Lords Chamber

Monday 1st September 2025

(began 2 hours, 23 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:48
14:49
None Portrait Oral questions: Development of Palestinian Territories, beyond recognition of a Palestinian State, including governance, anti-corruption measures, and institutional capacity-building
-

for example taking photographs of suspicious moles to see if there are malignant.
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
I actually do recognise and commend the work the noble Lord does to bring about a future for the people of Israel and the people of Palestine. He knows and I know, and I think there is broad agreement that the future here is for a two- state solution. Our view is that the best way to bring that about is for there to be a Palestinian Authority that has the capacity and capability to be able to run the future state in a way that is, in a way that we would all wish to see.

The points that he raises about textbooks are valid. That is one of the reasons why I want to work with the Palestinian Authority in order to reform the way that this is done, and other issues as well, which I'm sure will be raised in this exchange. On the issue of food, I'm glad that he has brought this up -- I'm glad that he has been and saw some aid trucks going in. The truth is that what is going on -- in is a very small fraction of what is needed.

Over 2000 people have been killed trying to access aid through the Gaza humanitarian foundation. It is failing to deliver aid in the volume in which it is needed. The IPC have now designated in. We expect thousands of children will die in the coming months and levels of -- unless the levels of aid are dramatically increased. I know that is what he wants to see as well. Nobody in this chamber and arguing that this is an acceptable situation. What we have to do is work out how to persuade the government of Israel to get the aid and the medical supplies and the people and water to where it is needed to save lives and that must be done immediately.

be done immediately.
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:58
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:10
None Portrait Oral questions: Introducing activity regulations under the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023
-

I beg leave to ask the question paper.
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
One of the reasons I talked about nonlegislative is because what we want to do here is stop people buying the holidays in the first place. One of the problems is people simply do not understand that if they are booking a holiday with an elephant ride, what has happened to that elephant, the way it has been treated in order for it to be written in the first place. So there is an education piece. The travel agents organisation offers guidance, it offers guidance as to what kind of activities are considered to be unacceptable when it is working with its own members.

That guidance is there. We have been working with them to see how we can encourage them to see how we can encourage further uptake so it covers more, 90 percent is a high number but it is not everybody. not everybody. Often ask questions. May I say I am prepared to bet that if she was prepared to bet that if she was sitting on the side still she would be berating the government for dragging its feet. I would like to ask that same question, connected ask that same question, connected with another practical one, when it may we expect this, in months or years? I'm sorry to disappoint the noble Lady but I cannot give her a date.

All I can say is that it is something I am actively looking at and working on. We are shortly going to be publishing the animal welfare strategy which I have been preparing over the last 12 months. That will be out before the end of the year, and we are including this in the animal welfare strategy is something we want to deliver. we want to deliver.
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:22
None Portrait Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill - committee stage (day 3) - part one
-

contrary, not content. The contents have it. -- say conent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment 72 in my
15:23
15:24
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment proposed. I thank the Minister for being so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for being so brief and to the point and allowing me the opportunity to explain what the purposes of the other amendments the purposes of the other amendments in this group in my name, amendments 73 to 76. I look forward to hearing from Lord Russell about grid capacity. I grind the house of my registered interest as Chair of development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. My amendments relate to clause 17, which is a power to give ministers the opportunity to designate strategic plans for the purposes of the connections, reforms that are taking place in relation to the transmission of distribution networks.

I suppose it would be helpful for the house, not least because it will connect to what the noble Lord Errol Russell will wish to raise, just to remind the house that this is a process that is underway -- Earl Russell. It was commenced under the previous administration in 2023. And one of the simple ways of expressing in is that there is a lot of commitment to future substantial increases in generating capacity in a range of technologies that were increasingly forming a queue and looking their potential connection to the transmission or distribution networks.

But there was considerable risk related to whether those projects would actually be delivered, whether they would be delivered on time or at all. And the volume of such commitments made it very clear that a significant proportion of them would not be able to be viable because not all of them would be, would meet, would be in excess of what was required. The numbers very but the latest figure was something like 714 GW of capacity relative to something in the order of 500 GW of demand from the grid.

Instead of the old regime which can be characterised as first ready, first connected, so those who are planning to provide capacity simply booked a place in the queue and then when they were ready, they were given a right to be connected. There is an intention for there to be strategic planning of the process leading to the net zero objectives in 2030, which were published, of course, under the government's Clean Power 2030 plan in December of last year.

Since then, in any case, Ofgem and the National Electricity System Operator, which is for the avoidance of doubt, when unceasing clause 17, reference to the Independent system operator and actually is the national electricity system operator. They are working on this and they have agreed, Ofgem agreed in April their methodologies and have approved the processes, and I have approved the processes, and I think we are in a position where we are anticipating potentially a matter of weeks the first allocation of commitments on the part of Ofgem to what is known as Gate 2.

Gate 2 is Ofgem saying these are projects that will be connected, that we are committed to and will be connected to the distribution networks when they are ready and because they are needed. Now, that is the difference. There are two differences. One, the queue is going to be a straightforward not just first ready, first connected, but first ready, firstly did, first connected. The criteria will be applied in the first instance that there is a clear timetable and, of course, with milestones that which, if not met, may cause projects to lose their place in the queue.

But also that they would be connected when needed. So there is a direct relationship between the strategic planning for electricity capacity in a range of technologies to the project that Ofgem agrees or NISO agrees are going to be brought into supply to the grid at given times in the future. And if I understand correctly, the present strategic objective is set out in the annex, the connections are next to the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan point.

It sets out a range of technologies, a range of capacities that are required in those technologies and then breaks it down by regions across the country. There is a plan to which the alignment should relate. The explanatory notes say that the strategic plan to which the National Electricity System Operator National Electricity System Operator should work may be the Clean Power 2030 Plan. The delegated powers memorandum from Parliament did say that in addition the designated plans are intended to include the strategic spatial energy plan intended to be published in 2026, which in addition to what is in the Clean Power Plan which has 2030 targets and ranges for its potential capacity requirements through to 2035 will extend that to 2050.

This way, there is a longer strategic alignment between those people who are making substantial investments and the commitment on the part of the grid to take those that supply the grid to take those that supply All of that is to explain where we are. The question is where does Parliament fit into this? We are giving the government the power to designate. Insofar as there is a clean power Action Plan and the clean power Action Plan and the clean power Action Plan and the No Parliamentary process associated with the clean power Action Plan.

It was simply published by the government. Unless I am wrong, the strategic spatial energy plan intended to be published next year will have no Parliamentary process associated with it. So, insofar as the national electricity system operator is and the distribution operators are required to align with a designated strategic plan, they are aligning with something in relation to which Parliament has no role. The regulations say that they are designated are intended to be achieved by a negative process.

I think all that Parliament will see in due course is an order made by ministers saying that they clean power Action Plan and the SS EP in due course are designated strategic plans for the purposes of clause, what will then be section 17, planning and infrastructure bill. This will cut across the existing arrangements because Ofgem and the regulator has to have regard to the strategy and priorities statements published by the government. So the strategy and policy statement which the government publishes from time the government publishes from time to time, last time in the earliest part of 2024, is a basis for a statutory basis for the priorities that are set for Ofgem and regulators.

The first question is, for the purpose of the amendments, which is to probe how this is going to work, is what is the relationship between the present strategy and priorities statement, strategy and policy statement published by the government, the last government, and the designated strategic plans? Clearly it would be right and necessary in my view for the present government to publish its own strategy and policy statement to give effect to their intentions under the 2038 Action Plan. And the spatial energy plan.

Second question, is it the government's intention next year, in line with the strategic spatial energy plan, to publish a new strategy and policy statement? Third question is, why is statement? Third question is, why is the strategy and policy statement not the right and sufficient means by which the government sets out the strategic priorities for Ofgem and others?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I say this because under section 165 of the Energy Act, which 165 of the Energy Act, which requires them to have regard to the statements, it makes it clear that statements, it makes it clear that the strategy and policy statement is one that is published under section one that is published under section 1311 of the Energy Act 2013 and it 1311 of the Energy Act 2013 and it can only be published if the procedural consultation requirements in section 135 of the 2013 act be in section 135 of the 2013 act be complied with.

Which, it will not surprise noble Lord snow, means it surprise noble Lord snow, means it should be published in draft, and it should be the subject of a consultation, it should then be laid before Parliament and should be subject to the approval of both subject to the approval of both houses prior to its designation as a strategy and policy statement. That strategy and policy statement. That being the case, the strategy and policy statement, it is the policy statement, it is the intention of my amendment to substitute that, why should the government use that? The differences it would be something that has to be consulted upon and approved by both houses of Parliament before it was that designated plan for the purposes of Ofgem.

When the time comes I would be grateful for the Minister's answers to some of those questions and reserve the right to come back to this report.
15:36
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I remind the House of my Register of Interests that I am a member of the water billing company, non- executive director and board member. I move my amendment 79 and respond to a group of amendments all on connections reform. My amendment 79 calls on the government to insert a new clause into the planning and infrastructure bill under the heading of increasing grid capacity. It proposes that the Secretary of State, within three months of the bill becoming law, should publish a plan to achieve two simple yet crucial objectives, to reduce the time taken for new connections to the transition -- electrical distribution system, and the development of local energy grids.

The need for the amendment should be the on reasonable doubt. If these reforms are not made, I am concerned that we will not be capable of meeting the government's stated meeting the government's stated objectives, which Rees share, to achieve clean power by 2030. The key step on the overall climate change . Electricity demand is set to rise by at least 11 percent before 2030 and at least double by 2050. How we heat our homes, how we travel, how we power our industry must all be powered by electricity and that demands wiring everything up and ensuring low voltage and high voltage networks are fit for purpose.

I would argue this is one of the biggest societal energy changes since the industrial revolution and it is only some five years away. Nearly a blink of an I. At present, some of the greatest obstacles to decarbonisation is to developing new housing, new industry, to increasing our economic output as a country, is the delay in getting grid connections. Our businesses, our communities, awaiting quite literally years, sometimes seven, 10, even longer in some cases, before they can secure the right to energy, to feed clean energy into the system or make power connections.

Developers in grid hotspots are reporting connection weights of several years as being very typical. We need to be prepared. We need to get this stuff done and my amendment is designed to help do that. If we are going to be a leader in renewable energy, if you're going to get all the renewable energy in place, then the grid connection system does need to be reformed. I very much recognise the reforms the government has brought in recent times to try and update the grid system.

In April 2025 the government, working alongside Ofgem and the National Energy Action system operator has announced reforms to prioritise clean and and infrastructure for grid access, aiming to eliminate the so-called zombie or speculative projects and to fast-track shovel ready schemes set to go. The new model introduces key management milestone targets, progressive penalties for lagging projects and prioritise projects crucial for clean power and overall economic growth. These reforms are intended to help deliver the 2030 clean power plan, unlocking up to 15 billion in investment and supporting a more responsive modern grid system.

These are steps in the right direction and we welcome the government, since it has come to power, is making progress. But I feel more needs to be done. Hence I'm putting forward my amendment here. I worry that if we do not do more, we simply will not be ready for these targets. The second element to this amendment touches on local energy grids. Local touches on local energy grids. Local energy grids are still very much in their infancy but something my party support in terms of empowering local communities and helping them to benefit from the clean power revolution of this government.

They are quiet, modest, I want this government to do more to support them. I think they are essential in terms of galvanising public support, helping the government to take communities with them on this journey. I fought alongside many others across this House and both houses in Parliament to get community energy into the GB Energy bill and I am delighted to do that. They need more help to get this stuff across the line and I believe these are important. I believe they will bring benefit for us as a country, helped to make the grid more secure and resilient, reduce the need for transmission, reduce the loss of transmission time to invest in the overall high-voltage grid.

They take our communities with us and they bring support. We all need that. This government needs that, we need that, and our communities should benefit from this revolution that is taking place. So, my amendments are designed to help, they are designed to support the government. My hope is very much that the government can support these amendments. And I would appreciate it if the government could bring forward amendments at report. Turning to other amendments, very briefly, I recognise the noble Baroness the Minister has put forward a drafting amendment.

We are fine with that. Turning to the In the name of Lord Lansley, we recognise what these amendments are about. We very much welcome the questions that the noble Lord is raising. I think there are, I think these are important issues that we should be discussing at committee about the replication of policy and policy statements and making sure how those systems are set up and how they are going to work in practice. My worry with the amendment is that, as we are going into this rapid period of change, my worry is that if we...

The amendment is passed, with more centralised in Westminster. The system less responsive to the changes that need to happen at pace and at scale. And a system that was not as well connected to our communities as those on the ground facing the change. Those would be my general concerns with those amendments if they were elected. But I do look forward to the Minister's response. I do think it is important they have been raised and I look forward to further debate on this.
15:43
15:45
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I agree with Lord Lansley in this approach of being very specific about what it is that developers, investors, should be looking at instead of what the latest designated strategy may be. And it make sure we do not have more reasons for judicial review when it is left to judges to determine what is strategy and nuance and similar. The points made about making the direct link to understanding, about a moment in time, that it has been through a parliamentary aspect of the process, initiated by the government but I think that simplicity will actually help the government in achieving a lot of government in achieving a lot of My noble friend is also right in that we need to improve the connections.

One of the things that has been frustrating, I actually think Ofgem is in -- over interpreting legislation. I actually think they could have had more flexibility to have more certainty on what was going to be connected instead of connections agreed 10 years ago and a very little then as a consequence happening. It leads to a whole bunch of work and fear in local communities on what more infrastructure is going to be used to do the transmissions. To some extent, I think this is where Errol Russell is trying to go with speeding up the connections -- Earl Russell.

In terms of what he's suggesting, in terms of local energy grids, Anderson what he is saying but there are significant parts of the country where the generation is not intended... It is intended to be transmitted. -- I understand what he is saying. But I also say, cost to whom? A lot of this drives cost to consumers. I have seen where energy developers have not got the CfD they were expecting and they have either cancelled projects or reduced the amount of energy they are prepared to generate.

That is a commercial decision but one of the aspects of centralisation is that it is largely bill payer subsidy and how we get the energy grid we need in the future. Where I disagree with the noble Earl is that this is always going to require a huge amount of centralisation if we are to get the great right. -- The grid right. I hope the Minister looks carefully at the amendments tabled by the noble the amendments tabled by the noble Lord.

It would actually unlock a lot of certainty, bring clarity, and that is to the good of future electricity capacity.
15:48
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Portrait Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Conservative)
-
-
I will speak briefly to this group of amendments. These are largely technical and drafting amendments but they are nonetheless important to ensure clarity and alignment across the legislation. I agree with many of the issues raised by my noble friends, particularly anything that slows down the grid process -- grid connection process. Let me start with amendment 72 in the name of Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. Which, as she stated, makes a simple drafting correction. It removes the quality -- the definition of...

This is helpful and I'm grateful to the noble Baroness for bring it forward. Turning them to amendments tabled by Lord Lansley, he -- these also serve to improve the coherence of the bill, particularly in relation to NESo and particularly in relation to NESo and its responsibilities. -- NESO. This helps to bring the language of the bill in line with existing legislation and policy frameworks. Amendment 74 makes a similar adjustment to clause 17, ensuring that NESO must have regard to the strategic priorities set out in the statement under the 2023 act.

Amendment 75 then defines strategic priorities as those contained in the most recent strategy and policy statement issued under that statement, again reinforcing consistency and legal precision. Finally, amendment 76 replaces references to designated strategic plans to align terminology with section 165 of the energy act 2023. My noble friend has put forward a strong case for changes to the bill and these are constructive amendment. Finally, amendment 79 in the name of Lord Russell raises an important issue highlighting the nails -- delays.

This addresses a key barrier to energy development considers the use of local grids as a way to improve efficiency. This has been a good, thoughtful and short debate and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
15:51
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
It's very reassuring to hear such a degree of consensus across the a degree of consensus across the How we all want to deliver the same thing from this, which is speeding up the connections process. I've expressed my frustration many times in this house before that it can at the moment take longer to gate -- take grid connection. But I would like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate, particularly Lord Lansley and Earl Russell for their comments.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to speak in opposition to Lord Lansley's amendment. I understand how well- intentioned they are and I greatly respect his experience in these areas but they would have significant unintended consequences to the government's ability to respond swiftly and effectively to the revolving -- evolving needs of our energy system. The strategy and policy statement designated under part five of the Energy Act 2013 is used for the purpose of prioritising connections to the electricity network.

I recognise a helpful attempt by the noble Lord to ensure consistency and clarity with regards to the obligations of Ofgem and the National energy Systems operator, NESO. I also recognise the importance of Parliamentary scrutiny and I don't suggest we should avoid that. We must also be honest about the practical implications of this approach. The SPS is subject to a rigorous process that is entirely appropriate for overarching statement of policy but it is not designed to accommodate the pace or specificity required to support the complex and fast-moving reforms were undertaking to unblock and accelerate electricity network connections.

We are entering a period of rapid transformation. The grid must decarbonise. New technologies are emerging. Electricity demand is shifting an increasing and the connections process must evolve to keep up. In this context, the government must be able to designate timely, targeted guidance, potentially in the form of multiple documents tailored to different parts of the sector, such as generation or demand connections, or technology-specific plans or strategies. And did, the government has already signalled its intention to designate a Clean Power 2030 action plan and the industrial strategy.

Both existing documents published recently when the necessary powers are available. These are concrete, strategic documents that will help industry plan and invest with confidence, hopefully meeting some of the concerns of the noble Baroness lady Neville Rolfe. These amendments Neville Rolfe. These amendments would prevent that. It would tie our hands at precisely the moment we need the most flexibility, creating delays potentially in preventing the granular and specific strategic direction required for the grid connection process. And there is a further and more fundamental issue.

Distribution network operators have no legal obligation to have regard to the SPS. These are critical to the delivery of connections reform. There responsible for connecting a significant value of new generation and storage which will connect directly to the distribution network. There privately owned and operated, and the SPS was never intended to bind them. To attempt to do so now would only be inappropriate but it would be unworkable. If we are serious about reforming the connection process, reforming the connection process, and I believe we are, then we must ensure that our strategic plans can apply to the full range of actors involved.

That is having the ability to designate plans that are fit for purpose, timely and applicable to the right parties. The strategic -- the strategy of policy statement is a highly strategic document intended to provide Ofgem with clear directions on the government strategic priorities and to inform decision-making. In contrast, designated plans for the purpose of connections reform may include, as I said, more granular and technical guidelines, and these documents are designed to complement, not conflict with, the SPS.

I would also add that plans are in place and being implemented for the connections to the transmission and distribution system. In November 2023, as he mentioned, the Connections Action Plan was published, setting out expectations for the scale of reform. This later basis for reform proposals which Ofgem have just improved. The brought ambition will see that faster electricity network connection dates offered both for transmission and distribution. The noble Lord asked me a specific question around the Gate 2 process.

We are working closely with NESO and Ofgem and we are anticipating the GAte 2 decisions in the coming weeks. This is one of those expressions of got used to as I've been a minister. The measures drafted strike the right is. We believe it provides a clear mechanism for designated strategic plans while preserving the flexibility which we know we are going to need to respond to a very rapidly changing sector. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.

Turning then to 79 tabled by Earl Russell and he did say he believes this to be the biggest change since the industrial revolution in terms of power accessibility. I don't disagree with that statement. Let me begin by stating we are in full agreement that the current delays are absolutely no longer tenable. I hope I have made that clear. For this reason, in December. I hope I have made that clear. For this reason, in December 24, government published the power 2030 Action Plan.

This outlines our plan to work collaboratively with the National . The objective is to accelerate connection timelines for the most critical projects and to unlock billions of pounds in investment for renewable energy generation. Through the implementation of these reforms, it is estimated that up to £5 billion in unnecessary network reinforcements could be avoided. In turn, this should lead to long-term Lord bills for consumers. This was In consultation with stakeholders and often. Ofgem has since approved these proposals and implementation is underway.

This bill is intended to support the reforms. The bill will confer powers upon the Secretary of State to designate strategic plans. These plans must be taken into account by both NESO and network operators. It is anticipated that the Secretary of State will initially designate clean power 2030 Action Plan and the industrial strategy, followed in due course by the proposed strategic spatial energy plan. The strategic -- these strategic documents are designed to reflect the nation's energy system, including to address inefficiencies by prioritising projects of the greatest national importance.

Introducing new statutory requirement for a further plan risks delaying this process and may introduce unwelcome certainty for industry participants. Turning to the matter of local energy grids, we do not consider there is any regulatory impediment. The necessary infrastructure, including local networks that integrate generation and demand, is already permissible. Such networks may be developed and operated by distribution network operators, independent network providers or under private arrangements by statutory licence arrangements. Are also committed to supporting furthering community energy initiatives.

These play a vital role in the energy landscape and we are determined to ensure that communities continue to benefit directly from the transition to clean energy. We will be discussing more about that later this afternoon. To that and, Great British Energy will work in partnership with local authorities, community energy organisations and the devolved administrations. This will include the provision of funding and strategic support from planning advice to technical guidance for local community energy stakeholders. I trust this explanation provides sufficient reassurance and would therefore

**** Possible New Speaker ****

kindly ask the noble Lord... Is that the government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that the government's intention to then publish a new strategy and policy statement under the energy act because at the moment, legislation requires Ofgem to have regard to what is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to have regard to what is effectively an out of date strategy? I hope I picked up that question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope I picked up that question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope I picked up that question during my response. I will just track back and make sure I got the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let Let me Let me is Let me is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me is the noble Let me is the noble Lord Let me is the noble Lord in writing but I think he is correct in his assumption. The collaboration will include funding and strategic support for planning advice and guidance for local and community guidance for local and community energy stakeholders. I trust the explanation provided and sufficient response for the noble Lord and ICQ beg leave to withdraw his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is amendment 72 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content." Of the opinion, say, "Content." Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. The question is the clause as amended stay part of the bill. As many as are of that the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content." Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Amendments 73, 74, contents have it. Amendments 73, 74, 75, 76. Not moved. The question is 75, 76.

Not moved. The question is clause 17 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, many as are of that opinion, say, "Content." Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. After clause 17, Earl Russell, After clause 17, Earl Russell, amendment 77, not moved. Amendment
16:02
None Portrait AMDT: 77 Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

78, Earl Russell. I rise to open this second group

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to open this second group of amendments all on the extension of permitted development and move my amendment 77. My amendment 77 concerns extension of permitted concerns extension of permitted development rights for electricity networks. The amendment intends to networks. The amendment intends to help the government achieve its ambitions of clean, affordable and secure energy system by 2030. The amendment would enable clearly amendment would enable clearly amendment would enable clearly defined and modest upgrades to be treated as permitted development.

Including upgrading electricity lines from single to three phase, alteration of conduct type, modest alteration of conduct type, modest increases in pole height where required, temporary placement of lines to facilitate works. And the lines to facilitate works. And the reinforcement of existing apparatus such as pole mounted transformers. such as pole mounted transformers. This is not a revolution, this is about pragmatism. These are modest, technical improvements that would make the National Grid fit for the make the National Grid fit for the 21st-century.

This is not about new infrastructure on green fields. This infrastructure on green fields. This is simply because our electricity network built decades ago is network built decades ago is fundamentally ill-equipped for the task required of it. I am increasingly worried about the capacity of the grid and the involvement. This is needed to bring electricity to our homes and make sure we can do the transitions we need to do in terms of electric vehicles and installing things to help us hit our clean power targets.

At present, the modest network upgrades face planning processes that can take months, sometimes years. Often longer than building the relevant generation plant itself. This results in higher costs and in some cases, stagnant investment. Companies report planning bottlenecks, land acquisition rules like those of gas, water and telecoms. That is not right. There should be a level playing field. Without reform, constant cost, cost of paying for generators for clean power because the grid cannot handle it could soar to two billion-a-year to 8 billion by the end of the decade.

These are absorbed by companies and passed onto bill payers who face higher bills. We need to get this stuff bills. We need to get this stuff done and it needs to work. It takes a series of minor but essential upgrades to technical adjustments to equipment, not new developments. And revives them as lengthy planning processes. Nothing in this amendment looks at electricity safety, quality and continuity regulations remain firmly in place of the 1918 nine Electricity Act which covers overhead power line consents.

These safeguards endure. What changes as safeguards endure. What changes as Or Or a Or a planning Or a planning inquiry Or a planning inquiry to Or a planning inquiry to raise Or a planning inquiry to raise a poll by a few feet or replace a conductor with a modern equivalent. The benefits are clear, first it will speed up bureaucracy and get things moving, second, it will lower costs, avoiding delays, third, it helps us to achieve our climate and renewable targets. Fourth, it provides us with security and resilience in the system and helps get electricity to our front doorsteps where we need it.

Of course this amendment also requires consultation on further measures, ensuring where wider reforms are proposed, the public and proposed, the public and I am not asking for a blank cheque here, but this is a carefully drafted step forward. The government has said this bill is central to its plan for clean power by 2030 and we agree. This amendment is modest but seeks to help unlock the arteries to make sure this electricity can be delivered. It is a shopping list of very minor amendments.

But it reminds me of the approach of British Cycling where they found a number of very small incremental difference if implemented as a philosophy actually make huge philosophy actually make huge fundamental strides and gains in their ability to win and achieve their goals. The same is true with these amendments I put here. More importantly, these are that the wider industry themselves are calling for. Changes they say they need to make -- achieve what they signed up to do and get more investment and get things moving.

I will circle back to the other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments that have been raised. Amendment 77, amendment proposed, after clause 17, insert the new
16:08
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

clauses printed. I have amendment 185 be in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have amendment 185 be in this group. Let me first eye completely agree with the Noble Earl in inserting this amendment. I have amendments on permitted developments amendments on permitted developments elsewhere in this bill. I think it is a hugely important part of getting planning right, for the government to take some courageous government to take some courageous decisions on what delays do we not need. What are we really just recognised we got to do and allow recognised we got to do and allow people to get on with it.

In this part of it, getting an official part of it, getting an official transmission network will... Is absolutely something we need to do. Moving a transmission poll may upset someone locally but it is part of a someone locally but it is part of a national need. That it should be delayed, that people should take huge amounts of time arguing should huge amounts of time arguing should it be here or there, should we allow it be here or there, should we allow an extra prop to a pole or not, is just ridiculous.

I'm very sorry we have allowed this to accumulate over That they are in support of reducing regulation. Long may this continue but I do think this is a really constructive way forward. I have just added to this the idea that maybe we ought to allow a bit more freedom to wind generation. I work in a generation where it was common to see agricultural windmills in those galvanised towers with the cranky blades all over the rural landscape. The power of a kind and type and price which really suited the local conditions.

I remember when wind turbines were introduced and we all thought they would be horrid and they were going to desecrate the landscape and it will be miserable, but now they are part of everybody's landscape, just about. If we do not overdo it I think we have a reasonable basis for saying let's experiment on allowing people to put these down for local need, to generate electricity where it is needed, in a way which it is needed.

It will not get done unless there is a commercial requirement for it, but we should look at freeing up the restrictions we have placed on people putting up wind turbines and say, what is really needed here? Haven't we learnt enough to allow ours?
16:11
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I speak to amendment 94 a, I will start by saying I agree with Earl Russell because these are not that horrific, huge pile ons we are talking about, these are quite simple, which makes greater sense to make as straightforward as possible to up the energy locally. I would also say to Lord Lucas, I think there already is permitted development rights to the level he is suggesting. Where I would suggest the permitted development right is only for a single turbine.

I note in his amendment he talks about turbines and I would not want this to be a back door to significant amounts of wind farms on a variety of land he were to press this any of land he were to press this any further. The reason I amend this group is also to do with permitted development and regarding solar. There are parts of this legislation we will be debating today about solar but this is to try to get permitted development rights for solar on reservoirs.

There are seven reservoirs close to London where there is sometimes a bit of sailing happens but by and large, they sit there empty. Of course, important for what we need in terms of water supply, this should be a straightforward way of a modest amount of solar extension that may amount of solar extension that may amount of solar extension that may , perhaps a bit further, I would not be suggesting you have an automatic connection right to the grid because that probably would be exceptionally expensive.

The point is, if we are going to increase the amount of renewable energy, why not allow renewable energy, why not allow reservoir owners to be able to put this sort of solar where we are not then displacing agricultural land. Not requiring huge extensions or connections we are seeing today right across agricultural land all over the country. It is seen, floating solar is seen as a... Technology and so is not included in this bill. I'm conscious we read in Summer there may be a second bill, but I would suggest to the government, Carpe Diem, why do we get on and have this development right elsewhere in this bill.

I suggested an easier way to try to get reservoirs, trying to get large ponds. The secretary of state for DEFRA has been very specific in some DEFRA has been very specific in some of the opening meetings he has had that it needs to be easier for farmers to access reservoirs and have those on their land. From my perspective, this could be a double win. The other aspect people may not be aware of when it comes to the possibility or benefit of floating solar on reservoirs is it could potentially help boost water security.

In terms of one of the things that does happen on our reservoirs is not just usage being trained ineffectively, but also evaporation levels of water that can start to see a significant reduction in how much water is available. And so by having these floating solar panels we can end up with a physical barrier between the water and the sun. Also, it is suggested that it is possible that biodiversity could be boosted on reservoir sites? Any opportunity we can take to boost nature and energy resilience, is something I hope the government could consider.

I understand the UK is home to Europe's largest floating is home to Europe's largest floating solar farm. I know there has been a bit of on and off about how effective it has been, but nevertheless, it is important we Have a basically very limited cost, ideally no cost to the bill payer in this regard, in order to make sure we can maximise the amount of energy that is directly available to us. In terms of energy security going forward, obviously trying to get more home-grown electricity is key.

That is why I hope the government will look carefully and consider the benefits of permitted development rights for floating solar on our reservoirs.
16:16
16:18
16:19
16:21
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 77, table by the noble Lord Earl Russell. It seems to require the Secretary of State to date networks within 12 months of passing of this act. I declare an interest. The amendment is detailed and specific, covering a range of necessary and often routine upgrades to a distribution network. These are not exceptional. They are part and parcel of the essential modernisation of our great. As demand for electricity grows, so does the need for a distribution Meet that demand safely and efficiently.

The concerns raised by the noble Lord in bringing forward this amendment have but it's. Local electricity distribution is hampered by regulatory delays, planning burdens and procedural hurdles which can slow down or increase the costs of what are in many cases necessary infrastructure improvements. We understand the motivation to streamline these processes and provide industry with greater certainty. However, there are important questions around local engagement and environmental considerations which will need to be worked through. Permitted development rights very nature bypass certain planning safeguards and we must take care not to undermine public confidence in the system by extending them too broadly or too quickly.

I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether there are other ways of simplifying decision-making on such upgrades? I turned to amendment 94 E. This requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to extend relevant rights to include the installation of floating solar panels on reservoirs. At a time when we are taking every opportunity to expand for renewable energy, with raising additional pressure on land, utilising existing bodies of water in this way may present a pragmatic and low impact solution.

My noble friend raises an important timely point about the potential of finding spaces to contribute to energy generation. I hope the government will look closely at how we can responsibly deploy floating solar technology. Similarly, amendments in the name of Lord Lucas seek to expand development rights on wind turbines up to a height of 30 m. This enables more local generation of energy, particularly as community support can play a vital role in decarbonising the grid and improving energy security.

To conclude, added to the noble of the Minister to provide quality in the government's current thinking in this area and to address the important questions raised by Earl Russell and Baroness Coffey and Lord Lucas. Specifically, I hope the Minister can reassure the house that the government recognises the need for timely electricity network grades and is actively considering how the planning framework can support that aim while balancing the interests of local committees and the environment.
16:24
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord Earl Russell for raising this important issue through amendment 77. The government fully recognises the need to accelerate electricity network upgrades to transition to net zero. We agree with the intent behind this amendment and with many of the specific proposals it contains. However, we deal -- we do not believe it is appropriate to legislate this at this time. These are technical and regulatory matters that are generally best addressed through secondary legislation following proper consultation.

The government launched their public consultation on 8 July, which closes tomorrow. Includes proposals that closely reflect those in this amendment and seeks views from a wide range of stakeholders including network operators, landowners and local authorities. The government local authorities. The government also undertake sorrow -- sorrow -- thorough consultation process. Introducing changes now whether through primary or secondary legislation before this work has been done would pre-empt the consultation process and risk undermining the balance between speeding up delivery and protecting landowners rates.

We are committed to acting quickly once consultation is complete but we must do so in a way that is informed, proportionate and legally sounds. -- Sound. I ask the noble Lord to beg leave to withdraw his amendment. Moving on to amendment 94E, I thank Baroness Coffey for raising this issue in amendment 94E. The government is committed to achieving clean power by 2030 and we need to see significant increases in the development of all kinds of solar, whether it is on land, rooftops or water to achieve this mission.

The government is therefore supportive of the floating solar, especially considering the increased efficiency of floating solar panels on water and the benefits of preventing algal blooms and reducing evaporation. And effective system is pivotal to delivering this mission and the system must work in a way that supports both new infrastructure such as floating solar and more established technologies. The noble Lady may have seen that the government has published its first ever solar roadmap on 30 June, which commits to 70 -- 72 ambitious actions.

The opportunities include floating solar and identifies the need to provide clarity on planning requirements for what is a fairly new technology in the UK and to ensure that these measures proportionate. Within the solar roadmap, government made a clear commitment to explore how planning levers could further support floating solar projects. This work will be overseen by a new government and industry solar Council which has been set up to assist in trying forward and monitoring progress on solar roadmap actions. However, we do not believe it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this bill.

I believe it is only right that we conduct further work to ensure a strong evidence base on potential proposals and ensure we have considered the benefits and impacts. I hope the noble Lady's consent content with this response and I beg leave that she withdraw this amendment. I will now turn to amendment 185 B. This was tabled by Lord Lucas. It seeks to classify Lord Lucas. It seeks to classify some small-scale wind turbines. And thankful for this amendment. She may have seen the government published its first ever onshore wind strategy on 4 July which commits to over 40 ambitious actions across several areas including planning.

One of the opportunities identified in the strategies regarding small-scale deployment. The government recognises the importance that small-scale onshore wind developments could play in achieving our wider decarbonisation goals and the government was to consider changes to the planning system to better support its. The rules... I would just adjourn the house for two minutes.
16:30
None Portrait House Adjourned
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, the
16:32
None Portrait Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill - committee stage (day 3) - part one Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the rules My Lords, the rules are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the rules are determined to determine whether this will require not full planning application have been updated for over a decade and with advances in technology and increased demand for small schools generation there may be opportunities to update these be opportunities to update these rules, therefore I hope the Noble Lord will be pleased to hear that the Government committed that the onshore strategy to publish a consultation this year and whether existing development rates offered for purpose and if they could support other forms of small scale support other forms of small scale onshore wind deployment.

I believe onshore wind deployment. I believe it is only right that we can gather views, insights, and evidence, and potential proposals and ensure that potential proposals and ensure that we have consideration of the breaths of benefits and impacts and I hope the Noble Lord is content with its the Noble Lord is content with its response. Just before asking to beg leave to respond to the important leave to respond to the important point that Lord Tennyson alluded to, the Government recognises the urgency of reform and taking action, with the consultation published, gathering views on proposals, we gathering views on proposals, we have committed to an effective reform but it is essential that we understand the full impact of these changes and all those involved and move at pace to bring forward any necessary legislation and consultation analysis once it is complete, so I hope that the Noble Lord locus is content with this response and I kindly ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I come back to amendment 77 and mentioned one word which is and mentioned one word which is growth? Because one word that we are trying to do, I think, with the cross-party effort to reform the planning system is to speed it up and I am hearing that there are some good ideas from the Noble Lord locus and others, and yet we are adding another consultation, doing something in due course but sometimes where else. But if this is sometimes where else.

But if this is the flag ship I would like the Minister to think is there not more Minister to think is there not more that we can do in this bill to set a better tone for speed and growth and getting local authorities to move on on these things where there is a great measure of agreement that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are bureaucratic and unnecessary. Can the Minister come back and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can the Minister come back and just give us some idea of a timetable on this? Given the fact timetable on this? Given the fact that there is total unanimity that we are not in a sensible position at the moment and that we need to move the moment and that we need to move this whole proposition forward. The consultation is about to end, will consultation is about to end, will we get this fixed by the end of the yeah, for instance? Could we actually be revolutionary and have something ready for report stage? I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would be interested to hear from the Minister. I think we all share we need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think we all share we need speed to get this bill through and we need to ensure that we have the we need to ensure that we have the growth that the noble Baroness but what I would set the moment of time what I would set the moment of time that we have to say we reflect and respond to consultation that we published and in order for that to published and in order for that to happen and we wait for that to finish which is tomorrow, by the finish which is tomorrow, by the way, and we look at the responses way, and we look at the responses diligently and carefully ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose, growth, and develop meant, to ensure that this country grows and this bill plays a part and also and this bill plays a part and also there will be other secondary legislation following consultation and what we absolutely hear noble Lords desire which is the desire of Lords desire which is the desire of the Government to ensure that we move robustly, diligently as well move robustly, diligently as well and take into consideration the consultation approach.
16:35
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

consultation approach. My Lords, I think noble Lords who have taken part in this debate in have taken part in this debate in this group of amendments and I think it has been a very useful group with uniformity around the House on these issues. I thank the Minister for that response and obviously know there is a consultation on some of these matters that is closing tomorrow. I would be interested to know which bits of my amendment are not in the consultation and how the Government would plan to take those forward.

Obviously, I myself would also press the Minister to take these matters forward as quickly as possible. If there is any scope for us to have consultations between now and the report I would welcome that. I think it would be welcomed across the House if it was possible for us, collectively, where we agree on those matters to take action on them and to make progress, so if there was possibility for the Government on that report but also being greatly appreciated. I want to thank Baroness Coffey for her amendment as well.

I think it is an important amendment and it is important that solar is not excluded, it is a nation technology, subject, I guess, only to the issues of not taking water leisure space, the issues perhaps around that. I also absolutely welcome her amendment and I hope that can progress as well. Can I ask to thank the Noble Lord locus as well for your amendment. I promise you on fire regulations from my party hierarchy but I do support the amendment that you put forward the amendment that you put forward in this subject to that one drafting thing but it is from exactly the same spirit as my amendment, may be from a different place looking at what we can do to make permitted development.

I think that there is, across these amendments, some interesting uniformity and common purpose for these things and I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister for his response. Is it your Lordships pressure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pressure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment
16:37
None Portrait AMDT: 78 Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

78, Earl Russell. My Lords, I rise to open this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to open this group 3 of amendments which are all group 3 of amendments which are all on electricity distribution. And cabling. I apologise there is quite a lot of crossover with my amendments in this group to the other group and actually, in retrospect, it might have been better if they had been kept together as opposed to separate groups. A lot of the overarching general points that I made in the last group apply to this group.

Again, I am introducing a series of practical measures that I would like the Government to take forward in terms of helping the Government to achieve its stated aims of getting to clean power. But my amendment 78 is about land access rights and it would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land and land access rights need to extend for renewable energy operators as well.

And that is my mistake, my drafting was not as clear as it should have been in drafting the amendment, but if the Minister in responding to my speech in this debate could also be included in the issue of renewable energy operators and their ability to access land in terms of building renewable energy if that is possible that would be greatly appreciated. So, again, this is about using the bill provided that is why I brought it forward. It is something that the district network operators are calling for and industry bodies are calling for as well.

These are small, practical steps. Again, if implemented would help to get the things done that we all agree that we want done. So, if we do not address these issues we get delays, we get increased costs, we get issues about getting towards clean power. And, at present, licence holders have fewer statutory rights when it comes to acquiring and accessing land composed of other utilities including gas and communications. I am not certain if this Government has also done some other consultation as far as I am aware I not aware that the Government has but if the Mr response if there is consultations ongoing if the Minister could let me know, that would be greatly appreciated, but what we are looking for is at resolving this lack of clarity.

And we are moving this unnecessary bureaucracy and making unnecessary bureaucracy and making sure that we can get this stuff done. The amendment before us would ensure that electricity distribution network operators are given carefully defined powers to acquire rights over land and overhead lines and cables to purchase land with new substations to enter land for maintenance of existing equipment and to carry out management critical to the safety and reliability of the system. These powers would not be unlimited. They will be subject to both the proper consultation and fair compensation for land owners concerned.

But there will mean we can proceed with the essential work in a way that is timely, straightforward, and cost-effective, in line with other utilities. I welcome the fact Department for energy security and zero has launched a consultation on land rights published last month. This consultation, however, does. Of what is required to make power 2030 a reality. The consultation does not extend to renewable electricity generators themselves. Despite the essential role to the energy transition.

So, without legislative in this bill, it still risks kicking the issue down the road. As I said, this amendment does enjoy the backing of the secretary, it is something that they have been lobbying members of this House on. And, no doubt, that the Government and the Minister are on as well. And it has long been called for by the networks Association. And these are the people operating on the frontline. These are the people investing in green power and people taking the risks, the people with the contract to deliver this stuff to Government, so it is important that the Government does the things that it reasonably can to help these companies to succeed so they can share that joint ambition and achieve things together.

So, just to conclude, my intention is to help the Government. I share the government's intention at hitting our clean power targets and I want to welcome you the Minister, I am happy to look at amending my amendment and happy to speak to you in that report the intention is to further industry to look at these things to try and find some practical solutions to these relatively easily surmounted issues. I hope that can be possible. I will circle back to the other amendments in this group after they have been introduced and I move my amendment.
16:43
16:44
Lord Swire Portrait Lord Swire (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

doing a compulsory purchase. My Lords, I rise to speak to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to my probing amendment 79 is that the definition of insanity is to keep on doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. That could extend to the definition of insanity in terms of making the same point again and again and again and getting the same answer as I have been doing over the past few months about burial and the different options in this great explosion we are going to witness of the overhead power lines.

And I am slightly nervous about the seeming consensus across the House this afternoon, nothing would stand in the way of the government's own date of 2030 date of 2034 clean power and nothing. Growth and nothing will stand in the way of progress and I fully can see that the Government have inherited a grid that all Governments of every persuasion over the last 20 or 30 years have been mindful of. We have power being distributed in long parts of the country and a shortage in other parts of the country and varying loads in some of the grid not simply up to the capacity that it is now required to meet.

And then, additionally, we have an explosion in offshore wind which has to be brought onshore that would necessitate a great increase in the amount of substations and in turn amount of substations and in turn I do not want to be accused of standing in the way of growth, but I think we do owe it to our fellow countrymen to think very, very carefully about what we are proposing to do to large tracts of our landscape? My noble friend, Lord Roborough speaks of the opposition on the front bench.

He talked about public opinion. I think the Government needs to pay a little more attention to public opinion. At the end of the day they are the voters. Also, because I think if the Government take some positive action, they will carry the public with them and so achieve their stating aim of cutting through the bureaucracy and getting a better, more modern grid. Every single time, my Lords, I and others have raised the issue of the alternative to overhead power lines, in terms of the burial of them, we have been rebutted by the statistics of over five or 10 times more expensive figures.

I think produced by the National Grid. I don't think that those figures have been properly examined. Nor do I think other factors have been taken into consideration, such as the effect on the quality of life on the quality of landscape. The effect on having people coming to this country, if they are going to be greeted by a miles and miles of unsightly powerlines marching over our hills. And my Lords, the noble lady the Minister spoke, quite rightly, at the beginning of this afternoon's debate, about technology and there is no new technology.

There is new technology and how we can do bearing powerlines, bearing trenching, horizontal mooring. Directional That has the government spoken to farmers to see if they would be prepared to take on some of these jobs? I think they would. Have we spent enough time examining whether existing grid, the load could be increased on the existing grid, therefore not necessitating an increase in the footprint. I am not going to rehearse all the arguments I have made in the past about birdlife, about the destruction of great swathes of our agricultural land and our landscape.

I would just draw your Lordships attention to what is happening in Greece over the summer, with these wildfires all over Greece. Some of which have been caused by overhead power lines. I ask your Lordships, is it really the most intelligent thing we can do, in the long term, to have more overhead power lines? Which are more susceptible to power outages and which potentially can cause a wildfire, as we have witnessed elsewhere, in Europe. I am going to sit down at this point and look forward to the noble Lord the Minister rebuffing all the points I've made, by talking about the disproportionate cost.

I just hope that he and others in this chamber, when they look back, in 20, or 30 years time, to what came out of this bill, if enacted, without some of the issues that I and others have raised and try to put in presumption in favour of bearing powerlines and making the operators argue why they should not be there. That is a were asking with this probing amendment to switch, get them to explain why they cannot do it.

Why is it disproportionate? I think in that small way he will find that the public will be more onside than they are at the moment.
16:50
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I'm sympathetic to what my noble friend has just said, I think it is fair to say it was actually the previous Conservative administration who changed aspects of the policy statement that there be a strong presumption in terms of overhead distribution. I won't pretend otherwise. I did try and fight that at the time. And failed. I think it is fair to say that the costs comparison have actually fallen considerably. It is still about 4.5 times the cost of doing it via pylons.

I think there is a lot to be said for what my noble friend has put forward. I'm somewhat relieved by the clarity brought by the noble Lord, Earl Russell, he was considering this to be a compulsory purchase, given some of the issues that I have been contesting, for some time. It is that and that has led to my amendment, which is in the supplementary list, 94 FA, which talks about communications cables in active agricultural use. One of the things is that and I have shared this with your laws before that the, I have quite a lot of experience of dealing with energy projects and end sips, recognising the concentration of such projects on the Suffolk coast.

It is a theme I will return to later. One of the things that really struck me is a consideration of hidden cabling, this was underground, because it was taking projects and simply through and by default, by default in effect what has happened is that an NOP has to end up being underground. What was clear was the complete lack of understanding about in effect what was there underground already. In an area, agricultural areas, one of the things that is significantly underground and is actually very sensitive infrastructure, not put in by the government, or water companies, or the like, it is actually put in by local farmers and that is a underground network for water.

Considering, quite how much less water there is, particularly in the east of the country. These are critical, in order to make sure that we can continue to frankly have a food being grown. It is also very important for water and river networks, the production of Christmas trees. Christmas trees are actually very hungry for water, in the development, over time. One of the things that came to light, in the consideration of the creation of substations and cabling, is the fact that the electricity companies had no clue at all about this important amount of infrastructure that happens, just below the surface.

Of course, it is more expensive, there is no doubt that when, having the cables as close to the top as, as close to the surface as possible is definitely an economic interest. Candidly it ends up disrupting the agricultural potential for a lot of this land. In terms of things like Christmas trees, I do not think there is any chance that Christmas trees can be grown above the electricity, unfortunately a farm I would recommend that race a lot of Christmas trees, they supplied a number 10 Downing Street one year.

I know the family were concerned, but somewhat understood, they accepted that sometimes these things happen. Although I hope the compensation they get for this is a little more generous than they were initially offered. One of the things I think that the Government should consider is speaking a lot more to the internal drainage boards around the country. We do not have them in every single part of this country, but I expect where a lot of the energy generation is happening, the cabling, there will be.

They will have this intricate knowledge of examining and what to navigate. One way to avoid that, by having to do so by site surveys, which we already told cost a hell of a lot of money, to do all this pre-consultation as well. Simply to make sure that when cabling is put in place, those trenches go sufficiently deep and can continue to have agricultural production as well as the benefits of the transmission of electricity. That is why hope the government, although I expect they will firmly reject my proposals will start to consider what is happening, in reality, in our countryside and in our productive countryside, where we tried to have this rather completed map of cabling, pylons and the like, in order to make sure we can continue to, as far as possible, make sure that we keep farming land as well as making sure that...



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Course give way.$$NEWLINE I wonder if the noble Lady had heard about the possibility of growing about the possibility of growing tomatoes. I'm sure that the heat has, my noble friend was just about to allude to will make it attractive to allude to will make it attractive to certain kinds of, how can I put it rapid acceleration of growth to stop it won't be the only thing that will benefit there. I think it's will benefit there. I think it's more trying to neutralise the what is deemed to be necessary infrastructure, with the ongoing infrastructure, with the ongoing operations disrupting those already farming our land for the food and farming our land for the food and continue to make sure we have food
16:55
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
security, with that I put forward the benefits of my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Manifesto will declare my interest as a vice president of the Association of drainage authorities. Association of drainage authorities. I commend Earl Russell for introducing this group. I would like introducing this group. I would like to speak in particular to the amendments in the name of my noble amendments in the name of my noble friends Laura Squire and Baroness Coffey, 79 a and 94 FA. I would like Coffey, 79 a and 94 FA. I would like to end with a question to the Minister, if I may.

There are a believe growing and financial reasons for underground being. These reasons for underground being. These are transmission wires. The environmental reasons are mostly environmental reasons are mostly because they are wasteful. It is debatable how much they waste, about 7 to 10% of the energy that is being transmitted and that just seems transmitted and that just seems nonsensical. As my noble friend Lord Esquire said they are also unsightly Esquire said they are also unsightly as well. In tourist areas that is very welcome indeed.

Also they are very welcome indeed. Also they are extremely vulnerable to extreme weather conditions. I've just seen weather conditions. I've just seen we have had the first storm names for the forthcoming season. I don't know whether my niece and goddaughter will be delighted that Stormer Amy is going to be the first 1 to hit us. There we go. -- Stormer Amy. Stormer Arwen caused such damage to the north-east of England and Yorkshire, that large swathes of north-east England and north Yorkshire had no electricity at all for up to 10 days.

And I just think that is unacceptable. When it came to building the second power lines, that I think are referred to at second reading, through the spine of North Yorkshire, from Middlesbrough all the way down where it joins at the National Grid. Prior to that, only three months prior, a pipeline had been laid, tracking more or less exactly the same agricultural land, that the overhead pylons were following. It would just make sense that if you dig in the land at once, you dig the land up at the same time, the transmission lines there.

Not just the less vulnerable to overhead, to storms and extreme weather, but to the extreme frost. One year we had a -17, for six days running, in North Yorkshire. The - 70degrees, in winter. The environmental reasons I put to the noble Lord the Minister, for that reason. -- -17. We are told we cannot afford to place these overhead transmission wires underground. Can I just remind noble Lords that we are paying, every single customer is paying through the Stanley Charter for the infrastructure.

I think we need to ask why we do not have a say, as customers, as to what the infrastructure is being used. Can I just give three examples of the latest profits of four electricity companies. They are eye watering. It does beg the question why we are told it is not affordable to place these are transmission wires underground? 2025, the latest figures I have seen, from Octopus Energy, was a 0.7% profit margin at delivery of net profit of 83 delivery of net profit of £83.

Over energy the latest figures I can find for 2023, I cannot find the figures for 2024, though they're probably available. They announced a pre-tax profit of £1 billion. That is one electricity generating company. Finally Centrica, £1 billion profit for 2024. Why are we being told it is unaffordable when the monstrous profits are contributing as consumers. Just to sum up, a small contribution, I would like to speak strongly in support of 79 a and 94 FA.

I would argue that for both environment and natural reasons that there is absolutely no reason why we are not under grounding these transmission wires.
17:00
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Portrait Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Conservative)
-
-
I would support my noble friend, Lord Squire. These are things that should be buried. The global policy foundation isn't relevant to this debate, but somewhat relevant to the discussion about renewables. My noble friend raised a few points about how previous governments over the last 30 years have been somewhat deficient in managing the grid. The grid was perfectly adequate and we had a very large central power stations. Whether they were coal, or gas, or indeed nuclear. Of course at that nuclear fleet is diminishing, they will be turned off by the end of this decade.

Probably before one of our new ones turns on. All of our coal power stations now, gas is rather intermittent when it has to be put on stream. When the renewables failures. Which is more more regularly. The old system did work when you had a centralised big power stations. The problem now occurs is when we decentralise that. We can put that right by perhaps going up the domestic gas route, which I would recommend as a means of bridging the gap, before we get nuclear on stream properly.

We could put small modular reactors in the place where old gas stations and coal stations used to be. Because we have those huge grids and supplies and existing pylons, which serve the old infrastructure, which is now We are being asked to spoil our countryside because of the dash to renewable to try and link up the offshore anti-onshore windfarms, each producing fairly small amounts of energy but to get that into the grid we need new. I agree with my Noble Friend entirely that these cables as they are required should be on the ground and I have never believed that somebody myth of aluminium and steel platform carrying cables can be that much cheaper than an underground cable that does not require that support, so I would recommend the Government actually does ask for some independent advice as to what these things really cost.

I am very surprised that again my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey about Christmas, I will discuss Christmas trees at the appropriate time in the future because my family was very involved with Christmas trees and eyeball the scars every winter all the while my arms selling Christmas trees as a young and, so hopefully we will be able to discuss that into the future. But the whole concept of electrification I think was raised very well by Baroness McIntosh and Mike Noble Friend about the problem when we have serious thoughts and I do worry that I said at the time that if you lived in that part of the world and there was another storm that hit Scotland almost at the same time if you were relying entirely for electricity cables for your internet that will run your telephone as the old system gets wound down you obviously need that for the internet generally, one will need electricity to power one's car, if the Government had its way and traditional cars were for the scrapheap, as it were, and one would need electricity to heat one's home.

When you have a strong go through parts of this country which unfortunately seems to happen with some regularity I have always made the point that you can plant a neighbour a pocket of looks but you can't lend a pocket of electricity, so I agree with the amendments that have been put about my Noble Friend and I would request the Government to look at this rather more carefully rather than with the flippant that thou shalt have dirty grid pylons across particularly Norfolk and Suffolk and I think that my Noble Friend will be following with some similar observations that with some similar observations that will be hitting part that they are used to representing.
17:05
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Yes, I rise to support amendment 69 in the name of my Noble Friend Lord Swire as we are in favour of the cables as the default method and I believed and agreed with every word he said because burying cables not only is less visually intrusive but storms notwithstanding as we have seen in the Ukrainian conflict surface infrastructure is more vulnerable and military disruption perhaps in any calculation anywhere that takes that national-security angle into account and that should be corrected and would be if the noble Lords amendment is accepted.

Now, my friends, do not stand entirely shoulder to shoulder with those that accept the construction of pylons in any circumstance. I'm of pylons in any circumstance. I'm not a Luddite that is in denial about the difficulties of strengthening and hardening the grid. We all need to be realistic about what it takes for the lights to come on when you click that switch. Powered by fluctuating renewables on one hand and new demands of electrical vehicles on the other. And that should not give the National Grid a right to be judge and jury in their own court judge and jury in their own court and give them carte blanche because my interest in this amendment has been piqued because I have experienced it firsthand the process undertaken by National Grid when they seek to promote a new pylon powerline in this case from Norwich to Tilbury to transport electricity from the windfarms of the normal coast down.

At that time, I was leader of the South Norfolk Council, an area to be bisected across its entire height by the new HB powerlines. What I experienced was an institutional arrogance from the National Grid. They thought that a single consultation event offered at short notice on an afternoon in a remote village the area the size of 400 village the area the size of 400 mi was sufficient. And a boneheaded refusal to accept that burying was even an option, even just in part across the picturesque Waverley Valley or the County wildlife reserve.

They exhibited a steadfast refusal to demonstrate or explain why the option of providing a future proof offshore ring mate was even a possibility, connecting the infrastructure that used to serve the redundant Bradwell powerstation and, of course, the suggestion that offshore was impractical was wholly disproven by the offshore link that is currently proposed and sizeable to the marshes and here I am standing to the Noble Lord and I expect him to intervene in a moment to say how wonderful that part of the world is.

But further National Grid had on evidenced decisions relating to the unaffordability of burial as opposed to the burial lines without expending or quantifying the quantum of those extra costs either from the whole line or just the perimeter or the kilometre. There was a failure to consider the parallel running down to the existing pylon line to minimise visual impact but was a result of the wonderful and historic market than proposed to be fenced in on all four sides by huge steel pylons.

To an unacceptable degree. This lack of understanding further that lack of compensation schemes for overhead lines and often buried cables might underline this case and now turns out to be the case because it now stands as part of clause 26 of this bill. But there were other questions to answer that I will not entertain. There may have been good reasons, though I struggle to see how. But with friends like these, who needs enemies? National Grid has gone out of its way to pick fights rather than bring people together.

As council leader I met with officials with the National Grid and put the points privately to try to have a forum together and thereby have a neutral form where they could make an improved case for their proposals and to build consensus. And that olive branch was spurned. An it is little wonder there was widespread opposition to routes. This has been carelessly and recklessly whipped up by ham-fisted approach. I like this amendment in the name of my Noble Friend Lord Swire because it sets the default expectation that new lines will be buried.

Of course, that does not mean that there must be buried, but for the operator to go above he will need to make the evidential case and have that case scrutinised and build friendships, not enemies. And that is a much better approach and balance of power, literally, between the parties that are regrettable and aggravated behaviours that we have seen thus far. The lazy overhead option is chosen and everybody else be damned.
17:10
17:11
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page