Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day)

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee. Scottish and Welsh Legislative Consent sought.

15:21

Clause 16: Directions to modify connection agreements

Amendment 72

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

72: Clause 16, page 22, leave out lines 12 and 13
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting correction which would remove the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” from clause 16. The definition is unnecessary because the term is already defined for the purposes of clause 16 in clause 13(8).

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 72 in my name seeks to leave out lines 12 and 13 on page 22 of the Bill, removing the additional definition of “qualifying distribution agreement”. It is a straightforward technical amendment. Its purpose is to tidy up the drafting of the Bill by removing a definition that is no longer required. The term “qualifying distribution agreement” is already defined in Clause 13(8), following other changes made during the passage of the Bill. The amendment will help ensure that the legislation is clear, coherent and free from unnecessary or redundant definitions. It will not alter the substance or effect of the policy but support the overall clarity and workability of the Bill.

I hope that the Committee will support this amendment. I look forward to the debate on the other amendments in this group; I will reserve comment on them until I make my winding-up remarks. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for being so brief and to the point and for allowing me the opportunity to explain the purpose of the other amendments in this group in my name, which are Amendments 73 to 76. Like the Minister, I look forward to hearing from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about grid capacity in his Amendment 79. I remind the Committee of my registered interest as chair of development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire.

My amendments relate to Clause 17, which contains a power to give Ministers the opportunity to designate strategic plans for the purposes of the connection reforms that are taking place in relation to the transmission and distribution networks. I suppose it would be helpful—not least because it will connect to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will raise—for me to remind the House that this process is under way. In effect, it was commenced by the Connections Action Plan under the previous Administration in November 2023. A simple way of expressing it is by saying that there was a lot of commitment to future substantial increases in generating capacity in a range of technologies, which were increasingly forming a queue to book their potential connection to the transmission or distribution networks. However, there was considerable risk related to whether those projects would be delivered on time or at all.

The volume of such commitments made it very clear that a significant proportion of them would not be viable, because there would be an excess of what was required. The numbers varied, but I think the latest figure was something like 714 gigawatts of grid capacity relative to about 500 gigawatts of demand. Instead of the old regime, which can be characterised as “first ready, first connected”—namely, those who were planning to provide capacity simply booked a place in the queue and then, when they were ready, they were given a right to be connected—the intention now is for there to be strategic planning behind the process leading to the net-zero objectives in 2030, which were published under the Government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan last December.

Since then, Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator have been working on this. For the avoidance of doubt, references in Clause 17 to the independent system operator and planner, ISOP, are actually to the National Energy System Operator, or NESO. Ofgem agreed on its methodologies, I think in April, and has now, after consultation, approved the processes. I think that we are in a position—but the Minister can correct me if there is more detail—where we are anticipating, potentially in a matter of weeks, the first allocation of commitments by Ofgem to what is known as Gate 2. As I understand it, Gate 2 means that Ofgem will say that it is committed to these projects and that they will be connected to the transmission or distribution networks when they are ready and because they are needed.

There are two differences with that approach. First, the queue will be straightforward; it will be not just “first ready, first connected” but “first ready, first needed, first connected”. Secondly, the two criteria that Ofgem will apply, in the first instance, will be that there is a clear timetable—with milestones, which, if they are not met, may cause such projects to lose their place in that queue—and that they will be connected when they are needed. There is therefore a direct relationship between the strategic planning for electricity capacity in a range of technologies and the projects that NESO agrees will be brought in to supply the grid at given times in the future.

If I understand it correctly, the present strategic objective is set out in the connections annexe to the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan. It sets out a range of technologies, and capacities that are required in those technologies, and then breaks them down by regions across the country. There is therefore a plan to which the alignment should relate. The Explanatory Notes state that the designated strategic plan according to which the National Energy System Operator should work may be, for example, the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, so we can see the relationship with that.

The Explanatory Notes do not say this, but the Delegated Powers Committee’s memorandum from the department did: in addition, the designated plans are intended to include the strategic spatial energy plan intended to be published in 2026. That is in addition to what is in the clean power plan, which has 2030 targets and ranges for its potential capacity requirements through to 2035, and will extend that to 2050 so that there is a longer strategic alignment between the people who are making substantial investments and the commitment on the part of the grid to take that supply into the grid.

15:30

All of that is just to explain where I think we are. The question, then, is: where does Parliament fit into all this? We are giving the Government, in Clause 17, the power to designate strategic plans. In so far as there is a clean power action plan and the Government designate it, there was no parliamentary process—none that I can find—associated with the clean power action plan. It was simply published by the Government. Unless I am wrong, the strategic spatial energy plan that is intended to be published next year will have no parliamentary process associated with it. So, in so far as the National Electricity System Operator and the distribution operators are required to align with a designated strategic plan, they are aligning with something in relation to which Parliament has no role.

The regulations saying that they are designated are intended to be achieved by a negative process. I think that all that Parliament will see in due course is an order made by Ministers saying that the clean power action plan and, in due course, the SSEP are designated strategic plans for the purposes of what will then be Section 17 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act. This will cut across the existing arrangements because Ofgem and ISOP or NESO, as it is variously described in legislation, must have regard to the strategy and priorities statements that are published by the Government. So the strategy and policy statement that the Government publish from time to time—the last time was in the earliest part of 2024—is a statutory basis for the priorities that are set for Ofgem and NESO.

The first question to the Minister—and the purpose of these amendments, which are to probe how this is going to work—is: what is the relationship between the present strategy and policy statement, as published by the previous Government, and the designated strategic plans? Clearly, it would be right—necessary, in my view—for the present Government to publish their own strategy and policy statement to give effect to their intentions under the 2030 action plan and, in due course, the spatial energy plan.

The second question is: is it the Government’s intention to publish next year, in line with the strategic spatial energy plan, a new strategy and policy statement?

The third question is: why is the strategy and policy statement not the right and sufficient means by which the Government set out the strategic priorities for Ofgem and NESO? I ask this because Section 165 of the Energy Act, which requires them to have regard to these statements, makes clear that the strategy and policy statement is the one that is published under Section 131(1) of the Energy Act 2013 and that it can be published only if the procedural and consultation requirements in Section 135 of the 2013 Act have been complied with. It will not surprise noble Lords to know that this means that it should be published in draft; that it should be the subject of consultation; and that it should then be laid before Parliament and subject to the approval of both Houses prior to its designation as a strategy and policy statement.

That being the case, the intention of my amendments is to substitute that statement and ask, “Why shouldn’t the Government use that?” The difference is that this would have to be consulted on and approved by both Houses of Parliament before it were the designated plan for the purposes of Ofgem and NESO. When the time comes, I would be grateful for the Minister’s answers to some of those questions; obviously, I reserve the right to come back to this on Report.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my recorded register of interests: I am a non-executive director and a board member of the Water Retail Company. I will speak to my Amendment 79 and respond to the amendments on connections reform.

Amendment 79 calls on the Government to insert a new clause into the Planning and Infrastructure Bill under the heading of “increasing grid capacity” and proposes that, within three months of the Bill becoming law, the Secretary of State should publish a plan to achieve two simple yet crucial objectives: to reduce the cost and the time taken for new connections to the electrical transmission or distribution system; and to permit the development of local energy grids. The need for this amendment should be beyond reasonable doubt. I am concerned that, if these reforms are not made, we will not be capable of meeting the Government’s stated objective, which we share, to achieve clean power by 2030—a key step on our overall climate change and energy targets.

To decarbonise, we must electrify. Electricity demand is set to rise by at least 11% before 2030 and at least double by 2050. How we heat our homes, how we travel and how we power our industry must all be by electricity, which demands wiring everything up and ensuring that both low-voltage and high-voltage networks are fit for purpose. I would argue that this is one of the biggest societal energy changes since the Industrial Revolution and is only some five years away, which is merely the blink of an eye in planning terms. At present, the delay in getting grid connections is one of the greatest obstacles to decarbonisation, to developing new housing and industry, and to increasing our economic output as a country. Our businesses and communities are waiting seven to 10 years—even longer in some cases—before they can secure the right to feed clean energy into the system or to make power connections. Developers in grid hotspots—or “not spots”, potentially—are reporting connection waits of several years as being typical.

We need to be prepared and to get this stuff done. My amendment is designed to help do that. If we are going to be a leader in renewable energy and to get all the renewable energy in place, the grid connection system needs to be reformed. I very much recognise the Government’s recent reforms to try to update the grid connection system. In April 2025, working alongside Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator—NESO—the Government announced reforms to prioritise clean energy and infrastructure for grid access, aiming to eliminate so-called zombie or speculative projects and to fast-track the shovel-ready schemes that are set to go. The new target model option, TMO4+, introduces stricter queue management, milestone targets and progressive penalties for lagging projects, as well as prioritising the projects that are crucial for clean power and our overall economic growth.

These reforms are intended to help deliver that 2030 clean power plan, unlocking up to £15 billion in investment and supporting a more responsive and modern grid system. These are all steps in the right direction, and we definitely welcome how the Government have made progress since they came to power, but I feel that more needs to be done, hence the amendment that I put forward here. I worry that, if we do not do more, we will simply not be ready and will not hit these targets.

The second element of my amendment touches on local energy grids. Local energy grids are still in their infancy, but my party very much supports them. They empower our local communities and help them to benefit from the clean power revolution that is coming. Their efforts are quiet, modest and determined, and I want this Government to do more to support them. I believe they are essential in galvanising public support and helping the Government to take communities with them on this journey. Alongside many others across both Houses of Parliament, I fought to get community energy into the Great British Energy Act and I am delighted to have done that.

However, more help is needed to get this stuff over the line. Local energy grids are important and will benefit the country. They help to make the grid more secure and resilient. They reduce the need for transmission and the loss of transmission time, and they reduce the need to invest in the high-voltage grid overall. They take our communities with us and bring support. We all need that: this Government need that and we need that. Our communities should benefit from the revolution that is taking place. My amendment is designed to help and to support the Government. My hope is that the Government can support this amendment, or it would be appreciated if they brought forward an amendment on Report.

I turn briefly to the other amendments in this group. I recognise that the Minister has put forward a drafting amendment and we are fine with that. On Amendments 73 to 76 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, we recognise what they are about and welcome the questions that the noble Lord raises. These are important issues, which we should discuss in Committee, about the replication of policy and policy statements, and how those systems are set up and will work in practice.

However, as we go into this rapid period of change, my worry is that, if his amendments are passed, we could end up with a system that is centralised more in Westminster, is less responsive to the changes that need to happen at pace and at scale and is not as well connected to the communities and those on the ground facing change. Those would be my general concerns with those amendments, if agreed, but I look forward to the Minister’s response and I think it is important that those amendments were raised. I look forward to further debate on this group.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, connections reform is very important if we are to give the grid capacity. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right in wanting to speed things up and to ensure that these connections are not too costly. That matters whether you want more renewable energy in the mix or would prefer—as I would—to continue with a mixed supply, including better and continued use of North Sea oil and gas.

However, the fact is that the grid is not resilient and everything is too slow. We have too many layers of decision-making, too much strategising, too many bureaucratic rules and, therefore, not enough speed and determination. I know that that is behind the Government’s planning reforms. I fear that my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments could also slow things down, but he may be able to reassure me on that. I look forward to the Minister’s response on how we can ensure that these changes will speed things up and get us the reforms that we need, if the economy and the energy economy are to work well in the months and years ahead.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley’s approach of being specific about what it is that developers and investors should be looking at instead of what the latest designated strategy might be. This approach also makes sure that we do not end up with more reasons for judicial review, when it is left to judges to determine what is the strategy or where there is nuance and so on. My noble friend made points about making that direct link to understanding a moment in time and that the measure has been through the parliamentary aspect of the process, initiated by the Government of course. That simplicity will in fact help the Government in achieving a lot of the aims which they seek.

15:45

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is also right that we need to improve the connections. One thing that has been frustrating is that Ofgem, for what it is worth, has overinterpreted existing legislation. The previous regime was National Grid, as it was, now it is NESO. It could have had more flexibility in order to have more certainty on what was to be connected, instead of connections agreed 10 years ago, with very little, as a consequence, happening. That is partly because it leads to a whole bunch of work and fear in local communities on what further infrastructure will be used for the transmissions.

To some extent, this is where the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is trying to go with speeding up the connections, but I am concerned about two aspects of the approach that he is suggesting. I understand what he says about local energy grids, but there are significant parts of the country where the energy being generated is not intended for any use near that particular part of the country, whether it is in parts of Scotland or parts of coastal Britain. It is intended to be transmitted—I am not entirely sure where, and perhaps I need to educate myself further on Liberal Democrat policy and what exactly the local energy grids are—but I would ask on whom the costs fall.

A lot of this drives costs on to consumers. My concern is around what I have seen where energy developers have not got the CfD that they were expecting or hoping for and then have either cancelled projects or reduced the amount of energy that they are prepared to generate. That is a commercial decision, but one reasons for aspects of centralisation is that it is largely not taxpayer subsidised—well, it is taxpayers in a lot of the cases—but there is also an issue around bill payer subsidy in how we get the energy grid that we need in the future.

Where I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that this will always require a huge amount of centralisation in any consideration of how we get the right energy grid right around the world. It is to that end that I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, because that simple change of legislation would in fact unlock a lot of certainty and bring clarity, which is to the good of our future electricity capacity.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments, which relate to the connections reform provisions within the Bill. These are largely technical and drafting amendments, but they are none the less important to ensure clarity and alignment across the legislation. I agree with many of the issues raised by my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Coffey, particularly anything that slows down the grid connections process or adds more cost to the consumer.

Let me start by welcoming Amendment 72, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, which, as she stated in her admirably brief opening, makes a simple drafting correction. It removes the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” from Clause 16, as it is already defined in Clause 13(8). This is a helpful tidying up amendment that improves the consistency of the Bill’s language, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing it forward.

Amendments 73 to 76, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, would also serve to improve the clarity and coherence of the Bill, particularly in relation to NESO and its responsibilities. Amendment 73 would ensure that NESO is required to have regard to the strategy and policy statement under Section 165 of the Energy Act 2023, rather than the designated strategic plan. This helps to bring the language of the Bill in line with existing legislation and policy frameworks.

Amendment 74 makes a similar adjustment to Clause 17, ensuring that NESO must have regard to the strategic priorities set out in the strategy and policy statement under the 2023 Act. Amendment 75 then defines “strategic priorities” as those contained in the most recent strategy and policy statement issued under that Act—again reinforcing consistency and legal precision. Amendment 76 replaces references in Clause 17 to “designated strategic plans” with “strategic priorities”, to align terminology with Section 165 of the Energy Act 2023. My noble friend Lord Lansley has put forward a strong case for these changes to the Bill, and they appear to be sensible and constructive amendments.

Finally, Amendment 79, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raises an important issue by highlighting the delays and high costs associated with connecting to the national grid. This amendment addresses a key barrier to energy development and considers the use of local grids as a way of improving efficiency.

This has been a good, thoughtful and short debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, it is reassuring to hear such a degree of consensus across the House that we all want to deliver the same thing from this—speeding up the connections process. I have expressed my frustration many times before in this House that it can take longer to get a grid connection than it did to build the whole of the A1(M). That is a just a nonsense and we have to move on from it.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Coffey, for their comments.

I am afraid I have to oppose the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I understand how well intentioned they are and I greatly respect his experience in these areas, but they would have significant unintended consequences for the Government’s ability to respond swiftly and effectively to the evolving needs of our energy system.

At the heart of the amendments is a proposal to require that the strategy and policy statement, also known as SPS, designated under Part 5 of the Energy Act 2013 is used for the purpose of prioritising connections to the electricity network. I recognise the helpful attempt by the noble Lord to ensure consistency and clarity with regard to the obligations of Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator, NESO. I also fully recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and do not for a moment suggest that we should seek to avoid that. But we must also be honest about the practical implications of this approach.

The SPS is subject to a rigorous process that is entirely appropriate for a high-level, overarching statement of policy. But it is not designed to accommodate the pace or specificity required to support the complex and fast-moving reforms we are undertaking to unblock and accelerate electricity network connections. We are entering a period of rapid transformation. The grid must decarbonise. New technologies are emerging. Electricity demand is shifting and increasing and the connections process must evolve to keep up.

In that context, the Government must be able to designate timely targeted guidance, potentially in the form of multiple documents, tailored to different parts of the sector, such as generation or demand connections, or technology-specific plans and strategies. Indeed, the Government have already signalled their intention to designate the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan and the Industrial Strategy—both existing documents published recently—when the necessary powers are available. These are concrete, strategic documents that will help the industry to plan and invest with confidence, hopefully meeting some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. But these amendments would prevent that. They would limit us to a single document—the SPS—and, in doing so, tie our hands at precisely the moment we need the most flexibility, creating potential delays and preventing the granular and specific strategic direction required for the grid connection process.

There is a further and more fundamental issue. Distribution network operators—DNOs—have no legal obligation to have regard to the SPS. These companies are critical to the delivery of connections reform and are responsible for connecting a significant volume of new generation and storage that will connect directly to the distribution network. They are privately owned and operated and the SPS was never intended to bind them. To attempt to do so now would be not only inappropriate but unworkable.

If we are serious about reforming the connections process—as I believe we are; we have heard that this afternoon—we must ensure that our strategic plans can apply to the full range of actors involved. That means having the ability to designate plans that are fit for purpose, timely and applicable to the right parties. The strategy and policy statement is a high-level strategic document intended to provide Ofgem and NESO with clear direction over the Government’s strategic priorities and desired outcomes for the duration of our term to inform decision-making. In contrast, as I have said, designated plans for the purpose of connections reform may include more granular, tactical guidance. These documents are designed to complement, not conflict with, the SPS.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I would also say that plans are in place and being implemented for the connections to the transmission and distribution system. In November 2023, as the noble Lord mentioned, the Connections Action Plan was published, setting out expectations for the scale and pace of reform. This formed the basis for the National Energy System Operator’s connection reform proposals, which Ofgem have just approved. The broad ambition, on which legislative measures have been based, will see faster electricity network connection dates offered, at both transmission and distribution.

The noble Lord asked me a very specific question around the Gate 2 process. The implementation of current connection reforms is under way, as I said. We are working closely with NESO and Ofgem, and we are anticipating the Gate 2 decisions in the coming weeks; “coming weeks” is one of those expressions that I have got used to as I have been a Minister.

The Bill as drafted is intended to ensure that we have the tools to deliver the energy transition effectively. The measure as drafted strikes the right balance. We believe that it provides a clear mechanism for designating strategic plans while preserving the flexibility —which we know we will need—to respond to a rapidly changing sector. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

I turn now to Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He said that he believes this is the biggest change since the Industrial Revolution in terms of power accessibility. I do not disagree with that statement. Let me begin by stating that we are in full agreement that the current delays arising from the first come, first served approach to grid connections are absolutely no longer tenable; I hope I have made that very clear. For this reason, in December 2024, the Government published the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan. This document outlines our plan to work collaboratively with the National Energy System Operator—NESO—and Ofgem to deliver a fundamental overhaul of the connections process.

The objective is to accelerate connection timelines for the most critical projects and to unlock billions of pounds of investment for renewable energy generation. Through the implementation of these reforms, it is estimated that up to £5 billion in unnecessary network reinforcements could be avoided. In turn, this should lead to long-term savings for consumers through lower electricity bills.

The reforms in question have been developed by NESO in close consultation with both industry stakeholders and Ofgem, following all requisite formal procedures, including public consultation. Ofgem has since approved these proposals and implementation is now well under way, as I have already mentioned.

This Bill is intended to support the reforms. Notably, the Bill will confer powers on the Secretary of State to designate strategic plans. These plans must be taken into account by both NESO and distribution network operators when exercising their functions in relation to grid connections.

It is anticipated that the Secretary of State will initially designate the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan and the Industrial Strategy, followed in due course by the proposed strategic spatial energy plan. These strategic documents are designed to reflect the needs of the nation’s energy system, including measures to address the inefficiencies of the current grid queue by prioritising projects of greatest national importance. Introducing a new statutory requirement for a further plan would risk delaying this progress and might introduce unwelcome uncertainty for industry participants.

On the matter of local energy grids, we do not consider that there is any regulatory impediment. The necessary infrastructure, including local networks that integrate both generation and demand, is already permissible. Such networks may be developed and operated by distribution network operators or independent network providers, or under private wire arrangements via statutory licence exemptions.

We are also firmly committed to supporting local and community energy initiatives. These play a vital role in the UK’s broader energy landscape and we are determined to ensure that communities continue to benefit directly from the transition to clean energy. We will be discussing more about that later this afternoon.

To that end, Great British Energy will work in partnership with mayoral combined authorities, community energy organisations and the devolved Administrations. This collaboration will include the provision of funding and strategic support, from planning advice to technical guidance, for local community energy stakeholders. I trust this explanation provides sufficient reassurance to noble Lords.

16:00

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that. Is it then the Government’s intention to publish a new strategy and policy statement under the Energy Act? At the moment, legislation requires Ofgem to have regard to what is effectively an out-of-date strategy.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope I picked up that question during my response. I will just check back to make sure that I got the wording right. I think that is the case but I will confirm it to the noble Lord in writing. Still, I think he is correct in his assumption.

I trust that explanation provides a sufficient response for the noble Lord, and I ask him not to press his amendment.

Amendment 72 agreed.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed.

Clause 17: Managing connections to the network: strategic plans etc

Amendments 73 to 76 not moved.

Clause 17 agreed.

Amendment 77

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

77: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—
“Extension of permitted developmentThe Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed—(a) make provision for the following to be included as permitted development—(i) upgrading of existing electricity lines from single to three phase;(ii) alteration of conductor type;(iii) increase in the height of distribution network supports to maintain minimum ground clearances under the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;(iv) increase in the distance of supporting structures by up to 60m from their existing position when replacing an existing overhead line;(v) in relation to new connections from an existing line, an increase in nominal voltage to a maximum of 33kV and related increase in pole heights;(vi) upgrading of existing lines from 6.6kV to 11kV;(vii) installation of additional stays supporting wooden poles;(viii) upgrading of existing apparatus, including the increase of capacity of pole mounted transformers, subject to the provisions of section 37(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 (consent required for overhead lines) and the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/2665);(ix) temporary placement of a line for a period of up to two years;(b) consult on the introduction of further measures for the purposes of enabling electricity distribution network upgrades and reinforcements to be delivered as permitted development.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would expand permitted development rights for upgrades to the transmission network.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are all on the extension of permitted development. My Amendment 77 concerns the extension of permitted development rights for low-voltage electricity networks. It intends to help this Government achieve their ambition of a clean, affordable and secure energy system by 2030.

The amendment would enable clearly defined and modest upgrades to be treated as permitted development. That includes the upgrading of electricity lines from single to three-phase, the alteration of conduct type, modest increases in pole height where required by regulation, the temporary placement of lines to facilitate works and the reinforcement of existing apparatus such as pole-mounted transformers.

This is not a revolution; it is about pragmatism. These are modest technical improvements that would make our national grid fit for the 21st century. This is not about new infrastructure on green fields. This is needed simply because our electricity network, built decades ago, is fundamentally ill-equipped for the task required of it. I am increasingly worried about the capacity of the low-voltage grid and the investment in it. This is needed to bring electricity to our homes and to ensure that we can make the transitions we need to make—having electric vehicles and installing heat pumps to help us hit our clean-power targets.

At present, these modest network upgrades face planning processes that can take months and sometimes even years, often longer than building the relevant generation plant itself. That results in higher costs and, in some cases, stranded investment. Companies across the energy sector report the same difficulties: planning bottlenecks, slow permissions and land-acquisition rules that lag behind those of gas, water and telecoms. That is not right; there should be a level playing field for these things.

Without reform, costs for paying for clean generators to turn down because the grid cannot handle their power could soar from £2 billion a year today to £8 billion by the end of the decade. These costs are absorbed by companies and passed on to bill payers, who face higher bills. We need to get this stuff done and it needs to work. It takes a series of minor but essential upgrades and technical adjustments to equipment, not new developments, and relieves them of lengthy planning processes. Nothing in this amendment would reduce safety. Electricity safety, quality and continuity regulations remain firmly in place under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, which still governs overhead powerline consents. The safeguards endure. What would change is that we would no longer require the full machinery of a planning inquiry simply to raise a pole by a few feet or to replace a conductor with a modern equivalent.

The benefits are clear. First, it would speed up bureaucracy and get things moving. Secondly, it would lower costs and avoid delays. Thirdly, it would help us achieve our climate and renewable targets. Fourthly, it would provide us with security and resilience in the system and help get electricity to our front doorsteps, where we need it. This amendment would also require consultation on further measures, ensuring that where wider reforms are proposed, the public and stakeholders are fully engaged. I am not asking for a blank cheque here; this is a carefully drafted step forward. The Government have said that this Bill is central to their plan for clean power by 2030, and we agree. This amendment is modest and seeks to help unlock the arteries to make sure that electricity can be delivered.

As I have said, this is slightly complicated because it is a shopping list of very minor improvements. But it reminds me of the approach of British Cycling, which found that a number of very small incremental differences, if implemented as a philosophy, made huge fundamental strides and gains in its ability to win and achieve its goals. The same is true with these amendments. More importantly, these are reforms and changes that DNOs and wider industry bodies are calling for, and that they say they need to achieve clean power. This is about making sure that they can do what they signed up to do to help secure more investment and get things moving.

As I am opening this group, I will circle back to the other amendments at the end. I do not want to speak to other people’s amendments before they have introduced them.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 185B, and I completely agree with the noble Earl on his amendment. I have tabled amendments on permitted development elsewhere in this Bill. It is a hugely important part of getting planning right. The Government should take some courageous decisions on what delays we do not need. What do we recognise that we have to do and how do we allow people to get on with it? Getting an efficient transmission network is something we absolutely need to do.

Moving a transmission pole may upset someone locally, but it is part of a national need. That it should be delayed, that people should take huge amounts of time on whether it should be here or there or whether an extra prop to a pole should be allowed, is just ridiculous. I am very sorry that we have allowed this to accumulate over the years. I am delighted to find the Liberal Democrats in support of reducing regulation; long may this continue. This is a really constructive way forward.

I have added the idea that we ought to allow a bit more freedom for wind generation. When I grew up, it was common to see agricultural windmills—those galvanised towers with clanking blades—all over the rural landscape. They provided power of a kind, type and price which suited the local conditions.

I remember when land wind turbines were introduced, and we all thought that they would be horrid, would desecrate the landscape and that it would be miserable, but we are used to them now—they are part of everybody’s landscape, just about. If we do not overdo it, I think that we have a reasonable basis for saying that we should experiment on allowing people to put these down for local need to generate electricity where it is needed and in a way that it is needed. It will not get done unless there is a commercial requirement for it, but we should look at freeing up the restrictions that we have placed on people putting up wind turbines and ask what is really needed here. Have we not learned enough to allow us to free this up a bit?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 94E, but I start with Amendment 77 and simply say that I completely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We are not talking about the horrific, huge pylons; these are quite simple, and it makes much more sense to make it as straightforward as possible to up the energy locally.

I say to my noble friend Lord Lucas that there already are, I think, permitted development rights for turbines to the level that he suggests. I suggest that the permitted development right is solely for a single turbine, and I note that his amendment refers to “turbines”. I would not want this to be a back door to having significant numbers of wind farms on a variety of land, if he were to press this any further.

The reason my amendment is in this group is that also has to do with permitted development rights, regarding solar. We will debate solar today under other parts of this legislation, but this amendment seeks to try to get permitted development rights for solar on reservoirs. There are certain reservoirs, some very close to London, where sometimes a bit of sailing happens but, by and large, they sit there empty. Important as these reservoirs are for the water supply that we need, this would be quite a straightforward way of allowing for a modest amount of solar extension, which may only be that which is needed for the local facility, or perhaps a little further. I would not suggest that any would have to have an automatic connection to the grid, because that would probably be exceptionally expensive. The point is that, if we are going to increase the amount of renewable energy, why not allow reservoir owners to put this sort of solar development somewhere we are not then displacing agricultural land and where it does not require the huge extensions or connections that we see today right across agricultural land all over the country?

Floating solar is apparently seen as a nascent technology in the solar road map, so has not really been included in this Bill. I am conscious that we have read in the press this summer that there might be a second planning Bill, but I suggest to the Government that they should carpe diem. Why do we not get on and get this sort of permitted development right? Elsewhere in the Bill, I have suggested an easier way to try to include reservoirs and large ponds. In fact, the Secretary of State for Defra, Steve Reed, has been very specific in some of the open meetings that he has had that it needs to be easier for farmers to be able to access reservoirs and have them on their land. From my perspective, this could be a double win.

The other aspect that people may not be aware of with regard to the benefit of floating solar on reservoirs is that it could potentially help boost water security. One of the things with reservoirs is that it is not just about usage and them being drained ineffectively; it is also about evaporation levels, which means that we start to see a significant reduction in how much water is available. By simply having these solar panels, we can have a physical barrier between the water and the sun.

It is suggested that it is possible that such development could boost biodiversity on reservoir sites. Any opportunity that we can take, in a mutually beneficial way, to boost nature as well as energy resilience is something that I would hope that the Government could consider.

I understand that the UK is home to Europe’s largest floating solar farm, on the QEII reservoir, and I know there has been a bit of on and off, literally, about how effective it has been. Nevertheless, it is important that we consider all opportunities to make sure, at very limited or ideally no cost to the bill payer, that we maximise the amount of energy that is directly available to us.

On energy security rolling forward, trying to get more homegrown electricity is key. That is why I hope the Government will look at this carefully and consider the benefits of permitted development rights for floating solar on our reservoirs.

16:15

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, like many Members in the Committee, when I read the list in my noble friend’s Amendment 77 I was absolutely incredulous that we are in the position where planning permissions still have to be given for that scale of change to our electricity distribution system. It is incredible. I hope that whichever Minister is answering on this group will be able to give us concrete guarantees that action will be taken in this area, whether through accepting this amendment or through secondary legislation. We need to get on with this and with the Government’s own programme.

I very much welcome the boldness of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which is perhaps unusual coming from those Benches, and the tenor of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. One thing that strikes me, and she mentioned it, is that a lot of reservoirs, certainly in my part of the world, the south-west, are used as recreational facilities, and obviously we would not want to squeeze that out. The other thing that occurs to me, particularly this year, is that floating solar on reservoirs is very likely to become non-floating fixed solar panels, given the rate of rainfall that we have been having, or not having, over some of these summers.

I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to these very positive suggestions for how we can move renewable energy forward in this country.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, with the solar energy that is reaching me at the moment, it is actually quite hard to see whether there is anybody out there, but I will take it for granted that there is and that they are all listening with rapt attention.

I apologise that I was unable to participate in earlier debates on the Bill, but I have been following it closely. I should declare that my family farm has some of what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to as “hideous”—or was it “horrendous”?—pylons and poles coming across it. My grandfather actually welcomed these as signs of the inevitable march of progress, but, even then, and certainly now, not everybody is quite as enthusiastic as he was.

While I see and support the logic of Amendment 77, it makes no provision overtly for wayleaves or compensation for those whose homes and businesses are affected by any additional poles et cetera. I hope that any amendment along these lines would accommodate such arrangements, as is the case with current power lines. Will the Minister, or perhaps the noble Earl himself, confirm that that is the intention?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, to pick up the point of the noble Lord, I remember my uncle getting pylons next to his house and how the compensation saved the day for his small business.

My own view is that it is good to have permitted development rights for minor changes, particularly if energy providers are calling for them. It makes sense to use this Bill to allow permitted development. My noble friend Lord Lucas said that it was hugely important, and I think it is hugely important to speed things up. As we have already heard, it is a surprise that some of these things require planning permission, and there is a lot of potluck as to whether you can get planning permission quickly in any particular area.

I just believe that we need to get things moving so I am not sure why the changes need to be in a regulation, as proposed in Amendment 77 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Can the Government not work out what can be easily excluded from planning control and put it in the Bill? That is how we used to do things in the Bills I remember presiding over in the 20th century when I was a civil servant. Is there anything that we can do to get rid of these things, rather than wait for further regulations and consultations, if it is straightforward?

I agree with my noble friend Lady Coffey that we should be careful not to allow multiple wind turbines through a back door. Clearly, the detail of this needs to be looked at; it has to be genuinely smallish things. I am less sure about permitted development rights for floating solar simply because I know so little about it; if we were to proceed with that, it should be in regulations. I am always asking the Minister how we can speed this process up. Permitted development rights here, and perhaps elsewhere in the Bill, can play a part.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to require the Secretary of State to designate certain electricity network upgrade works as permitted developments within 12 months of the passing of this Act. I refer the Committee to my register of interests, including as a developer of solar and wind energy generation infrastructure.

The amendment is detailed and specific, covering a range of necessary and often routine upgrades to our distribution network. These upgrades are not exceptional; rather, they are part and parcel of the essential modernisation of our grid. As demand for electricity grows, driven by electric vehicles, heat pumps, an increasing shift to electrified systems and the construction of new data centres, so, too, does the need for a distribution network that can meet that demand safely and efficiently.

The concerns raised by the noble Earl in bringing forward this amendment have merit. Local electricity distribution is hampered by regulatory delays, planning burdens and procedural hurdles, which can slow down or increase the cost of what are in many cases necessary infrastructure improvements. We understand the motivation to streamline these processes and provide industry with greater certainty. However, there are important questions around local engagement, visual impact and environmental considerations, which would need to be worked through. Permitted development rights by their very nature bypass certain planning safeguards, and we must take care not to undermine public confidence in the system by extending them too broadly or too quickly. I ask the Minister whether there are other ways of simplifying the decision-making on such upgrades.

Amendment 94E in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to extend permitted development rights to include the installation of floating solar panels on reservoirs. At a time when we are seeking every opportunity to expand renewable energy without placing additional pressure on land, utilising existing bodies of water in this way may present a pragmatic and low-impact solution. My noble friend makes an important and timely point about the potential of underused spaces to contribute to our energy goals. I hope that the Government will look closely at how permitted development rights can help facilitate the responsible deployment of floating solar technology.

In a similar vein, Amendment 185B in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas seeks to expand permitted development rights for small-scale onshore wind turbines up to a height of 30 metres. This, too, is a proposal worthy of consideration. Enabling more local generation of renewable energy, particularly where there is community support, can play a valuable role in decarbonising the grid and improving energy security.

I look to the Minister to provide clarity on the Government’s current thinking in this area and to address the important questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Lucas. Specifically, I hope that he can reassure the Committee that the Government recognise the need for timely electricity network upgrades and are actively considering how the planning framework can support that aim while balancing the interests of local communities and the environment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising this important issue through Amendment 77. The Government fully recognise the need to accelerate electricity network upgrades to support the transition to net zero. We agree with the intent behind this amendment and with many of the specific proposals that it contains. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill at this time. The amendment proposes exemptions from the consent process under the Electricity Act 1989. These are technical and regulatory matters that are generally best addressed through secondary legislation, following proper consultation.

The Government launched a public consultation on 8 July; it closes tomorrow. It includes proposals that closely reflect those in this amendment and seeks views from a wide range of stakeholders, including network operators, landowners and local authorities. The Government must undertake a thorough evaluation of consultation responses to understand any stakeholder concerns or unintended impacts ahead of implementation. Introducing changes now, whether through primary or secondary legislation, before that work has been done would pre-empt the consultation process and risk undermining the careful balance that we are trying to strike between speeding up delivery and protecting landowners’ rights. We are committed to acting quickly once the consultation process is complete, but we must do so in a way that is informed, proportionate and legally sound. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for raising the important issue in Amendment 94E. The Government are committed to achieving clean power by 2030. We will need to see significant increases in the development of all types of solar, whether sited on land, rooftops or water, to achieve this mission. The Government are therefore supportive of floating solar and consider it a technology ripe for development, especially considering the increased efficiency of solar panels on water and the wider benefits of preventing algal blooms and reducing climate-related evaporation. An effective planning system is pivotal to delivering our clean power mission. The system must work in a way that supports both new infrastructures, such as floating solar, and more established technologies.

The noble Baroness may have seen that the Government published their first ever solar road map on 30 June; it commits to more than 72 ambitious actions across several areas, including planning. The road map includes a section on the opportunities of floating solar and identifies the needs both to provide clarity on the planning requirements for what is a relatively new technology in the UK and to ensure that these measures are proportionate. In the solar road map, the Government made a clear commitment to explore how planning levers could further support floating solar projects. This work will be overseen by a new government and industry solar council, which is being set up to assist in driving forward and monitoring progress on solar road map actions. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill. I believe that it is only right that we conduct further work to ensure a strong evidence base on potential proposals and ensure that we have considered the breadth of benefits and impacts. I hope that the noble Baroness is content with this response; I kindly ask her not to press her amendment.

Amendment 185B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to classify some small-scale wind turbines as permitted development, provided certain conditions are met. I am grateful to the noble Lord for this amendment. He may have seen that the Government published their first ever dedicated onshore wind strategy on 4 July; it commits to more than 40 ambitious actions across several areas, including planning. One of the opportunities identified in the strategy regards small-scale deployment. The Government recognise the importance that small-scale onshore wind developments could play in achieving our wider decarbonisation goals and want to consider changes to the planning system to better support it—[Interruption.]

16:28

Sitting suspended.

16:30

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the rules that determine whether a turbine can be classed as permitted development and not require a full planning application have not been updated for over a decade. With advances in technology and increased demand for small-scale generation, there may be opportunities to update these rules. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that the Government committed in the onshore wind strategy to publish a consultation this year on whether existing permitted development rights are fit for purpose and could support other forms of small-scale onshore wind deployment. I believe it is only right that we conduct a full consultation to gather views, insights and evidence on potential proposals, and ensure that we have considered the breadth of the benefits and impacts.

I hope the noble Lord is content with this response. Before I ask him to withdraw his amendment, I will respond to the very important point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The Government recognise the urgency of reform and have already taken action. We have published the 8 July consultation; we will gather views on proposals and we are committed to bold and effective reform, but it is essential that we understand the full impact of these changes on all those involved. We will move at pace to bring forward any necessary legislation once the consultation analysis is complete. I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Coming back to Amendment 77, I mention one word: growth. We are trying, with cross-party effort, to reform the planning system and speed it up. I hear some good ideas from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Lucas and others, yet we are having another consultation and another quango—doing something “in due course”, at some time, somewhere else. This is the flagship planning Bill, and I want the Minister to consider whether there is more we can do in it to set a better tone on speed and growth, and to get local authorities to move forward on the things which, as many agree, are bureaucratic and unnecessary.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, can the Minister give us some idea of a timetable for this, given that there is total unanimity that we are not in a sensible position and we need growth and to move this whole proposition forward? The consultation is about to end. Will we get this fixed by the end of the year, for instance? Could we be revolutionary and have something ready for Report? I am interested to hear from the Minister.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

We all share the opinion that we need to get this Bill on to the statute book speedily and to ensure that we have the growth to which the noble Baroness alludes. However, we need to do this by reflecting on and responding to the consultation, and for that to happen, we have to wait for it to finish—which is tomorrow, by the way. We will look diligently and carefully at the responses and ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose, growth and development, so that this country grows. This Bill will play its part, but there will be secondary legislation following consultation. We hear noble Lords’ desire, which is also the Government’s; we are all on the same page, and we want to move robustly and diligently in considering the consultation that we launched.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group of amendments. It has been a very useful group, and I note the unanimity around the House on these issues.

I thank the Minister for his response. I note that there is a consultation, which is closing tomorrow, on some of these matters. I would be interested to know which bits of my amendment are not in the consultation and how the Government plan to take those forward. I also press the Minister to take them forward as quickly as possible. If there is any scope for having conversations between now and Report, I would welcome that. If we can collectively take action on these matters where we agree, and make progress, that would be welcomed across the House. A government amendment on Report would also be greatly appreciated.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her important amendment. It is important that floating solar is not excluded. As she said, it is a nascent technology, subject only to the issues of not taking up water and leisure space, and perhaps that of drought. I absolutely welcome her amendment and hope that it can progress as well.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his amendment. I am not certain I can promise him a bonfire of regulations from my party hierarchy, but I support the amendment he has put forward, subject only to that one drafting issue. It is in exactly the same spirit as my amendment but comes from a different place, looking at what we can do to provide permitted development for such things.

Across these amendments, there is some interesting uniformity and common purpose on getting these things done, and I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 77.

Amendment 77 withdrawn.

Amendment 78

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

78: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—
“Electricity distribution networks: land and access rights(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution network operators powers in relation, but not limited, to—(a) the acquisition of rights over land for new and existing overhead lines and underground cables;(b) the acquisition of land for new substations or the extension of existing substations;(c) the entering into of land for the purposes of maintaining existing equipment;(d) the entering into of land for the purposes of managing vegetation growth which is interfering with the safety or operation of overhead equipment.(2) Any powers granted must be compatible with the need to complete works related to development in a timely, inexpensive and uncomplicated manner, and may include the provision of compensation to relevant landowners.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in group three are all on electricity distribution and cabling. I apologise that there is quite a lot of crossover between my amendment in this group and those in the other group; in retrospect, it might have been better to have kept them together. A lot of the overarching general points that I made in the last group apply to this group. I am introducing a series of practical measures that I would like the Government to take forward to help them achieve their stated aim, which I share, of getting to clean power.

My Amendment 78 is about land access rights. It would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land. Land access rights need to extend to renewable energy operators as well, and that is my mistake; the drafting of my amendment was not as clear as it should have been. If the Minister, in responding to my speech, could also include the issue of renewable energy operators’ ability to access land in building renewable energy facilities, that would be greatly appreciated.

This is about using the opportunities the Bill provides. This measure, which the district network operators and industry bodies are calling for, is not in the Bill, which is why I have brought it forward. These are small, practical steps—like the British Cycling example I gave earlier—which, if implemented, would help to get done the things we all agree on.

If we do not address these issues, we will have delays, increased costs and issues in getting towards clean power. At present, electricity licence holders have fewer statutory rights when it comes to acquiring and accessing land compared with other utilities such as gas, water and telecommunications. I am not aware that the Government have done any consultation on this, but if the Minister could let me know when he responds whether consultations are ongoing, that would be greatly appreciated. We are looking to resolve the lack of parity, remove the unnecessary bureaucracy and make sure that we can get this stuff done.

The amendment would ensure that electricity distribution network operators are given carefully defined powers to acquire rights over land for overhead lines and cables, to purchase land for new substations, to enter land for the maintenance of existing equipment and to carry out vegetation management critical to the safety and reliability of the system. These powers will not be unlimited; they will be subject to both proper consultation and fair compensation for the landowners concerned, but they will mean that we can proceed with essential infrastructure works in a timely, straightforward and cost-effective way, in line with other utilities.

I welcome the fact that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has launched a consultation on land rights, published last month. However, it falls short of what is required to make clean power 2030 a reality. It does not extend to renewable electricity generators themselves, despite their central role in the energy transition. Without legislative reform in this Bill, we risk kicking the issue down the road.

As I said, the amendment enjoys the backing of the sector, which has been lobbying Members of this House—and, no doubt, the Government, including the Minister—on it. It has long been called for by the Energy Networks Association. These are the people operating on the front line, investing in green power and taking the risks. They are the people with the contracts to deliver this stuff for the Government, so it is important that the Government do what they reasonably can to help these companies succeed, so that we can share that joint ambition and achieve things together.

To conclude, my intention is to help the Government; I share their intention to hit our clean power targets. I want to work with the Minister; I am happy to look at amending my amendment and to speak to him between now and Report. The intention is for further consultation with the industry to look at these things and try to find some practical solutions to these relatively easily surmountable issues. I hope that is possible. I will circle back to the other amendments in this group after they have been introduced. I beg to move.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to ask for a point of clarity from the noble Earl, of which I gave him due warning earlier today. As neither he nor the Minister picked up my question in the debate on Amendment 77, I hope that I will be luckier in this debate on Amendment 78.

Subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 78 refers to

“the acquisition of rights over land”

by network operators. Will the noble Earl confirm that he does not have in mind compulsory purchase powers? We will hear a lot about them later in the Bill—in fact, they probably should have had a Bill on their own, but we are where we are. Will he just confirm that? Giving operators compulsory purchase powers, in effect, has been a disaster in the radio mast arena. I would not want to see it happen again here.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

That is not my intention. I apologise for not being able to respond to the noble Lord’s email this morning. It is not my intention to give compulsory purchase powers. This is wayleaves, not compulsory purchase.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my probing Amendment 79A. They say that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. That could be extended to making the same point again and again and getting the same answer, which I have been doing over the past few months about burial and the different options for dealing with the great explosion we are going to witness of overhead power lines.

I am slightly nervous about the seeming consensus across the Committee this afternoon that nothing must stand in the way of the Government’s own date of 2030 for clean power, nothing must stop growth, and nothing must stand in the way of progress.

I fully concede that the Government have inherited a grid of which all Governments of every persuasion, over the last 20 or 30 years, have been neglectful. We have power being distributed in wrong parts of the country and shortages in other parts of the country, and the bearing loads of some of the grid are simply not up to the capacity that it is now required to meet. Additionally, we have an explosion in offshore wind, which has to be brought onshore, and that necessitates a great increase in the number of substations and, in turn, linkages to the grid.

16:45

I do not want to be accused of standing in the way of growth, but we owe it to our fellow countrymen to think very carefully about what we are proposing to do to large tracts of our landscape. My noble friend Lord Roborough, who speaks for the Opposition on the Front Bench, talked about public opinion. The Government need to pay a little more attention to public opinion, not only because the public are the voters but because, if the Government take some positive action, they will carry the public with them and so achieve their stated aim of cutting through the bureaucracy and getting a better, more modern grid.

However, every time I and others have raised the alternative to overhead power lines—their burial—we have been rebutted by the statistics about that being five or 10 times more expensive. Those figures have been produced, I think, by National Grid, but I do not believe that they have been properly examined. I also do not believe that other factors have been taken into consideration, such as the effect on quality of life and quality of landscape, as well as the effect on people coming to this country, should they be greeted by miles and miles of unsightly power lines marching over our hills.

The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, spoke quite rightly at the beginning of the debate about new technology. There is new technology in how we can deal with burying power lines: ploughing, trenching, horizontal boring—which I suspect I am in danger of being—directional drilling and duct banks. Now that we can do all that and see that the technology is increasing, have the Government spoken to farmers to see whether they would be prepared to take on some of those jobs? I should think they would. Equally, have we spent enough time examining where the load could be increased on the existing grid, which would therefore not necessitate an increase in the footprint?

I will not rehearse all the arguments I have made in the past about bird life and the destruction of great swathes of our agricultural land and landscape, but I draw your Lordships’ attention to what has happened in Greece over the summer because of wildfires, some of which were caused by overhead power lines. Is it the most intelligent thing we can do in the long term to have more overhead power lines, which are more susceptible to power outages and which could cause wildfires, as we have witnessed elsewhere in Europe?

I am going to sit down now and look forward to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, rebuffing all the points I have made by talking about the disproportionate cost. I hope that he and others in this Chamber will be content when they look back in 20 or 30 years’ time to see what will come out of the Bill, if it is to be enacted without addressing some of the issues that I and others have raised in trying to put a presumption in favour of burying power lines and making the operators argue why they should not be there. That is all we are asking in this probing amendment: to switch the emphasis and get them to explain why they cannot do it and why it is disproportionate. In that small way, the Minister will find that the public will be more on side than they are at the moment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I am sympathetic to what my noble friend Lord Swire just said. I think it is fair to say that it was actually the previous Conservative Administration who changed aspects of a policy statement that there be a strong presumption in terms of overhead distribution. I will not pretend otherwise. I did try and fight that at the time, but failed. It is fair to say that the cost comparison has actually fallen considerably. It is still about four or four and a half times the cost of doing it via pylons, but I think there is a lot to be said for what my noble friend has put forward.

I was somewhat relieved by the clarity brought by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that he was not considering this to be compulsory purchase, given some of the issues that I have been contesting for some time. That is what has led to my Amendment 94FA—in the supplementary list—which provides for

“Electrical or communications cables under land in active agricultural use”.


I have shared with your Lordships before that I have quite a lot of experience dealing with energy projects and NSIPs, recognising the concentration of such projects on the Suffolk coast, and that is a theme that I will return to later. One thing that struck me was that, in consideration of getting the cabling underground because these projects were going principally through an AONB—I do not know if it is in legislation, but by default what has happened is that any cabling in an AONB ends up being underground—what was clear was a complete lack of understanding of what was there underground already. In agricultural areas, one thing that is significantly underground and is very sensitive infrastructure, which is not put in by the Government, water companies or the like but is actually put in by local farmers, is underground networks for water. Considering quite how much less water there is, particularly in the east of the country, these are critical in order to make sure that we can continue to have food being grown.

Something that is very important for water and other networks is the production of Christmas trees. Christmas trees are very hungry for water in their development, which takes some time. One thing that came to light in the consideration of the creation of various substations and cabling is the fact that the electricity companies had no clue at all about this important infrastructure that is just below the surface. Of course, there is no doubt that having the cables as close to the surface as possible is definitely an economic interest, but, candidly, it ends up disrupting the agricultural potential for a lot of this land. I do not think there is any chance that Christmas trees can be grown above electricity cables. Unfortunately, Redhouse Barn, a farm that I would recommend, grows a lot of Christmas trees—it supplied No. 10 Downing Street one year—and I know that the family there was concerned, but somewhat understood and accepted that sometimes these things happen, although I hope that the compensation they get for this is a lot more generous than they were initially offered.

Nevertheless, the Government should consider speaking a lot more to the internal drainage boards around the country. We do not have internal drainage boards in every part of this country, but I expect that, where a lot of the energy generation is happening and the initial connections through cabling need to go, there will be. They will have intricate knowledge of exactly what you need to navigate. One way to avoid having to do site-by-site surveys, which we have already been told cost a hell of a lot of money, and to do all this pre-consultation, is simply to make sure that, when cabling is put in place, those trenches go sufficiently deep that we can continue to have agricultural production as well as the benefits of the transmission of electricity.

That is why I hope that the Government, although I expect they will firmly reject my proposals, will at least start to consider what is happening in reality in our productive countryside when we are trying to have this rather complicated map of cabling, pylons and the like, in order to make sure that we continue, as far as possible, to keep farming our land as well as making sure that that land—of course I will give way.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

Has my noble friend heard about the possibility of growing tomatoes over these cables?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I am sure that the heat that my noble friend was about to allude to will make it attractive to certain kinds of rapid acceleration of growth. It is not the only thing that would benefit there, but it is more about trying to neutralise the impact of what seemed to be necessary infrastructure with the ongoing operations rather than disrupting those who are already farming our land for the food that we need for continued food security. With that, I put forward the benefits of my amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. I commend the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment and for introducing this group. I will speak to Amendments 79A and 94FA—if your Lordships will pardon the expression—tabled by my noble friends Lord Swire and Lady Coffey and will end with a question for the Minister.

There are environmental and financial reasons for undergrounding these transmission wires. The environmental reasons are mostly because they are wasteful. It is debatable how much they waste, but I think it is between 7% and 10% of the energy that is transmitted, which seems nonsensical. As my noble friend Lord Swire said, they are also unsightly, which in tourist areas is very unwelcome. They are also extremely vulnerable to storm and extreme weather conditions. We have just had the first storm names for the forthcoming season—I do not know whether my niece and god-daughter will be delighted that Storm Amy will be the first one to hit us, but there we go. I remind the Minister that Storm Arwen caused such damage to the north-east of England and North Yorkshire that large swathes of north-east England and North Yorkshire had no electricity for up to 10 days. That is unacceptable.

The second power lines, which I think I referred to at Second Reading, run through the spine of North Yorkshire, from Middlesbrough all the way down to York, where they join the national grid. Only three months prior to those being built, an ethanol pipeline had been laid, tracking more or less the same route through agricultural land that the overhead pylons were following. It makes sense that if you are digging the land up once then at the same time you put the transmission lines there. Underground lines are less vulnerable to storms, extreme weather and extreme frost. In one year, we had temperatures of minus 17 degrees for six days running in North Yorkshire in the winter. Those are the environmental reasons that I put to the Minister.

We are frequently told that we cannot afford to place these transmission wires underground. I remind noble Lords that every single customer is paying, through the standing charge, for the infrastructure. Why do we not have a say, as customers, on the infrastructure that is being used? I give three examples of the latest profits for electricity companies. They are eye-watering and beg the question: why are we told that it is not affordable to place these transmission wires underground? The latest figures I have seen from Octopus Energy are of a 0.7% profit margin, delivering a net profit of £83 million. For OVO Energy, the latest figures I can find are for 2023—I cannot find the figures for 2024, though they are probably available—when OVO Energy announced a pre-tax profit of £1 billion. That is one electricity-generating company alone. For Centrica, there was a £1 billion profit for 2024. Why are we being told that it is unaffordable when there are monstrous profits to which we are all contributing as consumers?

To sum up my short contribution, I strongly support Amendments 79A and 94FA, and argue that there are absolutely no environmental and financial reasons not to underground these transmission wires.

17:00

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Swire’s application that these things should be buried. I am the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation; that is not relevant to this debate, but it is somewhat relevant to the discussion about renewables.

My noble friend raised a few points about how previous Governments over the last 30 years have been somewhat deficient in managing the grid. The grid was perfectly adequate when we had large, central power stations, whether coal, gas or nuclear. Of course, our nuclear fleet is diminishing and nearly all those stations will be turned off by the end of this decade—probably before any of the new ones are turned on. We have obviously closed down all our coal power stations now, and gas is rather intermittent; it has to be put on stream when renewables fail us, which unfortunately happens more and more regularly. The old system worked when we had centralised, big power stations. The problem now occurs because we have decentralised that.

We could put that right by going down a domestic gas route, which I would recommend to this nation as a means to bridge the gap before nuclear is properly on stream. We could put small modular reactors in the places where old gas and coal stations used to be, because we have the huge grids, supplies and existing pylons that served that old infrastructure, which is now a redundant and dead infrastructure.

We are being asked to despoil our countryside because of the dash to renewables, in trying to link up offshore and onshore wind farms. Each of those produces fairly small amounts of energy, but we need new pylons to get it into the grid. I agree entirely with my noble friend that the required cables should be underground. I have never believed that some behemoth of an aluminium and steel platform to carry cables can be that much cheaper than an underground cable, which does not require such support. I recommend that the Government ask for some independent advice on what these things really cost.

I am very surprised to have had a discussion—started, again, by my noble friend Lady Coffey—about Christmas trees. I will discuss Christmas trees at the appropriate time, because my family was very involved with Christmas trees and, as a young lad, every winter I bore scars all the way up my arms from selling them. I hope to discuss that in the future.

The whole concept of electrification and the problem of serious storms was raised very well by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. I do worry. As I said at the time, if you live in that part of the world—and I think another storm hit Scotland at almost the same time—you rely entirely on electricity cables to run your internet, which runs your telephone, as the old 50-volt copper system is being wound down. You obviously need electricity for the internet generally, and one will need electricity to power one’s car, if the Government have their way and traditional cars are put on the scrap heap. One will also need electricity to heat one’s home. Storms go through parts of this country with some regularity, and I have always made the point that you can lend a neighbour a bucket of logs but you cannot lend them a bucket of electricity.

I agree with the amendment that was put by my noble friend Lord Swire. I request that the Government look at this rather more carefully, rather than say flippantly that “Thou shalt have dirty great pylons”. Norfolk and Suffolk in particular will be hit by this massively. I think my noble friend who is following me will make some similar observations about what will be hitting parts of Kent, including those that I used to represent.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 79A in the name of my noble friend Lord Swire about the presumption in favour of burying cables as the default method. He spoke of insanity, but I did not think I was going mad—I believed and agreed with every word he said. Not only is burying cables less visually intrusive but, storms notwithstanding, as we have seen in the Ukrainian conflict, surface infrastructure is more vulnerable to malign and military disruption. I have not seen any calculation anywhere that takes that national security angle into account. That is an omission that should be corrected, and would be if my noble friend’s amendment is accepted.

I do not stand entirely shoulder to shoulder with those who accept the construction of pylons in any circumstance but I am not the Luddite who is in denial about the difficulties of strengthening and hardening the grid. We all need to be realistic about what it takes for the lights to come on when you flick that switch, with fluctuating renewables on the one hand and new demands from electrical vehicles on the other. But that should not give National Grid a right to be judge and jury in its own court and carte blanche to ride roughshod.

My interest in the amendment has been piqued because I have experienced at first hand the process undertaken by National Grid when it seeks to promote a new pylon power line, in this case from Norwich to Tilbury to transport electricity from the wind farms off the Norfolk coast down to the smoke. At that time, I was leader of the South Norfolk Council, an area to be bisected across its entire height by new HV power lines. What I experienced was institutional arrogance from National Grid and its agents. It thought that a single consultation event, offered at short notice on an afternoon in a remote village hall for an area of 400 square miles, was sufficient. It had a boneheaded refusal to accept that burying was even an option—even just in part across the picturesque Waveney Valley or the Roydon Fen county wildlife reserve.

National Grid exhibited a steadfast refusal to demonstrate or explain why the option of providing a future-proof offshore ring main, connecting the existing infrastructure that used to serve the redundant Bradwell nuclear power station, was even a possibility. The suggestion that offshore was impractical was wholly disproven by the offshore link that is currently proposed from Sizewell to the Richborough marshes—I am stood next to the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, and I expect him to intervene in a moment to say how wonderful that part of the world is and how it should not be despoiled.

National Grid had unevidenced assertions relating to the unaffordability of burying lines, as opposed to having them overhead, without either explaining or quantifying the quantum of those extra costs for the whole line or just per kilometre. There was a failure to consider parallel running to the existing pylon line to minimize visual impact, with the result that the wonderful and historic market town of Diss is now proposed to be fenced in on all four sides by huge steel pylons to an unacceptable degree. This lack of understanding, further, that the mooted community compensation schemes for overhead lines, but not for buried cables, might undermine the business case for pylons now turns out to be the case because it stands as part of Clause 26 of the Bill. There were other questions to answer, which I will not detain the Committee with.

Now, of course, there may have been good reasons why National Grid might be right on all the points I mentioned, though I struggle to see how, but with friends like these, who needs enemies? National Grid has gone out of its way to pick fights rather than bringing people together. As a council leader, I met officials from National Grid and put the points privately, to try to have a neutral forum where it could make an improved case for the proposals and build consensus. That olive branch was spurned, so it is little wonder that there is now widespread resistance to new pylon routes. Opposition has been carelessly and recklessly whipped up by a ham-fisted approach from the people who need all the friends they can get.

I like this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Swire because it would set the default expectation that new lines will be buried. Of course, that does not mean that they must be buried, but for the operator to go above ground as the preferred option, he will need to make the evidential case and have it scrutinised, and to build friendships and not enemies. That is a much better approach and balance of power, literally, between the parties than the regrettable and aggravating behaviours that we have seen thus far, where the lazy overhead option is chosen and everybody else be damned.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I just underline that the missing ingredient in this debate is actual numbers on the costs. There is a lot of theoretical toing and froing this afternoon but what we really need in this discussion is a hard number cost for, say, 100 metres of buried cable as opposed to, say, the cost of a pylon. I asked a Written Question about a pylon some months ago and got a wonderfully “Yes Minister” Answer: “Of course, all pylons are different and some pylons are more equal than others, but it is all very difficult so I can’t give you an answer”.

I hope that we can do a bit better than that. It would be great to know the cost of, say, 100 metres or 500 metres—whatever is the right metric—of buried cable and pylon with the equivalent cable. Until that answer is before us—I suspect that it will be a lot more expensive—we are not going to lay this debate to rest. I think that everybody, on all sides of this Committee, would like to see the cables buried. The question is at what cost and whether that cost is worth it. Until we have that number, we are just talking theory.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 78 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendment 79A from my noble friend Lord Swire deal with the critical issue of grid capacity and connectivity, which sits at the heart of the Government’s ambitions to decarbonise the UK’s energy system and deliver the infrastructure necessary to meet their ideological clean power 2030 target.

Amendment 78 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution operators new powers. The distribution and transmission of electricity is intrinsic to the production and utilisation of clean energy. Without access to the grid, energy infrastructure remains little more than an expensive stranded asset.

The case for action is clear. As we know, the great grid upgrade is a vital part of our pathway to net zero, yet, at present, new energy developments such as wind farms and solar parks are experiencing unacceptable delays when it comes to grid connection. Some projects face waiting times of up to 10 years—delays that threaten both investor confidence and the credibility of our decarbonisation goals. That is why the previous Conservative Government took decisive steps in commissioning the Windsor review, which examined the obstacles to timely grid connectivity. We are of course proud to say that all 43 recommendations of the Windsor review were accepted by the Government—a clear signal of our commitment to reforming the system and bringing forward vital improvements.

Yet we must recognise the scale of the challenge. Even with those reforms under way, projects without current grid connectivity may not come online until the mid-2030s. That is simply not compatible with the Government’s aim of a decarbonised grid by 2030. It is essential that the development of the national grid moves in lockstep with the pace of renewable energy production and infrastructure delivery.

Therefore, Amendments 78 and 79A raise serious and timely issues. We must ensure that our grid strategy is not only fit for today but future-proofed for the decades to come. The principles of transparency—clear delivery timelines and strategy—and strategic planning for capacity must be at the core of that effort. That said, I note that Amendment 78 would require the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to establish these new powers. There is perhaps a case to make for Parliament to have a say before the Secretary of State takes steps to implement powers that have come up as part of the consultation. I would be interested to hear whether the noble Earl, Lord Russell, might be open to strengthening parliamentary oversight here.

Amendment 79A from my noble friend Lord Swire is a good and thoughtful probing amendment. I recognise his continual efforts in drawing this issue to this House’s attention. It seeks to explore how the planning system might better encourage the use of buried cabling as an alternative to overhead powerlines. This is an important point, particularly for rural communities where overhead transmission infrastructure can have a significant visual, environmental and social impact. Although undergrounding is not without cost or technical complexity, the long-term benefits in certain locations can outweigh those challenges. My noble friend is right to raise this. I hope that the Government will consider whether there are planning reforms that could help to support a more strategic and locally sensitive approach to powerline deployment.

The Minister may not be aware of the very active groups in Wales resisting the march of pylons through the Teifi and Tywi valleys. These groups are uniting the opposition parties against the Senedd Labour Government. The one I know particularly well is the Llandeilo Community Group Against Pylons.

17:15

On a more positive note, my noble friend Lord Fuller should take heed. National Grid is undergrounding part of the overhead power lines between the Bryncir and Trawsfynydd substations in Gwynedd. So there is hope that it can do this and that the great grid upgrade will take account of the reduction in the relative cost of undergrounding. Although I cannot give accurate details of the relative cost of undergrounding, I do believe that it has come down substantially from a few years ago, when it was 10 times the cost, to more like three times the cost. It is still at a premium but, in certain circumstances, it must be well worth considering.

In that context, I speak to Amendment 94FA in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. This amendment seeks to ensure that new cables for development on agricultural land must be buried at a depth of at least two metres in order to avoid interference with any watering systems or networks required for agricultural use. This appears to be a sensible and practical amendment—one that balances infrastructure development with the operational needs of farming and food production.

In conclusion, I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government are taking forward the essential work on developing our grid capacity. I hope that he will provide reassurance to the Committee that grid reform remains an urgent and co-ordinated priority as we take this Bill forward.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I just want to welcome that speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. It was excellent in its tone and entirely different from that of her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Offord, when he spoke from the Front Bench. I congratulate the noble Baroness.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to her place on the Front Bench. I look forward to the exchanges ahead.

I turn to Amendments 78 and 79A, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Swire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I thank them both for tabling these amendments and for their interest in and commitment to improving grid capacity and electricity distribution infrastructure.

Amendment 78 seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to grant distribution network operator powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land, with the aim of accelerating electricity distribution network infrastructure build and maintenance. The Government are fully committed to achieving clean power by 2030. It is clear that a rapid expansion of the electricity network is essential to delivering that mission. Although we agree with the intent behind this amendment, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill.

As previously outlined, the Government launched a public consultation on 8 July; it closes tomorrow, on 2 September. That consultation includes proposals on land access and rights and seeks views from a wide range of stakeholders, including network operators, landowners and local authorities. Once the consultation closes, the Government will undertake a thorough evaluation of the responses to understand stakeholder concerns and to assess any potential unintended impacts ahead of implementation. Introducing changes now, before that work has been done, would pre-empt that process and risk undermining the careful balance that we are trying to strike between speeding up delivery and protecting landowner rights.

We are committed to acting quickly once the consultation process is complete but we must do so in a way that is informed, proportionate and legally sound. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is reassured by this response; I kindly ask him to withdraw his amendment. I will take his offer forward with my officials and look forward to meeting the noble Earl, alongside my noble friend Lady Taylor, on the issues raised in this area.

I move on to Amendment 79A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swire. This amendment would introduce a statutory presumption in favour of undergrounding power lines. It would require developers to demonstrate that undergrounding was their preferred and initial option, and that it was infeasible on cost or engineering grounds, before overhead lines could be approved. We understand that some communities hold strong views in favour of undergrounding, particularly due to concerns about the visual impact of overhead lines. We are aware that the support is partly driven by examples seen internationally, where undergrounding is used in certain contexts.

The Government’s position is that overhead transmission lines should be the starting presumption for electricity network developments except in nationally designated landscapes, where undergrounding is the starting presumption. That is because overhead lines are significantly cheaper, as undergrounding can cost up to four and a half times more, with costs ultimately passed on to bill payers. Overhead lines are also quicker to build, cause less environmental disruption and are easier to maintain and connect to existing networks.

That said, we totally understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I reassure him that neither I nor my noble friend Lady Taylor answered the Question that he asked in relation to pylons, but we look forward to speaking to and working with officials to get more detailed examples of costs and how they work in different ways in different combinations. The noble Lord asked a question that I did not previously answer on whether the network permitted development rights proposals in the current consultation cover compulsory purchase. I can confirm they do not, but there will be a huge debate—well, hopefully not a debate, but a huge discussion—on compulsory purchases in due course.

Strategic network planning is critical to ensuring that transmission infrastructure is designed and delivered in a way that meets system-wide needs. The National Energy System Operator, NESO, through the forthcoming centralised strategic network plan, will assess technology options against key criteria—including cost, deliverability, operability and community and environmental impact—and recommend optimal solutions. Developers will then apply those recommendations at a project level, refining routes and designs within existing planning and regulatory frameworks.

Accepting the amendment would move us away from a strategic, co-ordinated, system-wide approach to grid development and towards a more fragmented process. While undergrounding is already used on a case-by-case basis where justified, the amendment could lead to more frequent project-level decisions, undermining strategic system-wide planning. That risks creating inconsistency, reducing efficiency and ultimately slowing down the delivery of the infrastructure. We need to meet our clean power 2030 and net-zero targets. Further, the amendment would shift the burden of proof onto the developer, which would add complexity, legal risk and delay to an already lengthy consenting process. Given the significantly higher costs and technical complexity of underground lines compared with overhead, the amendment is unlikely to increase the use of undergrounding but would add additional time to the planning and delivery process.

Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would require that electrical or communications cables under land in active agricultural use must be buried to a minimum depth of two metres from the surface level, and deeper if required. Existing legislation for electrical cabling is contained in the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2022. They require that:

“Every underground cable shall be kept at such depth or be otherwise protected so as to avoid, so far as is reasonably practicable, any damage or danger by reason of such uses of the land which can be reasonably expected”.


This legislation is supported by industry codes that provide the specific standards for the relevant minimum burial depth, considering different factors and use cases. These industry codes must comply with the legislation that forms the quality standards that network operators must legally operate within.

For agricultural land, the minimum recommended depth for electricity cables, set out in the Energy Networks Association’s engineering recommendation G57 for cable laying on agricultural land, is 910 millimetres. This is intended

“to provide sufficient depth to safeguard against damage from deep ploughing and cultivation, and from the mechanical installation of drainage systems”.

Recommendation G57 says:

“This depth requirement takes account of the wishes of the National Farmers’ Union”.


Agricultural activities including deep cultivations, subsoiling and mole draining rarely extend deeper than 700 millimetres below the soil surface. Installing cables at depths greater than 910 millimetres can introduce engineering and environmental constraints, such as increased heat generation from the cables, which may require additional mitigation measures such as increased pole spacing. Deeper installation would necessitate a wider and deeper trench, raising the risk of potential detrimental impacts on the soil resource due to soil handling and storage. The existing legislation is supported by detailed industry standards, ensuring an agile framework whereby the relevant standards can be flexibly updated and refined in line with evolving circumstances such as innovation while minimising potential impacts on agricultural land.

To conclude, similarly for communication cables, the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 include a requirement that code operators must install apparatus such as cabling at a depth that does not interfere with the use of the land. This ensures that the land can continue to be used for the purpose that the landowner wishes, even where there is electronic equipment buried in the ground. Introducing a new requirement for the depth of communications cables could increase digital infrastructure deployment costs substantially, slowing network build and potentially preventing the Government’s ambition of a nationwide coverage of stand-alone 5G and gigabit-capable broadband.

For the reasons outlined, I do not think that these amendments are necessary and I therefore kindly ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting group of amendments, and I thank everyone who has tabled an amendment or taken part in the debate. I thank the Minister for responding so thoroughly and welcome his commitment to work with me between now and Report in relation to Amendment 78.

My only real concern is that I am aware that renewable energy operators are not included in the Government’s consultation. Equally, they were not included in my amendment, but they are an important part of the picture. If we could work together to try to find a solution so that they could be included in the process, preferably prior to Report, it would be appreciated.

I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to her place and recognise the point that she made on parliamentary scrutiny in relation to my amendment. I will take that on board. It was not my intention to exclude it.

On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swire, it is important that these issues are raised. I welcome the fact that this was put forward as a probing amendment. These are difficult issues that need to be balanced. I do not think that anybody knows the true cost of burying cables, because it depends on what you are burying them in, so I do not think there is an absolute answer. It seems clear that some of these costs are coming down. That may be something that the Government want to look at again.

There is an important need in this debate to balance the cost, which ultimately goes to consumers, with the need for the Government to be open, able to listen, to vary plans in response to communities’ concerns and to be able to persuade and hold the energy companies to account to take more expensive options where there are particular impacts. To that end, I also welcome that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Swire, would be against the EN-1, the overriding energy policy statement. I ask the Government to be open to the idea. I know that there are legislative conditions around areas of outstanding natural beauty, but the Government should be open and mindful of community concerns and make sure that budgets are available for burying cables where communities raise particular concerns or there are particular types of landscapes. I welcome the news that we had yesterday of the cable from Norfolk going south. In response to the consultation that took place with communities, bits of that have been buried. I think that is the right approach. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 78 withdrawn.

Amendments 79 and 79A not moved.

Clause 18: Consents for generating stations and overhead lines: applications

Amendment 80

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

80: Clause 18, page 24, line 14, at end insert—
“(4) Any fees received by the Scottish Ministers under paragraph (2)(d) may only be used to fund—(a) consumer benefits packages, or(b) local planning authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that any fees paid to Scottish Ministers are allocated to either community benefits packages or to support local authority planning departments.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 80 I will also speak to Amendments 81 and 82, which are in my name, as well as Amendments 85A, 88B and 88C in the name of my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe.

The amendments in my name deal specifically with consent and the exercise of planning powers in Scotland under the provisions of this Bill. I begin with Amendment 80, which seeks to ensure that any fees collected by Scottish Ministers for purposes related to planning are hypothecated—that is, ring-fenced—for either community benefit packages or the direct support of local authority planning departments.

There is a simple but important principle at the heart of this amendment—that money raised locally, ostensibly for planning purposes, should be used locally for planning purposes. It is about transparency, accountability and trust in public institutions. If the Scottish Government are to charge fees for planning processes, it is only right that those funds are seen to benefit either the communities directly affected by a development or the planning departments tasked with delivering and managing this complex work.

This is not a theoretical concern. As noble Lords will be aware, Scottish local authorities are chronically underfunded by the SNP-run Scottish Government. Planning departments in particular have suffered disproportionately. According to recent studies, planning is now the most reduced and lowest-funded local authority service area in Scotland. That is simply not sustainable, and it is certainly not compatible with any Government’s stated ambitions around housing delivery, infrastructure development or environmental management. Amendment 80 is, therefore, not just a matter of good governance but a matter of necessity. Without proper funding, planning departments cannot attract the right skills, cannot deliver timely decisions and cannot properly engage with local authorities.

17:30

Meanwhile, there is real and understandable concern that funds paid by applicants or developers are not always being used for their intended purpose. There is a risk—indeed, some would say a pattern—of the SNP-run Scottish Government diverting funds towards what might appear to be politically motivated projects, including, of course, work on pro-independence White Papers. This amendment would place a clear legal duty on the Scottish Ministers to use planning-related fees either to fund local planning capacity or deliver tangible community benefits. It is a reasonable safeguard and a much-needed one.

I turn to Amendments 81 and 82, which are more technical in nature but no less important. Amendment 81 clarifies the jurisdictional and procedural rules that apply to infrastructure consenting processes in Scotland. In short, it aims to ensure that there is clarity both for applicants and for statutory bodies about how decisions are made, by whom and under what legal framework. Amendment 82 goes a step further, by removing provisions that reduce co-ordination between Scottish and UK consenting regimes in relation to major infrastructure projects. As noble Lords will appreciate, such projects do not respect administrative boundaries. Whether it is energy transmission, transport connectivity or environmental resilience, we must have joined-up processes that minimise unnecessary duplication, delay or confusion.

I want to be clear: we are not seeking through these amendments to reintroduce the automatic right to public inquiry that the Bill removes. We recognise that such a move would be seen as an attempt to block or delay projects. However, we do say this: Scottish communities must not be shut out of decisions that shape their local environments. It is important to emphasise that through these amendments we support infrastructure; we also support transparency and local voices. These proposals strike a sensible balance between delivering national priorities and respecting local identities; the amendments are modest, constructive and rooted in principle and seek not to disrupt or delay the Bill but to improve it. In doing so, they ensure that Scotland’s unique planning context is respected and its communities are properly heard.

I turn briefly to the amendments of my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe. These are important amendments that give effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which my noble friend is a member. I look forward to hearing from him, but for now I shall say that the Opposition feel that these are sensible amendments that Ministers should consider carefully. I beg to move.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said a moment ago, to speak to my Amendments 85A, 88B and 88C, which seek to effect the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am a member, on this Bill. I shall speak to them briefly.

The amendments fall into two parts. The first part refers to benefits that shall arise for people who live in homes near electricity transmission projects—a very good principle and one which I am sure that we all agree. The question then follows: who should be eligible for this scheme and who should be eligible to receive these benefits? The Government say that that should be decided by regulation—and, again, that seems perfectly reasonable.

The question is about the level of parliamentary procedure that the regulations in question should receive. The Government propose that only three aspects of these wide-ranging new sections, Sections 38A to 38D of the Electricity Act 1989, which this Bill amends, require the affirmative procedure, and that all other aspects of the scheme will be made by negative procedure resolutions, on the grounds that those regulations are merely of an “administrative or technical nature”. However, the committee’s view, many aspects of the regulation-making powers proposed by the Government are

“important matters of substance rather than mere ‘administrative or technical’ matters”.

I shall cite just three of them as quoted in our report. There is:

“making provision determining whether premises or works are qualifying … conferring and delegating functions in connection with the scheme”

and

“providing for payments by electricity suppliers to meet costs incurred in the carrying out of functions in connection with the scheme”.

The argument of the committee is that those matters are not merely administrative or technical but rather more substantial, and it concluded:

“The affirmative procedure should apply to all regulations made pursuant to the provisions inserted by clause 26 of the Bill, not just those matters mentioned in new section 38A(6) of the Electricity Act 1989”.


That is the first matter. The second matter is the use of forestry estate for renewable electricity, which is again a perfectly sensible aim and one with which I am sure noble Lords will agree. Clause 28 inserts new Section 3A into the Forestry Act 1967 to give forestry commissioners powers to use land in England for this purpose, and it gives the same powers to the Natural Resources Body for Wales. The Government say, in effect, that the two bodies should not worry because they will not interfere if those bodies wish to engage in small-scale projects of this kind—they will do so only if they believe that the projects that those bodies wish to undertake are significant. That is fine, but the committee noted that

“this requirement of significance does not appear on the face of the Bill”.

It went on to say:

“We do not judge delegated powers on how the Government say that they will use them but on how any Government might use them … Clause 28 should state explicitly that Ministerial consent to Forestry Commissioners’ and the National Resources Body for Wales’ renewable electricity projects should only apply to significant projects”.


In conclusion, my understanding is that the Attorney-General is of the view that delegated powers have been used by previous Governments, especially the last one, in a somewhat slipshod manner, and that this new Government will do better. If the Minister on the Front Bench is to follow in the footsteps that the Attorney-General has laid out, I look forward to him being able to give a positive response to what I have said and to the committee’s report, and I look forward to hearing from him in due course.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn to Amendments 80, 81, 82, 85A, 88B and 88C, which relate to Clause 18 and consents for electricity infrastructure in Scotland and delegated powers in the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for tabling the amendments on consenting in Scotland and the noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Blencathra, for supporting him. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for the amendments relating to the Bill’s delegated powers.

I turn to Amendment 80, which seeks to prescribe that any fees paid to Scottish Ministers for processing electricity infrastructure applications and for any pre-application services provided may be used only for consumer benefits or local planning authorities. Clause 18 creates a power to make regulations relating to fees to be paid to Scottish Ministers on the application for consent or anything done by them in relation to a proposed application under Sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.

Scottish Ministers already have the power to make regulations for determining the fees to be paid on applications, with the Bill creating a power to make regulations for fees for pre-application services. This aims to allow the Scottish Government to resource their own efficient processing of electricity infrastructure applications and pre-application services. The UK Government recognise the importance that local planning authorities have in the consenting process, and that they therefore need to be appropriately resourced.

While I welcome the spirit of the amendment, the resourcing of local planning authorities in Scotland is a devolved competence. Scottish Ministers will consider the resourcing of statutory consultees and local planning authorities to ensure that they are adequately resourced and have the skilled workforce to carry out any additional responsibilities created by these reforms. It would therefore not be appropriate for the UK Government to be prescribing in statute how Scottish Ministers direct their resources.

The amendment would also provide for the directing of fees to community benefits packages. Over the past 12 months, renewable energy developers in Scotland have offered more than £30 million in community benefits. The UK Government are committed to the provision of community benefits for energy infrastructure. On 21 May 2025, the UK Government issued a working paper for public comment on proposals to mandate community benefits for low-carbon infrastructure and next steps for shared ownership. The deadline for comment has now passed and responses are being analysed which will inform next steps.

In Scotland, the provision of community benefits is already a well-established element of renewable energy developments. The Scottish Government have had good-practice principles for community benefits from renewable energy in place since 2014, and these are currently under review following the response to a public consultation that closed in April 2025. Similarly to the position on local planning authorities, it would not be appropriate for the UK Government to prescribe in statute that Scottish Ministers should direct fees received for processing consenting applications to community benefits packages.

Amendment 81 would require Scottish Ministers to hold a public hearing whenever an objection from the relevant local planning authority is received regarding an application for consent. Additionally, Scottish Ministers would not be able to make a decision on an application until at least one month after a public hearing session has taken place. The Scottish consenting reforms are intended to make the electricity consenting process in Scotland more efficient, while retaining opportunities for local communities and planning authorities to participate meaningfully in the process. A key aspect of the reform package developed with the Scottish Government is to move away from the current prescriptive methods of handling objections by local planning authorities to consent applications, which has resulted in a slower system, with decisions that can be delayed for years.

To deliver efficiencies, the proposed provisions allow for various procedures to be used in such circumstances, at the discretion of a reporter appointed by the Scottish Government. These may include holding one or more hearing sessions, or a public inquiry. Reporters are experienced specialists. In addition to considering written representations on the application, they may conduct site visits, request further written submissions from specific parties, and/or conduct hearings or inquiries. The amendment would introduce an additional requirement to the consenting process, mandating a public hearing regardless of other procedures a reporter may determine necessary, which could already include a hearing session or written representations. These reforms will bring in a more efficient consenting process that brings certainty to both applicants and communities. To achieve this, it is vital that the Scottish Government are able to examine objections by local planning authorities through the most appropriate and proportionate method.

Amendment 82 would remove Clause 18(4), which changes the way in which local authority objections to applications for consent for electricity infrastructure are managed. At present, public inquiries are required to be held in Scotland when the relevant local planning authority objects to an application under Sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, no matter the nature of the objection. Public inquiries tie up many electricity infrastructure consenting applications in Scotland for months and even years. This adds both time and uncertainty to the consenting process, leaving communities and applicants in limbo. It is a major barrier to the timely deployment of low-carbon electricity infrastructure when we need it most. While public inquiries have a key role to play in ensuring that there is a transparent and thorough assessment of significant objections to electricity infrastructure projects, it is not proportionate or sensible that all such objections should be referred to this process.

As noble Lords will be aware, a primary aim of the Scottish consenting reforms is to streamline the process wherever possible, while retaining the right for local communities to have meaningful opportunities to comment on and influence applications. Clause 18(4) retains the right for relevant planning authorities to object to applications for consent, while bringing in a targeted, effective process fit for a modern consenting system. This is essential to end delays in electricity consenting and put in place the infrastructure we need. The policy intent of this clause is to move away from the current prescriptive methods for handling objections by local planning authorities to consent applications, which has resulted in a slow system, with decisions that can be delayed for years.

17:45

The provisions allow for various procedures to be used in such circumstances, at the discretion of a reporter appointed by the Scottish Government. These may include holding one or more hearing sessions, or indeed a public inquiry. It is important to stress that the public inquiry route is not being removed as a result of these measures. The measures will, though, introduce a fair, efficient and proportionate system for handling objections. However, this amendment would retain the status quo, whereby any local authority objection to an application for consent would be referred to a public inquiry. The impact of this would be contrary to the aims and objectives of the Bill, so I cannot support it. For the reasons I have outlined, I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

I now turn to Amendment 85A, 88B and 88C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Amendment 85A seeks to implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report that all regulations made pursuant to the provisions inserted by Clause 26 be subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendments 88B and 88C would make it explicit in the Bill that the forestry authorities are required to obtain ministerial consent only for significant projects and would provide a definition of “significant”. The Government thank the members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for their scrutiny of these provisions and for the vital role they play. We also understand and recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. We are currently considering the committee’s recommendations and will provide a government response in due course.

I hope the noble Lord understands that, in the absence of the government response, it is not yet the appropriate time to give effect to the delegated powers committee’s recommendations, and I kindly ask him not to press this amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendments and to those of my noble friend Lord Goodman. I am afraid that the track record in Scotland does not inspire confidence in the planning process and the application of those fees, but obviously I will withdraw my amendment today. I will just underline, though, that Amendment 80 is about fairness and accountability: the public must be able to trust that money taken for a specific purpose guarantees that that purpose is delivered. That is what we are trying to achieve with this amendment.

Amendments 81 and 82 are about clarity, co-ordination and respecting local voices. By clarifying jurisdictional processes and ensuring better co-ordination between UK and Scottish systems, we can reduce confusion, avoid unnecessary delay and make sure that communities are not cut out of the conversation.

We share the Government’s aim of speeding up the planning process and the delivery of projects and getting the balance right. These are constructive amendments. I hope the Minister will agree that proper resourcing, clear governance and meaningful local engagement are not obstacles to infrastructure but are essential to getting it right. As I mentioned earlier, we are fully supportive of my noble friend Lord Goodman’s amendments and we would very much like to see the Government make progress with implementing them. But, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 80.

Amendment 80 withdrawn.

Amendments 81 and 82 not moved.

Clause 18 agreed.

Clauses 19 to 23 agreed.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Clause 24 agreed.

Clause 25: Long duration electricity storage

Amendment 82A

Moved by

[Lord Fuller]

82A: Clause 25, page 34, line 38, at end insert—
“10Q Long duration electricity storage: safety(1) The Authority must ensure that the scheme established by section 10P includes measures to be taken by LDES operators (as defined by that section) to reduce fire risk and protect public safety.(2) The scheme must ensure that before installing long duration electricity storage, LDES operators consult the local fire authority who must assess the fire risk posed by the installation.(3) The LDES operator must pay the local fire authority a reasonable fee for their assessment of the fire risk under subsection (2).(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, define a “reasonable fee” for the purpose of this section.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that proposals for long duration energy storage systems, which may contain flammable batteries and equipment, are designed in consultation with the local fire authority to minimise fire risk and protect public safety.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will not detain the Committee greatly with this amendment. It seeks to ensure that, when electricity storage systems are planned, it is with the full knowledge and consent of the local fire authority, so that fire and public safety risks are understood and mitigations are put in. Surprisingly, there is no duty for promoters of these schemes to consult the local fire authority, so my amendment would correct that omission.

As the grid is reinforced, the ability to stabilise and isolate the electricity supply from surges and shocks is essential, and a number of short-term and long-term technologies exist to smooth the path of electricity from the generator to the consumer. The people of the Iberian peninsula will attest to the consequences of failing to have network stabilisation in place, especially when dashing for renewables. Some of these smoothing technologies contain highly flammable materials such as lithium. Hydrogen is another but, given the time constraints today, I will focus on the lithium side for the purposes of proving the point.

Not a day goes by without a fire being caused by a lithium battery. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is promoting a Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill; this does not seek to trespass on that, but it demonstrates that fires caused by batteries are a thing. The issue is clear: when a lithium battery, for example, catches fire, huge quantities of water are required to extinguish it. Your Lordships will recall the car-based conflagration at Luton Airport, where the multi-storey car park was totally consumed. Whether or not that fire was started by an electric vehicle, once it took hold the batteries in those cars quickly made the fire unfightable for longer—more so than had petrol or diesel alone been involved.

The dangers are further illustrated by the number of fires in bin lorries. Even a small computer battery can consume an entire refuse freighter. Airline passengers are now routinely warned about the dangers of phone batteries catching fire and imperilling the whole aircraft in an inextinguishable blaze. Imagine the scale of the flames if an entire grid-scale battery storage facility caught alight.

This issue needs to be taken seriously, and the Bill as drafted fails to do so. It just glosses over the consequences of failures in long-term and short-term energy storage, including large-scale battery systems—especially those storing huge electrical capacity and containing flammables. You do not need to be a bright spark to realise that an electrical spark can spell danger.

Many of the proposed LDES and BESS schemes are in the countryside, where the existence of fire hydrants is limited. Rivers and ponds may be far away across the fields or along narrow lanes. Water carriers may be miles away and, during a dry period, deep-seated and hard-to-fight fires can spawn secondary blazes that can run wild across a whole area. In towns, the proximity of businesses, schools, homes and buildings adds a further dimension of public safety to the mix. In both cases, consideration of the leakage of lithium, in particular to the underlying aquifer, from the firefighters’ runoff water is essential.

Of course, there are other risks: the availability of water carriers, of appliances and of specialist equipment in areas which may be staffed by part-time retained firefighters are just a few. This amendment would therefore enforce a duty for an applicant for an energy storage facility and the local fire authority to fully assess the risks, including fire and public safety, and to pay a reasonable fee to do so. If the Government resist this stipulation, we risk damage from uncontrollable fires to people, property, businesses and the environment at significant cost to the wider taxpayer and local government—costs which should be borne by the developer.

I have had representations from councils that the costs of providing water storage lagoons, additional appliances and staffing should be fully borne by the applicant, not the taxpayer. I have not gone that far with this amendment, but I wonder whether the Minister would meet me to explore this if other noble Lords feel that it is a good idea, in which case I would consider bolstering this proposal on Report. For the moment, if we just take the issue of fire safety for these high-value, high-consequence electricity storage systems, we would be doing not just this House but society a favour. I beg to move.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 82B in my name would require the Government to evaluate and report on how this legislation affects the UK’s capacity for long-duration electricity storage. Clause 25 outlines the introduction of a scheme intended to stimulate investment in long-duration electricity storage. Yet, as with any initiative of this scale, we must pair aspiration with scrutiny. It is one thing to launch a scheme, but quite another to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

We hear regularly that storage will solve the challenge of intermittent renewables. It is a reassuring narrative that excess wind and solar can simply be stored away, ready for when needed, but that message risks masking the scale of the task ahead. To get the facts straight, the UK’s average electricity consumption is around 780 gigawatt hours per day. Current grid-scale battery storage stands at roughly 12 gigawatt hours, enough to meet national demand for just 30 minutes. On a global scale, the picture is not much better. All the batteries in the world combined could keep the UK powered for less than a day.

Storage is not futile. However, we must acknowledge that we are starting from a very low base. We must also ensure that any storage added to our energy infrastructure does not undermine grid stability and that it is available to release power in the timeframe needed. This could be seconds for battery through to hours for pump storage. My amendment seeks to ensure transparency. We need regular reporting to Parliament on whether the measures we are introducing are expanding our storage capacity at the pace required.

Moreover, as we look to scale up these technologies, safety must be a central concern. My noble friend Lord Fuller rightly highlights the risks associated with high-capacity storage, particularly lithium-based battery systems. These systems often contain highly flammable materials and, when they fail, the consequences can be catastrophic. Fires involving lithium-ion batteries are notoriously difficult to control and demand vast quantities of water to extinguish. In rural areas, where many of these installations are proposed, access to that water is limited. Climate change and restrictions on the preventive burning of fuel load in wild environments are leading to greater wildfire incidence and severity. In urban settings, proximity to homes, schools and critical infrastructure raises additional risks. We must ensure that local fire services are not only consulted but properly resourced to assess and manage these risks. Any developer seeking to install large-scale storage must be required to engage with emergency services and contribute fairly to risk assessments and preparedness.

We must also consider the environmental impacts. In the event of a fire, runoff containing hazardous materials could seep into groundwater or flow into rivers. This is not just a fire safety issue; it is a matter of public health and environmental protection. We cannot afford to be complacent. As our electricity system becomes more complex and decentralised, so too do the risks. It is the responsibility of this House to ensure that those risks are identified, assessed and addressed. Long-duration energy storage may be a useful addition to our energy mix. However, we cannot rely on this technology alone to support our renewable future.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will respond briefly to this group of amendments on long-duration energy storage. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for bringing forward Amendment 82A. These are important topics. While long-duration energy storage facilities are essential to the energy transition and have a very high safety record, they are still an emerging technology and it is right that we seek to balance planning and safety regulations with the need to build these facilities. To be clear, a number of the fires that he referred to were from individual batteries and not big long-duration energy storage facilities. As far as I am aware, there have been only two such fires in the UK. These big long-duration energy storage facilities have a very strong safety record.

However, it is true that UK fire and rescue services have described BESS and long-duration energy storage facilities as an emerging risk, noting that when these fires occur, they can last for hours or days and produce toxic emissions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward this amendment, as it rightly highlights the critical importance of the safety of long-duration energy storage as we accelerate towards our energy transition.

The amendment would establish a specific statutory duty requiring operators of long-duration energy storage systems to consult local fire authorities prior to installation, with the authority empowered to assess fire risks and levy a reasonable fee for doing so. On the face of it, I recognise the merits of such an approach. These can pose material risks and it is important that the fire brigade is involved and included in some of these planning decisions. It is also important that our fire services are aware of and prepared for particular hazards and have clear plans to deal with them should anything untoward happen. That being said, there are questions as to whether a statutory provision of this kind is the right or appropriate mechanism at this stage. A number of regulatory avenues already apply, including planning law, the Health and Safety at Work etc Act, and general fire safety legislation. The Government have also indicated their intention to update planning and permitting frameworks, considering the rapid growth of battery storage technologies. It is absolutely right that they do so.

18:00

My question really is directed to Ministers. I think it is for the Government to set out their vision for long-term regulatory and planning frameworks for long-duration energy storage. To be clear, a statutory provision is not necessarily the only option, or even the best option. While I thank the noble Lord for bringing his amendment, I am keen to hear from the Government what they plan to do on this topic. I would like to know what conversations they are having with the fire authorities and what the general plan is to go from here.

When I read Amendment 82B in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Roborough, I was not against it but questioned why they particularly wanted to bring it forward. The noble Lord has clarified that it is basically seeking to monitor and get a sense of what is happening with the introduction of this long-duration energy storage. Recently, we had the House of Lords report on this, and it is an important part of our energy transition and the stability of our network. To be clear, this was not in any way the cause of the fire in the Iberian peninsula. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, says that there should be a five-year reporting mechanism. I ask him whether that needs to be shortened. I am not against his amendment, but, considering we are to have clean power for 2030, to be effective we would really need a yearly reporting mechanism. With that, I welcome both amendments.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 82B from my noble friends Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Roborough would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of this Bill on the UK’s long-duration electricity storage capacity. It is both reasonable and necessary. The new clause in Clause 25 makes reference to a scheme designed to encourage the development and use of long-duration electricity storage installations, but, as with any major intervention in our energy system, it is essential that we couple ambition with accountability. That is precisely what this amendment seeks to ensure.

The case for energy storage is seemingly clear. All sides of this Committee recognise the need to address the intermittency of renewable sources, particularly wind. Storage is seen as part of that solution, but we must be realistic about the scale of the challenge. We are often told that battery storage will save us; that it will plug the gap when the wind does not blow. But let us look at the numbers. The UK’s average daily electricity demand is 780 gigawatt hours. Our current battery storage capacity is roughly 12 gigawatt hours, which would keep the lights on for approximately 30 minutes. Globally, total battery storage is around 369 gigawatt hours—enough to power the UK for barely a day. This is not to dismiss the importance of innovation nor the promise of new technologies but to say we must deal in facts. We must measure progress and we must understand whether the scheme we are legislating for is delivering results. The requirement to report to Parliament on the impact of this Bill in this crucial area is not bureaucracy; it is oversight and it is responsible governance.

I now turn briefly to Amendment 82A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fuller, which addresses the important and growing issue of fire safety in relation to long-duration electricity storage systems. However, I should say not all long-duration energy storage systems—and I think I can probably justify squeezing in another Welsh reference here to First Hydro’s schemes at Dinorwig and Ffestiniog power stations and the proposed Dorothea pump storage scheme, none of which will cause safety or fire issues.

As we move towards decarbonising our energy grid and increasing our reliance on renewable sources, long-duration energy storage is set to play an increasingly central role in stabilising supply and ensuring resilience. These technologies, whether battery-based, thermal or otherwise, are argued to be essential to the UK’s clean energy future. But with innovation comes responsibility, and we must be alert to the safety implications that accompany some of these new forms of infrastructure.

Amendment 82A rightly recognises that some forms of long-duration energy storage, particularly those involving large-scale batteries or other flammable components, pose inherent risks, especially in the event of fire. These are not theoretical concerns. We have seen incidents, both here and internationally, where energy-storage sites have suffered fires that require significant emergency service intervention and in some cases posed serious threats to nearby communities. This amendment seeks to introduce a sensible precaution that proposals for such technologies should be developed in consultation with the local fire and rescue authority. This would help ensure that any fire risks are assessed and mitigated early in the planning process and that emergency services are properly informed and prepared should an incident occur. As we roll out more of these systems in urban and rural settings alike, that reassurance will be crucial not just for planning authorities and operators but for the public.

This is a pragmatic and proportionate amendment. It reflects legitimate public concern and supports our wider objectives without compromising safety. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, I hope, his assurance that public safety and fire risk will remain at the forefront of policy and operational planning as we deliver the energy infrastructure of the future.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 82A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to require long-duration electricity storage—LDES—operators to consult local fire authorities to assess the project’s fire risk before installation. I want to assure the noble Lord that this Government take fire safety extremely seriously, but we do not feel this amendment is necessary or proportionate, and it risks unintended consequences. I personally want to say to the noble Lord that, since fire has come from the Home Office into MHCLG, I have the ministerial responsibility for fire, and the noble Lord is welcome at any time to drop me a line to discuss anything related to this point or any concerns around fire safety.

The Health and Safety Executive regulates battery-energy storage system—BESS—sites within a robust framework that mandates battery designers, installers, and operators to uphold high safety standards. Our planning practice guidance encourages developers of BESS sites to engage with local fire and rescue services prior to the submission of their planning application and to consider the National Fire Chiefs Council’s guidance, so that matters relating to fire safety can be considered at the outset. However, we are going to go further than this. The Government are considering additional measures to enhance the regulation of the environmental and safety risks of BESS. Defra recently published a consultation on proposed reforms to environmental permitting for industry, including the principle of including BESS in scope of the environmental permitting regulations. This would give further safeguards for both people and the environment.

This amendment would add burdens to local fire and rescue services. Further changes to the long-duration electricity storage cap and floor scheme would add complexity to the system, which would lead to increased cost and time for the applicant. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is satisfied with my response, and I kindly request he withdraws his amendment.

Amendment 82B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Roborough, requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact of the Planning and Infrastructure Act on the UK’s long-duration electricity storage capacity within five years of it being passed. I want to assure the noble Lords that this Government are committed to monitoring the development of the UK’s long-duration electricity storage capacity, as well as our wider clean power 2030 ambitions. Ofgem is proceeding at pace with the delivery of the first window of the cap and floor regime, and expects to announce final decisions on successful projects, in both the 2030 and 2033 delivery tracks, in the second quarter of next year. Ofgem will remain closely involved in monitoring delivery of those projects, and information on their features and progress will of course be made public at the appropriate stage, as they would be for any other major generation projects.

The Government publish statistics on the UK’s electricity storage capacity annually in the Digest of UK Energy Statistics—DUKES. This currently includes pumped storage hydro and grid-scale batteries. Other types of LDES will be added to the publication when they become operational. The Government also have a statutory duty to report on their carbon budget progress under the Climate Change Act 2008. For instance, the Act requires the Climate Change Committee to provide an annual report to Parliament on the UK Government’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and we would expect future reports to include all relevant and significant developments in this regard, including those on delivery of the LDES cap and floor. The Government have a statutory duty to lay their response to the Climate Change Committee’s progress report before Parliament.

Given these existing monitoring and reporting commitments, this amendment to create additional reporting requirements is not necessary. I trust that the noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Roborough, are satisfied with our responses and I therefore kindly ask them not to press their amendments.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the news that my noble friend has given us about the further checks and balances and reports on fire safety are very encouraging. However, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised the question of the fire on top of the multi-storey carpark in Luton. There was a similar incident—just as bad, if I may say so—on a ship, somewhere between the Netherlands and the UK, which was carrying several hundred cars with these batteries. Apparently, the ship set itself on fire and the cars set each other on fire, and it was very lucky that nobody was hurt, because there was no way to put out the fires. I think the ship sank in the end.

My concern, to which I am sure my noble friend can respond, is that all these new reports are very useful, but what is missing is some transparency as to what actually happened. What happened on the roof of Luton airport carpark? We do not really know. Everybody denies that it was anything to do with lithium ion, but most people think that it probably was and that the then Government said nothing because they did not want to upset people. I hope my noble friend will agree that transparency is a very important part of the ongoing work.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Let me reassure my noble friend that transparency is absolutely important in this situation. Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, provided examples; of course, it would be remiss of me to comment on them, but I am sure there will be some investigation and learning from them. If the point is to go away and find out what lessons have been learned, and look at them as part of our transparency, it is a good one and I accept it.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, we have had an interesting, brief debate which actually had a few twists and turns. The Minister asked me whether I was satisfied with his response and I regret to say that I am not satisfied at all, for reasons I will give in a moment. Before that, I will deal with the interventions from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I was not sure whether he was for or against this amendment, but I regret that he fatally undermined the Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill, brought forward by his noble friend Lord Redesdale, which now must be pointless from the Liberal Democrats’ point of view. I would have thought he would have been standing full square behind my amendment, which highlights the dangers of lithium.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, quantified the value of battery storage in terms of amp hourage and capacity. However, the value of battery storage is not necessarily purely in the storage capacity; it is in the smoothing of voltages at an aggregate level, across a whole grid, and maintaining the hertz. It is a difference of only 0.2 hertz in the Iberian catastrophe that caused the contagious knock-on effect that brought down the entire grid in Iberia, in Spain and Portugal. So we must not look at battery storage in terms not only of current but of stability.

18:15

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, was very good in talking about what happens about all the batteries in the world. Of course, my concern is whether we have all the water in the world to put out these fires if they start—of course, I accept the pump storage sits aside from this, in the Dinorwigs and other things.

This is a probing amendment, but I am not satisfied at all with the Minister’s response. He might want to dwell on the fact that the HSE has this desktop analysis; in advance of an application at the formative stages, it might do a desktop study. But it does not have the practical task of putting out these conflagrations when they catch fire. With huge amounts of stored electricity, fires are common, and when they happen, they are catastrophic. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the ship that sank off Holland; over 3,000 cars went down with it. It burned for days and the hull glowed white-hot—and that was at sea.

Once this thing gets going, it is really important to sort it out. I do not accept for a moment that the HSE is the competent authority to put out these fires. The Minister referred to applying additional burdens on fire authorities if we go through this process. It is the fire authorities in Norfolk and Essex that have asked me to raise this issue, because there is no statutory duty for the promoters to consult them. They are concerned about it; they have public, fire and environmental safety at the forefront of their minds. The law does not permit them to execute what they consider to be their statutory duties.

I reassure the Minister that I will withdraw this amendment because we are in Committee, but the more this debate has gone on, the more I feel that a meeting to progress this is important. At a later stage, who knows, we may wish to test the view of the House. I hope we can meet later on this matter. In the meantime, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 82A withdrawn.

Clause 25 agreed.

Amendment 82B not moved.

Clause 26: Benefits for homes near electricity transmission projects

Amendment 82C

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

82C: Clause 26, page 35, line 2, after “transmission” insert “and generation”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Baroness Coffey extend benefits schemes to energy generation infrastructure and requires them to be in place, including for any infrastructure still being under construction at the time of Royal Assent of this Act.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 82C; I have also tabled a number of other amendments in this group. In essence, this amendment considers bill discounts and community benefits.

I think it is fair to say that the Government have recognised the need for some benefits, but they have not been generous enough, in my view. That is why I also strongly support Amendment 83, tabled by my noble friends on the Front Bench, to make sure that we are sufficiently generous. I am convinced that that will go a long way to persuading—or at least giving some comfort to—householders in large parts of our United Kingdom who will suffer some of the consequential impacts of the acceleration of renewable energy involving pylons and similar.

In essence, I am also concerned that we seem to have lost the amount of electricity generation happening around the country. It seemed quite odd to me that people might get compensation for there being a pylon within 500 metres of them, but people living next to the generation of new substations and new nuclear power stations are not, as it stands, intended to receive any community benefit.

One of the successes of the French Government was to try to reduce the electricity bills of people living close to generation. That has long been considered a sensible way forward for a local community. I am not saying that everybody in those local communities wants to be, to use their words, “bought off” by a reduction on their bill, but it would go a considerable way with some of the frustration in the preparation of those huge construction projects as well as being an ongoing reminder that they are living near a nuclear power station. They may not have realised one was going to be built there—or a substation, or the like—when they moved to that area.

Clause 26 enables the establishment of the energy bill discount scheme. I have tabled a couple of amendments, that it should not be “may” but “must”. I am conscious that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has also included “must” in Amendment 86. That matters to give absolute certainty to local communities that this will happen and that we will not have to wait for further consultation, commencements and the like, and that it will actually be done.

It is important that we consider not just nuclear, which I have referred to already—I do not think that I would qualify for any of that, by the way; I do not live too far away from Sizewell C, but nevertheless, there are plenty of people who qualify. We should also consider it for other energy projects, including wind farms and the like, especially recognising the Government’s proposals.

The Government’s proposed discount is only 25% of the £1,000 bill discount that the previous Government suggested, which has already been referred to in Amendment 83. However, it is clear that we need to make sure this gets to the households, so there are parts of this clause which are absolutely right to be included by the Government.

On Amendment 86, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I recall that I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Fallon a long time ago. I think it was back in 2013 that we started discussing what amount of money local communities should get. That reflects quite how long this discussion has been going on for. At one point, it was about business rate revenues: what would be retained, what would be kept by the council and what would be given to bill payers. It is important to make sure that as much of this money goes directly to local people as possible.

In terms of thinking this through, the Ministers may not have the answer today, and I do not expect them to have an answer on every single part of discussions about business rates retentions. However, it would be useful to understand where the Government have ended up on how much of business rates would be retained by local councils for the operation of all these different power plants which are busy being built around the country. I am sure that local government would welcome that clarity. Certainly, if 100% of the business rates of Sizewell C were to be retained in East Suffolk—indeed, by the new unitary authority in due course—they would be very happy indeed. That is not to say that East Suffolk keeps all that money; right now, it participates in pooling. Nevertheless, it is about recognising that this significant infrastructure in a very modest way provides some local community benefit which can be used for a variety of factors. It is for those reasons that generation as well as pylons need to be recognised in any bill discount scheme. I hope that the Government will be generous in that regard.

Forgive me, but there is one other amendment that I have forgotten to speak to. It would make sure that this cost is not borne by other taxpayers or bill payers. This needs to be considered in the cost of the project. We will discuss this more in the Moses Room on Wednesday, but, too often, when it seems that the Government are being very generous about discounts, rebates and similar, it is actually bill payers in other parts of the country who simply pay for that. We need to recognise that we have an electricity system that will of course bring some disruption in certain parts of the country where generation and other aspects of transmission are happening—we all need to pay our energy bills—but, for once, we should see some of the energy companies recognising the significant profits they will be making from those projects and that, for the future, they do not have to rely on bill payers paying for those benefits in the short term. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 85 in my name seeks to explore the extent and purpose of the compensation proposed for new energy infrastructure, particularly with regard to electrical infrastructure that already exists. Can the Minister explain how the clause enhances schemes that currently exist in the form of wayleave arrangements and payments for use of land for pylons, for example? Will the new scheme, for instance, be consistent with current arrangements for compensation?

Clarity about the parameters used to determine those residents who will qualify for compensation for the new infrastructure is important in understanding the scale of the scheme as anticipated by the Government. In a press statement, the Government stated that households within 500 metres of new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure will get electricity bill discounts of up to £2,500 over 10 years, and that this will see rural communities receive hundreds of pounds in their pockets for hosting vital infrastructure. It continues:

“Alongside money off bills, separate new guidance will set out how developers should ensure communities hosting transmission infrastructure can benefit by funding projects like sports clubs, educational programmes or leisure facilities”.


That press release sets out the principles behind what the Government are proposing for new electricity infrastructure. As I am sure the Minister will know, there are already over 20,000 pre-existing pylons, which have been associated largely with coalfields. Hence, many of the clusters of pylons are close to those sites; in Yorkshire, for example. For those communities at that time, there was an expectation by the state that electricity transmission was for the common good. The question I want an answer to today is: where has that sense of common purpose gone? Why are we not still considering the idea that for major infrastructure projects where the whole nation will benefit communities will need to accept that for the benefit of everybody, as was done in the past?

In their press release, the Government state categorically that it is rural communities that will see huge financial benefit from the scheme. Obviously, I do not have any argument with that, but I question the argument for compensating residents in those communities now when communities with infrastructure constructed in a different generation were not. Can the Minister explain, for example, whether the compensation will be extended to the Yorkshire GREEN scheme, which is upgrading existing infrastructure down the spine of Yorkshire to enable more green infrastructure to be linked to the grid? It is an upgrade of older infrastructure. Will those communities benefit from this scheme?

18:30

Then there is the more fundamental question of fairness. Those residents who have had proximity to pylons for many years were never given compensation. In my view, the new scheme should be extended to include historic pylons, not in a retrospective way—I will not make that argument—but in the interests of fairness across the country. Those residents and communities with pre-existing pylons should benefit equally from a time-limited compensation scheme like that being proposed for new infrastructure. To deny residents that benefit when they have had years of the degrading of their countryside, not by pylons but by the coal industry, is patently unfair and unjust.

That is my challenge to the Minister. Those folk in the Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and south Wales coalfields, and others, have had pylons for a long time, so either we have no compensatory scheme or we include those who have them already in a time-limited fashion. Let us have a bit of fairness in all this. I look forward to hearing how the Minister will respond to my challenge.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 86 in this group on bill discount schemes and community benefits. It sets out a scheme for providing financial benefits to communities in areas connected with major infrastructure schemes. The amendment proposes a new clause that would establish a statutory scheme to provide community benefit from major energy infrastructure projects, ensuring that those who host the infrastructure necessary for our clean energy transition are directly recognised and rewarded.

Let me begin by acknowledging and welcoming what the Government have already done in this space. The provisions now in the Bill for compensation for households living near transmission lines represent, without question, an important step forward. Households living day in, day out under new pylons or beside substations reasonably expect that there should be some benefit for them and their local communities. I welcome the fact that the Government have done that. I also take on board my noble friend’s point that this stuff is also good for all in our communities and our future.

I welcome the position that the Government have taken in the Bill but, as part of this broader group, it is important that we discuss some areas of how the Government have designed their own compensation; for example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, clearly mentioned, there is the point about generation not being included, as well as the fact that a fixed 500-metre distance was used in the DESNZ consultation. There are strange situations in which you could get compensation and not have visible sight of pylons, and there are other situations where you could have visible sight of pylons and not receive compensation. All of that needs a bit of working through; I welcome the other amendments in this group that are trying to do that. We should circle back to this on Report, but the important thing is that there is a compensation scheme. We on these Benches welcome that.

My amendment wants to go a bit further; it is additional to what the Government are doing. Although individual compensation is welcome, it has more limited scope and is of more limited benefit than pooling money together and using it to provide community benefits. I fundamentally believe that that is a better way of bringing real transition and change to the lives of the people who are impacted by this stuff.

Crucially, my amendment seeks to tie the benefit directly to the scale of the project, amounting to 5% of annual revenue. This is important because it requires not one or two pieces of infrastructure but lots of the stuff that we will have. As I said at the beginning, in energy terms, this is as big as the Industrial Revolution. Our communities will carry this weight; they should be able to be transformed by, and to get benefits from, it. I believe that pooling those benefits is a better way of helping our communities.

For example, I know that, over the summer, the Labour Party had a real concern about what happens to our coastal communities, which are some of our country’s poorest and most deprived communities. In the GB energy Act, we have community energy. It struck me that we could be doing a lot more if we used this type of money to help build local windmills and provide energy to these people living in poverty; that could be a really good scheme. It is important that this is about not the Government doing things to people but them doing things with people—that is, taking people with them on this journey and allowing them to be included in it, to benefit directly from it and to see it. I want people to go down the pub and say not, “Green energy is going to make my bill more expensive”, but, “We’ve got a local windmill or solar farm and we’re benefiting from it. We’re included in it. We participate and we get something back from it”. That is a very different conversation from the conversations that are happening now.

I recognise that my amendment is not fully workable; there are areas that obviously need reform and change. What I am trying to do is make a point. I am asking the Government to go further and go beyond what they have done already. In this country, there is a lot of conversation about and resentment of the Norwegian sovereign fund. When Norway started developing its oil and gas wells, it had the foresight to create that sovereign wealth fund; it has benefited from it. We did not do that in this country, and we have blown through most of the North Sea oil and gas. We do not have those long-term benefits.

As we start this new energy revolution, there is an opportunity here to make a system that compensates our communities and gets benefits flowing to our communities—indeed, to our whole society—from this new form of energy and transition. We can use that to bring people in and take them with us on this journey in order to make sure that this is about not one Government or one party but all of us working together for our communities, our future and the future of our children. I accept that there is a lot more to do but lots of other countries are doing this stuff, including Denmark, Germany and France, which has been mentioned. I encourage the Government to look at some of the schemes that other countries have, to look at what works and what does not, and to look at this again.

Turning briefly to the other amendments, I fully recognise the purpose of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. She said that this is time limited, and I also note that there are over 20,000 pylons. I am interested to know whether the Government could do an assessment on what the cost of that would be; I suspect that it would be quite big and could well be prohibitive. I do not know the answer to that, but it is a question that needs asking and it is good that it is being asked.

I am not certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is in his place, but we do not support fracking. It is not appropriate and will not solve our energy problems; it will cause pollution to our groundwater systems as well as earthquakes. It was his own party that decided that fracking was not the answer and, as far as I am aware, the Conservatives have not changed their policy on that part of the energy transition. That is certainly one amendment—unless he is working for Reform, which I doubt—that I cannot see the point in adding to the Bill.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 83, which seeks to introduce a bill discount scheme for eligible households living near major energy infrastructure. This amendment seeks to ensure that those most directly impacted by the presence of new energy developments, especially large-scale infrastructure, receive a tangible, meaningful benefit—namely, a £1,000 annual discount on their electricity bill for 10 years. In contrast to Amendment 86, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which appears to direct funding to local authorities rather than local consumers, we want to see individuals benefiting directly, not local government.

This proposal stems from a clear and pragmatic principle: if the Government are to meet their national energy and net-zero targets through new infrastructure, they must take the public with them. That includes recognising that hosting such infrastructure in their area has consequences for local communities, whether because of the visual impact or disruption from construction. It is disappointing that the current Government have chosen to step back from the community benefit scheme proposed by our previous Conservative Government. In doing so, they have shown not only a lack of ambition but a fundamental misunderstanding of the impact that these developments can have on communities.

Indeed, in a 2023 paper published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, it was recommended that

“an electricity bill discount for properties located closest to transmission network infrastructure … could offer up to £10,000 per property (£1,000 per year, ~£80 per month, over 10 years)”.

The rationale was simple: communities should be compensated for their proximity to infrastructure that serves the national interest. In achieving this compensation, there is likely to be greater community consent, limiting the length of time for the planning decision to be taken and the cost associated with it. Yet despite this recommendation, the Government have failed to follow through with a credible or generous offer. Amendment 83 seeks to correct that failure.

Amendment 84, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley, would provide for the creation of community benefit schemes linked to onshore wind turbines. The amendment again recognises that, while additional energy infrastructure is essential, it is not always welcome, and that community consent is far more likely to be secured when there is tangible benefit for those living nearby. My noble friend’s amendment acknowledges that local communities must be partners in our energy transition, not passive recipients of top-down decisions. It would be helpful to understand the Government’s position on why onshore wind projects—and other energy infrastructure projects, for that matter—are not currently in scope of formalised benefit schemes and whether that could or should be changed.

Similarly, Amendment 94, also from my noble friend Lord Lilley, proposes that individuals should be entitled to financial benefits from shale gas companies. While shale gas remains a contentious issue, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, the underlying concern remains valid: communities affected by energy extraction and production should not be left behind. I also point out that fracking was pretty much invented in, and is commonly used throughout, the North Sea; it is simply the shale gas issue that we are addressing here.

I also support the sentiment of the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. These important amendments seek to extend benefit schemes to energy generation infrastructure and network transmission infrastructure and ensure that such schemes are not merely optional but required. They mirror the spirit of the amendment in my name by embedding fairness into our energy transition and making community benefit a standard, not an exception.

What links all speakers and amendments in this group is a shared concern for the people and places that bear the burden of our national energy ambitions. From onshore wind to transmission lines, from shale gas to solar farms, these projects do not exist in a vacuum; they are local and in real communities. These amendments attempt, in different ways, to ensure that the impact is matched by investment and that no community feels exploited in the name of national progress.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is uncosted, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, and concerns a retrospective scheme. The noble Baroness used the word “fairness”, and I ask: fair to whom? This provision, if implemented, would fall on bill payers and the infrastructure providers that had not anticipated these costs when they developed the infrastructure. I very much remain to be persuaded on the necessity for this amendment.

I look forward to the Minister’s response and urge her to provide clarity and assurance on the Government’s approach to community benefits. The concerns raised by this group of amendments go to the heart of fairness, consent and the long-term credibility of our energy strategy.

18:45

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group: the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Coffey. Their amendments relate primarily to the bill discount scheme for communities near new and certain significantly upgraded transmission infrastructure, and other community benefit schemes; these are Amendments 82C to 82E, 83, 83A to 83C, 84, 84A to 84C, 85, 86 and 94.

Before I turn to the specific amendments, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that I will not cover business rates retention in my response. That is a bit above my pay grade, and I am afraid that she will have to wait, as we all will, for the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement to see whether she intends to make any changes to that. That is the responsibility of the Treasury. As the noble Baroness is very well aware, there is a redistribution mechanism in the business rates retention, which enables those areas that are less able to raise business rates to benefit as much as some of those that are more able to raise business rates. I am afraid that any adjustments to that are not in my remit, so I will not cover that.

I turn first to Amendments 82C, 82E and 83A to 83C, which aim to extend the scope of the financial benefit scheme for people living near new and significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure to those living near energy generation infrastructure. While I believe that the spirit of these amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is certainly well intended—and the Government are committed to ensuring that communities that host clean energy infrastructure benefit from it, including clean energy generation infrastructure—I must resist these amendments for reasons that I will set out for her.

Clause 26 specifically allows for the creation of a bill discount scheme for those living near new or significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure, with a minded-to position of offering eligible customers a bill discount of £250 per year over 10 years. This ensures that communities living near this infrastructure are recognised for the service they provide the country in hosting the infrastructure and helping to achieve our clean power goals. The clause has been specifically designed to address transmission which, due to its long, linear nature, impacts communities without necessarily providing further benefits, such as local jobs or investment, that other infrastructure probably will bring. If this clause is amended as suggested, it would require further complex and detailed amendments to ensure that it operates effectively for each type of generation infrastructure, delaying the time that it would take for the scheme to be implemented.

However, I can inform noble Lords that the Government have already presented proposals to expand the delivery of community benefits to other forms of clean energy infrastructure. On 21 May, we published a working paper on community benefits and shared ownership of low-carbon energy infrastructure, the responses to which are currently under review. Our proposals would require developers of low-carbon energy generation and energy storage infrastructure to contribute to community benefit funds to support families, businesses and local community groups living near these projects. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested, the scheme could help regenerate our coastal and rural communities—for example, via new community facilities, apprenticeships and education schemes—boosting local economies and growth as part of the plan for change.

The paper also sets out how communities could own a stake in renewable energy infrastructure through shared ownership, resulting in profits being reinvested in the community. Through these proposals, we aim to provide communities with consistency and certainty that they will benefit from hosting new generation infrastructure. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts these reasons why these amendments would not be appropriate, is reassured that we are looking into ways to ensure that communities hosting new clean energy-generation infrastructure are properly recognised for the service they are providing to the country, and will agree to withdraw Amendment 82C.

Turning now to Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Offord, which seeks to set the discount amount for the bill discount scheme at £1,000 a year for 10 years for households living within 500 metres of eligible infrastructure, I really sympathise with the noble Lords’ intention to ensure that households closest to the new transmission infrastructure benefit, but I am going to have to resist the amendment, for reasons which I will set out. The Government’s minded-to position is to provide electricity bill discounts of up to £2,500 over a maximum of 10 years for households living within 500 metres of new and significantly upgraded electricity transmission network infrastructure. This proposal provides a balance between ensuring that communities are recognised for the role they play in hosting the infrastructure and limiting the additional cost to electricity bill payers in Great Britain from the scheme.

We are still conducting final analysis on the overall cost of the scheme. On 8 August, we published a consultation on our current proposals for scheme design, and that consultation is open until 26 September. Final analysis will be published in our impact assessment, alongside secondary legislation. The Government consider that the overall level of benefit ought to be set out at that stage, which will still allow for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny once secondary legislation is laid. I hope noble Lords understand our position on this matter. I look forward to working closely with them at the appropriate time on this important detail of the scheme.

I turn to Amendment 84, which seeks to extend the scope of the financial benefit scheme for people living near new and significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure to those living near onshore wind turbines. I welcome the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment. The Government are committed to ensuring that communities which host clean energy infrastructure benefit from it. Clause 26 allows for the creation of a bill discount scheme for those living near new or significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure, with a minded-to position of offering eligible customers a bill discount of £250 a year over 10 years. This ensures that communities living near this infrastructure are recognised for the service they provide to the country. While it may seem logical to extend this scheme to other infrastructure, such as onshore wind, the clause has been designed specifically to address transmission, which, as I said, due to its long linear nature, impacts communities without providing further benefits, such as local jobs or investment, that other infrastructure can bring. If this clause is amended to include onshore wind, it would require further complex and detailed amendments to make sure that it operates effectively, delaying the time it would take for the scheme to be implemented.

However, I am pleased to inform noble Lords that the Government have already presented proposals to expand the delivery of community benefits to other forms of energy infrastructure, including onshore wind. I spoke already about the paper that was produced on 21 May on the community benefits, and we are reviewing the responses to that. The proposals would require developers of low-carbon energy generation and energy storage infrastructure to contribute to community benefit funds—again, to support families, businesses and local community groups who live near these projects. The scheme could definitely help to regenerate those coastal communities. The paper also set out how communities can own a stake in those. Through these proposals, we aim to provide communities with consistency and certainty. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured that we are already looking into ways to ensure that communities living near new onshore wind generation are recognised for their service to the country.

Amendments 82D, 84A and 84B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion to establish the financial benefit schemes as detailed in Clause 26. They would also ensure that eligible infrastructure projects constructed prior to Royal Assent to this Bill are included within the scope of the scheme. I acknowledge the intention of the amendments: to ensure that the scheme is not confined to those who live near eligible infrastructure built after the Bill is enacted. I must resist this amendment, for the reasons I will set out.

The aim of Clause 26 is to ensure that households that will live close to new electricity transmission infrastructure are appropriately recognised for their service. The Government understand that many of these projects are planned over the next few years. It is our intention that the scheme will run for a set period of time, and the Government require the flexibility to review the effectiveness of the scheme and determine whether it ought to continue for a longer period or come to an end after a certain date. Amendment 82D would remove that flexibility and result in greater time and monetary costs to bring the scheme to a close. Additionally, Amendments 84A and 84B would expand the financial benefit scheme by including works which have already been completed.

Around twice as much new transmission network infrastructure will be required by 2030 as has been constructed over the past decade. We believe it is only right that this unprecedented increase in the pace of construction is appreciated and that communities are recognised for the service to the country. Extending the scheme to historical infrastructure would be moving away from this purpose. We must also consider the substantial additional cost in extending the scheme in this manner. The increased complexity in identifying many more eligible households, as well as the increase in the number of discounts being paid out, would vastly inflate the cost of the scheme, as well as delay current rollout plans, due to the increased administrative challenges. However, although it would not be appropriate to modify the scheme in the manner that these amendments propose, I am happy to inform noble Lords that the Government are currently finalising details on eligibility for infrastructure where construction has recently commenced, as we recognise that there are projects vital to clean power 2030 that will have begun before the commencement of the scheme outlined in Clause 26.

Amendment 84C seeks to prevent the costs of community benefit schemes being borne by energy bill payers. I understand and appreciate the intention of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to protect consumers from rising energy bills. However, I will again set out the reasons why I have to resist this amendment. One of the Government’s five missions is to make Great Britain a clean energy superpower. This will boost our energy independence and reduce electricity bills. Our electricity network is key to achieving this. As we increase low-carbon and renewable energy generation, we will need to increase the scale of the transmission network at pace to keep up with demand. It will not be possible to deliver secure electricity supply vital to growth and prosperity without a transmission network that can transport it. This financial benefit scheme aims to increase community acceptability of electricity infrastructure and, in doing so, has the potential to reduce opposition and associated planning delays.

The Government’s current intention for the scheme, as outlined in Clause 26, is for the cost to be borne by an obligation on electricity suppliers. However, although they are not mandated to do so, it is expected that suppliers will recoup these costs by passing them on to their customers. For example, the warm home discount scheme is funded via an obligation on energy suppliers that is recouped via energy bills. Using alternatives, such as funding the scheme through Exchequer funding, would not be appropriate, as the bill discount scheme forms part of a broader package which has been developed to improve acceptability of transmission infrastructure, which in turn could help reduce constraint costs, if successful in supporting the accelerated delivery of critical transmission infrastructure. Because of this, the Government believe that it is most appropriate that the scheme should be funded through bills.

Preliminary estimates for the cost of both the bill discount scheme and the community funds guidance are around 80p to £1.50 per year per average household electricity bill, although this estimate is subject to change in our future impact assessment, set to be published alongside secondary legislation. Should this community benefit package, alongside our wider package of reforms, succeed in supporting the accelerated delivery of critical transmission network infrastructure, we could avoid up to £4 billion in constraint payments in 2030, compared with the scenario where delays persist. Those costs will be met by the consumers. This is as outlined in analysis from the National Energy System Operator.

I turn to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. We always enjoy hearing the Yorkshire dimension on our Bills in the House. The amendment seeks to expand the financial benefits scheme from households living near new and significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure to those living near existing transmission network infrastructure. I acknowledge the good intent behind the amendment in recognising communities that have hosted infrastructure for years. However, for reasons that I will set out, I must resist this amendment.

19:00

The purpose of Clause 26 is to recognise households that will live close to the new electricity transmission infrastructure that we need to achieve the clean power by 2030 mission. Around twice as much of the new transmission infrastructure network will be required by 2030 as has been constructed over the past decade. That significant increase in the pace requires recognition of households that will live close to that new infrastructure. Extending the scheme to all households that are next to infrastructure would be moving away from that purpose. There would also be substantial additional cost in extending the scheme to existing infrastructure. There are many thousands of miles of transmission infrastructure across Great Britain. Granting an electricity bill discount to every nearby household would vastly inflate the cost of the scheme and delay the current rollout plans due to the increased administration challenges in identifying the additional households.

Our intention with the scope and scale of the bill discount scheme is to recognise the service that communities provide. This is the right thing to do. We hope that it will be appreciated by communities and reduce opposition and delays. However, this is balanced against the anticipated extra cost to bill payers. I have already set out what those costs are likely to be. They are important to measure against the likely savings from the constraint costs. Should this community benefit package succeed, alongside our wider package of reforms, we will avoid £4 billion in constraint payments. However, this amendment would add a significant burden to bill payers, including those who are in receipt of the scheme well above that amount. Though it would not be appropriate to extend the scheme in the manner which the noble Baroness proposes, the Government are finalising the details on eligibility for infrastructure where construction has recently commenced. I appreciate the intent behind the amendment but request that the noble Baroness does not move it.

Amendment 86, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to mandate that financial benefits must be provided to communities connected with a major energy infrastructure project. The amendment achieves this by adding an additional clause to the Bill which would introduce regulations requiring owners of major infrastructure to provide 5% of annual revenue to local communities that host these projects. The Government support the intent of the amendment. As stated in our manifesto and the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, we intend to ensure that communities which host clean energy infrastructure benefit from it. I assure noble Lords that the Government are already considering how we would employ that community benefit from energy infrastructure.

The working paper published on 21 May was open for responses until 16 July and sought views on the Government’s proposal to require developers of low-carbon energy infrastructure to contribute to community benefit funds, a similar proposal to that which has been put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The working paper covered a number of issues regarding how that level of benefit should be calculated and how the benefit should be administered. These are the areas covered by the amendment. The Government are analysing the responses and will publish those in due course.

The Government have recently updated their guidance on providing financial benefits for new onshore wind developments, setting out best practice approaches to ensure that developments have a lasting positive impact on communities. The guidance includes models from different types of community benefits and schemes and sets an expectation that developers should provide community benefits of £5,000 per megawatt per year for the operational lifetime of the project. This means that a community living near a 25-megawatt wind farm could receive up to £125,000 per year to spend on local initiatives. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is reassured that the Government support the overall intentions and are developing similar proposals, and that he will not move his amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, was not here to move his amendment but, as other noble Lords have commented on it, I should respond. His amendment seeks to mandate the provision of financial benefits from new and historic onshore drilling works for shale gas. In May, the Government published a working paper which outlined proposals for the introduction of a mandatory requirement for developers of low-carbon infrastructure. These responses are being analysed, but the proposals did not include financial benefits from shale gas works, as there is currently no fracking for shale gas anywhere in the UK and the Government intend to ban fracking for good. In addition, our proposal on community benefits will not apply retrospectively. We wish to minimise the risk of the introduction of a mandatory community benefits scheme creating funding issues or delays by imposing new requirements at a late stage of development. We hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is satisfied with that answer.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. She has mentioned the working paper in relation to several amendments, including mine. I welcome the words that she has given and the direction of travel. However, we have the usual phrase, that “in due course” something will come forward. The Minister may not have the answer to hand, but if there is a possibility of bringing forward those proposals in time for Report in relation to this group of amendments, it would be welcomed across the House.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I accept the noble Earl’s point. I am not fond of “in due course”, as he well knows—he has heard me say that many times. I will endeavour to find out what the timescales are likely to be. It usually depends on the level of responses that have been received and the complexity of dealing with them, but I will respond in due course.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer on the variety of schemes and community benefits, bill discounts and similar. I am disappointed that she does not think that it is necessary to talk about generation. Not all projects are like Sizewell. Not all these potential new projects generate local jobs, although I am sure that the community will be very grateful for the ones that will be generated by Sizewell. Nevertheless, conscious of the time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 82C withdrawn.

Amendments 82D to 85A not moved.

Clause 26 agreed.

Amendment 86 not moved.

Clause 27 agreed.

Clause 28: Use of forestry estate for renewable electricity

Amendment 87

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

87: Clause 28, page 39, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) For renewable energy produced from biomass, the forestry authority may only supply or use forestry materials that are deemed to be waste.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents public forestry resources being used for the establishment of large scale biomass operations.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I declare a couple of interests that are relevant to this Bill. I chair the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership and Aldustria Limited, a company which is into grid battery storage. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for adding their names to Amendment 87.

When I first read through this Bill before Second Reading, I went through all the big things in Part 3 and all the stuff that we have been debating. Hiding in plain sight was Clause 28 on forestry authorities—primarily one thinks of the Forestry Commission here in England—and how their land should be used. It is entitled in such a way, with renewable energy, that you think, “Oh, that sounds good: more renewable energy and forestry. What could possibly go wrong?” Then you look down this clause and think, “Hang on a minute: what goes together most with renewable energy and forestry?” Of course, the answer that springs out is biomass; what else can you do with trees for renewable energy than to produce biomass? I am not totally against biomass for renewable energy, but it is an area about which we have to be very careful.

If we read through the rest of Clause 28 to see the definitions of renewable energy, interestingly we find that it does not actually say what they are but what they are not. It goes through nuclear energy, so we are not likely to have any small modular reactors on Forestry Commission sites in the near future, and it goes through all the fossil fuels and peat, all of which is good. However, it does not mention biomass within those definitions. As we know, biomass has its issues. It is interesting that we are debating this clause at a point when the Financial Conduct Authority has looked at the behaviour of Drax over something of a completely different scale and in a different place. It shows that one of the difficult areas with biomass is how you manage it, have accountability and make sure that, if it is used, it is managed in the right way. So there are a number of issues around biomass, all of which we know. The forestry authorities have a number of ancient woodlands, which certainly should not be touched, and there are issues around clear-cutting and soil quality, particularly if we were to take away all the cuttings—the branches and fallen trees—in that natural forestry.

I am aware that the Minister will say to me—it is a positive part of this clause—that activities carried out under this clause would have to have an environmental benefit. It goes on to mention those environmental benefits to nature and other areas, and I welcome that. However, my concern—hence why I have pursued this amendment—is that it could be said that all those things would be helped if we moved more quickly towards net zero. That is true, and so you could construct an argument that having renewable energy through biomass would reduce climate change, which is positive for all those other natural environment considerations.

I am really trying to find out from the Minister—she gave part of this answer in writing after Second Reading but I want to investigate it further—what exactly was in the Government’s mind when they wrote this. Are they going to cover Forestry Commission land with solar panels or wind turbines? I am trying to understand what this allows and what those organisations’ management plans for renewable energy are likely to be. I can accept, as I put in the amendment, that waste product is acceptable. Having said that, even residual and dead timber can itself be a good springboard for biodiversity. I am really trying to find out the intent behind this, because it is one area that could go very wrong if we are not careful. I beg to move.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. There is widespread concern about the sustainable sourcing of all Drax wood pellets, and it is incredibly important that we ensure there are safeguards in place around the potential for the wrongful use of forestry land. As the noble Lord said, we learned just last week that Drax is now under investigation by the financial watchdog. In the past, it has been fined £25 million for supplying inaccurate data. So while the Government’s decision to reduce the subsidies for Drax is welcome, it will remain the UK’s largest emitting power station, whatever we do. We have to be watchful.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report in May, covering DESNZ’s draft regulations to extend the regime for Drax, highlighted concerns about the ability of Ofgem and DESNZ to hold Drax to account on the sustainability question and the enforcement of environmental compliance. It noted that “key documents” relating to

“Drax’s supply chain processes and reporting practices have not been published”.

A lot of this comes from whistleblowers within the company. The Public Accounts Committee has also criticised the weaknesses in the current assurances and enforcement processes.

19:15

However, the UK has a shortage of UK forest biomass. The NAO estimates that the UK is importing 9.1 million tonnes of wood pellets for use in energy production. As has been described on the Floor of this House, this is an insane situation where we cut down trees in British Columbia and western America, cut them up and ship them across the Atlantic to be burned in Yorkshire—which seems to have a big presence here tonight.

Sustainable biomass is going to become harder to get, not easier, so what does the Minister envisage will happen? Will we see an uptick in Forestry Commission resources being used for biomass energy? While I hope that this will not be the case—I am very dubious about the basis on which you accept that biomass power generation is ever low carbon, since wood, coal and oil are, in essence, made of the same things—if that is something that we are going to see, I hope the Government will accept that protections need to be put in place and that any resources used comply completely with all the sustainability criteria and support what is in this amendment.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who, alas, cannot be with us today. I declare my interest as chair the Labour Climate and Environment Forum. The noble Lord’s amendment would insert into the Bill a new duty for the Forestry Commission to take all reasonable steps to contribute to the Government’s statutory climate and nature targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021 in exercising its functions related to planning, development and infrastructure.

The Forestry Commission is a really important player in the delivery of these statutory targets and, for that reason, was listed as one of the public authorities in the original Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. His Private Member’s Bill sought to apply these duties to a whole range of public authorities. During the debate on that Bill, the Government said that they were sympathetic to its aims. This would be a real opportunity for the Government to put that sympathy into legislation.

The Forestry Commission is really important to the achievement of the Government’s targets for three reasons. First, it is the single largest landowner and manager of land in the country, with 750,000 hectares under its control. Secondly, it impacts, to a much bigger extent, on other woodland and associated land in its permitting and regulatory role for other landowners. That covers in excess of 3 million hectares of land. So we are talking about an organisation that, if it does the right thing, can have a huge impact and, if it does the wrong thing, can have a huge impact. Thirdly, this amendment would simply be a natural evolution of the development of the Forestry Commission’s role.

The Forestry Commission was invented in 1919, originally with a sole focus on producing timber and encouraging the replanting of Britain’s depleted timber-producing land. This depletion had become incredibly apparent during the First World War. In 1968—we do not move very quickly when it comes to dealing with forestry—the Countryside Act extended its role to include the provision of public amenities, such as footpaths and open spaces. In 1985, the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act extended the Forestry Commission’s role to include conservation. This amendment is simply another step on that road. It would complete the extension and modernising of the Forestry Commission’s duties to include the delivery of the climate and nature targets that have been invented over the last 15 years.

I am sure the Minister will say that the Forestry Commission has already got conservation duties and is already asked to deliver for climate change. Indeed, the biomass issue that has just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raises some considerable questions about the way in which that extension is happening. It is messy and piecemeal. The amendment would provide an unambiguous and up-to-date duty, without which the Government will very likely not deliver their statutory nature and climate targets. We cannot simply depend on some very piecemeal roles for the Forestry Commission to deliver the right thing on that extent of land.

Noble Lords will understand from this introduction that I do not support Amendments 87A and 87B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The spirit of the land use framework, which is under preparation by government at the moment, is that our scarce land supply has to work in a multifunctional way, delivering multiple benefits. Timber production is important because we are a massive net importer of timber, but so are climate change, biodiversity, flood risk management and access for health and well-being. They are also things that the Forestry Commission needs to deliver in the way it manages land and encourages other landowners to deal with their land. The Forestry Commission is absolutely fundamental in that as the biggest landowner in the country.

To revert to the primary purpose of the Forestry Commission being timber production risks going back to the bad old days of regular ranks of subsidised Sitka spruce—I caricature—marching across the countryside on inappropriate sites with poor outcomes for biodiversity and much subsidised by taxpayers. We simply cannot go back there. We need a modern Forestry Commission that delivers those multiple outcomes that the land use framework requires.

I also express agreement with some of Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am not sure if the percentage ceilings that he gives for land to be used for energy infrastructure are the right ones in percentage terms, but there certainly needs to be an appropriate balance between the requirements of timber production, biodiversity, access, recreation and energy infrastructure. His proposed new paragraphs (c) and (d), which would protect against the adverse effects on sites protected for nature conservation and irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland, are absolutely spot on.

I also look forward to the Minister’s response to the very real and important inquiry from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, into what is intended in the Government’s mind for the Forestry Commission and its role in biomass. I am concerned already at some of the species that the Forestry Commission is permitting at the moment—novel species, very fast growing, with as yet untested uses. I would be concerned if we lost sight of the fact that the vast majority of Forestry Commission land, particularly in England, is in fact moving towards being a mixed woodland mix that can do all these other duties like biodiversity, access and public health, rather than simply being species that are aimed at commercial return.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow all the noble Lords who have spoken in this group, and as has already been said, I attach my name to Amendment 87 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and to Amendment 93.

I will seek to add to, rather than repeat, what has already been said, but I just follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in addressing Amendment 88 and agree that I am also not sure about the percentages. I would particularly highlight the ancient woodland, how terribly important and terribly rare that is, and so, as per paragraph (d) in that amendment, there is no way we should be doing anything to damage ancient woodland for energy—it is such a precious resource. Noble Lords have heard me go on before about looking at the trees, but let us also see how incredibly precious the biodiversity in soil in ancient woodland is.

On Amendment 87, I think biomass is now a very dirty word, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rhetorically asked, “What could possibly go wrong?”. Of course, that has already been answered with the single word, “Drax”. The energy think tank Ember said Drax is “the UK’s largest emitter” and that the power

“is more expensive than … gas, it’s more polluting than coal, and more dependent on imports than oil”.

There should be no future biomass at Drax; that is my position and the Green Party’s position. It really is a tragedy that we did not get to that point when we recently had the opportunity.

The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, picked this point up. I signed this amendment, but I am almost tempted towards saying simply that there should be no biomass from forests, because as the noble Baroness asked, what does “waste material” really mean? We are thinking about biodiversity and about organic material that is a resource. If you leave it on the forest floor, it contributes to the generation of soil and provides habitat for a huge variety of organisms. Is that really waste at all? Is there any such thing in a forest? That really is the question. We need to be thinking about having a war on tidiness and the idea that for any sort of planting, we want these nice, neat rows with clean bare soil in between—we need to think about what kind of damage that does.

Particularly in addressing Amendment 93, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a study that was out last year funded by the Forestry Commission. It was entitled Rapid review of evidence on biodiversity in Great Britain’s commercial forests. It found that there is in fact a huge shortage of data and information about what is happening in the biodiversity, specifically in commercial high forests. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised the issue of the land use strategy. How can we be making the plans within this Bill, or indeed for the land use strategy, if we do not have the data about the biodiversity, which this study, funded by the Forestry Commission, identified? I also point to another Forestry Commission study from late 2023, which warned of the risk of catastrophic ecosystem collapse in our forests. This was signed—the work of 42 experts—and pointed out all the risks that our forests face from wind, fire, pests and diseases, and it said there are already forests in continental Europe and North America where we have seen this kind of biological collapse. We need to be thinking about making sure that the Forestry Commission is given the statutory duty, which Amendment 93 would give it, to ensure that it looks after biodiversity as well as, of course, the crucial issue of the climate emergency.

It is worth repeating again that we are incredibly forest and woodland-deprived in the UK by international comparisons. We have to look after what is there for human health, for well-being, for the climate and for nature.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I speak particularly to the amendments that I have tabled in this group. It is fair to say that the Forestry Commission is quite an unusual organisation—it is a non-ministerial department for a start. I was the Minister and then the Secretary of State with the relationship with the Forestry Commission and my experience was that, frankly, I used to get somewhat frustrated, thinking that it should get on and plant some trees. It almost seemed very reluctant to just get on and plant trees. The reason it matters—the clue is in the name, but perhaps the organisation literally cannot see the wood for the trees—is that trying to give the extra targets is important for the Forestry Commission to make sure it is on track in doing what it is supposed to do.

One of those aims is to help achieve the 16% woodland cover target by 2050, which we are at risk of missing. The Forestry Commission should have at the forefront of its mind that its role is about trees, woodland and forests. I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, was concerned about single species, or perhaps only certain species being granted in commercial estates. It is vital that we have mixed forests. One of my concerns was that it seemed like, for any tree that was not a broadleaf, it was almost like it was automatically bad and we should not be touching it. Actually, we need that mix for a combination of factors. There is no question that a broadleaf tree will bring absolutely better biodiversity overall, but so do the pines and, critically, the pines will grow a lot more quickly and contribute far more quickly to issues involving climate and emissions. That is why having a combination tree estate under the UK forestry guidance really matters.

19:30

One of the things that motivated me in the Bill is the fact that this clause has, in essence, a motivation for the Forestry Commission to adopt a lot of renewable energy projects in order to pay for its own expenses and operational costs. I am not convinced that that is what we should necessarily be trying to do; nor do I want to stand in the way of the Forestry Commission engaging in renewable energy projects because quite a lot of its land would encourage that.

However, one of the reasons for me tabling the amendment to suggest replacing lost cover “twofold”—that was, candidly, an arbitrary number—is that I would not like to see, for example, what happened back in 1987 with the hurricane that affected large parts of this country and blew down a million trees in a small part of Suffolk. I was later told by Natural England that it would have opposed any replanting of what was there. I am conscious of what has been said. It may just have been conifer plantations. Nevertheless, they provided a purpose. Would we want instead to see just solar farms in the middle of the magnificent series of forests that we have there? That would not be right. My sense is that, if it is going to press on with this, a lot of it will hopefully be on aspects such as turbines and similar to generate electricity locally or put it into the grid, but it is vital that we continue to make sure that the Forestry Commission thinks that its main job is to plant trees and to help grow our woodland cover across this country.

As a lot has been said about Drax, one of the reasons for mentioning

“a sustainable source of timber”

in the explanatory statement is that I was not solely considering biomass. For what it is worth, if we are going to continue having biomass in this country, why should we not have UK-produced timber being a significant source of that? One of the things that we need to make sure we are doing in future is moving to having a lot more wood in our construction of homes. Although most British people love bricks, stone and similar—I should say “English and Welsh people”, as a significant proportion of the housing stock in Scotland has wood as a principal material in its construction—we need to do more of that in this country. It would be good for carbon more generally. It would also mean that we consider what to do, with it still being at risk of being a limited resource, in terms of the construction industry more broadly for all the other infrastructure that we want to do.

I support Amendment 88. It would be a useful way to focus the mind of the forestry commissioners. It is fair to say that I do not necessarily agree with everything that has been said about why that could not still be seen to be a secondary duty in terms of renewable energy and that we make sure that at least there is one group of people. By the way, about 10 foresters work as civil servants in government; the Ministry of Defence has the most because it has the most land of any government department. It is important that we keep very much at the forefront of our minds that forests are good and woodland is good, and we definitely need the Forestry Commission not to be diverted when that should be its primary purpose.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

In this group on the Forestry Commission’s actions and duties, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 88 and in support of Amendment 93, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I support pretty much all of the amendments in this group. This has been an interesting conversation on not only the role and development of the Forestry Commission but its relationship with hosting energy, including what safeguards and protections need to happen as we go down that road and what our forests will look like in the future under climate change.

My amendment is designed to put in place some safeguards on the new powers granted to the appropriate forestry authorities for energy generation, transmission and storage on public forestry land. At the heart of all this is a balance between what we do to hit our climate and nature change duties and what we must do not to further damage our ecology and biodiversity. It is fine to make use of our forests for these things, but it must not have detrimental impacts. That is what I have tried to balance in my amendment.

The commission gains unprecedented powers to host and sell energy from renewable installations on land under its management. Yet, when I looked at Clause 28, there were no clear legal protections for most precious habitats. My worry is that, without such safeguards, we will see renewable energy infrastructure sited in ways that harm our ancient woodlands, our carbon rich peatlands and other priority habitats that the Government have a duty to protect, particularly under our 30 by 30 biodiversity targets.

I am looking for a reasonable balance between timber production and nature conservation. That reasonable balance is in the Bill, but what does it mean? It is not purely defined in the Bill, which was also a worry for me. In response to that, my amendment tries to take a pragmatic way forward. I note the issue raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Bennett, about the percentages. My amendment says that no more than 2% of all Forestry Commission land and no more than 5% of any individual site could be given to energy storage and development. I will go away and look at that. At the moment, there is no cap on that at all. Noble Lords may not agree with my percentages but putting a percentage in the amendment is a whole lot better than having no percentages in there at all; however, I will go away and look at whether there is another way in which that might be done.

This issue is particularly acute in our national parks and where our national parks and Forestry Commission land co-exist; in the New Forest, that is 47%, while, in Northumberland, it is 15%. These are treasured landscapes. Energy development must be proportionate, consistent with statutory park purposes, subject to democratic oversight, not impacting on leisure facilities and making sure that our national parks authorities have some say in and control over these things. These are important matters.

My amendment does not seek to reject the role of using Forestry Commission land to help with our energy; it just seeks to put some safeguards on that. I will go away and consider my amendment. This debate has been useful for me, and I will reflect on this, but there need to be more safeguards in the Bill—of that I am still certain. I would be very happy to work with the Minister between now and Report to see whether there are ways in which we could do that together; that would be welcome.

This has already been discussed in detail but, turning briefly to Amendment 93, I have supported the Private Member’s Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, at every stage of its passage through the House. It is absolutely essential that we update our climate change legislation. In the last debate on his Bill, I said that it was the equivalent to the Government being the general and knowing what the military strategy was but failing to tell any of their own troops. The Government need to work with all these public bodies. These things are so pressing and so complicated. The Government are holding on to all this stuff and not passing the orders down and empowering others, including the public bodies. The Forestry Commission owns 5% of all public land. It needs a duty to enhance and meet our climate change and biodiversity targets; it is silly that it does not have that.

I am sorry. I am a little buoyed up having come through the Crown Estate Bill and the Great British Energy Bill, where we managed to work with Ministers and get such provisions added to the Bills. It is on my agenda to do that in this Bill; that makes sense. I would like to work with the Minister, but it is a minimum for me that a similar amendment to the ones in those Bills is added to this Bill. If the Government want to make use of forestry land for energy generation, that is fine, but with that comes some responsibilities; those responsibilities include that this duty should added.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much approve of what the Government are doing in this clause. I think they should go a bit further. I want to illustrate this in the context of the challenges faced by southern broadleaved woodlands, which existed for many centuries as places of industry. People made things there; a lot of products came out of it. The whole biodiversity of that ecosystem comes out of a continuous pattern of use. It is interesting to see, for instance with NEP, how little biodiversity is left in the woodland when the woodland ceases to be of value. All the biodiversity there, which is considerable, has moved outside. Our woodland biodiversity is important.

The Government should be organising themselves, and the Forestry Commission, so that we can see a restoration of a commercial purpose to the southern broadleaved woodlands, particularly in England. We cannot at the moment rely on forestry. All the species that we used to grow in profusion have no big current use. Our neighbouring forest in Eastbourne was planted to beech 100 years ago. When they are felling it now, 100 year-old trees are going to firewood. There is no market now for really high-quality beech.

In the small wood that I own, oak is the main crop. We have acute oak decline coming in now. You are asked to wait 100 years for oak. If it is all going to rot away before then, there is no outlet. We really need a system that can take general wood output—branches, brash, thinnings, uneconomic trees—and turn it into something useful. The outlet available at the moment is energy.

The Forestry Commission is hugely important in this as it has a breadth of organisation and understanding, whereas the ownership of woodland tends to be extremely fragmented in the south. It can bring a lot in motivating, organising, inspiring and controlling when it comes to looking after biodiversity principles.

I am very pleased to see the direction in which the Government are moving here. My understanding is that this clause is written in a way that allows the Forestry Commission to work with partners in achieving its objectives; it does not have to do everything itself. However, I urge the Government to make one change to this: not just to look at renewable power but to look at renewable feedstocks for industry.

If we are to replace oil as the feedstock for our chemical industry, we need to go after every available source of concentrated carbon, and woods produce quite a lot of that. In looking at the powers that Forestry Commission has under the Bill—there are already young British companies using wood products to produce jet fuel and similar things—we need to add that extra aspect: not just renewable energy, but renewable feedstocks for industry.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group speak to the vital role of our nation’s forests in delivering both environmental and societal benefits. As I begin, I refer the Committee to my registered interests, in particular as a forest owner and as a developer of new forestry and woodlands.

Turning first to Amendment 87, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I recognise its thoughtful intent. It seeks to ensure that public forestry resources are not disproportionately used to supply large-scale biomass operations. We are sympathetic to the amendment’s aims and to many of the comments made in this short debate. The responsible management of public woodland must prioritise environmental protection and long-term sustainability, but the picture is complex. Biomass plays a role in our renewable energy mix, and there may be cases, such as thinning or disease control, where repurposing woodland material is practical and sustainable.

This is ultimately a question of balance. I ask the Minister to outline how existing safeguards ensure that public forestry will not be placed under undue pressure from commercial biomass demand. I also note, as my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out, that the overwhelming use of felled broadleaves is currently for home heating. Without the wood-burning market, mature forestry economics are undermined in these situations. It would be a shame to lose that incentive for managing our native broadleaf plantations and natural woodland.

19:45

Amendments 87A and 87B in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey raise important points about the core purpose of the Forestry Commission. Amendment 87A seeks to clarify that the commission’s duties under Section 1(2) are considered secondary to its primary role, which is the planting of trees and serving as a sustainable source of timber.

We acknowledge the intention behind these amendments to ensure that the traditional functions of the Forestry Commission are not diluted, and that tree planting and timber production remain at the heart of its mission. I have many years of experience of dealing with the Forestry Commission, and I pay testament to that organisation for its single-minded and effective focus on managing forestry and developing and encouraging the development of new forests and woodlands. We would welcome clarity from the Minister on how these proposed duties would interact with the commission’s existing role in biodiversity, climate resilience and landscape restoration. The challenge, as ever, is in balancing competing land uses while meeting ambitious environmental goals.

On Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I again acknowledge the motivations behind the proposal. It seeks to prevent overuse of public land by the forestry authority and to protect vulnerable habitats, particularly ancient woodland and sites of ecological significance.

We all agree that such sites must be afforded strong protection. However, in my view, the protections already afforded are more than sufficient. My own experience is that the safeguards applied to new forest and woodland developments in England make the planting of meaningful sites well-nigh impossible already. Placing further obstacles in its path could be a retrograde step.

I therefore look to the Minister to clarify whether the existing regulatory frameworks, such as the environmental impact assessments and habitat safeguards, already provide a sufficient backstop. I also ask the Minister what changes this Government would consider to make the development of new forests easier and more streamlined.

Finally, Amendment 93, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and ably introduced by the noble Baroness, would introduce a statutory duty on the Forestry Commission to contribute to targets set under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021, as well as to adaptation strategies.

Having been lucky enough to hear Richard Stanford, CEO of the Forestry Commission, speak, I ask the Minister: what consultations do this Government have with the Forestry Commission about the extent of the contribution already being made by forestry to wider societal goals?

The Forestry Commission is well aware of the benefits of woodland and forestry to carbon sequestration, biodiversity gain, flood management, water quality and the management and protection of our cultural heritage that well-planned management and creation of forestry can deliver. Those benefits are inextricably linked with its core mission of planting and looking after trees; I question the need for them to be laid out separately. In reality, I fear that this amendment could create confusion and have unforeseen consequences in the medium to longer term. The UK Forestry Standard already incorporates best practice around these objectives, and is underpinned by the realities of the Woodland Carbon Code.

I echo comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Young, on the biodiversity measurement in productive forestry as well as in non- productive forestry. The data is simply inadequate at the moment, and the biodiversity net-gain calculations supplied by Defra simply do not work for forestry.

I also support my noble friend Lady Coffey’s point on the rates of growth of productive forestry and the rate at which they can contribute to carbon sequestration versus native broadleaves. It would be wrong to demonise these trees; they are useful for bringing down atmospheric carbon much more rapidly than native broadleaves, as well as providing a valuable and productive source of building materials.

There is real benefit in the Government working with the Forestry Commission to recognise the wider contribution already being made to our country from the co-benefits delivered alongside timber production, and listening to the Forestry Commission on how new forest developments can be enabled on a greater scale.

In conclusion, the amendments reflect a shared desire across this House to ensure that our forests are designed and managed sustainably and responsibly. As the role of forestry continues to evolve, whether in climate policy, nature recovery or renewable energy, it is right that we scrutinise the balance between economic, ecological and social priorities. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I do not have the hands-on experience of managing forestry that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, does. My mother’s family home was in the middle of Savernake Forest, so it is very close to my heart, and the three elderly uncles who lived there when I was growing up worked in the forest in exactly the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. They did active work for the Forestry Commission: the kind of work that the noble Lord was describing.

Clause 28 sets out to amend the Forestry Act 1967 to grant the forestry authorities powers to pursue electricity generation from renewable sources within the public forest estate. Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, seeks to restrict forestry authorities to supplying or using only waste materials in the context of renewable electricity generation from biomass. I completely understand that the intention behind the amendment is to prevent large-scale biomass operations on forest estate and inappropriate harvesting practices in the name of renewable energy, but I suggest that the concern is already addressed in statute by the balancing duty laid out in the Forestry Act 1967.

Clause 28 of the Bill applies the balancing duty specifically to renewable electricity, which means that forestry authorities are required to balance their renewable electricity functions with their forestry responsibilities and the conservation of natural beauty and flora and fauna of special interest. If the noble Lord is concerned that, without his amendment, the Forestry Commission would be able to engage in large-scale deforestation for the purpose of biomass, the Government’s categorical view is that that would not be consistent with the commission’s statutory duties.

Furthermore, I believe that the amendment would have unintended consequences that could constrain routine woodland management practices, including existing operations that contribute to the health of existing woodlands and the sustainable supply of biomass. Forestry authorities are committed to delivering the sustainable management of our forests and meeting the requirements set out in the UK forestry standards. These standards are upheld through processes such as thinning, where selected young trees are removed to enhance the quality and health of the broader woodland area—I think the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, referred to this. Through that process, all the material produced could be used for biomass. The proposed amendment could have the unintended effect of producing a narrow interpretation of “waste” that could exclude material most suitable for energy generation, such as material produced through the thinning process. This would limit the uses of forest materials and ultimately would be wasteful in itself.

Finally, it is important to note that sustainably sourced biomass can play an important role in our renewable energy systems, in transitioning away from fossil fuels and in meeting our net zero targets. Existing frameworks and duties provide a high bar for the Forestry Commission’s role as manager of the nation’s forests. These existing statutory duties underpin the commission’s current practices, including the sustainable supply of biomass, already operating at a smaller scale, as part of routine and acceptable day-to-day woodland management practices. The Forestry Commission has no plans to engage in the development of large-scale biomass technologies in the forests that it manages. It is for these reasons that I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

I will consider Amendments 97A, 87B and 88A together. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendments, which aim to protect the forest estate from adverse impacts as a result of renewable electricity activities. I reiterate that our public forests are a precious national asset providing vital environmental, social and economic benefits, and this legislation will not change that fact.

The noble Baroness mentioned using wood in construction. Just before Recess, I visited an office building just across the Thames from here that was constructed using timber. It is a fantastic building. It looks out onto a small woodland as well, which makes it even better. So that is an important factor.

The forestry authorities’ key statutory duties remain to promote the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation, the management of forests and the production and supply of timber and other forest products. The additional revenue stream produced from the sale of electricity from renewable energy developments will enhance their ability to deliver their existing objectives.

Amendments 87A and 87B would require the forestry authorities to replace any woodland lost to renewable electricity development by double, with this being planted as near as possible to the original site. I reassure the noble Baroness that the size of the public forest estate will not reduce as a result of renewable energy developments. The estimated footprint of renewable electricity projects will be relatively small and there will be no net loss of woodland area. Renewable energy installations are successfully integrated into woodlands in many areas of Scotland. Scottish officials explained to mine that, generally speaking, where trees might be felled for, say, access purposes during the construction phase, they can be replanted once the access is no longer required.

It is the Government’s view that the amendment is unnecessary as there is already existing statutory provision to ensure that impact is mitigated in both the Forestry Act and the planning and development process. Therefore, permanent deforestation at concerning scale for the purpose of renewable electricity development would not be consistent with the Forestry Commission’s existing statutory duties.

Furthermore, I believe the amendments could have the unintended effect of limiting the ability to utilise new and potentially more suitable land to create new woodland habitats when undertaking compensatory tree planting. Some locations are less suitable for woodland creation, and replanting woodland as close as possible to the installation may not align with ecological and other environmental and timber-supply priorities.

The amendment may also limit the ability to pursue restoration measures beyond compensatory tree planting that could deliver greater environmental value. The Forestry Commission will ensure that compensatory planting takes place where woodland is permanently lost to renewable energy projects, but the planning process can often identify more effective ways of enhancing ecology and biodiversity. We would not want these alternative approaches to be constrained as a result of this legislation.

Amendment 88A specifically requests that Clause 28(6) is removed completely. The intended effect of this is to prevent regulations being made for purposes beyond those explicitly set out in the Bill. Many examples of the provisions set out in subsection (6) can be found in any large Bill. They are technical provisions that do not affect the fundamental purpose for which regulations can be made. In this case, that fundamental purpose is determined by subsection (5). I reassure the noble Baroness that, if regulations were to be made in reliance on the power in subsection (6) to make, for example, incidental or supplementary provisions, the scope of those regulations could not be broadened in the way that her amendment appears to be concerned about.

Further, the reference in subsection (6) to the ability to make different provisions for different purposes does not mean that any of those purposes can go beyond the general purpose set out in subsection (5). They cannot.

I note for completeness that the Government are currently reviewing subsection (5) in response to recommendations made in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill. I therefore do not believe that the amendment is necessary for the intended effect. Given the existing provisions and the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness is reassured and I hope she will agree to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would place a limit on the amount of the public forest estate that forestry authorities may use for renewable electricity projects. I recognise that our public forests are a national asset and that this amendment has been made in the spirit of protecting them. However, the existing statutory duties and regulatory frameworks will prevent excessive development of the forest estate. The estimated footprint of these renewable electricity projects will be relatively small. There will be no net loss to woodland area or the size of the public forest estate as a result of the renewable electricity projects. Furthermore, any renewable electricity developments will be subject to the relevant planning process and considered against the forestry authorities’ existing statutory balancing duty set out in the Forestry Act 1967.

20:00

It should be noted that public land being managed by forestry authorities in Scotland is being used to generate renewable electricity at commercial scale, and these developments are subject to no such restriction. The authorities there have been trusted to develop renewable electricity projects on the land they manage, balancing conservation with the need to lower our national carbon emissions and combat climate change—one of the greatest threats to our precious environment.

This amendment also seeks to prevent forestry authorities indirectly or directly causing any adverse effects to irreplaceable habitats, as well as to designated habitat sites or sites of special scientific interest, as a consequence of renewable developments. As far as habitat sites and sites of special scientific interest are concerned, there are existing designation-specific duties on all public bodies, including the Forestry Commission, as well as procedural requirements, that provide robust protections. For sites of special scientific interest, the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that developments likely to have an adverse effect on these sites should not normally be permitted. Further, the Forestry Commission has a statutory duty in exercising its functions to take reasonable steps to further the conservation and enhancement of the special features of SSSIs.

When it comes to habitat sites, including special protection areas and special areas of conservation, existing statutory requirements restrict public bodies, including forestry authorities and planning authorities, from undertaking or consenting to activity that might adversely affect site integrity. These are highly protected sites and renewable electricity developments that could adversely affect their integrity could not be taken forward unless strict derogation conditions were met. The National Planning Policy Framework is also clear that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, local planning authorities should refuse planning permission for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats. Given these existing protections, I hope the noble Lord is reassured and will agree not to press his amendment.

Finally, Amendment 93 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and spoken to very ably by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. The amendment would place a statutory duty on forestry authorities to take all reasonable steps to contribute to biodiversity targets set under the Environment Act 2021 and targets set under the Climate Change Act 2008, and to contribute to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act 2008.

The driving force behind Clause 28 is the need to increase the amount of renewable electricity that can be generated in the UK. This will enable the forestry authorities to increase their contributions to government targets set under the Climate Change Act. The forestry authorities are required to undertake afforestation and conservation by law, and, by their very nature, they are already providing significant benefits to help tackle biodiversity loss and climate change. It is therefore my view that this amendment is unnecessary.

With regard to biodiversity targets, the balancing duty in the Forestry Act 1967 requires forestry authorities to endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between forestry matters and the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, and the conservation of flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features of special interest. The Forestry Commission also has responsibilities to consider and act to improve the environment via the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, as strengthened by the Environment Act. This requires public authorities, including the Forestry Commission, to consider and take action to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. In doing so, they must have regard to the relevant local nature recovery strategy, as well as to any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.

The Forestry Commission has ambitious net-zero targets, which it is working to meet via several significant projects for woodland creation and peatland restoration currently under way across the public forest estate. In 2024, Forestry England, the Forestry Commission’s executive agency responsible for managing the nation’s forests, delivered £1.8 billion in natural capital outcomes through activities including newly created woodlands, key species reintroduction programmes and a 6,000 hectare rewilding programme.

In the context of climate adaptation planning under the Climate Change Act, the Forestry Commission already provides reports on how it is adapting to or proposes to adapt to climate change. Furthermore, where renewable electricity development on the public forest estate is consented to through the development consent process for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the national policy statements will apply. The national policy statement for renewable energy stipulates that the Secretary of State should have regard to the aims, goals and targets, including targets set under the Environment Act 2021, of the Government’s environmental improvement plan and other existing and future measures and targets.

The overarching national policy statement for energy also references the importance of the Government’s net-zero commitment and efforts to fight climate change. The statement requires that, in considering any proposed development, the Secretary of State should take into account its potential benefits, including its contribution to meeting the need for low-carbon energy infrastructure, which will play a crucial role as the UK decarbonises its economy. Given these existing provisions, I hope the noble Lord is reassured and I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will not press the amendment on his behalf.

I will reflect further on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the development of new forests and on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lady Young on the measurement of BNG for forests. I will come back to them on those points.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

The Minister gave a very impressive list of different pieces of statute, guidance and legislation from right across the spectrum that guides the Forestry Commission in its work. I just want to plant the idea in her head that perhaps the time has come for some legislation that consolidates all of those requirements. It is now nearly 60 years since we last had a forestry Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will pass my noble friend’s comments on to the Defra Minister.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, if this was not the House of Lords, I think I would ask for a round of applause for the Minister. That was very concentrated information over about 15 minutes without even a breath, so my congratulations to her.

Clearly, there is another debate that needs to happen. I am absolutely fascinated by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that the Forestry Commission is not too strongly into planting trees. That could just explain the fact that we are rather behind on our tree planting targets in this country. I really welcomed the in-depth, practical view of how the Forestry Commission worked from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.

As far as my amendment is concerned, I can see from what the Minister said in answer to one of the other amendments that the role model here may be what is happening in Scotland. I will look at that further and try to understand further what the Government are trying to achieve in terms of the Forestry Commission and renewable energy. I may or may not come back to this on Report, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 87 withdrawn.

Amendments 87A to 88C not moved.

Clause 28 agreed.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.48 pm.