Category: Dear Kevin

Letters from Richard McLane to sitting MP for Thirsk and Malton, Kevin Hollinrake

Why Is Our MP, Kevin Hollinrake Avoiding The Answers To Our Five Burning Questions?

Richard McLane 1 Comment

Sadly, as often is the case, the responses we received from our MP Kevin Hollinrake regarding the government’s flawed renewable energy strategy – were less than adequate. Their failure to support renewables is not only negatively impacting both land occupier and solar developer – it is also forcing a continued dependence on expensive, finite energy resources, such as gas and oil.

Despite their need to reinstate a sense of trust with the British public, the lack of ability to give a straight answer to a simple question, seems to be commonplace for the conservative party. Whilst the Sturdy family are fighting for survival on their family farm, the government’s track record for meeting next year’s target for 20GW of solar energy production is shameful, forcing large scale proposals at the expense of our prime agricultural land; and making it near enough impossible for solar developers to do what’s needed.

With only 5GW out of the current 14GW of capacity coming from rooftops – you would wonder why there isn’t more encouragement for installations on buildings – or indeed brownfield sites, rather than using productive farmland? Sadly it all comes down to the inadequate grid infrastructure and government investment, which is forcing proposals like this.

With the next target being to produce 70GW of solar power by 2035 – a 5 fold increase to be achieved in just 12 years – the pressure has never been greater to put in place improved measures.

What was therefore most alarming from Kevin’s reply, was the continuous use of either future or conditional tense, so stating things that ‘will’ take place or ‘could’ make a difference. Despite woeful progress over the past 10 years, there is STILL no confirmed commitment being offered for how this failing trend will be reversed – or how farmer and solar developer will be able to co-exist in harmony, sustaining a greener future alongside the need for local, high quality food production.

We have asked for clarity from Kevin on his responses:

Q1 to Kevin) How can you genuinely oppose a solar proposal such as the one at Old Malton, when this is the outcome of your government’s failure to legislate and incentivise solar installations in the right places?   

Kevin Responded: “I have been consistent in what I have said on this issue. We need to protect the best and most versatile land for agricultural purposes; this is to ensure that farmers are not driven off of their farms. I support solar farms where it is appropriate to do so, such as on brownfield sites. I do not believe the site at Old Malton is a suitable place for a solar farm, as I have previously expressed.“

Clarification Needed:

You encouraged Harmony Energy to take this route of solar farm development, so if Old Malton isn’t suitable, where is? You support brownfield sites, but are there any viable brownfield sites in Ryedale due to the limitations of the poor grid infrastructure. Could you therefore confirm:

  • If you are saying Old Malton is not suitable, where would be a suitable alternative site, which would generate the same quantity of solar energy and service the same number of homes in the Ryedale district?
  • Which solar applications have you supported in our area and how much solar power do they generate?
  • Where are the available brownfield sites you refer to as being appropriate?

Q2 to Kevin) Bearing in mind the conservative government is spending circa £100 billion on HS2, please let us know how much and when will the government be investing in the national grid infrastructure, to ensure that future solar targets can be met without further jeopardising the British farming industry? 

Kevin Responded: “This will come from the Future System Operator, which will look at the Great Britain’s energy system as a whole, integrating existing networks with emerging technologies. The Future System Operator will be a new public body that will absorb the existing capabilities of the Electricity System Operator, and, where appropriate, National Grid Gas.… It will also provide strategic oversight of the UK gas system by taking on longer-term planning in respect of gas.“

Clarification Needed:

  • The question hasn’t been answered – in terms of what budget has been assigned to improving the grid infrastructure? Or when will this work be started, completed and what are the quantifiable commitments in terms of upgrading existing grid capacity?  
  • You say the FSO “will” be a new public body – when will this come in to force – and what are their targets?
  • In particular, what improvements are planned for the grid in the Malton and Thirsk constituency / North Yorkshire?

Q3) In light of their torment, please confirm when will you propose a revised policy for implementing a realistic and truly beneficial solar energy plan – one which clearly outlines the parameters for viable applications, and rewards solar proposals in the right places – such as the untouched rooftops of our commercial properties and new homes, or low-grade land & brownfield sites available in the UK?

Kevin Responded: “…As part of the new Energy Security Strategy, ministers are looking to increase the UK’s current 14GW of solar capacity, which could grow up to five times by 2035. To support solar deployment, the Government is consulting on the rules for solar projects. …The Government also plans to review permitted development rights to make it easier for rooftop solar to be deployed on households, as well as public and commercial buildings.… The Government is also extending the VAT relief available for the installation of energy saving materials. This relief is being increased further by introducing a time-limited zero rate for the installation of these materials. More specifically, the Government supported over 830,000 small solar projects through the Feed-in Tariff between 2010 and 2019.”

Clarification Needed:

  • Can you confirm the existing parameters set out by the government for solar farm development and how these prevent applications / protect prime agricultural land and farmers?
  • When/How will the government incentivise and legislate for solar installations to take place on the rooftops of suitable buildings – domestic / commercial warehouses / schools / hospitals etc ?

The other things you mention are not relevant to the Sturdy’s situation, many are vague as to when they will offer a tangible benefit – please confirm:

  • You say UK’s current 14GW of solar capacity “could” grow up to five times by 2035. This offers no commitment – how will the current government increase solar PV capacity to 70GW by 2035 – that is +56GW in 12 years?
  • When will the time-limited zero rate for the installation of energy saving materials start/finish? Who is eligible to claim this?
  • When will the consultations on the rules for solar proposals take place and what changes do you expect to see?
  • When are you planning to have the review of permitted development rights completed so solar installations are passed more quickly and how will it make the process easier?
  • You say the government supported 830,000 homes between 2010-2019 with small solar projects – how many homes have they helped in the most recent 4 years and what is the target for/ how will they help homes in the coming 5+ years? The climate crisis is not over, in fact it has barely begun.

Q4 to Kevin) In support of the rooftop solar campaign, I ask, why businesses (like my own) which are willing to help you achieve the solar targets you have set, are not incentivised, supported or rewarded financially for doing so?

Kevin Responded: “The Government is committed to widespread deployment of rooftop solar and will be setting up a taskforce to help deliver this ambition. We have introduced a permitted development right in 2015 to encourage the take-up of solar panels on non-domestic buildings. Compared to previous rights, this provides for a 20-fold increase in the amount of solar technology that can go onto the roofs of commercial buildings without the need to submit a full planning application.”

Clarification Needed:

  • Why does your government penalise businesses by increasing business rates for organisations who have personally invested in placing solar panels on their rooftops and are helping to achieve essential climate goals?
  • Why are all new commercial properties not required and incentivised financially to install solar panels on their rooftops, thus reducing the amount of land that will be used? Will this ever be something that the government will introduce, if so by when?
  • Can you confirm when the taskforce will be set up and what tangible results it will achieve?
  • If the permitted development right was introduced in 2015  to encourage solar installations on non-domestic buildings, why is only 5GW of solar energy produced from rooftops in the UK? How can this be enough. Compared with other European countries this statistic is embarrassing.

Q5 for Kevin) My final question is on behalf of local businesses. When are you going to regulate the energy market so that prices are capped and incentives exist for businesses to invest in solar panels – allowing them to reduce their energy bills, whilst also working towards the climate goals that your government has promised?

Kevin Responded: “Insofar as incentivising businesses to place solar panels on their property, I believe the business case for a reduction in energy bills provides that incentive.”

Clarification Needed:

Again the question has not been answered – businesses need to know:

  • When will the energy market be regulated so that prices are capped and businesses can expect fair and predictable costs? This was highlighted on the BBC news only this week.
  • A solar installation requires a large capital outlay before seeing any benefits from costs in energy reduction – why do you not offer businesses financial support to assist with this expense?

We look forward to getting the answers we need and understanding exactly how the government is working to support net zero targets through renewable development, without jeopardising Britain’s agricultural heritage.

Did Your MP, Kevin Hollinrake Make The Right Decision By Not Voting?

Richard McLane 3 Comments

I wrote last month – with complete disbelief – when I discovered that our MP did not even turn up to vote on behalf of his constituents, either for or against the official report published, proving Boris Johnson’s lack of integrity and deceit during lockdown. This was a report which presented our then Prime Minister, as possibly the most untrustworthy person to have ever led our country. To read the report findings and see which MPs took the time to vote, click here >>

It’s no coincidence that, whilst the majority of MPs for parties other than the Conservatives, were present to cast their vote on Johnson’s controversial antics – Conservative MPs were rather more elusive, with 63% not turning up to vote on behalf of their constituents.

I doubt there is one person reading this page, that wasn’t affected by the restrictions imposed on us by Boris Johnson during two years of lockdowns. Unable to hold a loved ones hand, unable to socialise, to go to school and for much of the time, leave our homes. Whilst at Downing Street, our prime minister was partying with his “trusted” colleagues.

Why Were We Not A Priority Kevin?

I have politely asked Kevin Hollinrake – as a fellow constituent in the Malton and Thirsk area myself – why he did not represent his voters in this democratic process, which was designed to bring some degree of justice for all those that suffered during the pandemic, while Boris Johnson betrayed our trust.

What could have been more important than his duty to represent the views of his constituents in his area, on such a sensitive and high profile debate?

Kevin kindly took the time to respond to me and explained at the time of the vote, he chose to instead attend the Muslim Business Awards in London. He went on to explain that in effect it was pointless casting a vote because ‘as Mr Johnson is no longer a Member of Parliament, any sanction on him is immaterial, as someone who is no longer a Member cannot be suspended from the House. Therefore, I did not find the vote in itself to hold much tangible weight.’

The overriding message of Kevin’s response seeming to be that voting was a worthless exercise – and in his decision, taking away our right to have our opinion put forward in a political process – which was designed to allow us, as British people, to be represented in parliamentary decisions. If there was no point in voting, then why were MPs given the opportunity to vote, and why did so many MPs from other parties exercise this right?

As has been evident through Kevin’s previous communications – his loyalty to Boris Johnson has been unquestionable – read here to see why. This vote on the privileges committee report was about bringing closure for the people in our area.

Why No Answers? – Voters Must Decide

I responded again to Kevin and asked – did the people of Thirsk and Malton not deserve to have a sense of justice through being represented in parliament? When faced with the decision of doing the right thing by his voters, Kevin’s choice was clear – he put his personal views and his party first .

I went on to ask our MP given he didn’t cast his vote, to confirm how he rates the integrity of Boris Johnson, having read the privileges committee report? – which was interestingly supported by 98% of those MPs who did vote (view full results here).

And finally, I asked how he would have voted had he prioritised his attendance in parliament that day?

It is with great trepidation that I confirm Kevin was unwilling to answer any of these questions. These were fair questions. Questions which us, as his constituents have the right to know the answer for. Kevin clearly doesn’t want us to know these answers.

What Can Be Concluded?

  • He does not want to answer the questions because he prefers to sit on the fence and play his voters.
  • He knows that the answer he will give would not be liked by the vast majority of his constituents, even those who would typically vote for him.
  • His answer would highlight the fact that the very constituents he represents come second to his ministerial role.
  • He is now part of the political class – this is the opposite of what his stated goals were when he went into politics.

The Facts

  • Only in this party could somebody get away with not doing their job, ie not voting on behalf of their constituents.
  • Only in this party would somebody get away with not answering a clear and fair question with a straight answer.
  • In any job apart from that which Kevin holds, the behaviours above would see him lose his job.
  • The behaviour Kevin has displayed is cynical towards all electors and is exactly why we are seeing so many people disengaged with politics.
  • Kevin’s behaviour is in effect damaging to democracy.

What we can be sure of is, Kevin doesn’t want people to know what the truth is behind why it was not his priority to vote on one of the most sensitive issues any government has ever faced in our country.

It’s time that we as voters, make sense of the political embarrassment the Conservative party have brought to our country – and we make the change that is needed.

PLEASE COMMENT BELOW TO CONFIRM – DID KEVIN MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE NOT TO VOTE?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

It’s time to claw back our democracy – why did our MP not have an opinion or put his constituents first?

Richard McLane Leave a comment

As I continue to hear people out in Ryedale’s community expressing their disgust in the conservative leadership – their question of who can reliably represent their views is more valid than ever – following the absence of our elected MP Kevin Hollinrake when invited to vote for or against the privileges committee report, which brought Boris Johnson’s integrity into account.

The report confirmed that Johnson misled MPs and the Commons during his time as prime minister. In other words he lied. He twisted the truth. He deceived his party and his country, resulting in the ultimate sanction; now unable to access parliament as an ex-Prime Minister, a privilege offered by tradition to all MPs.

Funded by taxpayers money, this was a damning cross-party account which opens bare the complete dishonesty of the former Conservative leader.  More worrying than the findings themselves, is the fact that our elected MP is not willing to vote on behalf of the people he represents across Malton and Thirsk’s constituency.

Whilst Boris Johnson insisted his birthday and ‘morale-boosting’ parties during lockdown were “essential”, there’s barely a person I’ve spoken to in the last three years, who didn’t go through some form of suffering during this same period of time; loss of loved ones; loneliness; financial hardship; health challenges; lack of education – and the list goes on.

Yet at this time – whilst he imposed rules of isolation on the rest of us – Boris Johnson was partying with his cronies at Downing Street, in the face of a worldwide pandemic.

Despite being found guilty of five contempts of Parliament, both Malton & Thirsk’s elected MP, as well as our country’s current prime minister (pictured above), chose to withhold their vote and stand in the way of justice.

Where Were You Kevin?

As a life-long resident of Ryedale, who had the decency to respect the rules during lockdown – I am asking Kevin to explain his choice for not even turning up to cast his vote?

Kevin has made his support very clear for Boris Johnson during this period of political disgrace. We can all make misjudgements – but by casting his vote on the recent report, this would perhaps have gone some way in redeeming the unjust loyalty he showed for who is now, potentially the most false and  untrustworthy prime minister we have ever had in office.

This vote was offered to our MPs to protect the integrity of parliament; of our government; of the democratic values we place trust in, when voting at an election. Yet with 63% of Tory MPs withholding their right to vote, there can realistically be no doubt that this party as a whole, is unwilling to act in the interests of our country.

Is there any going back?

To clarify, the Committee of Privileges who conducted the report, is made up of seven cross-party back benchers, selected to proportionately represent the members of the House as a whole; their collective role being to ‘investigate potential contempts and breaches of privilege as instructed by the House.’  This report scrutinised the facts and offered an unbiased outcome.

Surely if there was ever a time for our MP to stand up for the people who voted him in, this was it?

The findings of the report confirmed that Johnson “repeatedly misled parliament” about lockdown parties at Downing Street.

Boris Johnson was found guilty of five serious offences; how can any elected MP not have an opinion on these rulings? Surely this is the primary role of an elected politician – to have and express a viewpoint on behalf of their constituents.

How can Kevin justify his absence…

  • Did he not have an opinion on his party leader, Boris Johnson’s proven lack of honesty?
  • Did he believe the partying at Downing Street was acceptable, while the rest of us were locked down?
  • Or is he simply more willing to protect his leader’s interests over those of the people who live in our area and who he’s representing?

Your Party or Your People?

It is no longer an opinion that Boris Johnson is a liar – it is fact; whilst all attempts to defend him were completely dismantled in any parliamentary debates, this was confirmed when 98% of those who did vote, supported the findings of the report.

Had his dishonesty been left unchecked, this would have further contaminated the government and allowed deceit to become an acceptable trait within our political constitution.

Sadly 63% of conservative MPs who didn’t vote – including Malton and Thirsk’s elected MP – have confirmed they are content with this standard of leadership.

See who voted here >> 

Our MP’s display of loyalty to his leader, who betrayed our country, is nothing less than spineless. Those who voted Conservative and whose MP did not vote, have essentially been politically abandoned and deserve more.

Many of these politicians fought for parliamentary sovereignty, removing us from Europe to take back control – yet when given the chance to exercise, on such a personal level, what they have fought for – they surrendered it.

The shortcomings of the Tory party are endless; from Austerity and Brexit to the failings of ministers, constant resignations and policy corrections. This country is in desperate need of change, and I urge people to think hard about who they can trust to represent their needs in future. 

Please comment below and tell us if our elected MP represented your interests fairly by withholding his vote on the privileges committee report.

Five Burning Questions – Kevin Can You Clarify Your Position?

Richard McLane Leave a comment

In follow up to the response I’ve seen to the Rooftop Solar petition being led by the CPRE – some people in support and others opposing the campaign – there is one common theme; each response is questioning your government’s policy and direction for implementing a viable solar strategy, and so I would like to put forward some of the questions that your constituents need answering.  

To provide some context, having seen the data reported by the CPRE on solar, the current outlook for meeting the target set by your party ten years ago, which is to produce 20GW of solar energy (by next year), is looking dismal to say the least. The review states the UK’s current solar PV capacity is around 14GW, of which just 5GW is produced through solar installations on rooftops; and you’re working towards a further target for producing 70GW of solar power by 2035 – a 5-fold increase to be achieved in just 12 years’ time.

Evidence from this independent report also shows how underutilised rooftop capacity is, with commercial buildings and new homes providing the opportunity to meet a large proportion of your target, without the need to further decimate our farming industry; or intensify the food security crisis we’re facing as a nation.

We’re All In This Together

Looking at this debate from two very contrasting perspectives, the current approach to implementing a solar strategy isn’t working for either end of the spectrum.

To explain what I mean by this, I’ve had an interesting conversation with Alex Thornton of Harmony Energy this week who informs me that you personally advised him to take the direction of pursuing solar and battery projects – such as the one on Old Malton’s farmland – despite the opposition you are now declaring to the proposal they have made at this site.

On this matter we ask, how can you genuinely oppose a solar proposal such as the one at Old Malton, when this is the outcome of your government’s failure to legislate and incentivise solar installations in the right places?   

Harmony Energy is a business that is fully committed to supporting a greener future and so in my opinion, is an organisation that is going to be crucial to you/us reducing the effects of climate change, within the timeframes you have pledged. For the potential they offer, they have my full support. Despite my passion for the environment however, I explained to them my loyalty to the farming community and my reluctance to let renewables take precedence over our country’s agricultural heritage; and in return, they explained to me the challenges they face in helping your government implement its flawed renewable strategy.

We are all in this together; the Conservatives, the Greens, the farmers, the landlords, energy developers and your constituents – the people of Ryedale. The climate crisis affects us all. As Alex Thornton explained, the single most limiting factor his business faces is the capacity of the existing grid infrastructure and lack of commitment from your government to invest in this. I’m told it will simply take ‘decades’ to develop this to a point of you being able to meet solar production targets and so surely, it must be time for this work to begin.  

Kevin, bearing in mind the conservative government is spending circa £100 billion on HS2, please let us know how much and when will the government be investing in the national grid infrastructure, to ensure that future solar targets can be met without further jeopardising the British farming industry? 

It can’t go unmentioned that the victims here are the Sturdy family. My heart goes out to them, they have farmed the land they are fighting to protect, for several generations. This solar proposal will take away productive land, used to produce high quality food for our country. The prospect of them being targeted and removed in this way, should not be possible.

As Emma Sturdy continues with her campaign, I read with interest some of her frustrations regarding the absence of national policy from your government, which causes developers to ‘chance their luck with solar proposals on whatever land suits them, irrespective of the role it plays.’ Her blatant plea for national and local authorities to urgently regulate solar development, offering clear guidance for what should cause a solar development to be ‘rejected’ or ‘accepted’ is one that needs addressing today for everybody’s benefit.

In light of their torment, please confirm when will you propose a revised policy for implementing a realistic and truly beneficial solar energy plan – one which clearly outlines the parameters for viable applications, and rewards solar proposals in the right places – such as the untouched rooftops of our commercial properties and new homes, or low-grade land & brownfield sites available in the UK?

From my own perspective, as a business owner in Ryedale who has covered the rooftops of two warehouses with solar panels, I have personally experienced the obstacles others will face should they choose to do the same. With no government incentive and zero funding available, I have invested personally in a 171kWp system made up of 424 solar panels, which are forecast to produce 121,890 kWh (kilowatt hours) per year; this is over 200% of my business’ current energy requirements.

For the privilege, I encountered endless obstacles due to the limitations of the grid infrastructure and gaining a connection, leaving our solar panels inoperative for nearly six months. We were then penalised through exorbitant business rates, simply because we were going to use a proportion of the electricity we produce for our own business needs.

Kevin, in support of the rooftop solar campaign, I ask, why businesses (like my own) which are willing to help you achieve the solar targets you have set, are not incentivised, supported or rewarded financially for doing so?

To conclude and in connection with my own solar investment, are the regular concerns I hear from local businesses who are closing their doors across Ryedale, due to the extortionate energy costs they face, which are making it impossible for them to survive the current economic climate.

I know all too well how the energy giants are exploiting the market. My business currently produces green electricity and sells this back to the grid for others to use. The energy suppliers are marking up the price they give us by a shocking 700%.

My final question Kevin is therefore on behalf of local businesses. When are you going to regulate the energy market so that prices are capped and incentives exist for businesses to invest in solar panels – allowing them to reduce their energy bills, whilst also working towards the climate goals that your government has promised?

For those in doubt, I would like to affirm my position on this debate, both as a farmer’s son; a local business owner; and of course the Green Party’s parliamentary candidate for Malton & Thirsk. It is without doubt that I wholeheartedly support all renewables in the right places. It saddens me to observe the current clash taking place between farmer and renewable energy developer in our district. This should not be happening and so as our elected MP, we need clarification from Kevin Hollinrake on where your party stands on the above matters.

Too much plastic

admin Leave a comment

Kevin

Start a deposit scheme immediately on all recyclable plastic products from bottles to bale wrap. Legislate to ban all non-recyclable plastics immediately. Just because something cannot be ‘economically’ recycled does not mean it should be burnt or buried. We all need to pay the TRUE price of what we consume. Part of the cost must not be paid by our future or by others futures.

You set your bar below ground level when you start by comparing your performance by others already woeful performance. We all know what needs doing, please just get on and do it.

The thing is, you would get so little push back from the electorate, in fact if you nailed this issue you would look like heroes……… (the only push back you will get is from your funders, in the fossil fuel industry – INEOS etc….)

Stop relying on the free market to solve the problems of its lack of self-regulation/regulation has created…….. if you keep doing the same thing then the result will be the same.

You have had 12 years now to make a difference and the problem has got worse.  Please change direction.

Kind regards, Richard.