Baroness Hodgson of Abinger:

Moved by Baroness Hodgson of Abinger

89: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—“Prohibition of solar power development on higher-quality agricultural landNo permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation where the development would involve—(a) the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a, and(b) building or installation at ground level.”Member's explanatory statementThis new Clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation on higher-quality agricultural land.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 89 in my name. This amendment would insert a new Clause after Clause 28 which would prohibit the development of solar power generation on high-quality agricultural land, in particular, as set out in paragraph (a),

“agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a”.

As many know, agricultural land is classified into five grades based on various physical and chemical characteristics that affect its long-term agricultural use, grade 1 being the highest and grade 5 the lowest. Grade 3 covers good to moderate-quality land and is divided into two sub-grades, with 3a defined as land capable of consistently producing moderate to high yields of a wide range of crops. I excluded sub-grade 3b, which is more limited in its agricultural use, often suited only to grassland and extensive grazing. Paragraph (b) in Amendment 89 then prevents solar power generation development, which would involve building or installation at ground level.

As I and others argued at Second Reading, the Government need to be joined up when considering infrastructure. Despite the high-level meetings over the summer in Alaska, the current situation in Ukraine remains significantly worrying, and the threat will remain even when the war in Ukraine has been resolved. Our defence policy has pivoted to deterrence against possible war: that we should be war ready. Although defence is the first priority of the Government, surely our second, as an island nation, should be food security.

Solar farms will take up large areas of land that should be used for food production. The Minister has suggested that these concerns are not proportionate, as it is estimated to impact only 1% of agricultural land. According to the Government’s own statistics released in March this year, covering the UK up to 1 June 2024, utilised agricultural land accounts for some 16.8 million hectares in 2024. One per cent of that is the equivalent of 105,000 football pitches, around four-and-a-half times as big as the Isle of Wight. That is not something to be just brushed aside.

We have already had clear examples of impact estimates being widely out, from those leaving the private school sector to the impact of job taxes on enterprise and business. The Government’s own national security strategy tells us that we must actively prepare for war. Currently, we import more than 40% of our food. This Bill would see badly needed productive land lost to solar farms. Our agricultural land is needed for food production. It is vital that we become more self-sufficient and resilient. Producing more food in the UK is an essential part of that. Regarding resilience, solar farms are easily identifiable, hard to guard and therefore could be so easily disabled by drone strikes. This amendment seems fundamental to safeguard future need regarding food production.

Proposed new paragraph (b) would help to provide the answer to where we should put panels instead. I and others question why we need to be putting solar panels at ground level at all. At Second Reading, the scope to put panels on our existing transport infrastructure was highlighted. It was pointed out that France have already mandated for installing solar panels on car parks. What about bus garages, train depots, railway stations, state schools and prisons? The Minister failed to respond to my suggestion that the Government could also mandate for them to be retrofitted to government buildings. What about incentivising owners to have them fitted on commercial and industrial buildings, as well as insisting that they go on new builds? If all these actions were put in place, I wonder if it would exceed what current aims hope to achieve and not only generate clean energy but reduce grid pressure and improve our energy infrastructure resilience against disruption while preserving maximum options regarding food production.

The negative environmental impact of solar farms should also be recognised. The clearing of land to facilitate these solar farms causes major disruptions, with new roads having to be put down and many lorries thundering down tiny country lanes that have to be widened for the purpose. The construction can degrade the land, harm local ecosystems and displace wildlife, upsetting the balance of diverse wildlife, insects and birds.

We should not forget that green open spaces absorb carbon through photosynthesis. By storing carbon, green spaces reduce the overall concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, producing cooling effects that help to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Green open spaces act as carbon sinks, improving air quality. The panels themselves contain hazardous materials such as cadmium and lead, raising concerns about leaks. They are usually guaranteed for only about 25 years, and the replacements will again cause excessive intrusion into rural areas. There are concerns since recycling infrastructure for solar panels is still developing. There are also worries about future waste problems as the solar panels reach the end of their lives.

There is all this disruption when we know that solar power is intermittent. I understand that these panels produce power only when the sun shines. I know that we have just had a wonderful summer, but solar panels produce less electricity when it is very hot because excessive heat reduces their efficiency with every degree over 25 degrees centigrade. As we all know, there can be precious few sunny days in the UK winter months. Therefore, electricity from solar panels cannot be guaranteed and back-up power and storage solutions need to be put in place, which can be costly.

I understand that many of these proposals for solar farms are being put forward by foreign investment companies. I question whether the Government are aware of these and whether they are in the UK’s interest. There is a register of overseas entities, requiring foreign companies owning UK land to register, but does the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 also make it mandatory to be transparent about long leases, as many of these companies will be leasing land and taking it out of UK food production for up to 60 years? To come back to my earlier point about resilience, some foreign powers might see this as a subtle way of reducing the UK’s food security. Is the UK monitoring the proposals in this regard and understanding who is truly behind them? Do the Government have any policies on who can buy land in the UK? Can the Minister clarify whether these foreign investors are given tax breaks to invest in these solar farms?

I also raise the impact of solar farms on the countryside and the people who live there. We live in a beautiful country and the UK countryside is treasured, especially by those who live in it. The Majority of people who live in rural areas do so because they love looking out over rolling green fields and they value the natural habitats in which they live. They do not wish to look out over a sea of silicon solar panels glaring when there is sunlight.

Putting in a solar farm industrialises the countryside and changes the character of the area for ever. It is causing huge upset to many who live in rural environments and are threatened with a solar development on their doorsteps. Many feel very threatened and the level of distress is incredibly high. When you drive through areas where solar farms have been proposed, there are often masses of signs along the roads from people demonstrating against them. This is happening in many areas of the country—Lincolnshire, Suffolk, Essex, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Sussex, Oxfordshire and County Durham to name some. This situation was epitomised by an article in the Daily Telegraph last weekend about the solar farm proposed near Mike Rutherford’s house in Sussex.

We live in a country that prides itself on property rights. We should not casually disregard local people’s wishes and create such distress, especially when the world is such a threatened place. I have heard people vulnerable to development of solar farms on their doorsteps saying that they will have to move, which will have a dramatic effect on property prices in such areas. It will also affect the fabric and culture of our countryside. We hear about the explosion of mental health problems since Covid; it is well recognised that the countryside and green spaces can have a significant positive effect on mental health. This is not the time to allow huge tracts of open land to be undermined by the monoculture of solar panels.

I am lucky enough to have spent the Recess in a rural area of Shropshire, where we have a house. I watched the harvesting over August, with farmers working all hours of the day and night. I know from talking to many people in the area that it feels as though the countryside is not understood and is being attacked by this Government. Proposals for solar farms on agricultural land are yet another attack. I beg to move.

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 92 in my name. The amendment is simple and straightforward: it recognises that solar farms have a role to play in our energy security, but that that must be balanced with an effective use of our best farmland for food security. I observe that the lack of Labour Party Back-Benchers here says more than we need to about their views on farm and food security.

This amendment would not prevent or fetter the development of solar farms on the poorest quality land or restrain smaller proposals on the best land which command the support of the local planning authority. However, where large-scale solar proposals come forward that include the best and most versatile land, my amendment would mean that the nationally significant infrastructure project—NSIP—process would not and could be engaged. To be clear, this would not be an absolute ban on large-scale solar farms on the best land; it is just that, if those proposals were to come forward, they would need to be determined locally by the planning authority.

It is said that modern society is no more than three meals away from breakdown. In the hierarchy of needs, food in the belly is the number one priority. When the chips are down, you cannot eat a solar panel. Last year, the national wheat yield was down by 20% on account of wet weather. This year, the yield impairment is similar but because of dry weather. Just as there are no guarantees about the weather, we cannot be careless with our food supply.

I have recently heard encouraging noises from Defra Ministers who belatedly realise that the risks of food security are greater than they have ever been and that the best land should be reserved for food production, where inputs can be used most productively. The poorest and least productive land can be harnessed for other uses—environmental, amenity or economic. I welcome this sinner that hath repenteth and I venture that there is now common ground between people like me, who appreciate and value food security, and the Government. That should make acceptance of my amendment easy to achieve, so that the right balance is struck between heating and eating.

I will not go into quite so much detail as my noble friend, but let us talk about what I mean by the best and most versatile land. The Library tells me that, under the 1966 agricultural land classification process, grade 1, 2 and 3a land comprises 42% of the cultivated area of Great Britain; by difference, therefore, the substantial Majority, 58% of the agricultural land, is in the poorer grades 3b, 4 and 5. Now, this would still be available for large-scale solar energy under my amendment, and there are millions of poor hectares to go at. That is land the size of 12 Norfolks or two and half times the size of Wales—noble Lords will note that I do not use the football pitch analogy.

Last year at the Dispatch Box, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, explained that, in the case of a recently approved Sunnica proposal in Suffolk, the proposal did not include some of the best and most versatile land. I will not criticise her for an honest mistake, but I regret to tell the Committee that there was plenty of the best land, including grade 2 land, in that proposal—land that is now lost to food production for a generation. On so many levels, the Government’s rhetoric is at odds with the reality. They have lost control of the numbers, and in so doing are imperilling our food security, which is national security.

In Lincolnshire, the county that more than any other puts bread on our tables, already 2% of that county is under threat from solar. Worse, thanks to my noble friend Lord Frost we learn that the majority of the Heckingham proposal is predominantly the best grade 1 land under the 1966 rules.

In an Answer to a Written Question last November, the Government reported that 1,400 hectares of land in Norfolk were currently under NSIP applications. But the reality was that it was 7,500 hectares, and now the number is greater still. We know from Great British Energy—I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his place—that there just is not the grid capacity to accept all the solar that is being promoted.

My Lords, surely the point about the Bill is that it is enabling us to put the structures in place to actually get the grid capacity up and running.

True. The noble Lord makes a good point, and so I sense even further a degree of consensus on both sides of the Committee on this matter. If we take the fact that the grid capacity is not there to accept all the solar that has been promoted, because it is diurnal and seasonal and comes in very big flashes which can overwhelm the grid, and that capacity to absorb is limited, only a fool would disagree with limiting the proposals to the poorest land first.

I have heard it said that we need not worry about this and that only the amount of land currently used for golf courses is being used for solar—something like 0.5% of all land—but that is simply not true. It is the 19th hole tale that has grown with the telling. The Government’s land use framework contemplates that 9% of all land will be used for environmental and energy schemes. Let me say straight away that agri-solar is starry-eyed, greenwashed fantasy. The solar panels are taller, so they are even more visually intrusive, with even more chemicals used to bash the weeds so that they do not shade the panels or wrap their tendrils around the steel stanchions.

The principle of controlling solar development aside, this Amendment is important because it seeks to remove the loopholes and abuses that we have seen flow from the misuse of the NSIP regime for solar applications, including artificially stringing together many disparate smaller schemes, some miles apart, to get over a hurdle threshold. Where I live, a local proposal comprises a dozen different blocks of land spread out over a canvas more than 15 miles wide and eight miles tall as a device to get over that NSIP threshold. That is an abuse.

I can see that it is in the farmer’s private interests to sign up for solar. On normal arable economics, a farmer would do well to earn £200 an acre from the fruits of his labours, having investing millions in plant and equipment and subjecting himself to the risks of weather and the market. By contrast, solar developers are offering him the chance to sit on the beach with an index-linked £900 or more. Landowners of really quite small holdings which have been aggregated together have given tenant farmers notice to quit so that they can enjoy those inflation-linked payments of over 40 years at many times the rent. But our tenant farmers are among the most entrepreneurial growers, not having had the benefit of inheriting land, and we cannot afford to lose their dynamism.

I have heard at first hand and in the Daily Telegraph about threats with menaces of compulsory purchase for those who do not follow the developers’ line, emboldened as it is by the availability of NSIP. I attended a public consultation event in July for the East Pye proposal, close to me, where I uncovered a surprising statistic—albeit the display boards told a different story, which time does not permit me to develop. In that proposal, in the developer’s own agricultural land classification, hidden away at the back of binder 10 of 13, I calculated that the total land area in the best and most versatile category represented 86% of the entire proposal. Further, 12% represented productive land—grade 3b. Only a negligible 3% was in what one might call the poorest two categories. I drew attention to my calculation and to some factually incorrect statements on the display boards, and the developer’s representatives were surly and dismissive. It was only when I declared my interest as a Member of your Lordships’ House that they conceded that a full correction and reconsultation may be necessary. My subsequent letters seeking clarification and confirmation have gone unanswered.

So now we get to the heart of the matter. I have seen with my own eyes that there is little incentive to tell the truth on large-scale solar over the heads of the little people, because they believe that Mr Miliband will simply rubber-stamp their proposals regardless of the facts, without the appropriate level of scrutiny, honesty or integrity. There is no recognition by developers—many of them foreign investors, as my noble friend said—that food security is even a thing. My amendment would stop the bad behaviours by promoters who think that by stringing together smaller schemes into a big one the NSIP process will give them a free pass. It would also stamp out the threats with menaces over CPOs. My amendment would prevent local people being airbrushed from key decisions affecting the most productive landscapes. It would ensure that there is accountability for those faceless investors who are driving this gold rush and do not give a jot about the countryside, still less our ability to feed ourselves.

This is not a ban on solar—well over half of the land in this country would still be available for it under NSIP, just not the 42% that reliably feeds us. Put simply, the NSIP loophole for solar prevents our nation striking the right balance between food security and energy security, and still less the security of our democratic process. That is why it must go.

My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 94B regarding permission for energy substations on higher quality agricultural land, I will also speak to Amendment 94A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, which according to the Herald is pronounced “drum-lang”. The amendments reflect the concerns that I and my noble friends have about what is happening on higher quality agricultural land, which, as we have heard eloquently described, is critical to food security.

My noble friend’s amendment reflects quite a lot of the concerns expressed in the House of Commons. I am thinking of my Right Honourable Friend Wendy Morton, my honourable friends Sarah Bool and Mike Wood, and a number of other people who have spoken in debates in the House of Commons who are concerned for a couple of reasons about why battery energy storage systems seem to be not exploding —well, some of them are—but certainly expanding.

There is an important point to understand. We have seen, progressively, the previous Administration and this Government trying to get a grip on managing energy production and to get a proper strategy going. Meanwhile, in the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, the proposal is that we need about 27 gigawatts by 2030, 29 gigawatts by 2035, and a broader estimate—although the Government have not set a formal target—of 50 gigawatts by 2050. But where are we right now?

Figures from a paper from RenewableUK published in December 2024 suggested that there were 5 gigawatts of total operational capacity and 127 gigawatts in the pipeline. You do not need an A-level in maths to add up and find that that comes to 132 gigawatts. Of those, I think it is fair to say that 40 gigawatts have already been consented, 30 gigawatts are in the planning process and a further 48 gigawatts are being developed to go into the planning system.

My concern and that of my honourable friends and Right Honourable friends in the other place is that, in our process, we have already approved pretty much all that has been wanted by our energy operator. So why is it that, in effect, we seem to be encouraging even more to come through?

I am conscious that not every application will necessarily produce the outcome that is desired—we have seen that with other things—but, frankly, for those who have got the planning consent, we should make sure that they deliver what they say they are going to do. We should do that instead of, yet again, building up, and potentially blocking, land being used for food production to perhaps become an area for battery energy storage in the future, when we will have already achieved our outcome.

We discussed a lot about safety earlier; the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, spoke to that. He spoke comprehensively, but I point out to him there have been some instances where, for example, chemical interactions meant that hydrofluoric acid was produced. I did my PhD in chemistry a long time ago, but HF is one of the chemicals that I used. I can honestly say that, if you get it on your skin, although you will not realise it for a couple of days, your bones are basically crumbling right inside your skeleton. If you get it in your eyes, it is game over, frankly. On a very serious note, it is fair to say that there are significant risks. While the HSE has been cited as having a framework in place and similar, the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, referred to the Defra consultation about bringing these regimes into the EPR. It was published only last week. This is no criticism of the Minister, but what is noteworthy is that it said—I am quoting word for word—that

“it is not the role of the planning system to regulate fire risk and there is limited provision through the planning scheme to ensure that measures are maintained”.

I am sorry, but one of the key features of the planning system is to consider fire and fire risk and the like, so it will be worth the Minister looking at that element again; I am sure his officials will be keen to do so as well. We need to make sure that these things are safe. I shall give way.

I am reminded to reprise what the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said earlier about the need to have pre-scrutiny and the fact that a national organisation, the HSE, was the competent body. As my noble friend has been speaking, I have been reminded that it is for local organisations, the local fire authority and the local planning authority to make those determinations. National bodies such as the HSE do not have the capacity or the local knowledge to comment appropriately.

I think that is right. The HSE, on its own website, refers to the fact that it cannot comment on every application and, in effect, needs to be proactively contacted only if there is considered to be a major risk.

I am also conscious that the River Test is considered by my Honourable Friend Caroline Nokes to be under threat. For people who are interested in these things, I commend the speech of my Right Honourable Friend Sir Alec Shelbrooke, who talked about dendrites. It was a very knowledgeable, well-researched speech about fire risk, including thermal runaway and the like.

Coming back to the fundamental proposal of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, he specifically asked me to talk about safety. There is a concern about overdevelopment and the loss of food for agricultural production. We will keep coming back to this on this side of the House, recognising the importance of food security alongside the other elements of national security.

On the Amendment that I have tabled, perhaps I should declare an interest as this is about a subject that I have referred to a few times before: energy substations. Again, I am worried. There is an element here of thinking about where we do energy generation or other aspects of interconnection. Frankly, if the Government think the only way they can get these things done is by ripping apart environmental protection law and reducing food production land, they should not connect at those areas that already have these environmental designations or are key producers of food in this country.

My amendment refers specifically to 1, 2 or 3. I am conscious that the best and most versatile land is traditionally grades 1, 2 and 3a. However, Defra, through Natural England, does not publish where grades 3a and 3b are, because apparently that is too difficult to do, as it requires individual local site surveys on determining whether a particular field is grade 3a or 3b, so for comprehensiveness I have put in grades 1, 2 and 3.

However, as my noble friend Lord Fuller has pointed out, there is an element here about the fact that, frankly, a lot of this stuff was—in effect, with a light touch—reconsidered only in 2010. Fundamental parts of our land have not been assessed in terms of their contribution towards food production or food security for probably the best part of 40 to 50 years. As a consequence, recognising the targets set by the Government and the challenges that we face, I am conscious of the land use framework. Admittedly, I did a draft of that nearly three years ago, and I am sure everyone is frustrated that we still have not seen it yet. One of the challenges is this competing element of what we do with the land that we have.

Let us be straightforward about this: once agricultural land is gone, it is gone for good. I am not blaming farmers or landowners, who, candidly, the policies of the last 12 months have given even more reason to get a secured income on the basis of the value or use of their land. One of the foibles, in a way, of doing things such as leasing out land for solar is that it does not adjust in terms of the agricultural elements of inheritance tax. However, when farmers can get a guaranteed income for a proportion of their land, while other things are so uncertain, I do not blame them for wanting to make that choice.

My honourable friends—apologies, I am still earning about this place; I should have said my noble friends—have eloquently put some of the issues around solar. There definitely has to be a place for solar across our country, but one final point that I want to make on battery energy systems is that we really need to target where they are going to be. There is no point in having batteries in parts of the country that are nowhere near the grid or near where most of the energy is going to be used. That is why I have proposed the amendments I have today.

My Lords, I simply want to agree with Amendment 89 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. I prefer it to the amendments from my noble friends Lord Fuller, Lord Forsyth and Lady Coffey, although they all have merit. We have heard from my noble friend Lady Coffey that we may already have enough solar farms under consent already, although I am not sure what the Minister thinks of that.

As the House of Lords, we can take a longer-term view and, unfashionable though it may be, I believe we should protect the highest-quality agricultural land for farming and food and prohibit solar farms on that land. It is of course less costly for the developers, who want flat sites, but that is not a good reason to sacrifice the best land needed for food security.

Government is about balance. Our population is growing. We live in a dangerous world that could one day jeopardise imports of food, and the most productive land should be devoted to growing crops.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 89 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, Amendment 92 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, Amendment 94A in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Amendment 94B in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. These amendments focus on a matter of strategic and national importance: the protection of prime agricultural land in the face of increasing pressure from non-agricultural development, particularly the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure. The arguments have been well made already in this short debate, so I can be brief.

In bringing these amendments, my noble friends rightly highlight the wider context in which we debate this issue. The agricultural sector has been under immense pressure from market volatility, environmental challenges and, regrettably, punitive tax measures such as the family farms tax raid. Against that backdrop, it is more important than ever that we protect our best and most versatile land, not just for farmers but for the long-term food security of our nation. The Government must support an approach that balances the need to scale up renewable energy with the critical need to maintain our ability to feed ourselves.

These amendments make a strong case for preventing the unnecessary loss of high-quality agricultural land. As I and other noble Lords have previously highlighted Committee, some of the largest solar developments are being approved without proper regard for the grade or quality of the land being sacrificed. Every one of the large-scale solar farms approved under NSIP that I have looked at has been materially located on best and most versatile land. That is not just a matter for the farming community; it is a matter of national food security. We cannot create a future in which we can switch on our lights and heat our homes but are unable to feed ourselves. We must not let the pursuit of energy security come at the expense of food security.

As others have highlighted, a disproportionate percentage of our best and most versatile land is going to solar. This is madness when 58% of our farmed land is not in the BMV category and there is also a significant amount of unclassified and unfarmed land that could be used for renewable development. With the Government’s ambition to triple solar capacity by 2030, the pressure on land is only going to intensify. Unless active steps are taken now to guide that development sensibly and strategically, we will continue to see the erosion of our agricultural capacity and, with it, increased dependence on imported food.

These amendments are both timely and necessary. They would ensure that solar and other non-agricultural developments are directed towards less productive land or even non-productive land, leaving our best farmland for the essential job of feeding our population. I urge the Minister to take these amendments seriously and offer clear assurances that under no circumstances will the Secretary of State approve developments that compromise the UK’s food security.

My Lords, Amendments 89, 92, 94A and 94B relate to Clause 28 and the protection of agricultural land. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Coffey, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, for tabling these amendments. Is that the right pronunciation of Drumlean? I am glad he is not here, because I know he would shout at me if I got it wrong.

Amendment 89, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, seeks to prohibit the construction of ground-mounted solar farms on land of grades 1, 2 and 3A. The Government view food security as national security and champion British farming and environmental protection. All solar projects undergo a rigorous planning process, considering environmental impacts, local community views and any impact on food production. The Government believe that solar generation does not threaten food security. As of the end of September 2024, ground-mounted solar PV panels covered an estimated 21,200 hectares, which is only around 0.1%—not 1%—of the total land area of the UK. Even in the most ambitious scenarios, only up to 0.4% of UK land will be devoted to solar in 2030.

The Government are in total agreement with the noble Baroness in that we want to get the balance right between protecting fertile agricultural land and facilitating renewable energy. The Government agree that protecting food security should always be a priority. That is why land use and food production are already material considerations in planning. Planning guidance makes it clear that, wherever possible, developers should utilise brownfield, industrial, contaminated or previously developed land. Where the development of agricultural land is shown to be necessary, lower-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land. However, we do not believe the accelerated rollout of solar power under present planning arrangements poses a threat to food security.

The government consultation on the land use framework sought feedback on what improvements are needed to the agricultural land classification system to support effective land use decisions. The land use framework, to be published later this year, will set out the evidence, data and tools needed to help safeguard our most productive agricultural land. It will also lay out how government intends to align the different incentives on land; ensure that joined-up decisions are made at national and local levels; and make accessible and high-quality data available.

As such, we believe that this amendment is not necessary to protect agricultural land. Moreover, a total ban on the use of higher-quality land may have several deleterious consequences. Quite often, a site suitable for solar development will contain soil of varying quality. At the moment, the amount of high-quality land proposed to be developed is examined by planning officers. This is a consideration in planning decisions. Were this amendment to be incorporated into the Bill, large projects could be rejected for the sake of a small area of higher-quality soil that constitutes a small fraction of the overall site.

This amendment would reduce the number of economically viable sites for solar generation, which would increase costs for developers. They may seek to recoup these by placing higher bids in the contracts for difference scheme. That cost is ultimately borne by bill payers. In short, banning all solar development on higher-quality land may endanger the Government’s mission to achieve clean power by 2030, increasing the exposure of British consumers to volatile imported fossil fuels.

I shall touch on the noble Baroness’s point about solar on domestic and non-domestic buildings. Deploying rooftop solar remains a key priority for the Government and we will publish the future homes standard this autumn. The new standard will ensure that solar panels are installed on the vast Majority of new-build homes once it comes into force, saving households hundreds of pounds a year on their energy Bills. That will support our ambition that the 1.5 million homes we will build over the course of this Parliament will be high-quality, well designed and sustainable.

Additionally, the recently published Solar Roadmap contained several actions for both government and industry to support the deployment of solar PV in the commercial sector. These included unpicking the complex landlord/tenant considerations in the sector by developing and distributing a toolkit for owners and occupiers. The Government set out that rooftop solar on new non-domestic buildings will, where appropriate, play an important role in the future buildings standard, due to be introduced later this year.

The Government have also announced £180 million of funding for Great British Energy to help around 200 schools and 200 NHS sites to install rooftop solar. We expect the first of these installations to be complete by the end of the summer—summer being a flexible concept, so whenever that comes. The Government are assessing the potential to drive the construction of solar canopies on outdoor car parks over a certain size through a call for evidence, which closed on 18 June. We will publish the government response to that consultation. I trust that the noble Baroness will be satisfied with that response and I kindly ask her not to press her amendment.

Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to remove solar projects on high-quality land from the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. I thank the noble Lord for his engagement on this subject. I know that he has spent many years serving in local government and has considerable expertise. However, I hope that he recognises the contradiction in his argument. At the same time as he argues about the very difficult conditions that farmers face in growing food, these are brought about by climate change, but he is using them as arguments not to tackle it by moving to clean energy—so there is a bit of a contradiction in the argument there.

It is vitally important that every project is submitted to the planning process that best suits its impact, scale, and complexity.

The point is that the difficulty that farmers are under may be aggravated by poor weather, either too wet or too cold, but the real problem is that this Government are engaged in a war on the countryside by undermining the finances of every family farm and damaging food production, even with the stuff on bioethanol, taking 1 million tonnes of wheat out of the market. That is the reason why farms are doing so badly—it is not to do with climate change.

The noble Lord was referring specifically to climate impacts on food growing, which I felt was a bit ironic as we are trying to tackle the climate change that is bringing them about with exactly these measures to use clean energy.

The Government recognise the benefit of returning control over decisions to local planning authorities. As of 31 December 2025, we will double the NSIP threshold for solar projects from 50 megawatts to 100 megawatts. However, the Government believe that large solar farms, even when they propose to use higher-quality agricultural land, are best dealt with under the NSIP process.

The NSIP regime is rigorous. Although the decision is not taken locally, local engagement is still at the heart of the process. Under the current legislative framework, developers taking projects through the NSIP regime are required to undertake community consultation as part of the preparation for the application. This gives communities ample opportunity to feed in their views and shape the project. Currently, the level and quality of community consultation, among other factors, is taken into account by decision-makers. I am glad the noble Lord made a protest about the one that he was subject to; I hope communities will do that if they feel that those consultation processes are not being carried out in good faith.

Moreover, considerations under the NSIP regime include any impact on land use and food production. Planning guidance is clear that poorer-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land, avoiding the use of best and most versatile agricultural land where possible. This is in line with the policy governing decision-making by local planning authorities. Even if there were a marginal gain in public confidence from returning the decision to local authorities, we would not expect the outcomes to change.

This marginal gain must be weighed against the likely costs of this proposal. First, a proper examination of the potential impacts of a large-scale solar farm is a major and lengthy undertaking. Giving this responsibility to local planning departments may place an untenable burden on resources which are already under pressure.

Secondly, it is right that projects of such scale, size or complexity as to be nationally significant should be considered through the NSIP process. These proposals are of strategic importance to the country as a whole, and as such central government is the most appropriate decision-maker. Changing policy to allow decisions about these projects to be taken by local authorities may increase investor uncertainty at a pivotal moment for the Government’s 2030 clean power mission. This may jeopardise our work to reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels, increase energy security and protect consumers from global price shocks, just at the very time when Members have raised the issue of security.

I am prompted to intervene only because the head of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, nearly seems to be falling off with nodding. The point is that the NSIP regime is combining schemes which, frankly, should normally go through the local planning authority. These are disparate, small, stand-alone schemes which fall under NSIP only because the system is being abused to string them all together quite artificially. There are no capacity constraints in local government planning to do with these smaller schemes; we know where they are and we know the issues. To suggest that stringing together a dozen different small schemes is nationally significant demonstrates the falsehood and the paucity behind the argument that NSIP should be engaged in this manner.

These are geographical schemes. As I said, we are increasing the size of schemes that will go to NSIP.

Lastly, I am concerned that accepting this Amendment would imply that there are some issues on which the NSIP regime is either not competent or not qualified to adjudicate. This is simply not the case. Setting this precedent may reduce public confidence in the NSIP planning system as it applies to other types of infrastructure. It may undermine trust in decisions which have already been taken. For all the reasons I have outlined—although it sounds as though I have not convinced the noble Lord—I hope he will not press his amendment and will continue to work with us on this issue.

Amendment 94A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to prohibit battery developments on best and most versatile agricultural land. The Clean Power 2030 Action Plan set out an expansion of renewable technologies required to achieve the 2030 ambition, including the acceleration of grid-scale battery development from around 5 gigawatts at present to at least 23 to 27 gigawatts by 2030. Grid-scale batteries, which are rapidly falling in cost and increasing in scale, allow the power system to store cheap excess renewable energy and use this, rather than expensive polluting gas, at times of need.

If these increases are not delivered, it would have a negative impact on achieving clean power by 2030, which could expose bill payers to volatile global gas prices for longer. This amendment intends to safeguard the best and most versatile agricultural land. The Government agree, as I have said, that food security is national security. Meeting both energy security and climate change goals is urgent and of critical importance to the Government, and these goals can be achieved together with maintaining food security. We recognise that this requires a more integrated and spatial cross-government approach. To that end, the land use framework, which will be published later this year, will be our guide to how we make the most of what our diverse landscapes have to offer.

The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services, including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality.

The total amount of land required for battery deployment is likely to be a tiny fraction of the best and most versatile agricultural land and many, if not most, projects can be built on other land. However, excluding the entire pipeline of battery projects from a significant proportion of England’s agricultural land will inevitably add costs and delay, and risks frustrating the clean power objective.

The Government do not believe that the accelerated rollout of battery storage poses a threat to food security. The total area of land devoted to grid-scale batteries is minimal. As of August 2025, there was 5.8 gigawatts of grid-scale battery storage on the GB electricity grid, with a typical 200-megawatt battery scheme requiring only 13 acres of land. This suggests that a ban on batteries on agricultural land is simply not necessary to ensure food security.

The government consultation on the land use framework sought feedback on what improvements are needed to the agricultural land classification system to support effective land use decisions. Following on from that, the land use framework will set out the evidence, data and tools needed to help safeguard our most productive agricultural land and lay out how the Government intend to align the different incentives on land, ensure joined-up decisions are made and make accessible and high-quality data available.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will agree not to press that amendment.

Amendment 94B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would prohibit the construction of energy substations on land of grades 1, 2 and 3 without the explicit consent of the landowner. The Government are in total agreement with the noble Baroness in as far as we want to get the balance right between protecting agricultural land and facilitating the development of electricity network infrastructure. Planning guidance makes clear that, wherever possible, developers should seek to minimise impacts on the best and most versatile agricultural land and lower-quality land should be prioritised.

There are robust statutory processes for compulsory acquisition. Applicants must first explore voluntary arrangements and decision-makers must then be satisfied that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the inclusion of powers of compulsory acquisition. The government consultation on the land use framework sought feedback on the improvements needed to support these effective land use decisions. The land use framework will set out how we will safeguard the best and most versatile land.

In addition, the National Energy System Operator is considering how to take account of agricultural land within the strategic planning of network infrastructure. NESO is consulting on the proposed methodology for the centralised strategic network plan and has proposed agricultural land classification in England and Wales and national scale land capability for agriculture in Scotland as categories for consideration under the appraisal. Therefore, we believe that this amendment is not necessary to protect agricultural land.

This amendment could reduce the number of viable sites for network infrastructure and that would increase costs of network developments which are ultimately borne by electricity bill payers. It also risks delaying the delivery of network infrastructure critical for the Government’s mission to achieve clean power and economic growth. Delaying the delivery could increase constraint costs for consumers by billions of pounds.

This infrastructure is critical to connect and transport our own homegrown clean electricity. It will create good jobs, support economic growth, bring down Bills, tackle the climate crisis and get us off the rollercoaster of global gas prices for good. For these reasons, I trust that noble Lords understand that these amends are not necessary and I kindly ask that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.

Can the Minister not deal with the problem of patches of best-quality land on a site with a classic de minimis rule of, say, 5%? That would still allow us to protect the best land without needless delay and Defra—or the new framework that the Minister mentioned—could easily provide the data for that purpose.

I am sure that if the noble Baroness wished to put that forward in the land use framework it would be considered. I always worry about de minimis rules because there will always be the exception to the rule that goes slightly over it, and then you end up with a big problem sorting that out. However, if she wishes to feed that into Defra’s part of the land use framework consultation, I am sure it will take account of it.

I thank the Minister for her extensive response and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, especially those who have given support. Many interesting points have been raised, and some very worrying statistics. I simply repeat that, especially given the international situation, we really need to think about national food security and resilience. We import 40% of our food and, if we got into a war situation, we would need to grow more than we are at the moment. It seems counterintuitive to be allowing good agricultural land to be used to generate electricity when this can be done elsewhere.

I will not repeat all the points previously made, except to say that we also need the good will of the British people. We need to ensure that local people can have their views heard. I was heartened when the Minister said that there would be community consultation, but too often these consultations are binned and not acted on—people listen and then some other outcome happens. I hope that community consultation in which local people expressed that they really did not want solar farms would be respected and the schemes would be turned down.

I was slightly disappointed that the Minister did not address the points about foreign investors leasing this land long term. I imagine that we do not know who they are and we are not checking on who is buying what. I am very disappointed to hear that the Minister is not prepared to recognise the depth of feeling on this issue. I withdraw the Amendment now, but hope that we can have further consultations and some movement can be made to address what all of us have tried to say about making sure that prime agricultural land does not have solar farms on it. I reserve the right to bring this back at the next stage of the Bill.

Amendment 89 withdrawn.