Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered community benefits from renewable energy projects.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. In all our careers, we have seen extraordinary changes, such as the advent of the internet, artificial intelligence and mobile phones. Going back 50 years, in the early stages of many of our lives, we had the North sea oil boom. The oil boom was extraordinary for many countries, not least Norway, which has saved US $1.7 trillion from it. Great Britain saved none of that money, however, and I am worried that we will save none of the money from the extraordinary renewables boom that is coming our way.

One of the biggest systemic changes in our life is happening right now: the move from fossil fuels to renewables. Many billions of pounds are being made, a huge number of jobs are being created and cheap electricity is being generated, but it is overseas companies, with overseas ownership of renewables projects, that we are seeing all over the UK. Precious little of the money ends up in the hands of the people who are being impacted by those projects.

The issue I have with these renewables projects, whether solar, wind, pumped storage or whatever, is that they are in rural areas. The locals suffer the visual impact, and we have all seen miles and miles of 200-metre-high wind turbines and field after field, sometimes of prime land, covered in solar panels. Villagers—people—have to face those industrial projects, and we really need to take them with us on this net zero journey.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I represent roughly 1,500 farmers in Westmorland. All of them, pretty much, have water flowing through their fields and their land—often very quickly—but few of them take advantage of hydroelectricity, which could be a source of cross-subsidisation for farming, while also creating important renewable energy for our communities as a whole. Does my hon. Friend think that hydro-technology, in particular on farmland, is a great way forward? We can farm and produce renewable energy at the same time.

Micro-renewables are the way ahead, and the more micro the better. Whether that is a solar thing on a roof or hydro for a farm, I could not support it more.

In 2023, as part of research in a written submission to Parliament, Octopus Energy showed that 87% of people would support a turbine in their community if it decreased their bills.

Now, I do not blame the landowner; these projects can allow farmers to retain the land in their family for generations to come. In some way, it is like discovering oil or gold on their land, and it is great that our bountiful wind and rain can be such an asset for us, especially in an era when coal is inaccessible and unacceptable, nuclear is being phased out, and gas is often imported from countries with an unacceptable moral standing, while also badly hitting our balance of payments and being environmentally unfriendly to transport to Britain. Renewables are absolutely the future.

The 68 million people in the UK are enormous beneficiaries of our renewables sectors, but the cost is borne by a fraction of that number—by those living in the remotest areas. Those of us in the Chamber represent populations who pay a 50% premium on electricity connection fees compared with those living in cities. The same people are not connected to mains gas, and therefore pay a great deal to have tankers deliver heating oil to their houses.

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. As he will know, we are talking about fairness to communities. One of the unfair issues in terms of communities and the cost of electricity is standing charges, whereby households in north Wales and Merseyside pay £100 more a year than those in London. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the present arrangement is fundamentally unfair and that things should be shared more fairly across the nations of the United Kingdom?

I absolutely love that—I am going to make the right hon. Lady a dame in my first honours list. It is an absolute disgrace that people in rural Britain pay a premium to get renewables, even though it is us generating the electricity. The standing charge should be the subject of our next discussion.

Those of us in the highlands, and indeed in many other parts of Britain, have long, dark, windy and cold winters. When many people open the curtains in the morning, they look out on to a wind farm selling cheap, green energy to the big cities. The remote highlands and islands, the Scottish Borders, Wales, Cumbria and the west country are among our poorest areas.

Does my hon. Friend agree that community benefit and compensation for communities is important for not only the communities that experience these projects but the planning system? Take it from a former planning inspector: if we had a sensible and predictable level of community benefit, it would make granting planning permission smoother, with fewer objections.

There is a recent change to planning in Scotland—I am unsure whether it extends to England—called national planning framework 4, which makes the economic benefit to the community part of the criteria for getting a plan in, so we are moving towards what my hon. Friend describes.

The areas I mentioned are among our poorest. They suffer from the highest level of fuel poverty, an older population, lack of affordable housing, poor transport infrastructure, struggling market towns, lower wages, and often worse education and health services than cities. Rural people have higher costs and lower incomes.

In Caerfyrddin, we have the possibility of four lines of new electricity cables and pylons coming through. Does the hon. Member agree that the best community benefit for Caerfyrddin and our rural communities would be to underground the cables rather than have these pylon lines coming through?

Somebody whose opinion I respect greatly told me that undergrounding cables was no more expensive. I was very surprised at that, because I had understood from the transmission line companies in Scotland that it was a great deal more expensive to underground them. I will definitely look into that, because I know that it is a requirement to underground them in Norway. We should explore that issue further.

So we have boom time in renewables, generating trillions of pounds over many decades, and we have a rural population that really needs financial help and investment.

In the last decade, my constituency has seen a wide range of solar schemes with different community benefits, ranging from £20,000 a year for the 25 years of the project’s expected life, which is handed over automatically to parish councils, to just a £30,000 pot, which people have to bid into. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be equity of treatment, and that there are benefits to having an ongoing relationship, beyond the monetary value it brings?

I think my hon. Friend will be thrilled with the next part of my speech, which will answer that question. We have a huge financial need, and we have the renewables revenue, which we will talk about in a second. Money and need—bingo, we have a match. Is that not exactly what we are here in Parliament to facilitate?

I am pleased to hear that the Great British Energy Bill is largely here, as it holds the prosperity of much of rural Britain in its hands. It can insist that communities have a stake in local renewables projects and that we legislate to require all renewables projects to pay a significant sum to impacted areas. Amazingly, it made no mention of community ownership of renewables projects or of community benefits.

I have been fortunate enough to visit your beautiful constituency, but in my beautiful constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, we have Rampion 2, a renewable wind farm that is due to go on to the sea closer to land than Rampion 1, with huge environmental and visible impacts. On your point about where the benefits sit, there is currently no requirement for any visitor centre to sit within the constituency impacted by the wind farm. Do you agree that any commercial benefits, such as a visitor centre, which will bring tourism and jobs, should reside in the most impacted constituency?

Order. For the benefit of everyone in the room, we avoid the word “you” because it refers to me. I remind all hon. Members that we speak in the third person.

It is fair to say that building a visitor centre was not one of my list of key things to do with the money, but I shall add it to my list at around No. 97 —there is a space there. We will talk about this more in a minute, but fuel poverty, affordable housing and so on are probably the key uses for that money at the beginning.

The Lib Dem energy spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), has submitted an amendment to the Great British Energy Bill that would allow it to consider community benefits, and I very much hope that her amendment is taken forward.

I had a motion on community benefits passed in the Highland council. I have consulted the electricity generators and Ofgem. I have met Government Ministers here and in Scotland, discussed the issue with most knowledgeable people in all political parties and generally bored everyone I can find with it. There is consensus that it would be fair to require that the impacted rural people of the highlands and islands, of Scotland and of the UK as a whole benefit from bearing the costs of hosting our energy infrastructure.

The Highland council has done the work. It has a social value charter, which it would be pleased to share. The council and I agree on almost all aspects, except that the amount paid to communities should be a percentage of gross income from the projects, rather than £12,500 per megawatt. A percentage would allow communities to benefit from a soaring electricity price, as happened after Russia invaded Ukraine, and protect the project owners and utilities if the electricity price slumped.

Here is my financial proposal: 5% of revenue from all newly consented renewable energy, generated both onshore and offshore, should be paid to community energy funds. For onshore projects, two thirds of that should be paid to the affected council board, with one third paid to a council strategic fund. For offshore projects, all of that 5% of gross revenue should go to a council strategic fund. An existing renewables project should also pay money; I will explain that in a second.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the ownership of energy production is really important. The inaction of the last Government left the country reliant on energy produced and owned abroad, so I am proud of the work that this Government have done to found the publicly owned GB Energy, which will give us long-term energy security. I welcome this debate on the community benefits of renewable energy projects. I was reassured in the House just last week about communities such as Cullingworth in my constituency, where we are looking at proposals to host associated infrastructure—basically battery storage. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those sorts of benefits should be for not just energy generation, but the associated infrastructure, such as battery storage? Community benefits should also come locally from those projects.

I wholeheartedly agree. It should be the same for the transmission lines and the interceptors, for pumped storage and battery—really, the whole infra- structure of producing renewables.

So where is the 5% going to come from? It is really important that investors do not suffer from swings in British policy, and that they continue to invest in UK energy infrastructure. It is key that this increase is passed on to all consumers in the UK as part of a green tariff. My informed opinion is that paying that 5% to impacted communities would translate to about a 1.25% increase in electricity prices in Britain.

What should a council that receives that substantial amount of money use it for? Here are three examples of what has been happening already. One community fund near me gives £1,000 to each of the properties in the community. If 1,000 properties were given £1,000 each, that would be £1 million. Perhaps the locals managing the fund would allocate it to households that earn less than the UK median household income of £34,500. In any case, at a time of winter fuel allowance cuts, that would be most welcome. A second option is for the community to use the money to build affordable housing, and I know of a third community that injects money into its local care sector, for care homes.

Let me plagiarise the Highland council report in order to provide some context. In 2023, in the highlands, local communities received approximately £9 million. That is below the expected commitment based on Crown Estate Scotland’s guidelines, which suggest that developers should contribute £5,000 per megawatt, equating to £13.9 million. The total income from wind generation in the highlands for 2023 was estimated to be around £590 million. That calculation is based on a potential production of 11.8 GW. If all renewables—including hydro, offshore wind and pumped storage—were included, the benefit increased to 5%, and the amount of renewable energy doubled by 2030 to 22 GW, which is likely, then the community benefit would rise well above £50 million per year. That is a heck of a lot of money to highland rural communities. What would that be across the UK? £500 million a year? £1 billion? £5 billion over 10 years? This is a proper levelling-up fund for rural communities.

Does the hon. Member agree that when we are looking at scaling up wind—floating offshore wind, for example, which will benefit Scotland and Cornwall, where I am from—we could look more closely at contracts for difference, and the licences and leases with the Crown Estate, in order to embed social value in them on a large scale and generate benefits such as apprenticeships or the building up of local supply chains? There are exemptions to the World Trade Organisation rules and so on, and we could manage to do that in quite a substantial way.