Monday 20th October 2025
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-I(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (20 Oct 2025)
22:53 - Division on Amendment 43 - Ayes: 32 / Noes: 57 - Amendment 43 disagreed.
Baroness Kramer
“Whistleblowing and oversight for nationally significant infrastructure projects(1) For the purposes of this Act, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) is responsible for receiving and investigating protected disclosures in connection with nationally significant infrastructure projects.(2) In particular, NISTA is responsible for—(a) receiving disclosures of information from individuals or organisations relating to suspected misconduct, mismanagement, breach of environmental regulations, or any other matter of public interest connected to nationally significant infrastructure projects;(b) assessing whether such disclosures fall within its remit and merit investigation;(c) undertaking investigations where appropriate and referring matters to relevant regulatory, law enforcement, or oversight bodies;(d) providing advice and guidance to individuals considering making protected disclosures in relation to such projects;(e) reporting on the nature, volume, and outcome of disclosures received, with appropriate protections for confidentiality and whistleblower anonymity;(f) establishing and maintaining a framework setting out the protections afforded to whistleblowers, including remedies for individuals who suffer detriment as a result of making a disclosure, and procedures for seeking redress.(3) For the purposes of this section, “protected disclosures” are those that meet the conditions set out in section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (disclosures qualifying for protection), as they relate to the planning, development, or operation of nationally significant infrastructure projects.(4) NISTA is responsible for ensuring it has—(a) an appropriate governance structure;(b) clear processes and criteria for assessing disclosures;(c) mechanisms for collaboration with other statutory regulators or planning authorities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment places responsibility on the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) to receive, investigate, and oversee whistleblowing disclosures relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects, ensuring protections for whistleblowers and coordination with relevant regulators.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I recognise there is a lot of business to get through tonight, so I will be brief.
When whistleblowing was discussed in Committee, speakers from around the Chamber—except, sadly, the Government—seemed to recognise that the current whistleblowing framework is unfit for purpose. It is the framework that left whistleblowers on HS2 and Crossrail at best sidelined and at worst silenced and persecuted. The cost to the taxpayer because trouble was covered up and not nipped in the bud and managed has run into billions. This has happened on many other transport and power projects where problems are covered up and exposed too late.
In Committee, as I have done before, I proposed a new whistleblowing framework, including an office of the whistleblower. In that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, constructively suggested that, instead of a separate office, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, NISTA, could be an effective body in which to place whistleblowing powers and a whistleblowing channel related to infrastructure. A redrafted amendment, Amendment 22, now reflects that proposal.
I still have a preference for a single office of the whistleblower under the Cabinet Office, but I am also a realist. Change on that scale will not be achieved anytime soon. However, if we launch a new drive for infrastructure—which we all recognise is essential for growth—without fixing the whistleblowing framework, we would be fooling ourselves if we expect not to repeat the scandals we have seen historically. Cover-ups will continue and will seriously damage the growth agenda. I hope that the Government, with this revision, will respond more constructively to the issue of whistleblowing and to the approach that places the framework inside NISTA.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as I did recently in the Moses Room on the same issue of whistleblowing. The noble Baroness is our pioneer, expert and leader on whistleblowing. I signed this amendment because it is important to demonstrate that this is an issue of broad concern.
The noble Baroness made clearly the case that we have huge problems with effectively and cost-effectively delivering major projects so that they do what they say they will do on the tin. The people who are most likely to know that something is going wrong are people within the organisation. It is terribly important to ensure that whistleblowers feel safe and will not tear their life apart if they come forward to report the issue.
The noble Baroness, helped by other Peers, has come up with a creative solution for NISTA to pick up this role in this context. I therefore hope that we will hear some movement from the Government on the issue.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, as we said in Committee, Amendment 22, from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is a clear and well-intentioned proposal that raises important questions about how individuals can share their concerns relating to NSIPs. However, as we noted previously, establishing independent bodies through amendments is not straightforward. The former Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, addressed that point, and the Government have set out their enthusiasm to work with organisations that support whistleblowers. We will hold the Government to account on that assurance and continue to work with your Lordships’ House to ensure that whistleblowers are protected.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, proposes that the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—NISTA—be given a new responsibility to receive, assess, investigate where appropriate and oversee whistleblowing disclosures related to nationally significant infrastructure projects. The amendment seeks to ensure appropriate protection for whistleblowers and co-ordination with relevant regulators and planning authorities.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue and have listened carefully to her remarks. While I recognise the intention behind the amendment, I must say again that I do not share the view that there is evidence of whistleblowing being a current, widespread concern within the NSIP regime. As she will know, there is already a well-established framework of prescribed persons and bodies to whom whistleblowers may turn, independent of their employer, as provided for under the Employment Rights Act 1996. They include organisations covering areas such as environmental protection, health and safety, transport, utilities and local government, which are of direct relevance to NSIPs.
Adding NISTA to this list would duplicate existing functions already carried out by regulators, such as the Environment Agency, which have the appropriate expertise and statutory powers. Given this existing framework, we believe that adding another body to the list would create a duplication of roles and, in any event, would not require primary legislation to achieve, as new persons or bodies can already be prescribed through Section 43F of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In the light of this, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am saddened by the Government’s response. The next time we have a major project and there is a major scandal, they will have to take ownership of it. They looked at the framework that delivered us the problems on HS2. The names of the whistleblowers are now public: Doug Thornton and others reported that financials had been distorted, misrepresented and covered up, which delayed the making of a series of appropriate decisions on HS2. In the end, they were fundamental in requiring the truncation of what had been a much larger scheme. Crossrail is a similar example. Until about eight weeks before it was due to open, nobody in political decision-making knew that the project had fallen into deep trouble. It ended up being delayed by four years and was £4 billion over budget. This is repeated again and again. We have had similar problems with Hinkley Point and many other projects. That is what the current framework, which the Minister defends, actually delivers.
If the nettle is not grasped, we will see the same experiences again. Even if it is in only 10% of the projects that are anticipated for the future and that will be relevant to the growth agenda, the consequences will be significant. The existing framework, no matter what it says on paper, has demonstrated that it is unfit. Look at the Post Office scandal, the contaminated blood scandal, the issues in the NHS, the PPI scandal and the series of financial scandals—the framework does not work.
I ask the Minister to take the issue away, speak with some of his colleagues and see what can be done to make sure that, at least within the context of infrastructure, there is an effective channel that works. It must provide protection for whistleblowers in a real way, not just on paper, and lead to the necessary investigations. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Viscount Hanworth
“Decisions in cases of development consent orders for critical national priority projects(1) In the Planning Act 2008, after section 117 insert—“117A Orders granting development consent: critical national priority projects(1) Schedule 3A applies to an order granting development consent for a project that is a critical national priority if, at any time before the order was made, the applicant for the order had made a request in writing to the Secretary of State that Schedule 3A should apply to the order.(2) A project is a critical national priority if a national policy statement that has effect in relation to the application for development consent for the project specifically identifies the project as a critical national priority.”.(2) After Schedule 3 to the Planning Act 2008, insert—“Schedule 3AParliamentary confirmation of orders granting development consent for critical national priority projectsOrders granting development consent subject to this Schedule
1 (1) An order granting development consent to which this Schedule applies may only come into force if approved by an Act of Parliament passed in accordance with this Schedule.(2) Sections 130 to 132 (special parliamentary procedure in relation to National Trust land, commons, open spaces, etc) do not apply to an order granting development consent to which this Schedule applies.Introduction of order confirmation Bill
2 (1) As soon as practicable after making an order granting development consent to which this Schedule applies, the Secretary of State must introduce into Parliament a Bill for confirmation of the order, which is to be treated as a public Bill.(2) The Bill must include the order as a Schedule to the Bill and must be accompanied by an Environmental Report prepared by the Secretary of State.(3) The Environmental Report mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) must set out a summary of the likely significant effects on the environment of the project granted development consent by the order and the main measures proposed to be taken to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects of the project.Petitions against order confirmation Bill
3 (1) If, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which a Bill to which this Schedule applies is introduced into either House of Parliament, a petition is deposited against the Bill in that House, the petition stands referred to the Chairmen for examination in accordance with this paragraph and Standing Orders.(2) Within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which any such petition is deposited, the Secretary of State responsible for the Bill or the applicant for the order may deposit a memorial objecting to the petition, or any part of the petition, being certified as proper to be received, stating specifically the grounds of their objection.(3) As soon as practicable after the expiration of the period of seven days mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), the Chairmen must take into consideration all petitions referred to them under sub-paragraph (1) and any memorial deposited under sub-paragraph (2), and if the Chairmen are satisfied with respect to any such petition that the provisions of this paragraph and of Standing Orders have been complied with in respect of the petition, or part of the petition, they must certify that the petition or the specified part of it, is proper to be received.(4) The Chairmen must not certify that a petition, or any part of a petition, is proper to be received if the petition, or that part of the petition, relates to matters considered during the examination of the application for the order conducted under Chapter 4 of Part 6 of this Act and subsequently by the Secretary of State under Chapter 5 of that Part, other than—(a) matters relating to sections 130 to 132 (special parliamentary procedure in relation to National Trust land, commons, open spaces, etc), or(b) matters relating to the compulsory acquisition of any interest in or right over land provided for by the order.(5) In respect of every Bill to which this Schedule applies, the Chairmen must report whether any petitions have been presented against it and, if so, what petitions or parts of them, have been certified as proper to be received and whether any amendment to the Bill proposed by the petitions would, if made, alter the scope of the Bill or affect the interests of persons other than the petitioners; and subject to Standing Orders, every such report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.Proceedings following petitioning period
4 (1) Where a petition or part of a petition has been certified by the Chairmen under paragraph 3 as proper to be received, the Bill—(a) after being read a second time in the House in which it is presented, is to be referred to a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament for the purposes of the consideration of that petition or part of it, except where either House has resolved within the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which the report of the Chairmen referred to in paragraph 3 is laid before it, that the petition or part of the petition should not be so referred,(b) after it has been reported by the joint committee, is to be ordered to be considered in the House in which it was presented as if it had been reported by a committee of that House, and (c) when it has been read a third time and passed by that House, is to be treated as having passed through all its stages up to and including committee stage in the second House.(2) A joint committee shall consist of three members of the House of Commons and three members of the House of Lords, in each case to be nominated by the House’s Committee of Selection within 10 sitting days of the Chairmen’s report having been laid before both Houses of Parliament under paragraph 3.(3) Where no such petition or part of any petition has been so certified by the Chairmen under paragraph 3 as proper to be received—(a) the Bill is, after its presentation, to be treated as having passed all its stages up to and including committee in the House in which it is presented,(b) the Bill is to be ordered to be considered in that House as if it had been reported from a committee of that House, and(c) when the Bill has been read a third time and passed in that House, the like proceedings on the Bill are to be deemed to have been taken, and to be taken, in the second House.Powers and proceedings of joint committee
5 (1) Where any petition or part of a petition against a Bill to which this Schedule applies is referred to a joint committee under paragraph 4, the Bill is to stand referred to that committee for the purpose of the consideration of the petition or part of the petition, and the committee must report the Bill either without amendment or with such amendments as they think expedient to give effect, either in whole or in part, to the petition or to the part of the petition, and with such consequential amendments, if any, as they think appropriate.(2) The joint committee must conduct its consideration of the Bill and of all petitions and counter-petitions in accordance with any instruction given by the House concerned after second reading of the Bill, and must report the Bill in accordance with any programme set out in the instruction.(3) Subject to Standing Orders, the report of the joint committee is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.Costs
6 (1) A joint committee considering a Bill to which this Schedule applies has the same power to award costs as a select committee of either House in relation to a Provisional Order Bill under sections 9 to 12 of the Parliamentary Costs Act 2006 (as a result of section 15(4) and (5) of that Act); and sections 9 to 12 of that Act apply accordingly subject to any necessary modifications.(2) Sections 2 to 8, 13 and 14 of that Act apply with any necessary modifications to costs incurred in respect of a Bill to which this Schedule applies, as they apply to costs incurred in respect of a private Bill.Standing Orders
7 (1) Except as may be provided by Standing Orders made under sub-paragraph (2), the Private Business Standing Orders, and the custom and practice of Parliament relating to private business, do not apply to a Bill to which this Schedule applies.(2) Standing Orders may be made by the House of Commons and the House of Lords for any purpose relating to the provisions of this Schedule, to the extent they are compatible with this Schedule, and in particular— (a) for regulating the manner in which petitions against a Bill to which this Schedule applies must be framed and deposited,(b) for regulating the manner in which memorials relating to petitions against a Bill to which this Schedule applies must be framed and deposited,(c) for extending the periods prescribed by this Schedule in relation to the deposit of petitions and memorials in any case where either period expires on a day on which the House concerned is adjourned for more than four days,(d) for providing, in the case of any amendment to a Bill proposed by a petition, for a counter-petition to be deposited by any person or body whose interests would be adversely affected by the amendment; and for prescribing the cases in which a counter-petitioner has the right to be heard before the joint committee, and the cases in which the counter-petitioner may be allowed to be heard by the joint committee if the committee thinks fit,(e) for the withdrawal of petitions, memorials and counter-petitions,(f) for enabling the functions of the Chairmen under this Schedule to be performed by any deputy appointed in accordance with Standing Orders,(g) for regulating the proceedings of the Chairmen in connection with the examination of petitions and memorials under this Schedule,(h) for prescribing the cases in which a petitioner whose petition, or any part of the petition, has been certified as proper to be received, has the right to be heard before the joint committee, and the cases in which the petitioner may be allowed to be heard before the joint committee, and for enabling the Chairmen to determine in the case of any particular petition whether the petitioner has such a right to be heard or may be allowed to be heard by the Chairmen,(i) for prescribing the quorum of any joint committee, and(j) for regulating the proceedings of any joint committee.Effect of order confirmation Act
8 (1) Any Act of Parliament made with reference to this Schedule is a public Act of Parliament that may not to be questioned in any court or tribunal.(2) In the case of any order granting development consent confirmed by an Act of Parliament made with reference to this Schedule, any reference in this Act to the date when an order granting development consent has been made, published or comes into force, and any reference in the order to when it was made, published or came into force, is instead to be taken as being the date on which the Bill for the Act receives Royal Assent.(3) Section 134 of this Act applies to any order granting development consent confirmed by an Act of Parliament made with reference to this Schedule with the following further modifications—(a) in section 134(7) after “A compulsory acquisition notice is a notice” omit “in the prescribed form”, and(b) omit section 134(7)(d).(4) In all other respects any order granting development consent that is confirmed by an Act of Parliament made with reference to this Schedule is to be treated as an order granting development consent.(5) In particular, an order granting development consent confirmed by an Act of Parliament made with reference to this Schedule may be— (a) corrected through the exercise of the power contained in section 119, and(b) changed or revoked in accordance with section 153 and Schedule 6.Non-justiciability of proceedings in Parliament
9 A court or tribunal may not question any Bill or proceedings in Parliament that purport to be conducted in accordance with this Schedule.Interpretation
10 In this Schedule—“the Chairmen” means the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of Committees,“the Chairman of Committees” means the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, and includes any deputy acting on their behalf in accordance with Standing Orders,“the Chairman of Ways and Means” means the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, and includes any deputy acting on their behalf in accordance with Standing Orders,“joint committee” means the joint committee to whom a Bill is referred under paragraph 4,“the order” means the order granting development consent proposed to be confirmed by the Bill mentioned in paragraph 2,“the Private Business Standing Orders” means the Standing Orders of the House of Commons relating to Private Business 2019 ordered to be printed on 19 December 2019, and the Standing Orders of the House of Lords relating to Private Business 2018 ordered to be printed on 18 December 2017, and“Standing Orders” means standing orders of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons made under paragraph 7(2).”.(3) After section 118(1) of the Planning Act 2008 (legal challenges relating to applications for orders granting development consent), insert—“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an order granting development consent for a project that is a critical national priority for the purposes of section 117A and to which the provisions of Schedule 3A apply, and accordingly such an order is not to be questioned in any court.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause would provide for a development consent order relating to a critical national priority project to be confirmed by an Act of Parliament after the order had been made by the Secretary of State, if the applicant for the development consent order had requested that before the order was made. In the normal way the resulting Act of Parliament would not be subject to legal challenge in the courts. Once confirmed by such an Act, subject to some necessary modifications, the development consent order concerned would be treated like any other development consent order and could be changed or revoked through the existing procedures contained in the Planning Act 2008.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to move Amendment 23 in my name; I believe it to be of fundamental importance. A similar amendment, Amendment 52, was moved on day one in Committee on 17 July by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I spoke in support of it. The amendment was not supported universally in the House, and it has since been modified to take account of the advice of officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and indeed of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, was concerned that it should be made clear that the provisions of the amendment should apply only to infrastructure projects of significant national importance.
In July, I observed that our planning system has become sclerotic. The time that it takes, on average, to secure planning permission, known as development consent, for major infrastructure projects has more than doubled in the last decade to more than four years. The development consent system is nowadays beset by objections and judicial reviews, with several judicial reviews sometimes affecting the same project. The effect of the delay may be to cause an otherwise viable project to become uneconomic and unaffordable.
I gave the example of the Stonehenge tunnel, which was delayed by over four years by two sets of judicial reviews relating to two separate development consent orders—DCOs. A similar delay was caused to Manston Airport, which has reopened recently. There were two sets of judicial reviews necessitating two development consent orders, and there was a delay of almost four years.
In 2020, a judicial review affecting the airports national policy statement took over two and a half years before the principle of a third runway at Heathrow was endorsed. The Government’s current judicial review reforms contained in the Bill are very modest. They will make little difference, because they relate only to the prior permission stage for judicial reviews. Approximately 75% of judicial reviews are given permission by the court to be brought forth when they proceed to a substantive hearing, which, in turn, can take a considerable length of time.
The Bill does not address this problem of judicial reviews and the consequent costs and delays. There is little indication that the necessary reforms to address the problem are under consideration. Meanwhile, judicial reviews continue to arrive. Last week, 10 grants for an intended judicial review of a recent decision to give development consent for Gatwick Airport’s second runway were announced, and one expects that the judicial review will be initiated soon. The present amendment provides an acceptable alternative to judicial reviews of nationally important infrastructure projects, and it has constitutional precedents.
The amendment would allow for approved development consent orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects to be confirmed by a one-clause Act of Parliament. It would reactivate the system which prevailed when provisional order confirmation Bills were commonplace. After due consideration by Parliament, including a Joint Committee, the resulting Act incorporating the approved development consent order would essentially be incontestable after it had been ratified.
The amendment is accompanied by an extensive schedule, Schedule 3A, which declares how this system of parliamentary confirmation of these nationally important DCOs would operate in practice. The schedule provides for a process of petitioning against the Bill, largely in relation to matters not already considered by the examination process for the DCO and subsequently by the Secretary of State. This would preserve the rights of the affected parties.
However, once this process has been undergone and the DCO has been confirmed by an Act of Parliament, the possibility of wilful obstruction to the delivery of the project concerned would be minimised. Neither the Act nor the DCO could be questioned in any court or tribunal.
However, if circumstances do change, such as to require a later modification of the DCO—for example, because of project design changes—the amendment allows for the DCO to be changed in accordance with the procedures set out in Schedule 6 to the Planning Act 2008, as proposed to be amended by Clause 11 of the Bill.
The revised amendment carefully reflects the points that were made in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, was concerned that this procedure should not be applied to the commonality of development consent orders, but only to those relating to projects of critical national importance. At the start of the amendment, there is now an explicit link to the relevant national policy statement. The parliamentary procedure would be open only to those projects set out in the national policy statement as being of critical national priority. The revised amendment accepts that the parliamentary procedure should be resorted to only if the applicant for the DCO had asked for it to apply. There is no need for a separate Secretary of State determination of critical national priority status.
The noble Lord, Lord Banner, was also concerned that the objections of those facing compulsory acquisition through the development consent order should have an explicit right to be heard by the parliamentary Joint Committee, and such a right is now accorded in the revised wording of Schedule 3A.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this is a significant proposed new clause, which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, spoke to in Committee, where he made broader remarks on the functionality of our planning system, which he has repeated today. I recall the comments about the length of time it was taking to get a bypass round Stonehenge, and my comment that it will take longer to build that bypass than Stone Age man took to build Stonehenge.
We agree with the issue that the noble Viscount is seeking to address: that the planning system does not work all the time for these large national infrastructure projects. They take too long, the costs go up and deliverability goes down. So I have immense respect for those who have taken the time to draft this new clause reflecting some of the comments made in Committee—I really appreciate the time that that has taken. The noble Viscount proposes that each order determining an application to be a critical national priority must be presented to Parliament as a full public Bill. Paragraph 3 of the proposed new schedule then sets out a petitioning process, a counter-petitioning process and a reporting process. The remaining parts of this lengthy amendment provide a highly detailed description of how such a Bill would progress through a Joint Committee and then complete its passage.
However, we do not consider that presenting a Bill to Parliament with all the associated procedures would be a proportionate proposal. We are somewhat sympathetic to confirmatory Acts in areas such as nuclear, but this is a prescriptive amendment and therefore one that we cannot support, even if we understand the issue.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount for Amendment 23, which builds on a previous amendment tabled in Committee. It proposes a process for projects designated by the Secretary of State as “critical national priority”, where development consent orders would come into force only once approved through an Act of Parliament. This amendment seeks to bypass judicial review and insulate these projects from challenge and thereby speed up the building of infrastructure.
Although the provision does not directly alter the judicial review process itself, it uses parliamentary process to significantly reduce the public’s ability to challenge government decisions on these types of critical projects. This amendment proposes a mechanism for the Secretary of State to designate certain classes of development as “critical national priority”, based on identification in a relevant national policy statement.
It is important to remind the House that this status already exists and is actively applied—for example, to renewable and low-carbon energy projects through the energy NPS, to strengthen the need case for such infrastructure. However, this amendment seeks to go much further. I cannot support it for a number of key reasons. First, the proposed ouster in new Section 118(1A) would shield decisions from judicial review even where they were unlawful. For this reason, it is an approach which the courts have historically resisted. Given that this would be applied to some of the biggest and most controversial schemes, it is likely that challenges would be lodged in respect of the confirmed DCO, thereby undermining the time savings sought in the first place.
Secondly, the amendment would result in a constitutional confrontation between Parliament and the courts. This may result in questioning of well understood constitutional conventions, inviting further legal uncertainty.
Finally, there are serious practical impediments to the amendment. It would introduce a new, truncated parliamentary procedure for applicants to undertake after having completed the DCO process. It risks creating confusion and slowing the delivery of our most important projects by layering parliamentary procedures on top of an already rigorous regime. That adds more work and uncertainty for applicants—particularly detrimental for our largest projects—at a time when clarity and efficiency are essential. We recognise that the amendment is driven by valid concerns that lengthy legal challenges delay projects and add costs. However, the right approach to tackling this problem is by still enabling legal challenges but supporting the courts to handle them efficiently.
Further to our commitment to implement the Banner review and limit the ability for meritless cases to return to the courts, the Government recently decided to go further. On 15 October, they announced their intention to work with the judiciary to implement further procedural changes to ensure that NSIP cases are dealt with more quickly and consistently. The changes include introducing clear target timescales for NSIP cases in the High Court, aiming for a substantive hearing within four months of the application. We are also making it clear that NSIP cases in the Court of Appeal should be handled by judges with appropriate planning experience.
Together with the recent reforms, these further procedural changes will help make the judicial review process for major projects quicker, clearer and more predictable. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment and for the thoughtful debate that it has prompted.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
I am somewhat disappointed by that response, because we face a crisis. There is nothing in the Bill or forthcoming that will address the crisis adequately. However, I must defer to the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2B) In deciding how to comply with the duties under this section, the Independent System Operator and Planner shall have regard to the need to assist the owners of renewable energy projects below 10 MW in dealing with the requirements of the application processes for establishing a connection to the grid.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to ensure prioritisation of support for small scale renewable energy projects.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will move Amendment 24 and briefly speak to Amendment 46 in this group. I will start with Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, because this is a very important amendment talking about the idea of local area energy plans. I signed the amendment, or a related one, in Committee but had not quite caught up with this one.
Both amendments deal with how the Government throughout this Bill and overall are talking about giant-scale projects. However, very often, we are going to find local solutions to local problems using local resources. That is something on which you can be sure to have local consent after local democratic engagement. A local area energy plan is a way of ensuring that we do not chase after these large-scale projects that so often go wrong, at least solely, and that we have local alternatives working at small scale that can be quite nimble and quite fast. That is what Amendment 46 does.
My Amendment 24 is rather more limited because it is a very specific, technical amendment talking about how the independent system operator and the planner should have regard to renewable energy projects below 10 megawatts to help them in dealing with the requirements for the application process of establishing a connection to the grid.
I think back over the years to small-scale hydro projects in Wales, projects I visited, and to solar farms in the south-east of England; connections to the grid were what people kept tearing their hair out about all the time. That is a huge barrier that the amendment aims to provide a modest solution towards to ensure that we prioritise small-scale projects that have local consent—very often a community energy project—so they can go ahead.
I note that your Lordships’ House has collectively been a long-term champion of community energy projects, wrestling with the former Government and this one, eventually successfully, to get acknowledgement of their importance. It is something that we really have to make sure is in the Bill, so I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 46 in this group on local area energy plans, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his support.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, moved an amendment calling for government guidance, and I moved an amendment which was pretty mandatory on local area energy plans. At the time, we both talked about the need to go away and maybe come back together with a joint amendment, and that is what we have done today. However, we have done more than that; we have taken the time to reflect on the debate that happened in Committee. I realise that the amendment that I moved then was too prescriptive, so I want your Lordships’ House to be clear that this is an entirely different beast of an amendment, and it is far less prescriptive on the Government. It aims to make some progress on this really important issue, which is an important part of our energy transition.
I want to also acknowledge all the things that the Government are doing in this space, and I recognise that it is quite a crowded environment. We have local plans; we have the regional energy strategic plans; we have the warm home plans; we have the heat network zone; and we have local work being undertaken by the newly established Great British Energy. We recognise that this is a complex landscape, and we recognise the argument from the Government that so much is going on at the minute that this would only further complicate this landscape and not necessarily help.
I want to push back against that just a little bit. This is a vital bottom line and the missing piece in the jigsaw. To have a full systems view for our energy and the energy transition, it is important that we do not ignore or do not look specifically at this bottom tier. I look at it a bit like the parcel delivery problem. It is really important that we get energy to every door and that we get the energy transition delivered to every single property.
Our local authorities know better. They best understand their areas. They best know how to join things up locally. It is really important that they are involved and we develop these local area energy plans.
The Government were also concerned about burdens on local authorities and about the prescriptive nature of the previous amendment. So to be clear, I have gone away, and this amendment is very different. It calls on the Government to conduct research. It gives a timeframe for that to happen. Then, based on those research findings that come back, the amendment simply calls on the Government to formulate a policy and to publicly speak whatever that policy happens to be. I am not saying they have to implement local area energy plans; I am saying that they should go away and do this research on this part of the energy transition and, based on that research, come up with a coherent policy and then come forward to Parliament with an argument that makes sense about how that works.
This amendment is really important. By adopting it, we get closer to the energy transition. We will get rid of energy inefficiency and make the energy system more stable. It is also important for local community energy, for tapping that in and for making sure that we bring people with us and that they can benefit from the energy transition as well. It inherently makes our grids and our energy systems much more stable and robust to the challenges that they will face.
That is my amendment. I want to thank the Minister and her officials, because we have had meetings since the holidays, and I am very appreciative of the time that we have had.
I think there is still a little confusion from the Government on what my amendment does. Today, I want to push the Government at least to pick up some of the research aspects of this amendment. I hope the Minister will be amenable and receptive to that. I leave that there.
I will speak briefly on Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which I support. It is a clever and worthwhile idea. As the noble Baroness alluded to, the House has a long tradition of supporting community energy. Such projects struggle to get the funding to compete against large players and get their systems up and running, so this amendment about helping with the energy system operator is clever and worth while, and we support it.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I have just a few brief points to add to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, stated. For me, this goes back to the governance system. Of course we have made progress in recent years; we have the strategic spatial energy plan, which is being managed by NESO, but we are hearing some feedback on that plan. In effect, it tries to map out what energy projects should be located where, in minute detail across the country. The industry has highlighted a number of problems with trying to do this at that scale; we need local knowledge flowing up into these plans. As well as the top down, we need the bottom up. We need to capture all the great knowledge that local areas and local authorities have.
I will just take heat as an example. One area may be better suited to heat pumps and another to heat networks. One area may have relatively well-insulated housing stock; another, poorly insulated housing stock. We need to capture all that and bring it into the energy transition. It is an important piece of the puzzle to making this energy transition work and making it cost effective. A recent study by UKRI highlighted tens of billions of pounds of savings if a place-based approach is taken over a place-agnostic approach, so it is important that the Government make some progress on this. We have not seen the progress needed.
We have had some good pilots using this approach in various areas across the country, but we now need the Government to get behind this approach to feed all the benefits of that local knowledge into the energy transition. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister at least on timescales, on how they see this programme developing and on it reaching a decision on the role that local area energy plans will play in the energy transition.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to ensure that small-scale renewable energy products are prioritised by the independent system operator and planner. As the noble Baroness knows, we on these Benches are very concerned about energy prices and want to see Ministers taking a pragmatic approach to delivering the energy infrastructure that we need.
I know that there is a particular interest in renewables, but we need to take a whole-system approach, tackling policy costs as well as the marginal costs of electricity. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the current support for renewables at a smaller scale, and it would be helpful for the House to know what plans the Government have on smaller renewables.
Although we feel that Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is too prescriptive, it raises an important question about planning our energy supply for the future. Clearly, local needs should be taken into account. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Amendment 24 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, though well intentioned, is not necessary to achieve the desired outcome of greater support with the grid connection process for smaller renewable energy projects. The amendment seeks to require the independent system operator and planner to prioritise support for smaller renewable energy projects when they apply for a grid connection. I recognise the noble Baroness’s helpful attempt to support smaller renewable energy projects. The Government appreciate the important role that smaller renewable energy projects, such as rooftop solar and community energy, can play in meeting our clean power mission, reducing energy costs and engaging communities in renewable energy.
Along with the independent energy regulator, Ofgem, the Government also recognise that more needs to be done to support smaller electricity network connection customers, including renewable energy projects, but this is achievable within the regulatory framework without the need for primary legislation. Indeed, Ofgem has already proposed stronger incentives and obligations on network companies to provide better connection customer service. Following a consultation earlier this year, it expects to publish further details and next steps in the coming weeks.
The amendment’s wording would also not meet the desired outcome. Section 16 of the Electricity Act 1989 requires electricity distribution network operators to connect customers. The amendment would place an obligation on the independent system operator and planner only in terms of the way in which the duties under Section 16 are complied with. However, the independent system operator and planner has no duties under Section 16. Given the legislative unworkability of the amendment, and given work already under way to support smaller renewable energy connection customers, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw it.
Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to require the Government to commence a programme of research and analysis on the imposition of a statutory duty on local authorities to produce local area energy plans, and publish a report on their findings; and to require the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to make a formal policy decision on a statutory duty within two years. We recognise that the amendment moves the debate on from Committee so that an immediate burden is not placed on local authorities to produce a local area energy plan, and nor are the Government required to immediately produce national guidance for local authorities on local area energy plans. The amendment places this work in the context of planning for electricity infrastructure, but the approach set out in the amendment risks constraining and duplicating work already under way, and it may constrain the way the Government continue to work in partnership with local government.
The overall approach to this work is being undertaken jointly with local government through the ministerial Local Net Zero Delivery Group, which meets quarterly. This is co-chaired with the Local Government Association. The group has discussed the development of a framework for local government to provide more clarity on the roles and responsibilities for net zero and energy. This group will need to reflect on the role of local government on energy planning and net zero in the context of the warm homes plan and Great British Energy’s local power plan, both due shortly.
The kind of research envisaged by the amendment is already under way. This has been commissioned by DESNZ from local government officials working in local net zero hubs. This includes preparing guidance for local authorities on what they need to do on energy planning to prepare for the regional energy strategic plans that Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator—NESO—are producing. Ofgem and NESO are looking to consult on the approach and methodology later this year. They are also developing guidance and tools for local government to help it specify and procure high-quality data to support energy planning, with outputs due by January 2026.
In conclusion, we do not believe that primary legislation is the right place to set out in such detail a programme of work to review local energy planning. We are sympathetic to the points raised and agree with the point made in Committee about the importance of including local understanding in delivering the bigger picture on energy planning. I hope I have been able to give some assurances that the Government agree that local involvement in energy planning is important and that the kind of work the amendment envisages is already under way.
I must stress the need to review local area energy planning in the context of ongoing work and other policies and strategies as and when they are published, rather than to the timetable and in the way set out in the amendment. Preferably, this should be in partnership with local government, reflecting needs and approaches. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is satisfied with our response and will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and everyone who has taken part in this short but important debate. I was sitting here thinking of the volunteers who are undoubtedly sitting at home in front of their spreadsheets trying to plan for a local energy scheme, trying to make it work, trying to pull it all together, trying to solve all the issues. I hope they are at least feeling a warm glow, given the strong expressions of support for the principle of what they are doing from around the House, including from the government Benches.
The Minister said, essentially, that the drafting of my amendment is faulty and not quite correct. I am, of course, seldom, if ever, attached to the detail of the drafting. The point is that putting something in the Bill provides some sort of long-term certainty and security. The Minister said that there are regulations, and that the regulator is doing this, but we all know that what we need is long-term security of planning in our energy system, and that is simply not being delivered.
A phrase was used by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, that was important and deserves to be highlighted: “place-based solutions”. We often talk about the right tree in the right place; we also need the right energy provision in the right place, and that is what Amendment 46 was seeking to achieve. But we are where we are, and the debate has been had. I still hope we might see some movement from the Government somewhere down the track, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Fuller
“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, to 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 local fire authorities to minimise fire risk and protect public safety.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, when I moved this amendment, which is now Amendment 25, in Committee, the lamented noble Lord, Lord Khan, went as far as he could at that point to open the door to accepting the principle that when electricity storage systems are planned, it is with the full knowledge, connivance and consent of the local fire authority, so that the fire and public safety risks and mitigations are fully understood. I am therefore disappointed that the meeting to discuss this is scheduled for after completion of Report. I fear that, rather than agreeing to my sensible, proportionate and non-controversial proposals, precious time is now being wasted litigating it on the Floor of your Lordships’ House and, wholly avoidably, with additional time spent in the Division Lobbies.
As the grid is reinforced, the ability to stabilise the electricity supply and isolate it from surges and shocks is essential. A number of long-term and short-term technologies exist to smooth the path of electricity from the generator to the consumer, and LDES facilities are part of that mix. These solid-state devices are needed alongside rotational energy sources in the energy balance. The people of the Iberian peninsula—where I am travelling to when the House rises this evening—will attest to the consequences of failing to have network stabilisation in place. A tiny 0.2 hertz perturbation in the grid set in train a chain reaction that brought down their entire grid, which required an unprecedented black start. That is what is at stake here.
Some of these long-term storage technologies contain highly flammable materials such as lithium. Hydrogen storage could be another possibility, but I am going to restrict my remarks to lithium for the purposes of proving the point. Not a day goes by when a fire is not caused by a lithium battery in a car, in a refuse freighter, or in a block of flats when a scooter overheats. The issue is clear: when a lithium battery catches fire, huge quantities of water are required to extinguish it. I will not remind the House excessively about the details of the car-based conflagration at Luton Airport, but once it took hold, the batteries in electric cars quickly made the fire unfightable for longer, more so than had petrol and diesel alone been involved.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is very similar, as he noted, to the one he tabled in Committee.
In Committee, we welcomed the debate on these important topics. We take fire safety and the safety of large-scale energy storage systems extremely seriously, and I know the Government do as well. However, we are not able to support this amendment because we feel that the systems currently in place are adequate and coherent, and we worry about the additional burden and problems associated with the amendment as proposed.
In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said that
“this Government take fire safety extremely seriously, but we do not feel this amendment is necessary or proportionate, and it risks unintended consequences”.—[Official Report, 1/9/25; col. 568.]
On these Benches, we agree with the Government’s position.
This seeks to establish a statutory duty for long-duration energy storage operators to consult and pay a fee to local authorities for risk assessment prior to installation. So, as I said, although we absolutely share this general intent, the question on this amendment is: are these proposals necessary, proportionate and effective, and do they bring benefits overall or do they disproportionately create new unintended consequences for the rollout of our net-zero energy infrastructure? I make it clear that LDES facilities are an emerging technology, but they have a very high safety standard.
As in Committee, the noble Lord put forward a number of examples of batteries catching fire. I make it clear that all the examples given relate to individual batteries, and in most cases those kinds of fires relate to counterfeit or illegal imports. Actually, those issues are the subject of a Private Member’s Bill in the name of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, which I hope the noble Lord will be able to support. As far as I am aware, there have only ever been two fires at LDES large-scale battery storage facilities in the UK, so they have an extremely strong safety record.
The Minister gave a coherent answer in Committee, setting out that robust safety systems are in place already, including that the Health and Safety Executive already regulates battery energy storage system sites with a comprehensive framework, mandating designers, installers and operators to uphold the highest safety standards. Existing planning guidance also encourages developers to engage with local fire and rescue services prior to submitting their planning applications and to consider guidance issued by the National Fire Chiefs Council. So engagement is already taking place. We already have other avenues as well. We have the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the general fire safety regulations, and we must ask whether these additional burdens bring benefits. In Committee, the Minister also noted that this would have an impact on the LDES cap and floor system, making it far more complicated to implement.
There are some issues with the definition of LDES. The amendment speaks about “LDES operators”. Not all LDES is equal, and not all of it needs to come under the scope of this amendment. If I am running a large-scale piped hydro facility, these requirements would not be necessary or helpful, and they would not bring about benefit. There is also a small drafting mistake in the amendment. Based on this, we feel that the systems in place now are adequate and sufficient, and we feel that, on balance, this amendment would create more burdens than benefits.
But we must not be complacent about these matters; they are important. I will ask the Government Front Bench one question about the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, the then Minister. In summing up at the end of Committee, he said:
“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”.—[Official Report, 1/9/25; col. 568.]
I take the opportunity that this amendment presents to ask the Minister kindly to reconfirm this commitment from the Dispatch Box and to give further assurances on these matters, perhaps going beyond “considering” and possibly some giving timeframes for when those further safety measures might come forward.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his amendment, which raises the important question of fire safety and long-duration energy storage. It is right that there should be a role for local fire authorities in looking at planning applications involving potentially highly combustible materials. It is clear that energy storage based on lithium batteries or other highly reactive materials, if not suitably engineered, could pose a fire risk.
This is still a relatively new large-storage technology, where councils and fire authorities are building their levels of expertise. In this context, having clear national guidance on safe installation and construction akin to building control, taking account of HSE, fire, industry and other experts would facilitate the assessment of these schemes. Do the Government plan to provide such clear guidance that councils, industry and others can rely on in assessing applications for LDES that would also streamline consultation and hence facilitate local engagement with fire authorities?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his amendment. I start by apologising to him for the meeting date, which I understand is 30 October. He will know from comments made earlier that I have had a great number of meetings before Report, so I can only assume that it was a misunderstanding and apologise to him that it was not held before we got to Report.
The noble Lord said that over on this side we would not be shedding any tears about the price of Lamborghinis going up, but he obviously does not understand my guilty pleasure of fast cars—but then I come from the same town as Lewis Hamilton, so I have an excuse.
The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to require long-duration electricity storage—LDES—operators to consult the local fire authorities to assess the project’s fire risk before installation. In Committee, the noble Lord commented on the frequency and danger of lithium battery fires. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the distinction that he made between individual battery fires and these large-scale ones. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government take issues relating to fire safety extremely seriously—I know that my noble friend Lord Khan gave the same reassurance—but we still do not feel that this amendment is proportionate or necessary, and indeed it could create unintended risks for fire services.
I understand that these concerns are largely in relation to lithium-ion batteries. Analysis from DESNZ suggests that fires at battery energy storage sites are rare. The latest available five-year annual average fire incidence rate for GB batteries is 0.7%, which is lower than that for wider non-domestic building fires in England, which is around 0.8%. We expect all LDES developers to ensure that their sites are safe, regardless of the technology employed. It is still, of course, vital that any risks are appropriately and proportionately managed to ensure that we maintain public safety and trust. We have spoken previously of the role that the Health and Safety Executive plays in regulating storage assets. Developers and operators of these sites have a legal duty to manage risks, and government expects them to engage with local fire services when drawing up emergency response plans.
Defra will conclude its industry consultation shortly on the modernisation of environmental permitting for industry, which includes proposals to bring BESS within scope of the 2016 permitting regulations. If introduced, EPR would require developers and operators to demonstrate to the Environment Agency how specific risks are being managed, while providing for the ongoing regulation of battery storage sites. While it is already the Government’s expectation that developers engage with fire services during the planning process, this amendment risks imposing additional administrative burdens on fire services which are not proportionate to the risks associated with this technology.
DESNZ is actively engaging fire authorities and the battery storage industry on the whole issue of battery fire safety. In fact, Minister Shanks hosted a round table today on battery safety, which included representatives from the National Fire Chiefs Council and battery developers, so I can reassure the House that Minister Shanks is taking this issue extremely seriously. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is satisfied with the reassurances and will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I came to this debate keen to divide the House on this important matter. However, during the debate a number of issues have come to light, not least the meeting held today by Minister Shanks and the acceptance that we are still owed a meeting where we can discuss this. Rather than detain the House at this point with a Division, I wonder whether the Minister and I might have an understanding that we will keep the date in the diary and, if I am not satisfied, then the opportunity will come to bring this back at Third Reading.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes all regulations implementing the consumer benefit scheme subject to the affirmative procedure.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in my name seek to ensure that all regulations relating to the bill discount scheme set out in Clause 26 are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.
The Government welcome the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, through these amendments, we accept its suggestion. We understand and recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and agree that the regulations discussed in Clause 26 are matters of substance. These amendments will help ensure that the regulations implementing the bill discount scheme are appropriately reviewed by Parliament, aiding their workability and ensuring a smooth implementation of the scheme. I cannot guarantee to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that there will be a Halifax clause, but I hope that the House will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I cannot react to the Halifax clause, since I do not live in Halifax.
I welcome the move to the affirmative procedure but remind the Minister that there are already 22,000 high-voltage carrying pylons in this country, over 250 of which are in Doncaster and over 700 of which are in North Yorkshire, including in the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
That leads me to the argument I made in Committee: if the Government are minded to provide compensation for those residents and customers who live adjacent to new plants, either transmitting or creating electrical energy, then, as the Minister confirmed in Committee and in a conversation we had during recess, that payment—that compensation—will be a burden added to every electricity customer. That does not seem right to me. If those folk who are going to have a new imposition of electrical infrastructure are to have compensation, surely it should be funded by that electricity region and not by those that have, for instance, had pylons for many decades because regions knew it was in the national interest to do so.
I am pleased that we are going to the affirmative measure in consideration of compensation, because it will enable me to make arguments in favour of not the Halifax amendment but the Huddersfield amendment—let us call it that, as it is a bit nearer home. It is important, because to me this is about fairness. Those of us in the north—the very far north—and the Midlands should have fair treatment compared to those who have the infrastructure now. I am sure that the Minister will enjoy having that debate with me when we get around to doing the SIs.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, group 14 concerns a matter of principle that cuts across the Bill: the appropriate level of parliamentary oversight for far-reaching executive powers. New Section 38A introduces a consumer benefit scheme to provide financial compensation to those living near new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. The principle behind this is entirely sound. It is right that communities that host nationally significant infrastructure should share in its benefits.
We support Amendments 26 and 27 in the name of the Minister. Amendment 26 would ensure that all regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure, not just those relating to offences or enforcement. These regulations will define who qualifies for support, how benefits are delivered and the responsibilities of electricity suppliers. These are substantive decisions that should not be made without oversight of Parliament.
Amendment 27 is a necessary consequential amendment to reflect this change. Given the wide scope of delegated powers in the new section inserted by the clause, it is entirely appropriate that Parliament has a say in how much a significant scheme is developed and applied. The affirmative procedure does not prevent progress. It simply ensures that when Ministers exercise broad powers, they do so transparently and with accountability.
We believe these amendments strike the right balance between enabling the Government to deliver the scheme and ensuring that Parliament plays its proper role. We are pleased to support them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses for speaking, and I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for getting Halifax and Huddersfield mixed up. But neither Halifax nor Huddersfield will be getting their own clause in the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment at page 36, line 8.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment standing in my name seeks to create powers to ensure that seismic array systems are protected in areas where windfarms are proposed to be built. Sorry, I am on the wrong group. I have got ahead of myself—who thought I would do that at 9.30 pm? My apologies; I turned over too many pages.
I am in fact speaking to an amendment to Clause 28, which amends the Forestry Act 1967 to enable the development of renewable electricity projects in the public forest estate. The clause as currently drafted applies to both England and Wales. The Government have tabled these amendments to remove references to the
“Natural Resources Body for Wales”
and “Welsh Ministers” from the clause. At the start of today’s proceedings, I referred to some amendments which are there to respond to the devolved Administrations. Although Clause 28 represents an important and shared objective, the Welsh Government have indicated that they wish to pursue existing, non-legislative processes to develop renewable energy on the Welsh Government Woodland Estate. Following extensive negotiation, this amendment alters the provisions in Clause 28 so that they apply only to the Forestry Commission.
I turn to government Amendments 36, 37 and 40. The provisions restrict the exercise of the powers of the Forestry Commission by giving the Defra Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring the commission first to obtain her consent. The purpose of the Secretary of State’s power is to ensure that Ministers are sighted on projects above a certain size and can assess the use of the land appropriately. In its report on the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised concerns that the regulation-making power was broader than the stated policy intent. The Government therefore propose Amendments 36, 37 and 40, which will amend the clause to clarify that consent may be required only for projects exceeding specific capacity thresholds.
The thresholds are set at 5 megawatts for wind and 50 megawatts for other sources and are now laid out explicitly in new Section 3B. New Section 3B also includes a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to change the relevant wattage of the capacity thresholds, allowing flexibility to reflect future advancements in renewable energy technology. This change provides greater legal certainty while maintaining the original policy intent, and I therefore commend these amendments to the House.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 44, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. It would place statutory duties on the Forestry Commission, in the context of any planning, development or infrastructure function it might have, 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. It would also add a requirement for the Forestry Commission to balance the development of energy infrastructure with the maintenance of ecosystem services, alongside a requirement to avoid any direct or indirect adverse effects on designated sites and irreplaceable habitats.
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 Commission to increase its contributions to government targets set under the Climate Change Act. The Forestry Commission already has legal duties on afforestation and conservation, and by its very nature is already providing significant benefits to help tackle biodiversity loss and climate change. It is therefore my view that the amendment is unnecessary.
Of course, the Forestry Commission will have regard to the Government’s biodiversity targets while exercising these new powers. It has clear responsibilities to consider and act to improve the environment via its biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, as strengthened by the Environment Act. This legislation requires public authorities, including the Forestry Commission, to consider and take action to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. In doing so, it must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy as well as any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.
Furthermore, I can assure the House that the Forestry Commission will consider the importance of the climate in its use of these new powers. It has existing 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 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, and it will continue to do so.
However, in recognition of the Forestry Commission’s importance to the achievement of our statutory targets concerning climate and nature, the Government may consider changes to the Forestry Act 1967 should a suitable legislative vehicle become available. It is my belief that these wider considerations of the Forestry Commission’s duties would be best considered in the round rather than in relation to this specific measure, which limits the application of the duties to the development context. Given these commitments, alongside existing provisions, I hope the noble Earl is reassured and will not press his amendment.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Defra Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for meetings around Clause 28. In the Bill, there is still a concern about industrial-scale biomass. I have been assured by the Minister that the 1967 Forestry Act stops that from happening. I have read the Act, and I am not totally convinced but I take the Minister’s view on it as being correct.
What concerns me about Amendment 40 is the two limits on wattage. The limit of 5 megawatts on wind turbines is understandable as they have a low footprint, and I can see how that might work as being a limit on wind power. There is a 50 megawatt limit on all others, including solar. I am very much in favour of solar, but to put 50 megawatts of solar—which seems to be envisaged in Amendment 40—on Forestry Commission land seems completely excessive, even to me as a renewable energy advocate. At the moment, 50 megawatt solar farms are some of the most popular sizes because they have just come in below the nationally significant infrastructure projects level. I seem to remember, from a statutory instrument we went through in the Moses Room some months ago, that is now changing.
However, a 50-megawatt solar farm covers a huge acreage. When we are behind in terms of our national targets on tree planting, I cannot see why the Forestry Commission should be able to cover that amount of their own land with solar panels without the approval of the Secretary of State, when we are so desperate to increase our woodland planting. Where on earth did these figures come from? They do not seem consistent to me; if they were the other way around—5 megawatts on solar and 50 megawatts on wind power— they might make sense, because there is a much smaller footprint in terms of wind. I am very keen to hear from the Minister how this is justified.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 44. I begin by thanking the Minister and apologising, because strangely the Minister has answered my amendment before I have spoken to it, but that is just the way that this group has operated. My speech is slightly back to front, so I will go through it and then come to the end.
Amendment 44 is in my name and is also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who are both in their places. This is an important and timely amendment, and I am delighted that it has the firm support of the Wildlife Trust and Wildlife and Countryside Link. Amendment 44 would require the Forestry Commission, when exercising its functions, to contribute actively to the achievement of our legally binding climate and biodiversity targets. The Forestry Commission, founded in 1919, manages some 5% of all publicly owned land in the United Kingdom.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, reminded us in Committee, it is now nearly 60 years since we last legislated comprehensively on forestry. The commission’s core duties remain, unfortunately, deeply rooted in a 20th-century focus on timber production, despite its remit having long been broadened. We need to complete the task of modernising its responsibilities, aligning them with the Climate Change Act 2008, the Environment Act 2021 and the environmental improvement plan, so that the commission’s huge influence over land use supports the delivery of statutory targets, rather than leaving them to chance or good faith and good management.
Without these changes, the Government are in danger of trying to deliver their climate and nature ambitions while failing to direct one of their key public bodies to act in joint support of delivering it. I have said this before, but it is a little like a general knowing the strategy but neglecting to tell their own troops. We cannot expect effective delivery in the Forestry Commission if it is left without a clear duty to act.
The public forest estate contains some of England’s most ecologically valuable land, including irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland, yet there is currently no explicit statutory duty for the commission to protect these sites or to prioritise biodiversity outcomes. Clause 28 already extends the commission’s remit to allow greater renewable energy activity on public land, and that duty makes it more vital that the nature aspects of the estate are given equal statutory weight to ensure that the drive for renewables proceeds hand in hand with the protection and restoration of nature.
The new clause we propose after Clause 28 does precisely that: it would place,
“a duty on the Forestry Commission to contribute”,
to the achievement of the climate and nature recovery targets, to avoid harm, to designate conservation sites in ancient woodland and to balance energy and timber production with ecosystem services such as biodiversity, carbon storage, access and recreation. It is a low-cost but high-impact reform that would modernise Governments, ensure accountability and bring clarity and consistency to decision-making about land acquisition, leasing and woodland creation.
As we know already, between Committee and Report there has been substantial progress on this matter. I am very grateful not only to the Ministers but to their officials for the time that they have given to us in discussing these amendments, and for the movement the Government have made on this important issue. I know that the Government now intend to address this issue as part of a wider and broader package of measures. We are not against that as a system and a means of addressing this problem; in fact, it is a welcome strategy. We are buoyed up by the progress we have made on the Crown Estate Act and the Great British Energy Act, where collaborative work with Ministers and across the House—across all parties—achieved similar provisions. We look forward to the outcomes here.
The Minister has already spoken to give her comments. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who has been pushing on these issues. He of course has his important Private Member’s Bill and I hope that, as part of this package of measures, some of the broader aspects in his Bill can also be taken up. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her work on these matters.
The Government’s words are very welcome and I am thankful for them. We push the Government to go slightly further on the duties of the Forestry Commission, and for a little more clarity on when this legislation might come forward. However, we have come to a reasonable place. What we would like now is to see this legislation come forward so that progress can be made on these matters. With that, I thank the Minister and those involved, as this is a sign of real progress to come.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly speak in support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on his Amendment 44, which I put my name to. The Forestry Commission is a really important organisation; it is the largest landowner in England. What it does can not only influence the Government’s climate and biodiversity targets; it can inspire other people to do stuff that will deliver those targets. Therefore, it is really sad that we have got to the point where, by a process of accretion, the legislation surrounding the Forestry Commission’s duties is so complicated.
When the Minister responded in Committee, for which we thank her, it revealed just what a piecemeal patchwork of responsibilities is laid on the Forestry Commission—not just by the aged Forestry Acts, dating back 60 years, but by extensions to its duties from the Countryside Act 1968, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the NERC Act 2006, strengthened by the Environment Act 2021. In addition, the Minister’s account, both in Committee and today, has brought up other requirements, such as those laid on the Secretary of State in the national policy statement for renewable energy on his influence over the Forestry Commission. It is a bit of a quagmire of legislation. It is certainly not clear to the Forestry Commission how it will help it do that important job of meeting government targets in any systematic way, rather than by an accretion of decisions made that reflect various bits of legislation.
I, too, thank the Ministers and their staff for the discussion behind the scenes, but we have to press on moving forward from saying that the Forestry Commission will use its best endeavours or have regard to various pieces of policy. Instead, we have to try to nail down whether there is a real commitment within government to update the legislation surrounding the Forestry Commission—and when a suitable legislative vehicle might come forward that would allow it to operate in a systematic way within a modern, comprehensive and effective framework. We need to make sure that its important work will be carried forward systematically.
The alternative way of doing this is to adopt the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who, alas, is not in his place. In his Private Member’s Bill, he sought to give these duties to any public body that had the ability to deliver, in a substantial way, the climate, environment and biodiversity targets—that would be the simple way of doing it. However, if we have to do it piecemeal, can the Government say how soon and in what way it will be done?
Very briefly, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on Amendment 40. He is absolutely right that we have the limits the wrong way round.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. They are leading and I am following on Amendment 44, which is about the duties of the Forestry Commission. Given the hour, I will be brief in bringing out two points.
First, the noble Earl rightly said that both Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Wildlife Trusts—two of our key organisations—totally back the approach in the amendment, which says that the Forestry Commission needs a clear mandate on climate and nature. As the noble Baroness just set out, this has just been nibbled at, changed and fiddled with over many decades, but that has not given the Forestry Commission the clear remit that it needs.
Secondly, the point that I will make that has yet to be made is about how incredibly precious our forests and woodlands are specifically because we have so few of them. Having just been to Ukraine and Poland—the latter is nearly 30% forest—it was striking that forest is part of just about everything I looked at. Even Ukraine, with its huge reliance on arable agriculture and the destruction it has been enduring, still has a higher percentage of forest than we do. We are talking about a terribly rare resource for Britain in looking after our climate provision and our nature. We cannot afford the Forestry Commission, which is such a major landowner, not having clear direction from legislation stating that its job is to look after climate and nature.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendments in this group. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests as a renewable energy developer and as a forester and forest planter.
First, the removal of the application of Clause 28 to Wales is interesting. I am most grateful to the Minister for her explanation for why that should be. Secondly, limiting the powers granted under Clause 28 is a welcome change, in response to the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The DPRRC recommended that the Government constrain the power to make regulations, so that the Secretary of State’s consent can be required only in relation to generating stations that exceed certain capacity thresholds. As pointed out in its report, the Bill was originally drafted with a wider power, but the Government’s policy intention is that the Secretary of State’s consent is required only for significant renewable electricity projects. We welcome that change.
I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on 50-megawatt solar farms. It does seem strange that we should be allowing developments of that size. In general, areas that are most suitable for forestry tend also to be suitable for wind, but less suitable for solar. I would be most grateful to the Minister for any clarification she can give about the intention of this amendment. We will of course return to the competing uses of land between renewable energy and traditional rural interests in a later group.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly respond to questions I have been asked during the debate. I agree with what has been said about the Forestry Act 1967. It was a long time ago now, but I firmly believe that the Act needs reviewing in the round, not in bits and pieces; otherwise, we will just exacerbate the current problem.
On the thresholds, the thresholds of five megawatts for wind and 50 megawatts for other sources were based on current data to illustrate the typical scale, visual footprint and land use of renewable energy projects at those capacities. If the amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State for Defra will be able to amend the capacity thresholds in future through secondary legislation. All renewable electricity projects that export electricity to the grid on the public forest estate will be reported to Defra each quarter.
The Secretary of State, as the landowner, and other Defra Ministers have decided that they would like early visibility of proposed developments above the relevant thresholds. The Forestry Commission will be required to submit an application for ministerial consent before entering into any significant legal or commercial agreements. This early-stage safeguard ensures appropriate oversight of land use decisions. Ministers decided that they want to assess at the pre-planning stage all projects above an agreed size on the public forest estate; that means all significant projects. As previously stated, the thresholds have been set at five megawatts for wind and 50 megawatts for all other technology types.
I hope that has helped to clarify the role of the Secretary of State and of the Forestry Act 1967. With that, I beg to move the government amendments.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment at page 41, line 13 would replace the current power to impose consent requirements on the exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 28 with a narrower power limited to generating stations above a certain megawatt capacity.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment at page 40, line 1.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.
“3B Section 3A: power to require Secretary of State’s consent in certain cases(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations that, in a case within subsection (2), require the consent of the Secretary of State to an exercise of the Commissioners’ powers under section 3A.(2) The cases are those where—(a) a proposed exercise of the powers is intended to enable the construction on English forestry land of the whole or part of a generating station (including an extension to an existing station), and(b) the capacity threshold is exceeded.(3) In the case of the construction of a new generating station, the capacity threshold is exceeded if it is expected that the generating capacity of the station would equal or exceed the relevant wattage.(4) In the case of an extension to an existing station, the capacity threshold is exceeded if it is expected that—(a) the extension would cause the generating capacity of the station to equal or exceed the relevant wattage, or(b) the extension, whether alone or taken together with previous non-consented extensions, would increase the generating capacity of the station by at least the relevant wattage. (5) An extension is “non-consented” for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) if—(a) it was enabled by an exercise of the Commissioners’ powers under section 3A, and(b) that exercise of those powers did not have the consent of the Secretary of State under regulations under subsection (1).(6) But an extension ceases to be “non-consented” for those purposes if—(a) a subsequent extension to the station in question is constructed having been enabled by an exercise of the Commissioners’ powers under section 3A, and(b) that exercise of those powers had the consent of the Secretary of State under regulations under subsection (1).(7) The relevant wattage is—(a) 5 megawatts, if the station generates electricity from wind, and(b) 50 megawatts, if it does not.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to change the relevant wattage (including by adding or combining categories of station in relation to which a particular wattage is prescribed).(9) In calculating the relevant wattage there is to be disregarded—(a) in the case of a generating station only partly situated on English forestry land, any generating capacity that can be attributed to parts not situated on English forestry land;(b) in the case of a generating station whose capacity is provided in part by facilities for the storage of electricity and in part by other means, the capacity provided by those facilities.(10) In this section—“generating station” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 (see section 64(1));“storage” is to be read in accordance with section 3A(9).3C Regulations under section 3B: further provision(1) Regulations under section 3B(1) may—(a) make provision about the process by which consent is to be sought and given or refused;(b) provide for consent to be given subject to conditions.(2) Regulations under section 3B may—(a) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(b) include consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provision.(3) Regulations under section 3B are to be made by statutory instrument.(4) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under section 3B(8) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 3B(1) (but not regulations under section 3B(8)) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 40, line 1.
“Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations about planning permissions or consents relating to wind generating stations that may affect the functioning of a relevant seismic array system.(2) A “relevant seismic array system” is a spatially distributed system of linked seismometers, arranged so as to enhance the detection and characterisation of seismic signals, that—(a) is used for defence purposes, and(b) is in use on the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The regulations may provide for—(a) an exclusion zone, and(b) a restricted zone,around a relevant seismic array system.(4) The regulations may—(a) require a planning decision-maker to refuse, or decline to determine or accept, a planning application relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in an exclusion zone;(b) provide that a relevant development order or MCA scheme may not be made if it would grant planning permission for development relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in an exclusion zone;(c) allow the Secretary of State to direct that a relevant development order or MCA scheme may not be made if it would grant such planning permission.(5) The regulations may, in relation to a planning application relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in a restricted zone—(a) require the applicant to provide specified information about the seismic impact of the proposals (“seismic impact information”) to which their application relates;(b) require the planning decision-maker to use the seismic impact information in a specified way when determining the application (including when determining conditions relating to a permission or consent);(c) require the planning decision-maker to refuse, or decline to determine or accept, the application in specified circumstances;(d) require the planning decision-maker to provide the Secretary of State with the seismic impact information, and to seek the Secretary of State’s views on the seismic impact of the proposals;(e) require the planning decision-maker to refuse, or decline to determine or accept, the application if the Secretary of State objects to it on grounds relating to the seismic impact of the proposals.(6) The regulations may—(a) require a person proposing to make a relevant development order or MCA scheme to consult the Secretary of State if the order or scheme would grant planning permission for development relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in a restricted zone;(b) allow the Secretary of State to direct that a relevant development order or MCA scheme may not be made if it would grant such planning permission. (7) The regulations may include provision about the procedure for planning applications to which they relate, such as—(a) provision enabling or requiring a planning decision-maker to decline to determine or accept an application;(b) provision modifying the process for determining an application;(c) provision allowing the Secretary of State to give a direction to the planning-decision maker about the procedure for an application;(d) provision modifying or disapplying a right of appeal or review;(e) provision disapplying a duty imposed on a planning decision-maker when determining an application.(8) The regulations may require a planning decision-maker to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.(9) Regulations under this section may—(a) amend or repeal provision contained in an Act of Parliament or an Act of the Scottish Parliament;(b) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(c) make provision binding the Crown;(d) make transitional, transitory or saving provision;(e) make incidental, supplementary or consequential provision.(10) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section which amend or repeal provision contained in an Act of Parliament or an Act of the Scottish Parliament may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(12) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(13) If a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section would, apart from this subsection, be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.(14) In this section—“MCA scheme” means a masterplan consent area scheme made under Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;“planning application” means—(a) an application for planning permission under Part 3 or Part 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,(b) an application for planning permission under Part 3 or Part 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997,(c) an application for an order granting development consent under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008, or(d) an application under section 36 or 36C of the Electricity Act 1989 (consent for construction etc of generating station);“planning decision-maker” means a person who determines a planning application;“relevant development order” means—(a) a local development order made under section 61A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; (b) a Mayoral development order made under section 61DA of that Act;(c) a neighbourhood development order made under section 61E of that Act;(d) a development order made under section 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;“wind generating station” means a generating station that generates electricity from wind.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would empower the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to planning permissions for wind generating stations that may affect the operation of seismic array systems used for defence purposes that are in use at the time that the Act is passed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment standing in my name seeks to create powers to ensure that seismic array systems are protected in areas where wind farms are proposed to be built, thus enabling the development of onshore wind where it will not have an adverse effect on seismic array systems. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who has a very deep knowledge of this subject and who kindly agreed to have a meeting with me even this morning on the topic, so I am grateful to him.
This amendment will enable regulations to be brought forward for the safeguarding of current Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty essential seismic arrays, notably the Eskdalemuir seismic array in southern Scotland. As a component of the international monitoring system for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, signed by the United Kingdom in 1996, the array is critical for maintaining effective defence monitoring capabilities.
The amendment allows for regulations, subject to forthcoming consultation, to underpin more accurate measuring of the seismic impact of wind turbines, create clear zones within which seismic impacts must be taken into account, and set out how the Ministry of Defence would make these assessments. This would create certainty for planning authorities, the Ministry of Defence and developers, enabling appropriate proposals for wind farm development to be brought forward.
Enabling the development of onshore wind in the Eskdalemuir area will be a positive step towards the Clean Power 2030 mission and net-zero targets, with up to 3 gigawatts of onshore wind that could deliver by 2030. This 3 gigawatts could bring with it up to £2 billion of investment into UK-based onshore wind services. It could deliver up to £15 million per year to communities in the Eskdalemuir area through community benefit funds.
The amendment has been introduced at a late stage to allow for ongoing development of technical and policy work to identify a solution that effectively safeguards the array and enables onshore wind within the Eskdalemuir Working Group, a collaborative forum that has historically been led by the Scottish Government, to whom we are indebted, and has input from the UK Government, including the MoD.
The Bill represents the last available opportunity to secure the 3 gigawatt onshore wind capacity in time for 2030, and the economic benefits that it would bring. Not proceeding at this time and delaying further would impact deployment, reduce critical investor/developer confidence, and halt the momentum to resolve this issue. That being the case, I hope that the House will support this amendment.
Amendment 42, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to specify the maximum extent of zones within which onshore wind development may be totally restricted, and within which relevant regulations will apply. Such specificity at this stage risks pre-empting the government decision-making prior to the launch of a public consultation, which the Government committed to in the onshore wind taskforce strategy in July 2025. To do so could result in the most appropriate options for safeguarding seismic arrays and enabling onshore wind being discarded without proper consideration, as they would not be possible under the primary powers as amended. Safeguarding zones around MoD assets are constructed from specific criteria appropriate to individual assets.
The Government are seeking legislation to enable regulations that both protect seismic arrays and create certainty for onshore wind developers and planning authorities. If these zones are created through regulations, it will not be with the aim of blocking all onshore wind development, as is the case currently, but with the intention to safeguard seismic arrays and allow appropriate onshore wind development.
I hope that clarifies the approach we have taken, and that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment. I beg to move the government amendment.
Amendment 42 (to Amendment 41)
Earl Russell
“(a) an exclusion zone of not more than 10 kilometres, and(b) a restricted zone of not more than 50 kilometres,”
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to my Amendment 42, which seeks to amend government Amendment 41. I have written a speech, but I might just speak off the top of my head.
The Government’s amendment came out on Report, and when it did it is fair to say that in relation to Eskdalemuir, and particularly to CWP Energy, there were worries about its possible impacts. As the Minister said, Eskdalemuir is a very big proposal for a wind development of 3 gigawatts of energy.
These matters are complicated. They relate to the interplay between the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty ground-based sensors and a monitoring system which has second-tier arrays that are part of the treaty, providing a global monitoring system for above-ground and underground nuclear tests. As the Minister alluded to, at one point in my life I did research on nuclear arms control and did my master’s in it, which is how I know a tiny bit about some of the policy side—not the technical side, to be clear.
When the government amendment was tabled, there was worry in the industry that these exclusion zones and their extension would have significant impacts on what is a big renewable energy deployment that is important for the UK. It is important for us to reach our clean power targets. It is also important for the Borders area and for more than just that area and this wind site going ahead. This corridor of development has good fibre-optic cables. The plan is to develop data centres and link them to the cables and the network stuff that is happening there. There is a whole bunch of economic development here that could be impacted by this.
The industry was worried that the government amendment would, in effect, stymie this wind project. The people who have been developing the project have been trying to find mitigations and solutions for how we can have our onshore wind energy generation and meet our Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty monitoring obligations. As part of that process, they have invested over £200 million. Instead of having sensors on the surface, they have come up with plans to bore down from 60 metres to 200 metres. They have worked with one of the founders of the treaty. The sensors that they want to put in place are recognised by the CTBTO. When they are in place, because they are not on the surface, they will no longer be subject to other vibrations. It is not just wind. It could be quarrying or forestry or all sorts of other activities that could interplay.
The hope is that the project developers get to a place where they can fund not only the research, development and placing of these sensors but their ongoing upkeep. Some technical conversations need to take place between our people in the MoD and the AWE and the Government, to make sure that they can do their stuff so that we can have both these things together and do not have an either/or.
To cut my speech short, following the conversations that I have had with the Minister, I am satisfied that the Government will work to find a way forward and that in the fullness of time the experts can get together. Because we already have solutions with offshore wind for these kinds of problems, I am hopeful that these can be resolved. I appreciate the Government’s and the Minister’s time.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I speak slightly in awe. I am not the world expert on seismic arrays, so I will keep my comments brief. This is the practical bit. We recognise that the Government are trying to create a balancing act between the safe and critical operation of seismic arrays and the opportunity of wind farms. From this side of the House, without the technical knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, can we receive an assurance from the Government that they have that balance right and that we will not compromise those seismic arrays and the potential national security and treaty obligations?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that we are working very closely with our colleagues in the MoD on this issue and will endeavour to make sure that the balance is right in both cases.
Lord Fuller
“Prohibition on the application of the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime to large-scale solar developments on the best and most versatile land(1) Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008 (nationally significant infrastructure projects: general) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Large-scale solar developments must not be considered nationally significant infrastructure projects where they are built or developed on agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a.”.(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3ZA) The Secretary of State may not use orders under subsection (3)(a) to extend the application of subsection (1) to large-scale solar developments.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that planning decisions remain in the hands of local councils for large-scale solar developments on the best and most versatile land through prohibiting such developments from falling under the nationally significant infrastructure projects provisions in the Planning Act 2008.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 43, co-signed by my Front-Bench colleagues, is simple and straightforward, rather like Amendment 45 from my noble friend Lady Hodgson, who, sadly, is not in her place.
Our amendments are similar, but I prefer my own, because my proposal is not the complete ban on solar developments on the best and most versatile land contemplated by my noble friend. What mine seeks to achieve is that where such proposals do come forward, they are successful only with the consent and agreement of local people. It recognises that solar farms have a role to play in our energy security, but that role must be balanced with an effective use of our best farmland for food security.
This amendment will not prevent or fetter the development of solar farms on the poorest-quality land or restrain smaller proposals on better-quality land where they command the support of the local authority. But where large-scale solar proposals do come forward that include the best and most versatile land, my amendment means that the NSIP process cannot and will not be engaged. It is not the absolute ban on solar on the best land, but it does put a hurdle on which the applicant will need to work hard with local people to surpass, and that restores the balance of negotiating power that has become out of kilter between the developers and local residents.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I will say a word about Amendment 45, which has been tabled by my noble kinswoman, my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. My noble friend cannot be here—she is part of an IPU delegation in Geneva—and she asked if I would come tonight, apologise to the House for her absence and make a few remarks about this amendment on her behalf.
I am happy to do this not just for reasons of domestic harmony, although domestic harmony is very desirable, but because this amendment runs very parallel to one about food security that I moved in Committee. My issues then looked top-down at the world position and how it would impact this country’s food security; this amendment looks bottom-up at what we need to do to make sure that we do not unnecessarily and unduly impede our ability to feed ourselves, which must surely be a key responsibility of any Government.
My noble friend asked me to make a number of points. Before I do, I remind your Lordships of my entry in the register: my family investment company owns a few acres of agricultural land.
The first point is that solar power development should not take place on higher-quality agricultural land, which was the point that my noble friend Lord Fuller made. We need to keep this productive land to feed ourselves and remember that, if we lose it once to solar panels and solar farms, we have probably lost it for ever.
The Minister might refer to the forthcoming land use framework as providing the answer to this, but that will not come out until this Bill is an Act. One hears the awful sound of a door slamming behind a bolting horse.
The second issue is another point made by my noble friend Lord Fuller, about the continuing and rising tensions geopolitically. We need to keep those always in mind when we consider this country’s position and our ability to feed ourselves by bringing in food from overseas. We grow just over half our food ourselves.
The third point is that using agricultural land for solar panels has too often been the soft touch and the easy option. As has been said, farming is not particularly profitable and is cyclical. Therefore, it is much easier for a farmer to sign a long-term contract that provides security for a generation, for himself and for his family. That is one route.
The other route, of course, which is much more difficult, is to go down the commercial channel. There, the Government are likely to see much more hard-headed commercial resistance. For example, as a first step, why are we not putting solar panels on every new house we build? Why are we not insisting that solar panels are put on every new factory and every commercial building that is constructed? Why are we not thinking about retrofitting solar panels to existing buildings where suitable? All that would improve the situation without us having to reduce the amount of land available for production of food.
My fourth point takes the Minister to a point she made in Committee, to which she was not, to be honest, able to give an entirely satisfactory response. What plans do the Government have to monitor the continuing ownership of these solar farms—not just the person who builds them and owns them initially but when they are sold? If the Government argue that solar power is critical to this country, some monitoring of who owns that critical facility is obviously important. The Minister has written to my noble friend—she is grateful for that—and indicated that the Government are thinking of some form of monitoring, but it is not clear in what form the statutory basis of the monitoring will be. Will it be in statute? Will it be guidance? Will it be advisory? Who will enforce it? My noble friend Lord Blencathra and I have spent enough time dealing with secondary legislation to know that there are all sorts of ways in which this can be effective or not. It would be very helpful for the House to know what the Government have in mind for this critical part of our future national life.
Finally, no proper account has been taken to assess the permanent damage to our countryside—not just the short-term implications for roads, with tons of material being brought in to establish a solar farm, but the long-term visual impact on our country. In an age when mental illness is rising, we should not underestimate the value of open country. Not for nothing did Octavia Hill, one of the co-founders of the National Trust, write:
“We all want quiet. We all want beauty … we all need space. Unless we have it, we cannot reach that sense of quiet in which whispers of better things come to us gently”.
The Minister will say that the Government have clocked this and are working hard to make sure they are collecting all the appropriate statistics to ensure that these risks are being examined. Indeed, she concluded a long paragraph on this in Committee by saying:
“The Government therefore already have legal requirements to report regularly on matters relevant to food security in the UK”.—[Official Report, 15/9/25; col. 1963.]
I do not for a moment suggest that the Government are not collecting lots and lots of statistics. The critical question is what they are then doing with them. Which government department and Secretary of State are responsible for taking all this information, which we are told is now being collected and we all agree is very important and has a real impact on our future as a country, assessing it, working with it, interpreting it and using it to guide future policy?
I think the House is entitled to know from the Government how it is being used, how we can be reassured that our future is being properly assessed, and that it is not falling between the stools of different departments and that there is a Secretary of State responsible who is going to be able to keep us, Parliament and the country, informed that our future is safe.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, in supporting these amendments, I must first declare my family farming and land-owning interests for the purposes of Report on this Bill. I should say in this context that we have both food production and some land—less good land, I may say—with a solar array on it.
Normally, in the past, I have stood up and said on these land use decisions that we should wait until we get the land use framework, which we are told is imminent, any minute now. But I have had a conversion. First, I am not quite sure to what extent conformity with the land use framework is going to be mandatory for local planning authorities or indeed for Secretaries of State. Having been chairman of the Land Use in England Committee, I have had a glimpse of what the Government’s response to the consultation is likely to be. I am not disclosing any secrets here but they seem to be saying that, when it comes to solar arrays, merely—I underline that word—that lower-quality agricultural land is preferable to higher-quality agricultural land. That is seriously not good enough. We should take this opportunity to ensure that our best food-producing farmland is legally protected for the long term.
I firmly believe that good food production should be sacrosanct. Whatever the land use framework comes up with, now or in any future iterations—there no doubt that it is going to change as demands change over the decades—there is no doubt in my mind that the long-term defence of our realm depends crucially on our ability to feed ourselves, more so than on the number of regiments we have, frankly. Indeed, so does the peace of our realm. I think it was over 10 years ago that I first mentioned in this House that we are only ever nine meals away from total anarchy. At the time, I had to explain exactly what I meant by that phrase; nowadays, I think people take it as read and know exactly what I mean by that phrase.
Whatever the passing needs of our energy requirements, our best food-producing land should remain constantly sacrosanct, and the flexibility of our land use should never include or usurp our best food-producing land. There is, after all, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said, lots of other land all over the country, often south-sloping hillsides, that is less than optimum for producing our food and which therefore can be used for solar panels.
There is no doubt in my mind that in every local planning authority and every county, maybe every year, there are going to be lots of people trying to produce solar panels. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, just asked, who is going to be monitoring this? We need somebody to monitor what is going on, because every year we are going to be whittling away at our capacity to feed ourselves. I do not believe we should allow that to happen, so I strongly support Amendments 43 and 45.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. I cannot match the eloquence of other speakers, or the length of their speeches for that matter, but I want to support my noble friend Lady Hodgson’s Amendment 45. The reason I want to support it is that I want, as has just been said, some clarification about the Government’s position regarding the use of agricultural land for solar panels—and, I suppose, for battery storage plants, which are equally a concern to an awful lot of the public at present.
In Yorkshire, at the moment, we have a plethora of applications, all speculative, without apparently much resource behind them, and all hoping to get permission from local planning authorities, being just below the 50-megawatt limit that would require them to have more strategic consideration. There are so many of them at present that the planning officers are quite undermined in their work and unable to deal with them—but they will do. The problem we have is that, unless the Government are a little clearer on their view about the use or misuse of very good agricultural land, lots of these matters will proceed much against the wish of agricultural experts, farmers and local rural communities in particular.
I therefore urge the Minister to make it quite clear not just that the Government prefer that we do not utilise grades 1, 2, 3 and 3A agricultural land for solar panels, and that it should be used for agricultural purposes—preferably the production of food—but that this will not be allowed. They should tell planning officials that that is the view of the Government, because otherwise, simply preferring something is absolutely pointless.
The only other point I wish to add is that every single one of these speculative operators that seem to have come on the scene, certainly in Yorkshire and I believe elsewhere, try to placate local communities by saying that this will be only for 40 years—that in 40 years everything will be put back to its present state, or improved for that matter. I do not think I shall be here in 40 years, and I do not think most of the speculative companies will be. Without a proper bond in place, showing that they are worth the resources that they claim they are, this is a totally useless and pointless statement. The Government should point that out at all opportunities.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger and her Amendment 45, to which I tried to add my name but was too late. It was persuasively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, and I will try to be brief.
The essence of responsible political choice is to look to the long term. Good agricultural land is one resource that should be with us for ever. Development should not be allowed to prejudice the long-term interests of our nation. While I support Amendment 43, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, which was well supported by his local knowledge, I prefer Amendment 45 because it would guarantee the protection of grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3A land against the substantial commercial pull of solar at prevailing returns in the energy and agriculture sectors.
Such protection would help to reverse the short-sighted change to planning guidance based on short-sighted thinking, to my view, by the Blair Government. Labour has never been a real friend of the farming community, despite its national importance, articulated so well by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the need to grow our own food. It would be wonderful to see a change of heart in the changed circumstances we see today, where food security is so important.
My view is that we should concentrate solar investment in urban areas and on urban rooftops—for example, on businesses and on supermarkets, which I promoted in my years at Tesco—especially in countries such as Hungary and Thailand, where the sun is hot and shines more brightly. I should perhaps end by saying that I have an interest as a part owner of two small fields, the remnants of a family farm long since sold.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, there are 3.3 billion barrels of oil easily available in the North Sea. An independent study by Westwood Global Energy Group for Offshore Energies UK suggests that up to 7.5 billion barrels could still be produced, while the Government’s own figures suggest about 3.2 billion barrels. The North Sea Transition Authority estimates that there are 6.1 billion barrels of oil of contingent resources and 4 billion barrels of oil in mapped leads and prospects—whatever those are—plus an additional 11.2 billion barrels in plays outside these mapped areas. There are billions and billions of gallons of oil that we could use, and we need. But we have a fanatical Secretary of State for Energy who is obsessed with the last bit of his title: the Minister for Net Zero. He is destroying the UK’s energy needs on our doorstep—or under our seabed, to be more precise. Energy should be our priority.
Without substantial new investment in domestic production, the UK is projected to import about 70% of its oil and gas needs by 2030, rising to over 80% by 2035. Even with a goal of net zero by 2050, the UK will still need between 13 billion and 15 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent to meet its energy needs. Although demand for oil and gas will fall significantly, they are expected to meet a quarter of energy needs by 2050 to provide long-term power and support the energy transition, especially when paired with carbon capture technology. So a quarter of our energy needs will still come from oil and gas. We are sitting on billions of gallons of oil that we will not extract from our own country, and we will then import billions from abroad. How barking mad is that?
This fanatical energy department is not only destroying our oil and gas production systems but putting whole swathes of British industry out of action, making it uncompetitive by removing a cheap commodity that all our competitors use. There will never be Labour’s dream of growth while the Secretary of State is still in post—no wonder most of the Cabinet want him sacked. His obsession with net zero is also leading to the destruction of some of our finest countryside and the imposition of massive—
Lord Blencathra (Con)
That is in the sentence that I am just about to say.
The Secretary of State’s obsession with net zero is now leading to the destruction of some of our finest British countryside, with the imposition of massive solar farms on some of our finest productive land. We would not need all these solar farms if we actually dug out the oil sitting under our own North Sea, but he has now put a stop to that. That is the point of my introduction. No doubt, as the MP for Doncaster North, he will still get his avocados, soya milk and pomegranate seeds from overseas, while our UK farms, producing the food that most Britons eat—our beef, our lamb and our wonderful vegetables, such as broccoli, cabbage, brussels sprouts, et cetera—will be covered over by solar panels.
My noble friend has made that point, and I will raise a different but related one tonight. My friend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not with us tonight. Noble Lords may have heard of a report about a month ago that a bus lost control in Victoria Street and crashed into a bus stop, including pedestrians. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was one of those injured and was rushed to hospital. The photographs of his injuries are quite horrific, but he says that he believes he has not suffered catastrophic injuries, despite the bus fracturing his spine. He is in a brace, recovering. We wish him a speedy recovery and wish him back here as soon as possible.
Crucially, of course, he is as mentally sharp as ever, with lots of posts going out weekly defending victims of human rights abuses in all those countries that kill, torture, enslave and abuse their citizens. One of those countries is China. It is a threat to us militarily, as it builds a massive military complex superior to the United States. It is a threat to us commercially, as it steals every commercial secret we have. It is a threat to us politically and culturally, as it infiltrates our universities, institutions and even this Parliament.
The important point I want to make in this debate tonight is to say, in my inadequate way, what I think the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would have said if he were with us tonight. My concern is that we will be filling England with some of the products from that oppressive and hostile regime. China manufactures 80% of the solar panels in the world. Some 68% of all the solar panels sold and used in the United Kingdom come from China, many made by the slave labour of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province. Even those not made in that province are still made in the hostile Chinese regime, which has an appalling human rights record.
What has happened to the Labour Party, which permits the Secretary of State to cover our countryside with products made by such a deplorable regime? Some of the Members opposite will be old enough to remember the late Robin Cook, Labour Foreign Secretary, and his ethical foreign policy. It did not quite work out as planned, but at least he sought to have one. Underpinning the ethical initiative was the guiding idea that Britain would seek to advance the cause of human rights in international affairs. I know that is not easy, and I appreciate how Governments face difficult problems and have to get into bed with some awful regimes in order to keep out even more awful regimes, but this is an easy one as far as solar panels are concerned.
I want a commitment from the Government that all the solar wind farms rubber-stamped by Ed Miliband will have a condition that they will not use any Chinese-produced solar panels, bearing in mind that 32% of the solar panels in this country are not Chinese—so there are alternatives. I understand that there is a company based in south Wales called GB-Sol that manufactures a wide range of solar panel modules for domestic, commercial and specialist applications. There is a company called UKSOL, a British solar modules brand, that produces high-efficiency PV modules. There is another company called Romag, a large and established manufacturer that also produces British solar panels, as well as one called Anglo Solar, which I found—another UK company.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I would just like to say a few words, because I actually believe that solar energy is a very good thing. We have installed it—and I must declare my interest, in that my family bulb-growing and farming industry business in south Lincolnshire is obviously on grade 1 land. All our land is grade 1, and we do not want solar panels on it; our neighbours do not want solar panels on their land. But we have installed solar panels on all our warehouses that we use for our business.
There are ways in which the farming community can co-operate with the general wish to see regenerative energy available to the well-being of the country. But if you live in south Lincolnshire, you live on a corner of the coastline where so many powerlines go through and there is a risk that it is so convenient—there are so many substations and so many points of contact with the national grid that go across that particular area of the Wash—that it is a temptation. All I would say is that, while solar energy is good, so is food production. While bulbs, which most people know I produce, are not edible but are just for the delight of people in their recreation, most of our land is agricultural land producing vegetables and all the sorts of things that people need to have a healthy diet in this country. We would be wrong to do other than support the amendments proposed by my noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Fuller.
There has been a lot of rhetoric, and I think some of it has been counterproductive. The Secretary of State for Energy is doing what he feels is his mission. However, this House should send amendments to this Bill that remind him that there are priorities other than renewable energy and, by passing these amendments, we would provide a contribution to the debate that makes it sensible for Governments of whatever colour or party to realise that food security is equally as important as energy security. I hope that noble Lords will see this question in the round and not from a partisan point of view and support these amendments.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to both these amendments, considering the hour. We cannot support either of these amendments, which are both too prescriptive and too absolutist. Indeed, there is a complete disconnect between the amendments at hand and the speeches that have been made to defend them.
Amendment 43 would prevent certain solar projects from being treated as nationally significant infrastructure projects, fragmenting a regime that already provides national oversight, rigorous assessment and opportunities for local consultancy. Amendment 45 would go even further, imposing an outright ban on ground-mounted solar on land grades 1, 2 or 3a. Together, these amendments would send a chilling signal to investors, delaying deployment and weakening our ability to decarbonise our power system.
The Tory policy on climate change seems to change more often than the wind changes direction. I cannot accept these amendments and do not like this whole narrative that we have either food security or energy security. We can have both. Indeed, the biggest challenge to our food security is climate change itself. We have had the five worst harvests in the last 10 years; it is either too wet or too dry. We must do something about climate change.
Solar panels and agrivoltaics can fit together with agricultural land. When we face a warming climate, deploying agrivoltaics might actually be a way of safeguarding our food security, as opposed to challenging it. A quarter of our farmers in the UK already have some form of solar deployed, either on their roofs or in their fields. It is an important way of supporting our farmers, in the face of a changing climate that is weakening their abilities to make a profit from what they do, so that they can continue to survive and provide food to put on our tables.
This whole narrative that it is one or the other is absolutist. It is not helpful and does not get us further forward on this debate. If there were amendments coming forward saying more must be done to make sure that the last resort we use is agricultural land, I would listen to those proposals. We need to do more to get solar panels on rooftops, on warehouses and on balconies, but the Government are taking action on this. They have got policies for rooftop solar. We will be getting the warm home plans, and other plans so that we have rooftop solar on all new builds. We need to go further on that, but these amendments are not helpful.
The idea that you cannot take a single millimetre of grade 1 agricultural land is not helpful. Nobody on these Benches ever asked how much high-grade farming land is used for golf courses, driveways or any other need at all. Somehow, it is only ever solar panels which are a threat to our food security. It is a very simplistic, unhelpful narrative that is designed on propaganda. It is not about food security or protecting our country in any way.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
Before the noble Earl sits down, where is his amendment to improve the Bill? Why has he not presented something to this House? I think it insults the House that he condemns positive constructions from the House in general while not presenting anything of his own.
Earl Russell (LD)
It is a very fair question. The noble Lord is entitled to ask me any question he wants and I welcome his intervention. I have tabled loads of amendments in Committee on the Bill. This is not a Bill about solar; it is about the wider planning system. I am happy with the system as it is, so I have not put an amendment in.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller for Amendment 43 and to my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for his loyal and able introduction of Amendment 45 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. I declare my interest as a farmer, although not of as much best and most versatile land as I would like. To illustrate the point made by my noble friend Lord Fuller, I point out that solar currently offers risk-free returns roughly five times as great as farming land. From a farmer’s point of view, the incentives for doing this are very strong and it is up to the Government to regulate and protect the best and most versatile land.
I will not repeat the arguments that we have heard. They have been very well made and were made at earlier stages of this Bill, as well as on previous Bills, debates and Questions. I will briefly outline our position on these amendments.
We on these Benches are steadfast: food security is national security. Protecting our best and most versatile agricultural land is essential, and we will not apologise for standing up for our farmers and consumers. When the most productive agricultural land is lost to solar developments, our food supply is less secure when it need not be. Where solar developments are pursued, they should be developed on weaker land, not on our most productive farmland. My noble friend Lord Fuller indicated that 42% of UK agricultural land is best and most versatile, but there is also a great deal of unclassified land. So if it is far less than 42% of our landmass, why are we building these large-scale solar farms on it?
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that there was not a problem here, but since the last election we have seen a number of NSIPs brought forward that include a significant amount of best and most versatile land. It is not necessary to use this best and most versatile land; plenty of land is available that is weaker and could support the incomes of the farming community while providing the energy that we are looking for. Should my noble friend Lord Fuller wish to test the opinion of the House, we will support him. I look to noble Lords on the Benches to my left to join us in standing up for farmers and underpinning our commitment to food security. It will be very disappointing if they are unwilling to support this important amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Before I respond, I send our best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for a very speedy recovery. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, his amazing contributions to our debates, particularly on human rights issues, are greatly missed and I hope he will be back with us as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson—whom the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, ably stood in for—have tabled amendments relating to solar generation on agricultural land. This was debated at great length in Committee. While I appreciate the very strong feelings on this issue, the Government’s approach to these propositions has not changed.
On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, it is important that every project is submitted to the planning process which befits its impact, scale and complexity. The Government believe that large solar farms, even when they propose to use higher-quality agricultural land, are best dealt with under the NSIP regime. The NSIP regime is rigorous. Local engagement remains at the heart of the process. Developers taking projects through the NSIP regime must undertake meaningful community engagement before any decision is taken. The level and quality of community engagement, among other factors, will be taken into account by decision-makers.
In Committee, the noble Lord appeared to suggest that the involvement of Ministers in the NSIP regime undermines public confidence in its ability to assess the costs and benefits of solar projects. I reassure him and your Lordships’ House that all ministerial planning decisions must be taken in strict accordance with planning policy and the Ministerial Code. This is in line with the policy governing decision-making by local planning authorities. As a result, as I explained on the last occasion when we debated this, we would not expect the planning outcomes to change.
As I argued previously, the Government are fully aware of the benefits of returning control, where suitable, to local authorities. At the end of the year, we shall double the NSIP threshold for solar, enabling projects of up to 100 megawatts to be decided locally. There is only one solar farm above 100 megawatts at the moment, and that was decided through an NSIP process.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Yes. Any marginal gain in public confidence from returning control to local authorities must be weighed against the likely costs of this proposal. First, giving responsibility for the complex and lengthy examination of NSIP-scale projects to local planning departments will increase the burden on resources that are already under pressure. Secondly, for proposals that are of strategic importance to the country, central government is the most appropriate decision-maker. Changing policy to give these decisions to local authorities may increase investor uncertainty at a pivotal moment. Lastly, accepting this amendment would imply that the NSIP regime is either not competent or not qualified to adjudicate on some issues. It may reduce confidence in NSIP decisions that have already been taken and in those that will be taken in the future.
On the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, the Government sympathise with her objective to protect fertile farmland from overdevelopment. In Committee, she mentioned how the war in Ukraine has brought into sharp relief the need to protect food security. This gets to the heart of the matter, for another lesson of the war in Ukraine is the strategic vulnerability of relying on volatile imported fossil fuels for our energy supply. We must find the right balance between food security and energy security. That is why food security and energy security are currently balanced in the planning system, which considers both these factors.
This amendment tilts the balance too far in one direction, so we must oppose it. It would prevent a significant portion of the solar development required to deliver energy security. Many fields contain land that varies in quality. It would not be proportionate to reject an otherwise beneficial project because a small portion of its total area was classified as “best and most versatile land”. This blunt instrument would jeopardise the Government’s plan to achieve clean power by 2030 and, in turn, our work to deliver lower bills in the long term, high-skilled jobs, and, yes, energy security.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned the monitoring of solar farms. The Renewable Energy Planning Database lists all projects larger than 150 kilowatts, such as solar farms, including their precise locations. It covers projects at all stages of the planning process, from application to operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to the land use framework and whether it is a material consideration in terms of the planning process. By law, planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise; what constitutes a material consideration is for the local planning authority to determine, based on the circumstances of a particular case. The evidence base that underpinned the land use consultation and feedback on it will inform the Government’s wider strategic planning agenda.
I would like to make a few brief comments on what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said about China—
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
The Minister talked about the monitoring procedures. Her remarks indicated they were going to be only when the projects were in their early stages. The worry is what happens maybe three, four or five years later, when the people who start owning it pass it on to someone who may be less attractive to the future of this country. Will the monitoring be a continuous process throughout the life of each project?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I believe I said—I hope I did—that all stages would be monitored, from application to operation. I hope that is reassuring to the noble Lord.
In relation to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on China—it is important to pick them up—the Government are committed to tackling the issue of Uyghur forced labour in supply chains, including the mining of polysilicon used in the manufacture of solar panels. We expect UK businesses and solar developers to do everything in their power to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chains. The Procurement Act 2023, which came into force on 24 February, enables public sector contracting authorities to reject bids from and terminate contracts with suppliers that are known to use forced labour themselves or anywhere in their supply chain.
The Government are considering how to strengthen Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which places a requirement on businesses with a turnover of £36 million or more to publish an annual modern slavery statement, including possible penalties for non-compliance, as well as working with a wide range of stakeholders to update the Section 54 statutory guidance. I hope that gives the noble Lord some reassurance that we are taking this very seriously indeed.
From my time as the Minister in MHCLG with responsibility for net zero, I know that we have looked extensively at the UK supply chains and what might be done to further promote and help them to grow their businesses. All this being said, I agree with the sentiments of the noble Baroness that more should be done to install solar on rooftops. We are pursuing various measures in connection to this, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, from solar on schools and hospitals and our new building standards to tax breaks and our new £13.2 billion warm homes plan. We have recently conducted a call for evidence about solar car parks, which the noble Baroness praised in Committee.
It is important that we do not overstate the amount of agricultural land that might be occupied by solar infrastructure. I know the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, questioned the Government’s figures on land use. Without being drawn into that discussion, it is clear that a relatively small amount of land, 0.4% in the most ambitious scenarios, is due to have solar installed by 2030. This does not constitute a threat to food security or to British farming, which the Government will always champion. Rather, the primary threat to British agriculture comes from the damaging effects of climate change, and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, already mentioned the impact on harvests this year. We have to take that into account as well. I, for one, think that Britain should do its part in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Building low-carbon power plants is an essential aspect of this.
I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will note the steps the Government have taken to return the decision-making of more solar projects to local authorities and the existing robust provisions for planning authorities to consider impacts on food production, and that the noble Lord might consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her winding. I do not intend to relitigate the debate we have just had; it is very late. It is almost as if the Government timetabled this debate after hours so the viewers at home could not see it. That is a shame, because the viewers would have seen for the first time the Lib Dems’ touching concern for the chilling effect on the investment prospects of the international investors for whom they wear their hearts on their sleeves.
We have reached a turning point in our nation’s story. We have a choice: will we stand up for those who put food in our bellies or is the Minister stuck in the middle of a fight between the Prime Minister on one hand, who says he believes in food security being national security, and an Energy Minister on the other who is impoverishing our nation, sacrificing thousands of British jobs on the altar of net zero while importing the jobs we used to make, but this time for more polluting factories overseas, which achieves nothing but to make us poorer?
We have a choice before us. It is not a binary choice of one or the other, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In our proposal, 58% of the national land would continue to be available. That is not binary; that is proportionate. Here is an opportunity for us all to get the balance right between energy security and food security by agreeing to my amendment. The counterfactual is that we condemn our countryside to an uncontrolled future, where our landscapes are impoverished and collateralised, passed around the global financial system like chips on a poker table.
To govern is to choose. Will this Government continue their war on the countryside or will they, even at this late hour, support our landscapes, the food producers and the rural economy? We should know. I would like to test the opinion of the House.