the sake of a relentless net zero target that will destroy our rural way of life. I mention again that agricultural land is being consumed by this Government at an alarming rate. Farming capacity is being lost as tenant farmers are evicted. Whole counties are being covered in clusters of solar farms. Local communities are being ignored and experts are being overridden. Those are the realities of a solar strategy driven by ideology ahead of evidence. I urge the Minister to heed the concerns that hon. and right hon. Members have raised so forcefully today and to change course urgently.
The Victims’ Commissioner has warned that freeing prisoners early who have been shown to pose a reoffending risk to the public will “place victims and the wider public at an unnecessary risk of harm.” The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has said that it is “simply unacceptable”. What discussions did the Government have with those two commissioners before making the announcement?
The Scottish fire and rescue service is facing damaging cuts thanks to underfunding by the SNP Government in Edinburgh. Last week, I visited Hawick fire station, where I heard about the proposed cuts, including changes to the retained service and a reduction in the 24/7 coverage to office hours. Such proposals could put lives at risk, so may we have a debate on the importance of adequate funding for our fire and rescue services? Also, does the Leader of the House agree that the SNP cuts are completely reckless?
I pay tribute to the hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) for taking a brave stance against their Government Whips and standing up for their constituents against these reckless solar farm proposals. Today’s debate is on solar energy, but the points I intend to make apply to more than just this type of energy infrastructure. The manner in which these projects are being pursued—aggressively and without due care—is beginning to cause a major backlash. There are rapidly growing fears that solar and renewable projects are being forced through and greenlit for installation against the wishes of the people who will have to live next to them. The “net zero at all costs” agenda of this Labour Government, which is enthusiastically endorsed by the SNP at Holyrood, causes great concern across the country—and for good reason. Protecting the environment should not come at the expense of our economy, jobs and countryside. The approach of Labour and the SNP needs to change. Major infrastructure projects are a particular issue in rural constituencies like mine in the Scottish Borders, where the countryside is not some far-off place we speak wistfully about; it is where we live. The countryside is part of our community. When solar projects are proposed that are bigger than some towns, it is deeply worrying for local people. Time and again, when I look at projects across my constituency, I see a scandalous lack of regard for the views of local people. They are given little information, are overlooked and even ignored, and then expected to just agree with the project. Labour and the SNP might think that is acceptable, but Conservative Members do not. We believe that it is wrong, and that people should not have to put up with it.
I am grateful to the Minister, but what is he saying to my constituents who are genuinely terrified by these large-scale wind farms, pylons and solar farms coming to our area of Scotland, which I am sure he knows well? Just as importantly, what does he say to the hon. Members for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) and for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), who raised the same concerns as Members on the Opposition Benches?
Isle of Wight ferry company, Red Funnel, is controlled by Canadian pension funds. It is unregulated and charges Isle of Wight residents up to £400 to take a return car ferry crossing. Does the Minister support that ownership model and pricing structure for a lifeline transport connection in the UK?
Will the Leader of the House give us the future business?
I thank the Leader of the House for her remarks. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, this week saw the tragic and untimely death of Sir Roy Stone. We had a brief moment of recognition of him earlier in the week, but I am keenly aware that many Labour colleagues were not in the House at the time of his flourishing. As such, I wanted to mention in the Chamber today how much we all respected him, and give the Leader of the House the chance to say something about him if she wishes. More widely, we have had a week of mixed economics, with growth slightly up, weak wage growth, a spike in unemployment—as everyone had predicted in the case of national insurance—and fiscal strains highlighted just today by a former Treasury civil servant. We have also had an immigration policy launched with echoes of Enoch Powell, and a Prime Minister who appears not to know the difference between capital and current spending in relation to hospices that are seeking to support people day to day across this country—people who are literally at death’s door. I would have moved on from the politics of the week at this point in my remarks, but for the extraordinary series of interventions by Mr Speaker only a few minutes ago on the Government’s failures to announce their policies in the House. Mr Speaker rightly sought—and was eventually given—an apology by the Minister, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), for their latest failure, but the irony is absolutely extraordinary. That announcement came just hours after the Leader of the House had to be dragged to this Chamber to answer questions on this very topic. She failed to apologise to this House yesterday; I wonder whether she will take the opportunity to do so today. Whether she does or not, I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers, will insist on maintaining the primacy of our parliamentary democracy and demanding that Governments are held to account. Today, I come to the Chamber not to ask about a particular item of policy, but to offer a positive policy idea; not to focus on what may be passing from day to day in the Government’s policies, but to focus on the longer term and to celebrate. I do so in relation to a personal interest of mine—indeed, a mini-obsession, as the House probably knows—which is growth, development and innovation in higher education. This week, we saw the graduation of the first students at our new university in Hereford, the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering. It is the first greenfield university in this country for 40 years, a specialist, technical engineering university teaching students of every age and background —especially those from less well-off families—in a very intensive and immersive way. It teaches them the hand-on skills of an apprenticeship, but also the rigour of a master’s degree. Its students work in teams, building work habits and working closely with partner companies in defence, security, energy, construction, food and agriculture. I mention that university now because it highlights what could be considered a lack of ambition in the way that we as a country have thought about higher education over the past 50 years, or possibly even longer. NMITE is an institution that is not just focused on marginal educational gain, but on transformational improvement. It aims to take a person—male or female, young or old—who might never have thought of going to university at all and help them to find their passions, head, hands and heart, and take them as far as they can go. It aims to reinvent not just what students learn, but how they learn, with theory and practice tied together in real-world challenges, forging professionals through immersive and intensive work with a sense of mission and purpose. It aims to build the right habits and prepare those students, not just for the world of work, but for a world of work that is constantly changing. Above all, the university seeks to keep the benefits of being small in size—something we have lost in so much of higher education—with agility, accountability, personal engagement, teamwork and friendships and a sense of belonging and community, so that our students grow as morally serious human beings who can readily and resiliently deal with complexity and uncertainty, and who are deeply aware of the power and responsibility that comes with being an engineer. Does it work? These students are studying for a masters in engineering, certified independently as being of very high quality. The first cohort are going into jobs at a rate of almost 100% in companies such as Balfour Beatty, Kier, Cadbury, BAE, AWE, Safran and local companies at an average salary of £34,000, drawing national needs and local needs together. It is the small modular reactor of British higher education. I raise this example because I want to invite the Government and Members from across the House to consider whether we could not do it elsewhere. There are at least 50 small cities and large towns in this country that lack higher education and higher economic growth. There is a huge need for specialist science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills. We have vast amounts of talent deprived of opportunity, and this can be part of the solution. I do not know whether any colleagues would like to be involved, but each could be, in their own area and their constituency, leading on the creation not just of a campus, but of a new university designed for local people, local businesses and national economic opportunity. That is the opportunity. I invite the House and the Government to consider it.
Greater Anglia supports economic growth in the east of England with modern, quiet, fast trains, paid for by £2 billion of private sector investment. Its service is the most punctual in the country, it is popular with its passengers, and it is run so efficiently that instead of costing the taxpayer, it pays money into the Treasury. It is currently train operator of the year. Greater Anglia knows that nationalisation is coming, and it has offered to extend its operations to allow the Government to focus on the worst performing operators first. Why did the Government refuse? Is the Secretary of State focused on improving the lives of passengers, or is it an ideological determination to put the unions back in charge of the railways?
Perhaps the Secretary of State did not understand the nature of the offer from Greater Anglia. It was not expecting to be bought out; it was offering to continue its current arrangements for a couple of years. In a previous answer, the Secretary of State said to me that the benefit of rail nationalisation will be the £150 million of efficiency savings. Let’s see how that is going. Her first nationalisation will be South Western Railway in two weeks’ time. That new service will need trains, yet The Telegraph has revealed that inept contract negotiations by her Department, where there was no effective competition, mean that the cost of re-leasing the same trains is increasing by £250 million over five years. Are those the efficiency savings she had in mind?
The Justice Secretary could have chosen to deport more of the thousands of offenders in our jails, maxed out court sitting days, repurposed buildings or procured temporary facilities to hold offenders. Why has she instead chosen to release serious offenders, including domestic abusers, from jail early, with no consideration for the victims?
Yes, it is.
Farnborough airport’s noise and emission pollution affects a significant part of my constituency. The airport has announced that it will be launching its consultation to expand in August. This has obviously brought a lot of concern from residents groups and campaigners, who are worried that people will be away at this time. What can the Minister do to ensure that there is maximum engagement with the public and therefore a proper consultation?
At the Transport Committee in April, the Secretary of State admitted that under Labour’s watch, “waiting times for access to driving tests hit new highs.” For all the talk of a new plan, she then admitted that the Government only aim to reduce driving test waiting times to seven weeks by “summer next year”. That is no good for young people waiting, needing the freedom to drive to get to college or work now, is it? When will the Government see the real urgency for real people and pick up the pace?
I do not think the Minister has got the memo that she is in charge now. The Government cannot hide behind the same old excuses and try to blame others, as average test volumes are now lower—on a month-by-month basis—than they were in the previous two years. In quarter 1 alone, nearly 100,000 fewer tests were conducted than in the same period in 2024. The average waiting time for a driving test in the UK sits at 22 weeks—over five months. That is up from 17.1 weeks in July 2024 and 20.4 weeks in February 2025. For all the Government’s promises, there has been no actual delivery. Why has capacity not increased or, at the very least, stayed the same as when we were in charge?
As the sanctions regime ramps up, although perhaps not as quickly as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) calls for—I endorse that call—the Minister is right to be doing the work he is doing. As part of his review and assessment as those sanctions ramp up and become more complicated, does he feel that everything possible is being done to ensure that UK-based businesses are kept up to date with that changing picture, so that no one inadvertently falls on the wrong side of the law?
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. So that we in this House and the whole country can hear clearly, is he saying that the Liberal Democrats fully support solar farms?
I rise not just as the Member for Mid Norfolk, but as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture. As Members will be aware, Norfolk is Britain’s first county and our leading agricultural county—the Royal Norfolk show is the premier show in the country. Norfolk is absolutely at the vanguard of this country’s agricultural industry, and of the Government’s stated—although increasingly cynically stated—commitment to increasing food security. The globe has to double food production in the next 25 years on the same land area, with half as much water and energy, and Norfolk is in the vanguard when it comes to the technologies with which to do that; there are the drought-resistant crops, and the gene-edited, disease-resistant crops, at the Norwich Research Park. In my constituency of Mid Norfolk, the home of Banham Poultry and Cranswick Country Foods, farming and agriculture is the No. 1 industry, employing thousands in agricultural machinery supplies, haulage and food processing. I cheered when I heard that the Government were going to support the agricultural industry and food production, and I cheered their commitment to supporting UK science, including the agricultural science that is key to meeting that challenge, but since the election, we have seen the most extraordinary attack on farms, the rural economy and small businesses taking on jobs. There is also a proposal for a 7,500 acre—that is 10,000 square miles, or 20,000 km—solar farm, reaching from Castle Acre, through Swaffham, to Dereham. This is in a constituency where agriculture, food and tourism are the No. 1 industries. Government Members need to reflect on this. I want renewable energy, and I want cheap energy. My constituents would like to be consulted. The residents of 14 villages will wake up living in the middle of a power station, with no serious planning consultation at all, no community benefit, and the rates being taken back to London by Ministers. This is an utterly cynical move towards the industrialisation of the countryside, which will rebound seriously on the Labour party and, more importantly, on this country’s food and energy systems. It is wrong.
Does the shadow Minister agree that as well as all the points that have been made about agriculture and solar, there is a democratic point here? Residents in 14 villages in my patch, and in many others, will find that they are living in the middle of a power station. Let us name it for what it is: a power station. They think that each village will have a bit of solar, but they will be living in an industrial power station. That should not be allowed to happen without a proper planning consultation and proper compensation.
Will the Minister give way?