Lords Chamber

Monday 1st September 2025

(began 3 months ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
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
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
None Portrait Oral questions: Introducing activity regulations under the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023
-

I beg leave to ask the question paper.
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:14
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
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:23
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.
15:44
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.
16:25
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.
16:29
None Portrait House Adjourned
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, the
16:31
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
16:38
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
16:56
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.
17:01
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
17:12
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Portrait Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 78 and 79 in the names of the Noble Lord muscle in my Noble Friend Lord Swire. These amendments deal with the critically important issue of grid capacity and connectivity stop something that sits at the heart of the government's ambitions to decarbonise the U.K.'s energy system and to limit the info structure necessary to meet the ideological 2030 target. Amendment 78 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to the distribution operators and powers.

My Lords, the distribution and transmission of that is intrinsic to the production and utilisation of clean energy. Without access to the grid, energy infrastructure remains little more than an expensive standard asset. The case for action is clear. As we know, the great grid upgrade is a vital part of our pathway to net zero. Yet, at present, new energy developing such as wind farms and solar parks are experiencing unacceptable delays when it comes to grid connection. Some projects face weights of up to 10 years, delays that threaten both confidence and credibility of our decarbonisation goals.

That is why the previous Conservative Government took decisive steps in commissioning the Windsor review which examined the obstacles to timing grid connectivity. Of course, proud to say that all 43 recommendations, the Windsor review were accepted the Government. A clear signal of our commitment to reforming the system and ringing this forward. Yet we must recognise the scale of the challenge, even with those reforms under way, the projects without current grid connectivity may not come online until the mid-2030s. It is simply not compatible with the government's aim of the decarbonise grid by 2030.

It is essential that the development of the National Grid moves in step with the pace of renewable energy production and infrastructure delivery. Therefore, I believe that amendment 78 and 79 are indeed serious and timely issues and we must ensure that our good and we must ensure that our good strategy is not only on today but is future proofed for the decades to come. The principle of transparency, clear delivery timelines and strategy and strategic planning for capacity must be at the core of that effort.

And I know that this Secretary of State to implement measures to establish these new powers and there is of course the case to have have a say before the Secretary of State in these powers that have come up as part of the consultation. I would be interested to hear whether that noble Earl result may be open to strengthening Parliamentary oversights here. Turning to amendment 79 eight with my Noble Friend this is a good and thoughtful probing amendment and I recognise the continual efforts in drawing attention to the houses attention.

It seeks to explore how attention. It seeks to explore how the planning system might better encourage the tabling of the overhead power lines. This is an important point, particularly for rural communities were overhead transmission and infrastructure and have a significant visual environmental and social impact. While underground is not about cost or technical complexity, the long- term benefits in certain locations can tree those challenges and my Noble Friend is right to raise this and I hope the Government will consider whether there funding reforms would help support the local or sensible approach to powerline deployment.

The noble of the Minister may not be aware of the very active groups in Wales resisting the matter of violence through the valleys. These groups are uniting the opposition parties against the Labour Government. When I know particularly well is that local community group against pylons. Any more positive note, my Noble Friend Lord Fuller should take heed, National Grid are underground and part of the overhead power lines between the substations in Gwyneth. There is hope that they can do this and that the great grid up date will take into account the relative cost of under grounding and although I cannot give accurate details of the cost, I do believe it has come down substantially from if you years ago from 10 times to Moloch three times.

Still, it is a premium, but, in certain circumstances, it must be well worth considering. In that context I also speak to amendment 94 in the name of my Noble Friend Lady Coffey. This amendment seeks to ensure that new cables developed of agricultural land must be read at a depth of at least 2 m, in order to avoid interference with watering systems or networks required for agricultural use. Disappears to be a sensible and practical amendment, the balances into structure develop movement with the operational needs of farming and food production.

In conclusion, I look forward to hearing from the novel of the Minister on how the Government is taking forward the essential work on developing our capacity and I hope he will provide reassurance to the House that grid reform remains an urgent and coordinated priority, as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just welcome at Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just welcome at Baroness Bloomfield's speech, I thought it was excellent and opposite to Lord Offord when he spoke from Frontbench. I congratulate the
17:17
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness. Can I use the opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness to her welcome the noble Baroness to her place on the frontbench. I'm looking forward to the exchanges ahead. Turning to amendment 78 and 79 a table by the noble Lords of Earl Russell and Lord Swire and Baroness Coffey, I thank the noble Lords of the tabling of these amendments and their interest and commitment to improving grid capacity and electricity distribution infrastructure. Turning 1st to amendment 78, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to plan distribution powers in relation to the acquisition of an access, with the aim of accelerating distribution the aim of accelerating distribution infrastructure.

The government is committed to achieving Clean Power 2030. It is clear that the rapid expansion of the electricity network is essential to meeting that mission. While we agree, we do not believe it is appropriate to legislate on these matters. As previously outlined, the government launched a public consultation on 8 July, which closes on 2 September, that consultation included proposals on land, access and rights and seeks views from a wide range of stakeholders including network operators, landowners and local authorities. Once the consultation closes the government will undertake a thorough valuation of sponsors to understand the stakeholder concerns and assess any unintended impacts ahead of implementation.

Introducing changes in now, before that worker's been done would pre-empt the process of risk undermining the careful balance we are trying to extract, speeding up delivery and protecting network rights. We are committed and once at the consultation process is complete we must do so in a way that is informed, proportionate and legally sound. I hope that the noble Lord Earl will be reassured by this response and I ask he beg leave to withdraw his amendment. I look forward to the noble Lord, myself and Baroness Taylor meeting on issues.

We move on to 70 9A table by Lord Swire. This will introduce a statutory presumption in favour of under grounding powerlines. It will require developers to demonstrate the underground was their preferred and initial option and that it is feasible where overhead lines can be approved. We understand that some communities hold strong views in favour of under grounding, concerns about the visual impact of overhead lines. We are aware that the support is by example seen internationally were under grounding is used in certain contexts.

The government's position is that overhead transmission lines that should be the starting presumption for electricity network development, except internationally designated landscapes were under grounding is the starting presumption. This is because overhead lines are significantly cheaper, as underground can cost up to 4.5 times more, with costs ultimately passed on to bill payers. Overhead lines are also quicker to build, because less environmental disruption and are easier to connect to existing networks. That saying, I totally understand the point Lord Cromwell, to ask, neither myself or Baroness Taylor answer the question, cover we look forward to her speaking and working for more detailed examples of cost and working with different combinations.

To the Lord's question, I appreciate he asked if network Permitted Development Rights Bill or in the current consultation. Does it cover compulsory purchase. There will be a huge debate, hopefully, on compulsory purchases, in due course. The network planning is critical to ensuring that transmission infrastructure is designed and delivered in a way that meets systemwide needs. National Energy System Operator NESO through the forthcoming centralised strategic network plan will assess technology options, against key criteria, including cost, deliverability, operability, community and environmental impact to stop and recommend optimum solutions.

Developers will then apply these recommendations are to project level, defining its grand designs with an existing planning and energy framework. Accepting this amendment would move us away from a strategic coordinated systemwide approach, to good development and towards a more fragmented cost. Wonder grounding is used on a case- by-case basis where justified was that the amendment could lead to project level decisions undermining strategic systemwide planning. This risk creating inconsistency, inefficiency and ultimately slowing down the delivery of the infrastructure to meet our Clean Power 2030 and net zero targets.

Furthermore this amendment will shift the burden of proof onto the shift the burden of proof onto the , risk and delay to an already lengthy consent process was given the significantly higher costs and technical complexity of underground lines, compared overhead, this amendment is unlikely to increase the use of under grounding but will add additional time and planning and delivery process. Turning to the amendment by Baroness Lady Coffey. This will require communications cables inactive agricultural use must be buried to a minimum depth of two metres, from the surface level and deeper, if required.

Existing legislation, the electrical cabling is electrical safety act. It is contained in the electrical safety act. The electrical safety Regulations 2023. It requires every underground cable should be kept at such depth or otherwise be protected, so as to avoid, so far as it is practical any damage or danger by reason of such uses of the land which can be reasonably expected. This legislation is supported by industry courts which provide the specific standards and the relevant minimum burial depth considering different factors and use cases.

These industry courts must comply legislation for the quality that they must legally operate within. The minimum that the electricity cables are set out in the energy networks Association energy recommendation G 57, for cabling and agricultural land is a 910 mm. This recommendation is noted to provide sufficient depth, to safeguard against damage and cultivation. And mechanical installation of drainage systems. It is set within ER G 57 that the depth requirement takes account of the wishes of the National Farmers Union.

Agriculture activity including a deep cultivation, and mould trainings are deeper than the surface, it is doubling cables at depth the 910 mm can introduce engineering and environmental constraints, such as increased heat generation from the cables which may require additional methods like increased space. Deep installation facilitates depressed trench and detrimental impact on the soil and soil handling. The existing legislation is supported by detailed industry standards, ensuring the framework where the relevant standards can be flexibly updated and refined, in line with the circumstances such as innovation, while minimising potential impacts on agricultural land.

Just to conclude. Similarly, for communication cables electrician cables and regulations 2023 operators must install apparatus, such as cabling at a depth which doesn't interfere with the use of land. This ensures the opportunity for the purpose that the landowner wishes, even where there is electronic equipment in the ground. Introducing any requirement, to the death communications cables, digital infrastructure, implement cost, substantially, slowing network, build and potentially preventing the government's ambition of a nationwide coverage of the stand- alone 5G and capable broadband.

For these reasons I do not think these amendments are necessary and therefore I kindly ask the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. This has been an interesting
17:26
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

This has been an interesting group of amendments and I thank everyone who is either put amendments or taken part in the debates. Can I thank the Minister debates. Can I thank the Minister for responding so thoroughly to the members that have been raised. I welcome his commitment to work with me between in our report in relation to my amendment number 78. My only real concern there is I am aware that the issue of renewable energy operators are not included in the government consultations.

Equally there were not included in my amendment, but they are an important part of the picture. If we could work together to try to find some solution that they could be included in the processes as well, preferably prior to report, that would be appreciated. I recognise, I the Baroness to her place today and I recognise the point that she made, my amendment in terms of holding to scrutiny, I would take that on board. It was not my intention to exclude.

Just coming on to the amendment in the name of Lord Swire, I think it is important that these issues are raised, I welcome the fact this was put forward as a proving amendment. These are difficult things and core issues that need to be balanced. I do not think anybody knows the true cost of burying cables, because it depends on what you are burying through. I don't link there is an answer, it is clear that some of these costs are coming down and that may be something that the Government wanted to look at again.

I think there is an important need in this debate to balance the cost which ultimately goes to consumers, with the need for government to be open and able to listen and to plan in response to community's concerns. To be able to persuade energy companies to account, to be able to take more expensive options where there are particular impacts. To that end I also welcome Lord Swire's amendment would be against the overriding energy policy statement. I do ask the government just to be open to the idea.

I know it would appear the idea. I know it would appear there are legislative conditions around areas of natural beauty, but for the government to be open and mindful of communities concerns and to making sure there are budgets available for burying cables, where communities raised particular concerns, or there are particular kinds of landscapes. I welcome the fact that we have the news yesterday of the bits and response of the consultation, they have been buried and I think that is the right approach.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's pleasure that amendment 78 be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 79, Earl Russell? Not Amendment 79, Earl Russell? Not moved? 79, not moved? 79 a, Lord
17:29
None Portrait AMDT: 80 Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-

moved? 79, not moved? 79 a, Lord Swire? Not moved. That brings us to the fourth group. In clause 18, amendment 18 .$$TRANSMIT

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment 18 and speak to 81 and 82 standing in my speak to 81 and 82 standing in my name. As well as a members 85 a, 80 8B and 80 8C, in the name of my noble friends Lord Goodman of Wycombe. The amendments in my name Wycombe. The amendments in my name and deal specifically with the issue of consent and the exercise of planning powers in Scotland under the provisions of this bill. Let me the provisions of this bill.

Let me begin with amendment 80, the 6 to ensure that any fees collected by Scottish Ministers the purposes Scottish Ministers the purposes related to planning are hypothecated, that is ring fenced by the community benefit packages off of the direct support of local of the direct support of local authority planning departments. There is a simple but important principle at the heart of this principle at the heart of this amendment the money raised locally extensively for planning purposes should be used locally for planning should be used locally for planning purposes.

It is about transparency, accountability and trust in public accountability and trust in public institutions. If the Scottish government is to charge fees for planning processes, then it is only planning processes, then it is only right that those farms are seen to benefit, either communities are directly affected by div element of the planning departments tasked with delivering and managing this complex delivering and managing this complex work. This is not a theoretical concern. As no will also be aware Scottish local authorities are chronically underfunded by the SNP run a Scottish Government.

Planning departments, in particular have suffered disproportionately. According to recent studies, planning is now the most reduced, lowest funded local authority service area in Scotland. That is simply not sustainable and it is certainly not compatible with any government stated ambitions around housing delivery, infrastructure development, or environmental management. Amendment 80 is therefore not just about a good matter of governments, it is a matter of necessity. Without proper funding planning departments cannot funding planning departments cannot Concern that funds paid by applicants or developers are not always be used for their intended purpose and there is a risk, some would say interior pattern, of the SNP Scottish Government diverting funds towards what might appear to be politically motivated projects including, of course, welcome pro- independence wide payments.

This amendment would place a clear legal duty on Scottish Ministers to use planning related fees either to fund local planning capacity or tangible benefits. It is a reasonable safeguard and a much needed one. Turning now to amendment 81 and 82, these are more technical in nature but amendment 81 clarifies the jurisdiction and procedural rules that apply to infrastructure consenting processes in Scotland and in short it aims to ensure there is clarity both for applicants of statutory bodies about how decisions are made and what legal framework and amendment 82 is a step further by removing provisions that reduce coordination between consenting regimes in relation to major infrastructure projects as noble Lords will appreciate such projects do not respect Ministers boundaries, whether or not it is energy transmission, transport connectivity or environmental resilience, we must have dreamt of processes that minimise unnecessary duplication, delay, or confusion.

I'm in and I must be clear, we are not seeking to reduce the automatic inquiry that this bill provides but we recognise that such a move would be seen as to delay projects however, what we do say is that Scottish communities must not be shut out of decisions that shape their local environments. It is important to emphasise that through these amendments we support infrastructure. We also support transparency and local voices. These puzzles strike a sensible balance between delivering national priorities and respecting local identities.

These amendments monitor constructive principles. They do not seek to reduce the bill but to improve it and in doing so they ensure that Scotland's unit planning context is respected and its communities properly heard. Turning briefly to the amendments of my Noble Friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe, these are important amendments that give effect to the recommendations of the delegated powers of the regulatory reform committee of which my Noble Friend is a member and I look forward to hearing from my Noble Friend, but for now I will say that the opposition feels that these are sensible commitments that the opposition should consider carefully.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed page 24 line 14 at end insert the word as printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Marshall list. My Lords, I rise as my Noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise as my Noble Friend on the front bench has just indicated a moment ago to speak to indicated a moment ago to speak to my amendments 85 a, 80 8B, and 80 my amendments 85 a, 80 8B, and 80 8C. Which, as he set out, seeks to affect the recommendations of the delegated and the regulatory reform committee of which I am a number on this bill and I will speak very
17:34
Lord Goodman of Wycombe Portrait Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Conservative)
-
-
this bill and I will speak very briefly as we fall in to the two parts. So, the first part concerns benefits that shall arise for people in the electricity transmission projects, a interval that I am sure we will all agree. The question then follows who should be eligible for this scheme and to receive these benefits? And the Government says that these should be decided by regulation and, again, that seems personally level is of the Parliamentary procedure that the regulations should receive.

The Government proposes that only three aspects of these wide ranging new sections is 38 a day of the electricity which is amending requires the affirmative procedure. And of all other aspects of the scheme to be made available by procedure resolutions on the grounds that these resolutions are merely of, and I could, administrative or technical nature. However, in view of the committee, many aspects of the regulatory regime panels proposed by the Government are important matters of substance rather than the administrative or technical matters and I will cite just three of them as quoted in the report.

Making provision to determine whether the premises of works are qualified. Conferring and delegating functions. Providing for payments by electricity suppliers to be cost incurred in the carrying out of functions scheme. The opinion of the committee is that these matters are not nearly administrative or technical but rather more substantial and the committee, under code, the affirmative procedure should apply to all regulations in pursuit inserted by clause 26 of the bill, not just those matters in this section in 36 of the literacy graph 1989.

That is the first point. And the second matter is the use of the forestry estate for the UK electricity, again, perfectly sensible that I sure noble Lords agree and clause 28 inserts new section 3 a into the Forestry Act 1967 to give the forestry Commissioners powers to use land in England for this purpose and gives the same powers to the natural resources body for Wales. So, there we are. The Government says, in effect, to not worry, we will not interfere if you wish to engage in small-scale productions.

We will only do so if we believe that the project wish to undertake are significant. OK, fine. But the committee noted that this requirement of significance does not appear on the face of the bill. And went on to say we did not judge delegating powers on how the Government says but on how the Government might use them. So, clause 28 should state explicitly that ministerial commitment to forestry commissions and actual resources bodies for those projects should apply only to significant projects.

Conclusion, my understanding is that the Attorney- General is of the view that delegated have been used by previous Governments, especially the last one, in a somewhat slipshod manner that the Government will do better. So, if the Minister on the frontbench is to follow in the footsteps of the Attorney-General that has laid out, and looking forward to him being able to give a positive response to, as I have said, the committees report, I look forward to hearing from him in due course.

course.
17:39
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I now turn to movement 82, 85 and 80 8C which have led to clause 18 in Scotland and delegated in the bill. I think that Noble Lord for tabling the amendment on consenting in Scotland and that noble Lords in Khafre for supporting it. I also think that Noble Lord for the amendments relating to the bills allocated powers. Firstly, turning to amendment 80, we seek to prescribe that any fees paid to the infrastructure and any key application services provided only be used for consumer benefits and local authorities.

Clause 18 creates the power to make regulations in the fees relating to Scottish Ministers and the application for consent when done by them relation to the proposed applications of 36 or 37 of the act 1989. Scottish Ministers already have the power to make regulations for determining the fees regulations for determining the fees for the greatest with the bill with the power to make the relations for fees for the pre-regulation services. This aims to allow the Scottish Government to resource their own efficient processing of infrastructure applications and pre-application services.

The UK Government recognises the importance that local planning authorities have in the consenting process and that therefore they need to be appropriately resourced. While I welcome the spirit of the amendment resourcing of local planning authorities in Scotland is evolved competence, Scottish Ministers will consider the resourcing of statutory consultees and local panic authorities to ensure that they are adequately resourced and the skilled workforce to carry out additional responsibilities created by these reforms. It would therefore not be appropriate for the UK Government to be prescribing its Scottish Ministers direct their resources.

The amendment also provides for the directing of fees to community benefits packages over the last 12 month renewable energy developers in Scotland have offered more than £30 million in community benefits. The UK Government is committed to the provision of community benefits for energy infrastructure. In 21 May 2025 the UK Government issued a paper committee working paper for public comment on proposals to mandate benefits for low carbon infrastructure and next steps for shared ownership. The time for comment has now passed and responses comment has now passed and responses are being analysed which will inform the next steps.

In Scotland, the provision of community benefits is already a well-established renewable energy to element and the Scottish Government has had code of practice principles for community benefit and renewable energy since 2014. And these are currently under review following the response to a public consultation which closed in April 2025. Similar to the position of local planning authorities it would not be appropriate for the UK Government to be prescribing in statute that Scottish Ministers should direct fees and processing consenting applications to community benefits packages first attorney next to amendment 81 that will require Scottish Ministers to welcome public hearing whenever an objection from the local relevant planning community is received regarding an application for consent.

Additionally, Scottish Ministers would not be able to make a decision or application until at least one month after this has taken place. The Scottish consenting reforms are intended to make the consenting process in Scotland more efficient while retaining opportunities for local committees and planning authorities to participate meaningfully in the process. Key aspect of the reform package within the Scottish Government is to move away from the current prescriptive methods for handling objections by local planning authorities to consent applications which has resulted in a slower system with decisions that could be delayed for years.

To deliver efficiencies, the proposed provisions allow for various procedures to be used in such circumstances and the discussion of the report appointed by the Scottish Government. These may include holding one more sessions in public providing reporters are specialists including repetitions in the application they may request further written submissions from specific parties and for conduct hearings of inquiries. The amendment introduces an additional requirement to the consenting process mandating a public hearing regardless of the procedures to determine when necessary which could already include a hearing session or representations.

These reforms will bring in a more efficient consulting process which brings certainty to both applicants and communities. To achieve this, it is vital that the Scottish Government are able to examine the protections by local planning authorities for the most appropriate and proportionate method. Moving to amendment 82 this removes subsection for a clause 18 which changes with the way that the local authority objections to applications for consent for electricity info structure are managed. At present, public inquiries are required to be held in Scotland when the relevant local planning authority objects to an application under section 36 or 37 of the illiteracy of 1989, no matter what the nature of the objection.

Public inquiries type of many in the structure consenting applications in Scotland for months and even years because of this adds both time and uncertainty to the consenting process in the committees and applicants leaving them in limbo. It is therefore a barrier to the timely employment of low carbon and illiquidity infrastructure when we need it most. While public inquiries have a key role to play in ensuring that there is a transparent and thorough assessment of significant objections to electricity infrastructure objects, it is not proportional or sensible that all such objection should be deferred to this process and the Lords will be aware that the aim of the Scottish consenting reforms is to streamline the process whenever possible while retaining the right for local communities to have meaningful opportunities to comment on and influence applications.

Subsection 4 of clause 18, the rate of planning authorities to object to application for consent while bringing into targeted and effective process in the system. This is essential to ending delays in electricity and putting in place the infrastructure that we need. The policy for this clause is to move away from the current prescriptive methods by local planning authorities to consent applications which has resulted in a slower system with decisions being delayed for years. The provisions allow for various procedures to be used in such circumstances as the discretion of the reporter appointed by the Scottish Government.

This may include one or more hearing sessions where the public inquiry it is important to stress that the public inquiry route is not being removed as a result of these measures. The measures will launch a fair, efficient and proportionate system for handling objections. However, this amendment would maintain the status quo by where I any objection to planning consent would be referred to public inquiry. The impact of this would be contrary to the aims and objectives of the bill and so we cannot support it.

For the reasons I have outlined I therefore kindly ask the Noble Lord I beg Now I turn to the amendments tabled by Lord Goodman. Amendment 85 a 60 implement the recommendations of the delegated powers and regulatory committees report that over regulations to the provisions inserted by clause 26 are subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendments 80 8B and 80 8C would Amendments 80 8B and 80 8C would Amendments 80 8B and 80 8C would That the forestry authorities will be required to obtain a ministerial consent for significant projects.

Furthermore it would also provide a definition of a significant. The Government thanks the members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee membership, for their scrutiny of these provisions and for the vital role they play. We also understand and recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. We are currently considering the recommendations and will provide a government response, in due course. I hope the noble Lord understands that the absence of the government's response, it is not yet the appropriate time to give effect to the committee's recommendations on Delegated Powers Committee's regulations I kindly asked the noble Lord so big leave to withdraw this
17:48
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
I am a most covert of the level of the Minister for his response to my the Minister for his response to my amendments and also my noble friend Lord Goodman's amendments. I am Lord Goodman's amendments. I am afraid at the track records of that we see in Scotland does not inspire confidence about the planning process and the application of those fees. Obviously I will draw my amendment today. I would just like to underline though that amendment 80 is about fairness and 80 is about fairness and accountability.

The public must be able to trust that money takes a specific purpose and guarantees that specific purpose and guarantees that purposes delivered and that is what we're trying to achieve with this amendments. Amendments 81 and 82 or about clarity coordination and respecting local voices. By clarifying jurisdictional processes clarifying jurisdictional processes and ensuring coordination between UK and ensuring coordination between UK and Scottish systems we can reduce confusion avoid unnecessary delay and make sure communities are not cut out of the conversation. We do cut out of the conversation.

We do share the government's aim to speed up the planning process and speed up the delivery of projects and getting the delivery of projects and getting the balance right. These are constructive amendments. I hope the noble Lord the Minister will also noble Lord the Minister will also agree that proper resourcing clear governance and meaningful local engagement are not obstacles to infrastructure but are essential to getting it right. As I mentioned in my comments earlier we are fully supportive of my noble friend Lord Goodman's amendments and we would very much like to see the government make progress.

In the meantime My Lords I will draw on my amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 81 and 82, not moved on block. Not moved. The question is block. Not moved. The question is that clauses 18 to 23 stand part of that clauses 18 to 23 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is that schedule one be the first schedule to the build? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is that clause 24 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The
17:50
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
contents have it. In clause 25, amendment 82 a, Lord Fulham?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will not detain you greatly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will not detain you greatly with this amendment, it is seeks to ensure that when electricity storage systems are planned, the full knowledge and consent of the local knowledge and consent of the local fire authorities, the public and the fire authorities, the public and the big safety risks are understood and mitigated and cleared. Surprisingly there is no duty for promoters of these schemes to consult the local fire authorities. My amendment would fire authorities. My amendment would correct that ambition. There ability to stabilise and isolate the to stabilise and isolate the electricity supply from surges and shocks is essential and a number of shocks is essential and a number of short and long term technology exists to smooth the path of electricity from the generator to electricity from the generator to the consumer.

The people of the Iberian Peninsula on attested to the consequences of failing to have a consequences of failing to have a network stabilisation in place, especially when dashing for renewables. As some of these moving technologies contain highly flammable materials like lithium, flammable materials like lithium, hydrogen and given the strength today, I would focus my remarks on the lithium side of the purposes of the lithium side of the purposes of the lithium side of the purposes of her Not a day does goes by when a fire is not caused by a lithium fire battery.

This is not to seek to trespass on that but it doesn't demonstrate that the fires are caused by batteries are things that the issue is clear, when a lithium battery for example catches fire battery for example catches fire huge quantities of water are required to extinguish it. Your lodges will recall the case of the car-based complication at Luton airport where the multi-storey car park was a totally consumed. Whether or not that was started by an electric vehicle, was it took hold, the batteries in those cars quickly made the fire and fighter bought for longer.

The more so had petrol and diesel alone been involved. The danger by the number of five. Airline passengers are now routinely warned about the dangers of phone batteries catching fire in batteries catching fire in imperilling the whole aircraft. Imagine the scale of the flames, if an entire grid scale battery storage facility caught alight. This issue needs to be taken seriously. And the bill as currently drafted fails to do so. It glosses over the consequences of failures and a long-term, short-term energy storage including the long term battery systems and those storing huge electrical capacity and flammable is.

You do not need to be a brace but to realise that an electrical spark can spell danger. Many of the proposed LDS MBS schemes, in particular in the countryside, where the existence of fire hydrant is limited. Rivers and ponds and may be funnelled across fields or narrow lanes, water carriers may be miles away during a dry period it deep seated hard to find a five- cause secondary blazes that can have a wide consequences on the whole area. The proximity of businesses, schools, homes and buildings as a further dimension for public safety to the mix.

And in both cases consideration of the leakage of lithium, in particular the underlying firefighter run-off water is essential. Of course there are other risks the availability of water carriers, specialist equipment, in areas that may be styled by part-time firefighters. This amendment would seek to enforce the duty of applicant for an energy storage facility and the local fire authority to fully assess the risk including a fire and public safety and to pay a reasonable fee to do so. If the government resists this, then we risk damaging the control of fires the people, properties, businesses and the environment at a significant cost to the wider taxpayer and local government.

Cost I've I've had I've had representations I've had representations from councils, the cost of providing water storage and additional appliances should be fully borne by the applicant, not the taxpayer. I have not gone that far with this amendment, but I do wonder the Minister would beat me to explore this, if other noble Lords feel that it is a good idea. In which case I will consider bolstering his proposal and report stage. For the moment, if we just take the issue of fire safety from these high-value, high consequence electric storage systems, then I think we will be doing in this House, the society a favour.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, page 34, line 38, at the end insert the words printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the marshalled List. I rise to speak to amendment 80 to be in my name, which would require the government to evaluate and report on how this legislation
17:55
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
affects the U.K.'s capacity long- duration energy storage. Clause 25 outlines that the introduction of the scheme intent in assimilating investment in a long duration electricity storage. Yet as with any initiative of the scale, we must pare aspiration with scrutiny. It is one thing to launch a scheme, quite another to ensure it is fit for purpose. We hear regularly that storage will solve the challenge of intermittent renewables. It is reassuring the idea that excess wind and solar can simply be stored away.

Ready for when needed. That message risk masking the scale of the task ahead. To get the facts straight, the UK average electricity consumption is around 780 GW hours, per day. The current grid scale battery storage stands at roughly 12 GW hours. Enough to meet national demand for just 30 minutes. On a global scale, the picture is not much better. All the batteries in the world combined, can keep the UK the world combined, can keep the UK Storage is not futile, however we must acknowledge we are starting from a very low base.

We must also ensure that any storage added to our energy infrastructure does not undermine grid stability. That is available to release a parallel timeframe are needed. This can be for pumped storage. The amendment in , we need regular reporting to Parliament on whether the measures we are introducing are actually expanding our storage capacity at the pace required. Moreover, as we look to scale up these technologies, safety must be a central concern. My noble friend, Lord Fulham rightly highlights the risks associated with high-capacity storage.

Particularly in battery systems. These systems often contain highly flammable materials and when they fail, the consequences can be catastrophic. Fires involving a lithium iron batteries are notoriously difficult to control demand vast quantities of water to extinguish. In rural areas where many of these installations are proposed, access to that water is limited. Climate change restrictions on preventative burning of fuel, over are still leading to greater wildfire incidence and severity was up in urban settings, proximity to homes, schools, as will infastructure raise additional risks. We must ensure that local fire services are not only consulted, but properly resourced to actually assess and manage these risks.

Seeking to install large- scale storage must be required to engage with emergency services and contribute fairly to risk assessments and preparedness. We must also consider the environmental impacts. In the event of a fire, run-off containing hazardous materials can seep into groundwater This is not justified a safety issue, it is a matter of public health and environmental protection. We cannot afford to be complacent. As our electricity system becomes more complex and decentralised, so too do the risks. It is the responsibility of this House to ensure those risks are identified, assessed and addressed.

To conclude, long-duration energy storage may be a useful addition to our energy mix. However, we cannot rely on this technology alone to support our renewable future. renewable future.
17:58
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise briefly just to respond to this group of amendments both on long-duration energy storage. Turning a 1st to amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord Fulham, we thank the noble Lord for bringing this amendment. These are important topics on long-duration energy storage storage facilities are essential to the energy transition. And actually have a very high safety record. He is still an emerging technology and it is right that we seek to balance planning safety regulations with the need to build these facilities.

I do want to be clear that none of the fires other than noble Lord are referred to in his speech were individual batteries and not a big energy generation storage facilities, as far as I am aware that there are only been two such fires. So these are big long duration facilities do have a very strong safety record. It is true that the UK fire and rescue services have described BESS and long- duration energy storage facilities as an emerging risk. Debating that they can last hours and days and they do produce toxic emissions.

While I'm grateful for the noble Lord for bringing forward this amendment, as it rightly highlights the critical importance of the safety of long-duration energy storage, as we accelerate towards our energy transition. The amendment, will establish a specific statutory duty requiring approaches of long-duration energy storage storage systems consult with local authorities prior to the installation, with the authority empowered to access, to assess fire risk and a reasonable fee for doing so. On the face of it I recognise the merit of such an approach.

These can pose material risks. It is important the fire brigade are involved and included in some of these planning decisions. It is also important that our fire services, that they are prepared for particular hazards and they have clear plans for being able to deal with them, should anything untoward happen. That being said, my lords, there are questions as to whether a statutory provision of this kind and all the appropriate mechanisms at this stage. A number of regulatory avenues already apply, including planning law, health and safety act and general fire safety legislation.

The government has also indicated its intention to update planning and permitting frameworks considering the rapid growth of rapid storage technologies. It is absolutely right that they do so. I guess my question really is one directed at the government itself to Ministers. The thing is for the government to set out what the outcome is for the long-term regulatory planning frameworks, for long-duration energy storage. To be clear the statutory provision is not necessarily the only option, or the best option. I thank the noble Lord for bringing his amendment.

But I'm keen to hear from is from government. I'm keen to hear what they plan to do in this topic. I want to know what conversations government is having the fire authorities and I want to know what the general plan is to go But as my response to the first Amendment. To the Second Amendment the Noble Lord rubra I listened when the Noble Lord rubra I listened when I read your amendment I was not against it and you particularly wanted to bring forward your amendment and you have kind of clarified to me through your speech why you want the amendment that is basically to monitor and to have a sense of what is happening in the introduction of this long duration energy storage and recently we had this report on this and it is extremely important, an important part of our energy transition and the stability of our network and, to be clear, this was not really in any way caused by the fire in the peninsula.

My question to Lord Roborough really is you say that there should be a five year reporting mechanism. My question to you is really whether that needs to be shortened because I think that considering the power for 2030 I actually think that I and not against your amendment but I think that really any yearly reporting that really any yearly reporting mechanism for it.
18:03
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Portrait Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 80 to be on behalf of my Would require the Secretary of State reporting on the impact of this act on the U.K.'s long duration energy built storage capacity and it is both reasonable and necessary. Clause 25 of the bill makes reference to a scheme designed to encourage the long duration of storage installations but as with any major intervention in our energy system it is essential that we couple ambition with accountability. That is precisely what this amendment seeks to ensure first of the case for energy storage is seemingly clear and all sides of this House recognised the need to address the intimate sources, As storage is seen as part of that solution but we must also be realistic about the scale of the challenge.

We are often told that battery storage will save us and plug the gap when the wind does not blow, but let's look at the numbers. The UK average daily energy demand is 780 GW hours. Our current battery storage capacity is roughly 12 GW hours which will keep the lights on for approximately 30 minutes. Globally, total battery storage is around 369 GW hours, enough to power the UK for roughly one day. This is not to dismiss the importance of innovation, nor the promise of new technology but it is to say that we must deal with the facts and most measure progress and understand that the scheme we are legislating for is delivering results first of the requirement to report to Parliament on the impact of this act and the crucial area is not bureaucracy, it is oversight and it is responsible governance.

I now turn to speak briefly to amendment 82 a table by my Noble Friends Lord Fuller which addresses the important and growing issue of fire safety in relation to long duration electricity storage. But I could set not all long duration energy storage systems and I think I could possibly justify it with another Welsh reference in here referencing first hydro schemes that differs to your power stations under proposed storage scheme none of which would cause the safety or fire issues, so as we move to decarbonising our energy grid and increasing our reliance on renewable sources duration energy storage is set to play an increasing role, central role in stabilising supplies and ensuring resilience.

These technologies whether they are thermal or otherwise are likely to be essential to the U.K.'s clean energy future but with energy innovation comes responsibility and we must be alert to the safety implications that accompany some of these new forms of infrastructure. Amendment 82 a rightly recognises that some forms of long duration energy storage, particularly those involving large-scale batteries or other flammable components, those inherent risks, especially in the event of a fire, these are not theoretical concerns step we have seen incidents internationally were energy storage sites have suffered fires that required significant emergency service intervention and, in some cases, posed serious threat to nearby amenities.

This amendment seeks to introduce a sensible Should Should be Should be developed Should be developed in Should be developed in consultation with the local fire and rescue authority that would help ensure that any fire risks are assessed, mitigated, early in the planning process and that emergency services are properly informed and prepared should an incident occur. As we rule out more of these systems in urban and rural settings alike, that reassurance will be crucial. Not just for planning authorities and operators but for the public. This is a pragmatic and proportionate amendment it reflects the legitimate public concern and supports our wider objectives without compromising safety.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's response and I hope that his assurance on public safety and finance will remain at the forefront of the policy and operations planning as we deliver the energy infrastructure of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the future. My Lords, amendment 82 here tabled by the Noble Lord Fuller seeks to require long duration seeks to require long duration electricity storage. Operators to consult the local authorities to assess the projects before installation. I want to issue at the Noble Lord that this Government takes fire safety extremely safely. We do not feel this amendment is We do not feel this amendment is necessary or proportionate and risks unintended consequences. I personally want to say to the Noble Lord this comes from the Home Office
18:08
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Lord this comes from the Home Office I have the ministerial responsibility for fire and that Noble Lord is prepared to discuss anything related to this particular point with concerns of unfair safety. The Health and Safety Executive regulates battery energy storage also known as the best sites with a robust framework that mandates battery design is installers and operators uphold high safety standards. Our planning practice guidance also encourages developers of best sites to engage with local fire and rescue services prior to the submission of the planning application and to also consider the national Fire Chief consultation guidelines that matters of fire safety can be considered at the outset.

However, we are going to go further than this and the Government is considering additional measures to enhance the regulation of environmental and safety risks and DEFRA has recently published a consultation on proposed reforms to environmental committee for industry, including the principle of including Best scope of the environmental committee regulations. This would give further safeguards for both people and the environment. This amendment would also add burdens to local fire and rescue services. Further changes to the long duration electricity and storage schemes would also add complexity to the system which would need to increase cost and time for both the applicant.

I hope that the Noble Lord Fuller is satisfied with my response and I kindly quote request and big leaved to withdraw the amendment, his amendment. I will now turn to amendment 80 2B, tabled by the noble Lords of Gonville and the Noble Lord Roborough which requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact of the planning infrastructure act on the U.K.'s long duration electricity storage capacity within five yes of it being passed. I want to issue of the noble Lords that this Government is committed to monitoring the development of the U.K.'s long duration storage capacity as well as our wider power 2030 ambitions.

Ofgem are proceeding at pace in the delivery of the first window and expect to announce final decisions unsuccessful projects in both the 2030 and 2033 delivery trucks in the second quarter of next trucks in the second quarter of next year. Ofgem will remain closely involved in the delivery of those projects and their features and progress of course will be public at the appropriate stage as they would for any other major generation projects. The Government publishes statistics on that UK storage capacity annually in the digester of the UK statistics publication.

This currently includes storage batteries and other types will be added to the publication when they become operational. The Government also has a statutory duty to report on its carbon budget progress under the change act 2008. For instance, the act requires the Climate Change Committee to provide an annual report to Parliament on the UK government's process in reducing greenhouse and would expect future reforms to include all relevant and significant developments regarding those and the Government has a statutory duty to let its response to the Climate Change Committee progress report before Parliament.

Given these existing monetary commitments this amendment to create additional reporting requirements is not necessary and I trust that the noble Lords are satisfied with our responses and I therefore kindly ask the noble Lords leave to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendments. Before my Noble Friend sits down,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before my Noble Friend sits down, the news he is giving us about the the news he is giving us about the further checks and balances and reports for safety are very reports for safety are very encouraging, however the Noble Lord encouraging, however the Noble Lord Fuller raised the question of the multi-storey can Luton, there was a multi-storey can Luton, there was a similar just as bad let's say incident on airship somewhere between the Netherlands and the UK which was carrying several hundred which was carrying several hundred cars with these batteries which cars with these batteries which apparently set itself on fire and apparently set itself on fire and the cars set each other on fire and it was very looking that actually nobody was hurt there because there nobody was hurt there because there was no ability to put the fires out or extinguish them in the end and I or extinguish them in the end and I think the ship sank, so my concern and I am sure my Noble Friend can respond to is all these new reports are so useful but what is missing is some transparency as to what actually happened on the roof of the local airport car park? We do not really know, and therefore everybody denies it but most people think that it probably was and that then Government said nothing and they did not want to upset people, so I think that transparency, I hope, my Noble Friend will agree, transparency is a very important part of the ongoing work.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, let me reassure my Noble Friend that transparency is Noble Friend that transparency is absolutely important in any particular work in this particular particular work in this particular situation where the Noble Lord and situation where the Noble Lord and my Noble Friend has provided an example and the Noble Lord for the House provided an example. Of course, there are specific individual examples and it would be remiss of me not to comment on them with these examples but I am sure that and I hope that there will be that and I hope that there will be some investigation done and if the question is to go in and find out question is to go in and find out what else they have led and hopefully look at that as a way of
18:15
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
hopefully look at that as a way of putting that forward as part of the transparency I think that is a good point. point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have had an interesting brief debate and actually we have had a few twists and turns the Noble Lord the Minister asked me whether I was the Minister asked me whether I was satisfied with his response and I regret to say that I am not satisfied for reasons I will given amendment for bed before that I would just like to deal with Lord Russell's interventions. I was not sure on the one hand with or not he sure on the one hand with or not he was before or against this commitment but I regret that he sort of fatally undermined his Noble of fatally undermined his Noble Friends lithium-ion safety Bill which must be pointless for the Liberal Democrats point of view Liberal Democrats point of view because I would have thought that he would have been standing full square behind my amendment in highlighting behind my amendment in highlighting the dangers of this.

The noble the dangers of this. The noble Baroness mentioned sort of quantifying the value of storage quantifying the value of storage insofar as the capacity. The value insofar as the capacity. The value of battery storage is not severally Yuri storage capacity, it is in the Yuri storage capacity, it is in the smoothing at an aggregate level and also maintaining the hood. It is a also maintaining the hood. It is a difference of only 0.2 in the difference of only 0.2 in the Iberian capacitor of the that caused a catastrophic knock-on effect that brought down the entire grid in Iberia and in Spain and Portugal.

We must not just look at battery storage in terms of the stability. Now, the Noble Lord rubra was very good at talking about what if all of the batteries in the world, of course my concern is to we have all of the water in the world to put these fires out if they start, and of course I accept the storage thing. This is a probing amendment. And I'm not satisfied at all with the Minister's response because he might want to sort of dwell upon the HSE as this dissolute analysis which in advance of an application at performative stages they might do it They are not the ones that have the inconvenience of putting up these inconvenience of putting up these conflagrations.

This storage of electricity wires are pummelled when they do. They are catastrophic. The noble Lord, Lord Markham refers to that ship that sank off Holland, over 3,000 cars went down, with that ship. It burned for days. The hole glowed white hot. Once this thing gets going, it is really important to sort it out. I do not accept for a moment that the HSE is the competent authority to put these fires out. The noble Lord refers to we might be applying additional burdens on fire authorities as we go through this process.

The fire authorities in Norfolk and Essex have asked me to raise this issue, because there is no statutory duty for the promoters to consult with them, they are concerned about it. They have public safety and fire safety and environmental safety at the forefront of their minds and the law doesn't permit them from executing what they consider are there statutory duties. So, I regret to say, while some are reassured, I will withdraw this amendment because we are committee stage. The more this day has gone on, the more I do think that a meeting to progress this is important, at a later stage, wishing to test the view of the House.

With that in mind and I hope we can meet later, on this matter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the meantime I will draw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is the clause 25 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Contrary not contents. The contents have it. not contents. The contents have it. 80 2B not moved. Not moved. In 80 2B not moved. Not moved. In clause 26 amendment 82 Not moved. In clause 26 amendment 80 2C, Baroness Coffey.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Coffey. I rise to speak to 82 80 2C. I've also tabled a number of other amendments in this group. This is
18:19
18:19
None Portrait AMDT: 82C Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-

friends on the front bench. And I'm convinced that would go a long way convinced that would go a long way to persuading, at least giving some to persuading, at least giving some comfort to householders in large parts of our United Kingdom. Who will be suffering some of the impacts were it to happen as a consequence of the exhilaration of renewable energy involving pylons and so on. In essence I'm also and so on. In essence I'm also concerned that we seem to have lost concerned that we seem to have lost the actual amount of electricity generation that is happening right around the country as well.

It has around the country as well. It has been seen quite obviously the people might get disrupted for there being might get disrupted for there being a pilot and 25 metres. People who a pilot and 25 metres. People who are living next to the generation and new substations and new nuclear power stations, as it stands are not power stations, as it stands are not entitled to receive any community benefits at all. One of the benefits at all. One of the successes of the French government had was to try to reduce the electricity bills of people close to generation and this has long been considered a sensible way forward.

I'm not saying everybody in the local amenities at once to use their words bought off by having a reduction on the bill. I think it would go a considerable way, with some of them, in the preparation of these huge areas, construction projects. As a well as being an ongoing reminder that this is there, while they are living near a nuclear power station, they may not have realised what was going to be built there, or a substation when they actually moved to that area.

In terms of what clause 26 does as it's enabling the establishment of the Energy Bills Discount Scheme. I have put through a couple of amendments put through a couple of amendments that this should not be the case that it's a may, but a must. I'm conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Earle has also included the word mast in amendment 86. I think that matters to give absolute certainty to local communities, that this will happen. We won't have to wait for further consultations, further commencements and this will actually be done.

It is important that we consider, not just nuclear, I refer to that already. I don't think I qualify for that, although I do not live too far away from Sizewell C. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people who do. We should also consider it for other energy projects, including wind farms and the like, especially recognising what is the government's proposals. Propose discount the government is only 25% of the thousand pound bill discount, that the previous government had suggested and that is why it has already been referred to in amendment 83.

I think it is clear that we need to make sure this does actually get to the household and that is why I think there are clauses parts of this clause which are absolutely right to be included by the government. In terms of by the government. In terms of thinking through what needs to happen, in regards to say amendment 86, which the noble Earl Russell tabled. I do recall it was so prominent private secretary to Michael Fallon, long time ago. Back in 2013, we started discussing what was going to be the amount of money that the community should get.

And that just reflects quite how long this discussion has been going on this discussion has been going on for. At one point it was about business revenues, business rate revenues and what would be retained, what would be given by the council, what would be given to bill payers. I think it is important to make sure that actually as much of this money goes directly to the local people, as possible. In terms of thinking through though. I would be grateful if the Minister may not have the answer.

I don't expect him or her to have every single part of the discussions about these rate discussions about these rate retentions however it would be useful to understand where the government has finally ended up in terms of what would be retained by the local council in terms of business rates, for the operation of business rates, for the operation of all of these are different power plants being built around the country. I'm sure the local government would welcome that, in terms of clarity and certainly if 100% of the business rates of Sizewell C were to be retained in Sizewell C were to be retained in East Sussex.

The authority in due course. They be very happy indeed. That's not to say that East Sussex keeps all that money. Right now they participate in what is called pooling. Nevertheless, recognising pooling. Nevertheless, recognising that significant infrastructure, in a very modest way provides local community benefits, which can be used for a variety of factors. It is for those reasons that generation, as well as pylons and need to be recognised in any bill discount scheme and I hope that the government will be generous in that regard.

There is one other amendments, forgive me and that is to try and make sure that this is not borne by other taxpayers or other bill payers. This needs to be considered at the cost of the project. Too often we are seeing that, we will be discussing this more in the Moses Room on Wednesday, how when it seems like the government is being very generous, discounts and rebates and similar, actually it is bill payers in other parts of the country you simply pay for it.

We need to recognise that we have a electricity system that brings disruption in certain parts of the country by generation and transmission. We all need to pay our energy bills, but I think for once we should see some of the recognising the significant profits they are making from these particular projects. They do not have to rely on bill payers for the future paying for those benefits. In

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the short term. I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 26, page 35, line 2, after transmission

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert and generation. Amendment 85 in my name seeks to
18:26
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 85 in my name seeks to explore the extent and purpose of the compensation proposed for the the compensation proposed for the energy infrastructure, particularly with regard to electrical infrastructure that already exists. Now, I wonder if the noble Baroness at the Minister can explain how the clause enhances schemes that currently exist, in the form of arrangements and payments for use of land pylons, for example. Will the new scheme, for instance, be consistent with current arrangements and compensation? Clarity about the parameters being used to determine those residents who will qualify for compensation for infrastructure is important in understanding the scale of the scheme, as anticipated, by the government.

In a press statement, the government has stated that and I quote, "Households within 500 metres of a new, or up rated, electricity transmitted infrastructure will get bill discount of up to £2500, over 10 years. This was the rural communities, it says, receive hundreds of pounds in their pockets for hosting vital infrastructure. And it continues alongside a money off bills, separate new guidance will set out how developers should ensure communities hosting a transmission infrastructure can benefit, by funding projects, like sports clubs, educational programs, or facilities.

That press release sets out the principles behind what the government is proposing, for new electricity infrastructure. As I'm sure the noble Baroness at the Minister knows there are already over 20,000 pre-existing pylons which have largely been associated with coalfields and hence many of the clusters of pylons are close to those sites. In Yorkshire, for example. For those communities at that time there was an expectation, by this date, that electricity transmission was for the common good.

The question I want to have an answer to, today, where has that sense of common purpose gone to? Why are we still not still considering the idea that for major infrastructure projects, where the whole nation will benefit, that communities will need to accept that for the benefit of everybody. As was done in the past. In its press release, the government states, categorically that its rural communities never see great financial benefits from the scheme. I do not have any argument with that, but I do question -- juicy.

What is the argument the compensating residents in those communities and now, where communities with infrastructure constructed in a different generation were not. Can the noble Baroness of the Minister explain whether the compensation will be extended to the Yorkshire green scheme? Which is upgrading existing infrastructure, down the spine of To enable more green infrastructure to be linked to the grid. But it is an upgrade of older infrastructure, so will those communities benefit from this scheme? But then there is the more fundamental question of fairness.

Those residents who have had proximity to pylons for many years were never given compensation. The new scheme, in my view, should be extended to include historic pylons. In a retrospective way, I accept that is not an argument I am going to make, but what I am saying is in the interest of fairness across the country, those residents and communities who have pre- existing pylons should equally benefit from a compensation scheme, a time-limited compensation scheme, that is being proposed for new infrastructure.

To deny residents infrastructure. To deny residents that benefit when they have had years of degrading of the countryside, not by pylons, but by the coal industry, is patiently unfair and unjust. So that is my challenge to the noble Baroness Pylons have been around for a long time coal fields. Either we have a situation where there is no compensatory scheme, or less include those who have already in a time- limited fashion. As have a bit of fairness in all of this and I look forward to how the noble Baroness the Minister is going to respond to my challenge.
18:33
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise to move my Amendment 86 in this group, all on Bill discount schemes and community benefits. My Amendment 86 sets out a scheme for providing financial benefits to communities in areas connected with major infrastructure schemes. The amendment proposes a new clause which will propose a statutory scheme to provide community benefit for major energy infrastructure projects, ensuring that those who host the infrastructure necessary for our clean energy transition are directly recognised and rewarded. Let me begin by acknowledging and welcoming what the government has already done in this space.

The provisions now in this bill for compensation to households living near transmission lines represent without question an important step forward. Households that leave day in, day out under new pylons or beside substations quite reasonably expect that there should be some benefit for them and to their local communities. I welcome the fact that the government have done that. I also take on board the point of my noble friend that this is also good for all of us in our communities and our futures.

I do welcome the position the government has taken in this bill, but I do think there are some areas of how the government has designed their own compensation that it is important as part of this border group that we discuss it. Baroness Coffey mentioned generations not included. It is a fixed 500 metre distance that was in the previous consultation. There are strange positions where you can get compensation and not have as a ball site of pylons and they are other situations you may have visible sight of pylons and don't get compensation.

All of that needs a bit of working through. I welcome amendments in this group that have to do that. It's something we need to circle back to at report stage, but the important thing is there is a compensation scheme which is welcome. My Amendment wants to go further. My Amendment I think is additional to what the government is doing, but actually, I think individual compensation whilst welcome, is a more limited scope and has more limited and if it then pooling money together and using that money to provide community benefits.

I fundamentally believe that is a better way of ringing real transition -- of bringing real transition and change to those whose lives are impacted by this stuff. Crucially my Amendment ties the benefit directly to the scale of the project. So it is a 5% annual revenue. This is important because it requires that not one or two pieces of infrastructure, but we are going to have lots and lots of this stuff. This is in energy terms as big as the Industrial Revolution.

So our communities are going to be carrying this weight and they should be able to get benefits from it and pooling the benefits are a better way of helping our communities. For example, over the summer, I know the Labour Party has a real concern about what happens to our coastal communities. Some of our coastal communities are the poorest and most deprived in the country. It struck me that we could be doing a lot more by actually, if we use this type of money to help build local windmills and help provide energy to these people living in poverty, that could be a really good scheme.

The importance of these things is it is not the government doing things to people, it is this government doing things with people. Taking people with them on this journey. Allowing people to be included in it, to benefit directly from it and to see it. I want people to go down to the pub a talk about green energy is going to make my bill more expensive. I want them to talk about actually, green energy, we have a local windmill and solar farm and we are benefiting from it.

We are included in it, we participate and we get something back from it. Those are very, very different compensations from the conversations that are happening now. I fully recognise my Amendment here is not a fully workable amendment. There are areas that offer sleep reform and change stop -- there are areas that obviously need reform and change. I'm asking the government to go further. There is a lot of conversation and resentment of the Norwegian sovereign fund. The way had the foresight to create sovereign wealth fund and they have benefited from it.

We did not do that in this country and we have through most of the North Sea oil and gas, and we do not have those long-term benefits. As we start this new energy revolution, there is an opportunity here to make a system so that we can compensate our communities so that we can get benefit that flows to our communities, to our whole society from this new form of energy and transition. We can use that to ring people in and take people with us on this journey to make sure this is not about one government, it's not about one party, it's about all of us working together for our communities, for our future and the future of our children.

I accept there is a lot more to do. I want to just turn to some of the other amendments in this group. Either way, lots of other countries are doing this stuff. Denmark, Germany, France has been mentioned. Countries are doing this and I would encourage the government to look at some of the schemes that other countries are doing and what works and what does not and to look at this again. Turning briefly to the other amendments, I fully recognise the purpose of the amendment of my noble friend.

I note that she said it is time limited. I also note that it is 20,000 pylons, so I would be interested if the government could do an assessment on what the cost of that is. I suspect it will be quite a big cost and that cost could quite well possibly be prohibitive. I do not know the answer to that, but I think it is a question that needs asking and I think it is good that is being passed. The noble Lord Lord Lilley is not in his place.

We do not support fracking. It is not appropriate and it will not solve our energy problems. It's going to cause illusion to our groundwater systems as well as earthquakes. It was his own party that decided fracking was not the answer. As far as I am aware the Conservatives have not changed their minds on that particular part of the energy transition. That is one amendment that I cannot see the point in having that in this bill.

With that, I beg to move. I beg to move.
18:41
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to my Amendment 83, the bills discount scheme for households living near major energy households living near major energy It is to ensure that a tangible benefit is received, namely a £1000 annual discount on their electricity bill for 10 years. In contrast to amendment 86 which directs funding to local authorities instead of local consumers, we want to see individuals benefiting directly. This proposal stems from a clear and pragmatic principle. If governments are to meet their targets, they must take the public with them.

That includes recognising that hosting such infrastructure in the area has consequences for local communities. Whether in terms of visual impact or disruption from construction. It is disappointing that the current government has chose to step back from the community benefit scheme proposed by our previous Conservative government. In doing so they have shown a lack of ambition and the fundamental misunderstanding of the impact these developments can of the impact these developments can have on communities. In 2023 paper published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero it was recommended that the nature city bill discount for properties located closest to transmission infrastructure could offer up to £10,000 per property, £1000 per year, around £80 a month over 10 years.

The rationale was simple. Communities should be compensated for their proximity to infrastructure that serves the national interest. There is likely The need for planning consent. Despite this the government has failed to follow through with a credible generous offer. Amendment 8360 correct that failure. Turning 8360 correct that failure. Turning to amendment 84 in the name of my noble friend, this amendment recognises that whilst additional energy infrastructure is necessary, it's not always welcome and community consent is more likely to be secured when there is tangible benefit for those living nearby.

The amendment acknowledges that local communities must be partners in the energy transition. It will be helpful to understand the government's position on why onshore wind projects and other energy infrastructure projects for that matter are not currently in scope of formalise benefit schemes and whether that should or could change. Similarly amendment 94 also from my noble friend Lord Lilley proposes the individual should be entitled to financial benefits from shale gas. Whilst shell gas is a contentious issue, underlying this is validation.

Community should not be left behind. Fracking was pretty much invented in the North Sea. It's the shale gas issue we are addressing. I also wish to support the sentiment of the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. They extend benefit schemes to energy generation infrastructure and network transmission infrastructure and ensure that such schemes are not optional, but required. They mirrored the spirit of the amendment in my name by embedding fairness into our energy transition and making community benefit standards, not an exception.

What links all speakers and amendments in this group is the concern for the people who will bear the burden of our energy transition. These projects do not exist in a vacuum. They are local and in real communities. These amendments attempting different ways to ensure that the impact is matched by investment and that no community feels exploited in the name of national progress. Finally I tend to amendment 85, table by Lady Pinnock. It is uncosted as Earl Russell mentioned.

This retrospective scheme that the noble Baroness use the word fairness. I ask for to who? It wilful on the bill payers and on the infrastructure providers who had not anticipated the costs when developing the infrastructure. I remain to be persuaded on this amendment. I look forward to the response from the noble Baroness the Minister and I urge her to provide clarity and assurance to the government's approach to community benefits. The concerns raised by these amendments go to the heart of the long-term strategy of our energy the long-term strategy of our energy
18:46
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I thank noble Lords for a month and which relate primarily to the discount scheme for communities and upgraded transmission infrastructure and transmission infrastructure and transmission infrastructure and 82C, 83B, 85, 86 and 94. Can I 82C, 83B, 85, 86 and 94. Can I just start, I won't be covering business rates in my response. That's a bit above my pay grade and Baroness Coffey will have to wait for the Chancellor's statement in the autumn to see whether she intends on making any changes to that.

So that is the responsibility of the Treasury. As she is very well aware, there is a redistribution mechanism in the business rates retention which enables those areas which are less enables those areas which are less able to biz -- raise business rates. Adjustments to that are not in my remit, I'm afraid, so I will not be covering that. I turn first to amendments relating to people living in new or recently upgraded transmission network infrastructure. While I believe the spirit of these amendments is well intended from the noble Baroness and the government is committed to ensuring communities who host clean energy infrastructure benefit from it, including clean energy generation infrastructure, I will have to resist these amendments for reasons which I will set out for her.

Clause 26 specifically allows for the creation of a bill discount scheme for those living near new or significantly updated transmission network infrastructure with a position of allowing eligible customers a discount of £250 a year. This ensures that communities living this -- near this infrastructure are recognised for the service they provide to the country by hosting this infrastructure and helping us achieve our clean power goes. The clause has been specifically designed to address transmission which due to its long linear nature impacts communities without necessarily providing further benefits like local jobs or investment, which other infrastructure will probably bring.

Of this clause is amended as suggested, it will require further complex and detailed amendments to ensure it operates effectively for each type of generation infrastructure, delaying the time it would take for the scheme to be implemented. I'm able to inform noble Lords that the government is already presenting proposals to expand community benefits to other forms of clean energy infrastructure. On 21 May, 2025, we published a working paper on community benefits and shared ownership of low carbon energy infrastructure.

The responses to which are currently under review. Our proposals would require developers or -- of low carbon energy generation to contribute to community benefit funds, to support families, benefit is -- businesses and those who live near the projects. For example, via new community facilities, apprenticeships and education schemes, boosting local economies and growth as part of the Plan for Change. The paper also sets out how communities could own a stake in renewable energy infrastructure through shared ownership, resulting in profits being reinvested back into the community.

Through these proposals, we aim to provide communities with consistency and certainty that they will benefit from hosting a new generation infrastructure. I hope the noble Lady accepts these reasons is why these amendments -- as why these amendments would not be appropriate. We want to ensure communities are properly recognised for the service they are providing to the country and I hope she will agree to withdraw her amendments. Turning now to amendment 83 which seeks to set a discount amount for the bill discount scheme at £1000 a year for 10 years for households living within 500 m of infrastructure.

I really sympathise with the intention of the noble Lords who tabled this amendment to ensure that households closest to the new transmission infrastructure do benefit. I'm afraid I'm going to have to resist the amendment for reasons which I will say that. The government 's position is to provide electricity bill discount of up to 2500 over a maximum of five years for households living within 500 m of new and significantly upgraded electricity transmission network infrastructure. This proposal provides a balance between ensuring communities are recognised for the role they play in hosting the infrastructure and limiting the additional cost of electricity bill payers in Britain for the scheme.

Were still can bring -- we are still conducting analysis. In August, we publish consultation on our current proposals for scheme design. That consultation is open until 26 September. Final analysis will be publishing impact assessment alongside secondary legislation. The government considers that the overall level of benefit to be set out at that stage which will still allow for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny once secondary legislation is laid. I hope noble Lords understand our position on this matter and I would kindly ask that they withdraw their amendments.

I look forward to working closely with them at the appropriate time on this important detail of the scheme. I turn now to amendment 84, which seeks to extend the scope of the financial benefit scheme for people living near new and significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure, to those living near onshore wind turbines. I welcome the intent of the amendment of the noble Lord. The government is committed to ensuring that communities who host clean energy infrastructure do benefit from it. Clause 26 allows for the creation of a bill discount scheme for those living near new or significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure.

With minded position of offering eligible bill payers a discount. This ensures that communities are recognised for the service they provide to the country. While it might seem logical to extend the scheme to other infrastructure such as onshore wind, the clause is specific -- has been specifically designed to address transmission which impacts communities due to it long linear nature. If this is included -- if onshore wind was included, it would require deep and complex amendments to ensure it operates effectively, delaying the time it takes for the scheme to be implemented.

And pleased to inform noble Lords that the government has already proposed other benefits. I spoke already about the paper produced on 21 May on the community benefits, and we are reviewing responses that. The proposals would require developers to contribute to community benefit funds, again, to support families, businesses and community groups who live near these projects. The scheme could definitely help regenerate those coastal communities. The paper also set out how communities can own a stake in those.

Through these proposals, we aim to provide communities with consistency and certainty. I hope the noble Lord is reassured that we are already looking into ways to ensure that communities living near new onshore wind generation are recognised for their service to the country and I hope you will agree to withdraw his amendment. Turning then to amendment 82, 84 and 85. These would ensure that eligible projects are included within the scope of the scheme. I acknowledge the intention of the amendments to ensure the scheme is not confined to those who live near eligible infrastructure built after the build is inducted -- the bill is enacted.

The aim is to ensure households who live close to new electricity transmission infrastructure are recognised for their service. The government understands that many of these project are planned over the next four years. It is our intention that the scheme will run for a set period of time and the government requires the flexibility to review the effectiveness of the scheme and determine whether it ought to continue for a longer period or come to an end after a certain date. Amendment 82 D would remove that flexibility and result in greater time and monetary cost to bring the scheme to the close.

To a close. Additionally, the other amendments would expand the financial benefit scheme by including works have which have already been completed. Infrastructure will be required by 2030 is being constructed over the past decades. We believe it is only right this unprecedented increase is appreciated and communities are recognised for the service to the country. Extending the scheme to historical infrastructure would be moving away from this purpose. We must also consider the substantial additional costs in extending the scheme in this manner.

The increased complexity and identifying many more eligible households as well as the increase in the number of discounts being paid out would vastly inflate the cost of the scheme as well as the lake current rollout plans due to the increased administrative challenges. It would not be appropriate to more -- amended the scheme. The government is finalising details on eligibility for infrastructure where construction has commenced as there will be projects which have begun before the commencement of the scheme. While I acknowledge the intent behind the amendments, I request the noble Lady does withdraw them.

I now turn to amendment 84C. I understand and appreciate the intention of the amendment from the noble Baroness, to protect consumers from rising energy bills. However, I will again set out the reasons why I will have to resist this amendment. One of the government's five missions is to make the UK an energy superpower. This will boost to energy independence and reduce and electricity bills. Our electricity network is key to achieving this. As we increase low carbon and renewable energy generation, we will need to increase the scale of the transmission network it pays to keep up with demand.

It would not be possible to deliver secure electricity supply, vital to growth and prosperity, without the transmission network that can transported. This financial benefit scheme aims to increase community accessibility -- acceptability and reduce opposition and associated planning delays. The current intention for the scheme, as outlined in clause 26, as for the cost to be borne by obligation of electricity suppliers. It is expected that suppliers will recoup these costs by passing them on to their customers. For example, the warm homes discount scheme is funded by an obligation on energy suppliers.

Funding the scheme through Exchequer funding would not be appropriate as the bill discount scheme forms part of a broader package which has been developed to improve acceptability of transmission infrastructure, which in turn could help reduce constraint costs. Because of this, the government believes it is most appropriate that the scheme should be funded through bills. Preliminary estimates for the cost of both the bill discount scheme and community funds guidance are around 80p to £1.50 per year although this estimate is subject to change in a future impact assessment said to be published alongside secondary legislation.

Should this community benefit package alongside our wider package of reforms succeed in supporting the accelerated delivery of critical transmission network infrastructure, we could avoid up to £4 billion and constraint payments in 2013, compared to the scenario where delays persist. Those costs will be met by the consumers. This is outlined in the analysis from the national energy system operator. I hope the noble Lady will agree to withdraw her amendment. I now turn to amendment 85, tabled by Lady Penick.

We always enjoy hearing the Yorkshire dimension on our bills in the house. The amendment seeks to expand the financial benefit scheme beyond its intention of households living near new and significantly upgraded network infrastructure to those currently living near existing transmission network infrastructure. I acknowledge the good intent in the amendment, however, for reasons I will set out, I will have to resist this amendment. The purpose of clause 26 is to recognise households that will live close to the new infrastructure, we need to achieve the clean power by 2030 mission.

Around twice as much new transmission infrastructure network will be required by 2030 than has been constructed over the past decade and that is a significant increase in the pace requires recognition of households who will live close to that infrastructure. Extending the scheme to all households next to infrastructure would be moving away from that would be moving away from that There are many thousands of miles of transmission infrastructure across Great Britain. Wanting an electricity bill discount to every nearby household will inflate the cost of the scheme and delay the current rollout plans due to the increase administration challenges in identifying the additional households.

Our intention with both the scope and scale of the bill discount scheme is to recognise service that communities provide. We believe it is the right thing to do and we hope it will be appreciated by communities and reduce opposition and delays. Whether this is balanced against the anticipated extra cost to bill payers. I have set out what those costs are likely to be, but they are important to measure against the likely savings from the constraint costs. Should this community benefit package alongside our wider package of reforms succeed, as I said, we will avoid 4 billion in constraint payments.

This amendment will add a significant burden to bill payers including those in receipt of the scheme well above that amount. It will not be appropriate to extend the scheme in the manner the noble Baroness proposes. The government is finalising the details of eligibility for infrastructure, as I mentioned where construction has recently commenced. I appreciate the content behind the amendment would request the noble Baroness does withdraw her amendment. Amendment 86 tabled by Earl Russell aims to mandate that financial benefits should go to communities connected to a major infrastructure project.

An additional clause to the bill will introduce regulations requiring owners of major infrastructure to provide 5% of local revenue to local communities that host these projects. The government supports the intent of the amendment. We intend to ensure that communities who host energy infrastructure benefit from it. The government is already considering how we would employ that community benefit. The working paper published on 21 May was open for responses until 16 July and sought views on the government's proposal to require developers of low-carbon energy infrastructure to contribute to community benefit funds.

A similar proposal that has been put forward by the noble Lord Earl Russell. Working paper covered how the benefit should be calculated and administered. These are the areas covered by the amendment. The government is analysing the responses and we will publish those in due course. The government has recently updated its guidance on providing financial help. The guidance has models from different schemes and sets expectation that developers should provide community benefits of £5000 per megawatt, per year, for the operational lifetime of the project.

This means a community living near a 25 megawatt wind farm will receive up to wind farm will receive up to £250,000 a year to on local schemes. Lord Lilley was not here to move his amendment but as other nobles have commented on it I should respond. His amendment six to mandate the His amendment six to mandate the His amendment six to mandate the provision of financial... As I said before these responses are being analysed but the proposals did not include financial benefits from shale gas works as there is currently no fracking for shale gas anywhere in the UK and the government intends to ban fracking for good.

In addition our proposal will not apply retrospectively. We wish to minimise the risk introducing a mandatory community benefit scheme creates funding issues or delays by imposing requirements at the late stage of development. We hope Lord Lilley is satisfied with that answer and I hope his amendment will be withdrawn. He was not here to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it anyway. Thank you. Excuse me, before the noble Baroness sits down, can I thank her for the response she has given. She has mentioned the working paper in has mentioned the working paper in relation to several of the amendments moved, including my own. I welcome the words she has given I welcome the words she has given and the direction of travel, but hopefully the phrase in due course mean something will come forward. Can I leave it with the Minister Can I leave it with the Minister that if there is a possibility of ringing forward those proposals in ringing forward those proposals in time for report stage in relation to this group of amendments, I think it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would be welcomed across the House. I accept the noble Lord's point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I accept the noble Lord's point. I am not fond of the phrase in due I am not fond of the phrase in due I will endeavour to find out what the timescales are likely to be. It
19:07
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
the timescales are likely to be. It usually depends on the level of responses that have been received and the complexity of dealing with them, but I will respond to him on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that point in due course. I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer on variety of comprehensive answer on variety of schemes and community benefits and discounts on similar. I am disappointed the Minister does not disappointed the Minister does not think it is necessary to talk about think it is necessary to talk about this. Not all projects are like this. Not all projects are like Sizewell. Not projects generate local jobs at all, although I am sure communities will be grateful sure communities will be grateful for the jobs generated by Sizewell.

Conscious of the time, I will of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conscious of the time, I will of course withdraw the amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure that this amendment is withdrawn? that this amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is withdrawn. Amendment 80 Amendment is withdrawn. Amendment 80 2D and E, not moved. 83 80 3A, not 2D and E, not moved. 83 80 3A, not moved. 80 4A, 84 80 4D, 80 4C, not moved. 80 4A, 84 80 4D, 80 4C, not moved. Lord Goodman of Wycombe, not moved.

The question is that clause 26 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Not As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". The contents have it. We come to group 7, in clause 28, amendment 87, Lord Tennyson. Tennyson.
19:09
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
First of all, perhaps I can declare a couple of interest. I am the chair of a company that is into group E storage. -- That is in battery storage. I thank the noble Baronesses for adding their names. When I first read through this bill when it was published before second reading, one went through all the big things in part three and all the stuff that we have been debating so far. Clause 28 seemed sort of, was there.

It was hiding in plain sight around forestry authorities, primarily one thinks of the Forestry Commission here in England, and how their land should be used. And, of course, it is entitled in a way of renewable energy. You think, that sounds good, more renewable energy. Forestry, what could possibly go wrong? Then you look this new thing, hang on a minute, what most coast together with renewable energy and forestry? And of course the answer that springs out is biomass because what else do you do with trees in terms of renewable energy but to produce biomass.

I would say I am not totally against biomass in terms of renewable energy, but is an area we have to be very, very careful about. So if we read through the rest of clause 28 to see what the definitions of renewable energy are, it is interesting in that it does not actually say what they are, it says what they are not. Then it goes through nuclear energy, and so we are not likely to have any small modular reactors on Forestry Commission sites in the future.

It goes through all of the fossil fuels and eat, all of which is good. What it does not mention within that definition is biomass. -- And Pete. Biomass does have its issues. It's interesting we should debate this clause at the point where we find out that the conduct authority has looked at the behaviour of Drax on defence girl in a different place. It shows that one of the areas that is difficult in terms of biomass is the fact that how manage it and how you have accountability and make sure that if it is used, that it is managed in the right way.

There are a number of issues around biomass, all of which we know. Whether there are ancient woodlands which the forestry authorities will have a number of, that certainly should not be touched. There are issues around clearcutting and biomass in terms of soil quality as well, particularly if we take away all the cuttings, Fallen trees in that environment. I'm sure the Minister will say to me, and it is an area which is positive within this clause, that it says that the activities under this need to be to environmental benefit.

It goes on to mention what those environmental benefits are in terms of nature and other areas. I welcome that. The only thing I will say about it which bothers me which is why I have pursued with this amendment, you could say all of those things could be helped if we move quicker towards net zero. That is true. You can construct an argument that said that having renewable energy through biomass meant that we reduce climate change, which was positive in terms of all those other natural environment considerations.

What I am really trying to find out from the Minister, and she did right part of this answer after the second reading, but I want to investigate it further is what exactly was in the mind of the government when they actually wrote this? Are they going to cover Forestry Commission land with solar panels, or wind turbines, or, I am just trying to understand what this actually allows, what the management plans of these organisations are likely to be in terms of renewable energy.

I can sort of accept, as I have put in the amendment, that waste that is acceptable. Having said that, even there, in terms of residual and dyed timber, then that itself is a good springboard for biodiversity. So what I'm really trying to find out here is what is the intent behind this because it is one of the areas I think could go very, very wrong if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we are not careful. I beg to move. Amendment proposed in clause 28,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in clause 28, page 39, line 23, at end insert the words as printed in the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. I stand to support the amendment
19:14
Baroness Boycott Portrait Baroness Boycott (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand to support the amendment in the name of Lord Tennyson. It is important that we ensure that there important that we ensure that there are safeguards in place around the potential for the wrongful use of forestry land. As Lord Tennyson said, we have learnt last week that Drax is now under investigation by the financial watchdog. In the past they have been fined £25 million for supplying inaccurate data. While the government's decision to reduce the subsidies for Drax is welcome, they will still remain the UK's largest emitting power station whatever we do.

We have to be watchful and the secondary legislation scrutiny report in May highlighted the Drax to account on the sustainability question. The enforcement of environmental compliance as well. It noted that key documents in relation to their supply chain processes and reporting have never been published. This comes from whistleblowers within the company. The public accounts company have also criticised them. In the UK we have a shortage of UK forest biomass. The UK is importing 1.9 tons of pallets for energy production.

This is an insane situation where we cut down trees in British Columbia and western America and cut them up and ship them back across the Atlantic to be burnt in Sustainable biomass is going to become harder to get, not easier to get. What does the Minister actually envisage will happen? Will be see an uptake -- uptake in Forestry Commission resources being used? I'm very curious how it was never accepted that biomass generation was ever low carbon. If that is something we're going to see, I hope that they will accept protections need to be put into place for any resources with all the sustainability criteria.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I speak to amendment 93 in the name of Lord Krebs who cannot be with us today? Can I declare my
19:17
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
with us today? Can I declare my interest as Chair of the Labour interest as Chair of the Labour Environment Forum. The Forestry Commission is taking all reasonable steps to exercise its functions related to planning and infrastructure. The forestry commission is a really important player in delivering these statutory targets. For that reason, it was listed as one of the bodies in Lord Krebs's Private Members' Bill. At the time of the debate on that bill, the government said they were sympathetic to the aims of the crime spell -- Lord Krebs's bill.

The Forestry Commission is important to the achievement of government targets for three reasons. It is the single largest landowner and manager of land in the country with three quarters of a million hectares of quarters of a million hectares of land. We are talking about organisation that if it does the right thing, it will have a huge impact, and if it does the wrong thing, it will have a huge impact. This amendment would be a natural evolution of the development of the Forestry Commission role.

It was originally invented in 1919 with a sole focus on producing timber and encouraging the replanting of Britain's timber producing land which had become incredibly apparent during the First World War. In 1968, the countryside act extended the role to include providing a public amenity, such as foot parks and open spaces. In 1985, the Wildlife and Countryside Link extended the role to include conservation -- the to include conservation -- the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. This would complete the extension and modernising of the Forestry Commission duties to include the delivery of the climate in nature targets which have been invented over the last 10 years.

Longer than 10 years, actually. 15 years. I'm sure the Minister will say that the Forestry Commission has already got conservation duties and has already been asked to deliver for climate change. Indeed, the biomass issue that has just been raised does raise some considerable questions about the way in which that extension works. It is messy and piecemeal. This amendment would provide an unambiguous and up-to-date duty without which the government will very likely not deliver its statutory nature and climate targets. We cannot simply depend on some very piecemeal roles for the Forestry Commission to deliver the right thing on that extent of land.

So you'll understand from this introduction that I don't support these amendments in the name of Baroness Coffey. The spirit of the land use framework which is under preparation by government at the moment is that our scared -- scarce land supply has to work in a multifunctional way. Timber production is important because we are a massive net importer of timber. But so is climate change and so is biodiversity and so is access for health and well-being, which are also things that the Forestry Commission needs to deliver in the way it manages land and encourages other landowners to deal with their land.

So the Forestry Commission is absolutely fundamental in that. It's the biggest landowner in the country. To revert to the primary purpose of the Forestry Commission being timber production, risks going back to the bad old days of regular ranks, of subsidised Spruce. A caricature marching across the countryside on inappropriate sites with poor outcomes for biodiversity and much subsidised by taxpayers. We simply cannot go back there. We need a modern Forestry Commission which delivers those multiple outcomes that the Land Use Framework requires.

Can I also express agreement with some of the parts of amendment 88 in the name of Lord Russell. And not sure what percentage of land will be given for the use of energy infrastructure but there needs to be an appropriate balance between the requirements of timber production, biodiversity and access creation, and energy infrastructure. His subclauses which would protect against the adverse effects on sites to protect habitats are spot on. I look forward to the Minister's to Lord Teverson's enquiry about what is intended in the government's mind to the forestry -- in terms of the Forestry Commission and its role in biomass.

I'm concerned already about some of the species that Forestry Commission is committing at the moment novel species with as yet untested uses, very fast-growing, and I would be concerned if we lost sight of the fact that the vast majority, particularly in England of Forestry Commission land, is in fact moving towards being a mixed woodland that can do all these other duties like biodiversity, like access, let public health, rather than simply being species that are aimed at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commercial timber production. It's a pleasure to follow all the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to follow all the noble Lords that have spoken in this group. I attach my name to amendment group. I attach my name to amendment 87 and the name of Lord Teverson and Baroness Boycott. Also to amendment 93. I'm going to seek to add rather 93. I'm going to seek to add rather than repeat what has already been said. I want to follow the noble Lady in addressing amendment 88 and to agree that I'm also not sure to agree that I'm also not sure about percentages, but I would particularly highlight the ancient woodland - how terribly important woodland - how terribly important and rare that is so there is no way we should be doing anything to that woodland in terms of energy.

It is woodland in terms of energy. It is such a precious resource. Noble Lords have had me go on before about Lords have had me go on before about we look at the trees but let's see the soil as well and how incredibly precious the diversity in the soil
19:25
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
precious the diversity in the soil is. We come to amendment 87. I think biomass is now a very dirty word and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rhetorically said, what could possibly go wrong? That has already been answered with a single term, DRACS. It is the UK's biggest emitter. It is worse than oil. There should be no future biomass at DRACS. That is my position and the Green party position. It is a tragedy we do not get to that point when we had the opportunity recently.

I think Baroness Boycott picked this point up and I signed this amendment but I'm almost tempted towards saying just simply no biomass from forest. I think, as Baroness Boycott said, waste material - what does that actually mean? We are thinking about biodiversity, we are thinking about organic material. If we leave it on the forest floor, it contributes to the regeneration of child, it put provides habitat for a large variety of organisms. Is that really waste at all? Is there such a thing in a forest? It really is a question.

We need to be thinking about having a war on tidiness. The idea of any sort of planting where we need these nice rows with clean soil in between. What damage that does. And in addressing amendment 93, I want to draw the Minister's attention to a study that was out last year, funded by the court -- forestry Biodiversity and Britain's commercial forest. It found there was a huge shortage of data, a huge shortage of information about what is happening in the biodiversity, specifically in commercial height forest.

Baroness Young raised the issue of land use strategy. How can we be making plans in this bill if we don't have the data about the biodiversity, which this study identified. I also point to another Forestry Commission study from the year before, from 2023, which warned of the risk of catastrophic ecosystem collapse in our forest. This was signed the work of 42 experts pointing out all of the risks that our forest face from when, fire, pests and diseases, and saying there are already forest in continental Europe and America where we have seen this kind of biological collapse.

We've got to be thinking about making sure that the Forestry about making sure that the Forestry Commission is, given the statutory duty to ensure it looks after the biodiversity as well as the crucial issue of flood emergency. It is worth saying and repeating again and again, we are incredibly forest and woodland-deprived in the UK by international comparisons and we have to look at what is good for human health, for the climate and for nature. for nature.
19:28
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to this group of amendments and particularly the ones I have tabled. The Forestry Commission is quite an unusual organisation. It is, in my experience... I was the Minister and the Secretary of State with the relationship with the Forestry Commission. Frankly, I used to get frustrated. They seemed reluctant to get on with panting flowers and trees. The clue is in the name. Literally, perhaps the organisation is something that could not see the wood for the trees.

But trying to give extra targets and all the like is important for the Forestry Commission to make sure it is on track to do what it's supposed to do. And one of those aims is trying to help achieve the 16% woodland cover target by 2050, which I think we are at the risk of missing and the Forestry Commission should have at the forefront of its mind that it is there about trees. It is there about woodland, it is there about forest.

I'm very conscious... I think the noble Baroness Lady Young was concerned about a single species or perhaps only certain species being granted in commercial estate. It is vital we have mixed forests. I think one of my concerns, it is almost like any tree that was not a broadleaf was automatically bad. We need that makes for -- makes for a combination of factors -- mix. And critically, pines will grow a lot more quickly and will contribute far more quickly to issues involving climate and emissions and the like.

That is why having a combination of a tree estate under the UK forestry guidance really matters. One of the things that motivated me in this bill was the fact that the clause bill was the fact that the clause has got in essence, it seems to be a motivation for the Forestry Commission to adopt a lot of renewable energy projects in order to pay for their own expenses, their own operational costs. I'm not convinced that should be what we should be trying to do, nor do I want to stand in the way of the Forestry Commission of engaging in renewable energy projects because probally a lot of their land would down in a small part of Suffolk.

Later I was told by Natural England they would have opposed any replanting of what was there. It may just been conifer plantations, but nevertheless they provided cover. We want to see solar farms in the middle of these magnificent forests? I don't think that would be right. If they are going to press on with this and turbines and similar, to generate electricity locally and to put it into the grid, it is vital we continue to make sure that the Forestry Commission does think that its main job is to plant trees and to help grow our woodland cover across this country.

A lot has been said about Drax. One of the reasons for mentioning it is the sustainable source of timber. I wasn't considering Solly biomass. But if we are going to continue having biomass in this country, UK timber should be a significant source of that. We need to move to have a lot more wood in the construction of homes. I say that because whilst most British people love, I should say English and Welsh people love bricks and stone and similar.

In Scotland a significant proportion of the housing stock has as a principal housing stock has as a principal material in its construction. I think we need to do more of that in this country. It would be good for carbon generally and it would consider what we do with the limited resources in terms of the building industry more broadly. In terms of amendment 88, I support this. It is a useful way to focus the mind of the forestry Commissioners.

It is fair to say that I don't necessarily agree with everything that has been said about why that could not still be seen to be a secondary duty in terms of renewable energy, but we make sure there is one group of people. There are about 10 foresters who work as civil servants and government. I think the Ministry of Defence has the most because they have the most land of any government department, but it is important that we keep that very much at the forefront of our minds that forests and woodlands are good and we definitely need the Forestry

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commission not to be diverted when that should be its primary purpose. I rise briefly to move my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to move my amendment 88 in this group on the Forestry Commission's actions and duties and in support of amendment duties and in support of amendment duties and in support of amendment 93, tabled by noble Lord Krebs and spoken to by Baroness Young. This spoken to by Baroness Young. This has been an interesting conversation on only the role and development of the Forestry Commission but also its relationship with the energy sector relationship with the energy sector and what protections need to happen as we go down that road.

And what as we go down that road. And what our forest will look like in the future under climate change. My future under climate change. My amendment is designed to put in place safeguards and new powers, the place safeguards and new powers, the new powers granted to the appropriate forestry authorities for energy generation, transmission and energy generation, transmission and storage on public forestry land. At storage on public forestry land. At the heart of all this is a balance. The balance between what we do to The balance between what we do to hit our climate and nature change duties and what we must not do to
19:35
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
further damage our ecology and our further damage our ecology and our biodiversity. It is fine to make use biodiversity. It is fine to make use of our forests for these things, but it must not have detrimental impacts and that is really what I have tried to balance in terms of my amendment to balance in terms of my amendment here. They do gain unprecedented powers to host and sell energy from renewable installations on land renewable installations on land under their management.

Yet when I looked at clause 28, there were no clear legal protections for most clear legal protections for most precious habitat. Without such real safeguards, my worry is that we see safeguards, my worry is that we see renewable energy infrastructures cited in ways that harm our ancient cited in ways that harm our ancient woodlands, our carbon rich peatlands and other priority habitats. The and other priority habitats. The government itself has duty to protect, particularly under our protect, particularly under our biodiversity, our 30 by 2030 biodiversity, our 30 by 2030 targets.

I am looking to have a reasonable balance between timber production and nature conservation. It is in the bill, reasonable balance, but what does that mean? That is not clearly defined in the bill, said that was also a worry for me. My amendment in response to that tries to take a pragmatic way forward. I know the issue raised by Baroness Young and Baroness Bennett about the percentages, I had no more than 2% of all forestry commission land and no more than 5% of any individual site can be given to energy storage and development.

I will go away and look at that. At the moment there is no cap on that. Putting the percentage is better than having no percentages at all. I will go away and look at if there is another way that might be done. This issue is acute in our national and were national Park and Forestry Commission land coexists. The new Forest it is 46%. There are treasured landscapes and energy development must be proportionate, consistent with statutory purposes, subject to democratic oversight.

But impacting on leisure facilities and making sure that our national Park authorities have some say and some control over these things as well. So these are important matters. My amendment does not seek to reject the role of using our Forestry Commission land to help with our energy. It just seeks to put some safeguards on. I will myself go away and consider my amendment. I think this debate has been useful for me as well and I will reflect on that. But I think they need to be more safeguards in the bill, that I am still certain of.

I'm very happy to work with the noble Baroness team ministered between now and report to see if there are ways we can do that together. That would be welcome. It's already been discussed in detail, but turning briefly to amendment 93. I have supported Lord Krebs with his Private Members' Bill at every stage to this House. I think it is absolutely essential that we update our time change legislation. In the last debate on his bill and said it was the equivalent of the government knowing what the military strategy was as a general but failing to tell their troops.

The government is holding onto all this stuff a passing the orders down and empowering others, the public bodies. The Forestry Commission owns 5% of all public land. They need a duty to enhance and meet our climate change and biodiversity targets. It's silly they do not have it. Sorry, I am buoyed up having come through the Crown Estate Bill, the GB Energy bill when we did manage to work with ministers and get these provisions added to the bill. It is on my agenda to do that in this bill.

I think it makes sense. I would like to work with the Minister, but really it is a minimum for me that a similar amendment as we have had in those bills has to be added to this bill. There are responsibilities and they are that they should be this duty added. With that I beg to move.
19:40
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
I very much approve of what the government is doing in this clause. I think it should go a bit further and I want to illustrate this in the context of the challenges faced by southern broadleaved woodland, which existed many, many centuries as places of industry. People make things there, there were a lot of products that came out of it, the whole biodiversity of that ecosystem comes out of a continuous pattern of comes out of a continuous pattern of use.

It is interesting to see for instance at NEP how little biodiversity is left when the woodland ceases to be of value. All biodiversity has moved outside. I think I will woodland diversity -- I think our woodland biodiversity is important. The government should be organising the Forestry Commission so that we can see a restoration of a commercial purpose to the southern broadleaved woodlands, particularly in England. We cannot at the moment in England. We cannot at the moment rely on forestry.

All the species that used to grow in profusion either have no be current use. Our neighbouring forest in Eastbourne was planted to reach 100 years ago. It is now going to firewood. There is no market now for what is high quality beach. On the small would I own, oak is the main crop. We have acute Oak decline coming in now. You ask to wait 100 years for oak and if it is all going to rot away before then, there is no Oakland.

We really need a system which can take general ward output. Branches, brash, feelings, and economic trees and turn them into something useful. The output available at the moment is energy. The Forestry Commission is important to this because they have the breadth of organisation and understanding. Whereas that ownership of woodland is extremely fragmented in the south. So they can bring a motivating and organising and inspiring and controlling when it comes to looking after biodiversity principles and I and very pleased to see the direction the government is moving in here.

My understanding is that this clause is written in a way which allows the Forestry Commission to work with partners in achieving its objectives. It does not have to do everything itself. But I would urge the government to make one change to this. Not just to look at renewable power, but to look at renewable feedstocks for industry. If we are going to replace oil as the feedstock for our chemical into, we need to go after every available source of concentrated carbon and woodlands reduce a lot of that.

So in looking at the powers that the Forestry Commission has under this bill, and there are already young British companies using wood products to produce jet fuels and similar things, we need to add that extra, not just renewable energy, but renewable feedstocks for industry.
19:44
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
The amendments in this group speak to the vital role of our nation's forests in delivering both environmental and societal benefits. As a beginner I'd like to refer the House to my register of interests in particular as a forester and a developer of new forestry and woodlands. Turning to amendment 87 in the name of the noble Lord, I recognise its thoughtful intent. Six to ensure that public forestry resources are not disproportionately used to supply biomass organisations. The responsible management of public woodland must prioritise environmental protection and long-term sustainability, but the picture is complex.

Biomass does play a role in our renewable energy mix and there may be cases such as thinning or disease control were repurposed in woodland material is practicable and sustainable. This is a question of balance and I asked the noble Baroness and minister to outline how existing safeguards will ensure public forestry will not be placed under undue pressure. I would also note that the overwhelming use of failed broadleaves is currently for home heating. Without the home -- without the wood burning market the incentive to manage our natural woodlands and broadleaves will be lost.

Turning to the amendments in the name of Baroness Coffey, they raise important points about the core purpose of the Forestry Is primarily is the planting of trees and serving a sustainable source of timber. We acknowledge the intention behind these amendments. To ensure that the intentions are not piloted. I myself have many years of experience in dealing with the Forestry Commission and I pay testament to that organisation forward single-minded in effect of management of woodland. We would welcome clarity on how these proposed duties would include -- interact with woodland's existing role in landscape restoration.

The challenge is balancing competing land uses with ambitious environmental goals. The amendment tabled by Earl Russell. It seeks to prevent overuse of public land and to protect habitats, particularly ancient woodland and sites of cultural significance. We all agree that such sites must be awarded -- afforded protection. The planting of meaningful site is already impossible. Placing further obstacles in the path might be too much. Either existing regulatory frameworks already providing a sufficient backstop -- are the existing? What changes would the government consider in making the development of new forests easier and more streamlined? Finally, the intention of the amendment 93, proposed by Lord Krebs and ably introduced by the noble Baroness, the amendment would introduce a statutory duty on the Forestry Commission to contribute a target as well as to adaptation strategies.

Having been lucky enough to hear Richard Stanford, the CEO of the Forestry Commission just -- speak, what is the extent of the contribution already being made to wider goals? The Forestry Commission is aware of carbon seconds duration, Biodiversity Net Gain, flood management and the management and protection of cultural heritage. Those benefits are inextricably linked to its core mission of planting and looking after trees. I questioned the need for them to be laid out separately.

I fear this amendment could create confusion and may have unforeseen circumstances in the medium to longer term. The UK forestry standard already incorporates best practice around these objectives and is underpinned by the realities of the woodland carbon code. I would echo comments made by the noble Baroness Lady Bennett and Lady Young in terms of the biodiversity measurement of productive forestry and non- productive forestry. The data is simply inadequate at the moment. The diversity net gain calculation supplied by Defra simply do not work for forestry.

I also want to support Baroness Coffey's point on the rates of growth in the rate at which they can contribute to carbon sequestration versus native broadleaves. It would be wrong to demonise these trees. They are known for bringing down carbon much more quickly as well as being a valuable source of building materials. There is also a real benefit in working with the forestry commission to recognise a wider contribution already being made to our country from the benefits delivered alongside timber production.

And to alongside timber production. And to listen to the Forestry Commission on how new forest can be enabled on a greater scale. In conclusion, these amendments reflect a shared desire across this house to ensure that our forests are designed and managed sustainably and responsibly. As the role of forestry continues to involve, weather and climate policy, nature recovery or renewable energy, it's right that we scrutinise the balance between economic, ecological balance between economic, ecological and social priorities. Are very much look forward to the noble Baroness the Minister's response.

the Minister's response.
19:51
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and just to say, while I don't have hands on experience, my mother's family home is in the middle of a forest, so it's very close to my heart. The three elderly uncles that live there when I was growing up worked in the forest exactly the way that Lord Lucas described. This was active work that they did. They worked for the Forestry Commission and they did the kind of work that Lord Lucas was describing.

Clause 28 sets out to amend the forestry act 1967 to grant the forestry authority's powers to pursue electricity generation from renewable sources within the public forest estate. I begin by turning to amendment 87 tabled by Lord Teverson and signed by Lady Boycott. This amendment seeks to restrict forestry authorities to only use waste materials in the context of renewable energy generation from biomass. I completely understand the intention behind this amendment is to prevent large-scale biomass operations on forest estate.

However, I suggest this concern is already addressed in statute by the balancing duty laid out in the Forestry Act 1967. Clause 28 and the bill applies the balancing duty specifically to renewable energy. Sorry, renewable electricity, which means that forestry authorities are required to balance their functions these functions -- there functions with forestry duties. The Forestry Commission will be able to in -- engage in large-scale... It would not be consistent with the Forestry Commission's statutory duties. It would have unintended consequences that could constrain routine woodland management practices, including operations that contribute to the health of existing wood to the health of existing wood supply and sustainable biomass.

These standards are upheld through processes such as thinning, were young selected trees are removed to enhance the quality and health of the broader woodland area. I think Lord Roper referred to this. Through this process, material use could be -- all material produced could be used in biomass. And narrow definition of waste could exclude material such as material produced through the thinning process. This would limit the use of forest material and would be wasteful in itself. Finally come it's important to note that sustainably sourced biomass can play an important role in energy systems, transition away from fossil fuels and meeting are These existing statutory duties underpin the Forestry Commission's current practices, including the sustainable supply of biomass already operating at the smaller scale as part of routine and acceptable day-to-day woodland management practices.

The Forestry Commission has no plans to engage in the development of larger scale -- large-scale biomass technologies in the forest they manage. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I turn now to amendments which I will consider together. I thank Baroness Coffey for her amendment, which aim to protect the forest estate from the adverse impacts as a result of renewable electricity activities. I would like to reiterate that our public forest are a national asset. There are very precious.

They provide vital environmental, social and economic benefits. This legislation will not change this fact. Is also mentioned using wooded construction and I would like to commend a visit I did just before recess to an office building just across the Thames from here which is constructed using timber, and it's a fantastic building. It looks out onto a small woodland as well, which makes it even better. That's an important factor as well. The forestry Authority because my key duties include the management of forests and the production supply of timber and other forest products.

The additional revenue stream produced from renewable energy developments will enhance their ability to deliver the existing objectives. With respect to amendments 87A and 87B this would require any woodland 87B this would require any woodland loss to be replaced. I would like to reassure the Noble Baronesses that the size of the public forest estate will not reduce as a result of renewable energy is. The estimated footprint of these projects will be relatively small and there will be no net loss of woodland area.

Renewable energy installations are successfully integrated into Woodlands in any -- in many areas of Scotland. Where trees might be felled for access purposes, these can be replanted once that access is no longer required. It's the government's view that this amendment is unnecessary as there is already existing statutory provision to ensure impact is mitigated in both the Forestry Act and the planning and development process. Therefore, permanent deforestation and concerning scale for the purpose of renewable electricity development would not be consistent with the Forestry Commission's existing statutory duties.

Furthermore, I believe these amendments could have the unintended effect of limiting the ability to create new woodland habitats when undertaking compensatory treeplanting. Some locations are suitable for woodland creation and replanting woodland as close as possible to the insulation may not align with ecological and other environmental and timber supply priorities. The amendment also limit the ability to pursue restoration measures beyond compensatory treeplanting that could deliver greater environmental value. The Forestry Commission will ensure compensatory planting takes place where woodland is permanently lost to renewable energy projects come about the planning process can often identify more effective ways than identify more effective ways than enhancing ecology and biodiversity.

We would not want these approaches to be constrained as a result of this legislation. Turning to This request that subsection 6 in clause 28 is removed completely. The intended effect of this is to prevent regulations being made for the purposes of those beyond those explicitly set out in the bill. Many examples of the provisions set out in subsection 6 can be found in any large bill. These do not affect the fundamental purpose for which regulations can be made. In this case, the fundamental purposes determined by subsection 5.

I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that if regulations were to be made in reliance on the power in subsection 6 to make, for example, incidentally -- incidental or supplementary provisions, the scope of those regulations could not be broadened in the way the Noble Baronesses's amendment appears to be concerned about. The reference in subsection 6 to the ability to make different provision for different purposes does not mean that any of those purposes could go beyond the general purposes set out in subsection 5.

They cannot. I note for completeness that the government are currently reviewing subsection 5 in response to recommendations that were made in the delegated powers and regulatory reform committee on the bill. I don't believe the amendment is necessary for the intended effect. Given the existing provisions, I hope the Noble Baronesses is reassured and I hope she will agree to withdraw her amendment. I will now turn to amended 88, tabled by the noble Lord Earl Russell. Forestry authorities may use for renewable electricity Are recognised public forest our national asset and this amendment is being made in the spirit of protecting them.

However, existing statutory duties and regulatory frameworks will prevent existing develop -- increasing development of the forest estate. There will be no net loss to woodland area or the size of the public forest estate as a result of the renewable electricity projects. Furthermore, any renewable electricity developments will be subject to relevant planning process and considered against the forestry authority's existing statutory balancing duty set out in the Forestry Act 1967. It should be noticed that public land being managed by forestry authorities in Scotland is being used to generate electricity at commercial scale and these are not subject to such restrictions.

The authorities there have been trusted to deliver renewable electricity project on the land they manage, balancing conservation with the need to lower carbon emissions and combat climate change, one of the greatest threats to our precious environment. Is also seeks to prevent forestry authorities from causing any adverse effect to irreplaceable habitats as well as to designated habitat sites or sites of special scientific interest as a consequence of As well as procedural requirements that provide robust protections. The sites of special scientific interest the national planning policy framework sets out that development is likely to have an adverse effect on the site should not normally be permitted.

The Forestry Commission has a statutory duty in exercising its functions to take reasonable steps to further the conservation and enhancement of the special features of SSS size. When it comes to habitat sites including special areas of conservation existing statutory requirements restrict public bodies from undertaking or consenting to activity that might adversely affect site integrity. These are highly protected site some renewable electricity developments that could adversely affect the integrity cannot be taken forward integrity cannot be taken forward and left strict derogation was made.

Unless there are exceptional circumstances local planning authorities should refuse landing permission for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats. Given these existing protections I hope the noble Lord is reassured and will agree to withdraw his amendment. Finally amendment 93 table by Lord Krebs and moved by Baroness Young. The amendment will place a statutory duty on forestry authorities to take reasonable steps to contribute to biodiversity targets and target set under the Climate Change Act and to contribute to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act.

The driving full behind 28 is the need to increase the electricity. Forestry commissions will increase their contributions. The forestry authorities are required to undertake forestation and conservation by law and by their very nature they provide significant benefits to help tackle biodiversity loss and climate change. It is my view this amendment is unnecessary. With regard to biodiversity targets the balancing duty act requires the forestry authorities to endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between forestry matters and the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna, geological or There is a requirement for public authorities to consider and take action to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.

In doing so they must have regard to the relevant Local Nature Recovery the relevant Local Nature Recovery Strategy, as well as to any relevant Species Conservation Strategy or Protected Site Strategy prepared by Natural England. The forest completion has -- the forest commission has an ambitious targets that are under way. Forestry England responsible for managing the responsible for managing the nation's forests delivered 1.8 1.8 billion -- 1.8 billion through their projects. Planning under the Climate Change Act the Forestry Commission already provide reports on how they are adapting to or propose to adapt to climate change.

Where renewable electricity is consented to on forestry land the national policy's will apply. The national policy for renewable energy stipulates the Secretary of State should have Secretary of State should have regard to the aim, goal and target set under the environmental and improvement plan and other existing and future measures and targets. The overarching policy statement for energy references the importance of the government's net zero commitment. The statement requires that in considering any proposed development secretary should take into account potential benefits, including the contribution to meeting the need for low carbon infrastructure which will play a crucial role as the UK decarbonises its economy.

Given these existing provisions I hope the noble Lord is reassured and will, and I hope that Lady Young will withdraw the amendment. I will reflect on the development of new forest and also the comments on the measurement of BMG and I will come back to them on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those points. Before the noble Lady sits down, is an impressive list of different is an impressive list of different pieces of statute and regulations across the spectrum that guides the forestry commission in its work. I forestry commission in its work. I want to plant the idea in her head want to plant the idea in her head that the time has come for some legislation that consolidates all of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation that consolidates all of those requirements. It's now some 60 odd years since we last had a forestry bill. I will pass might noble friend's
20:07
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will pass might noble friend's comments onto the Defra minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

comments onto the Defra minister. If this was not the House of laws I would ask for a round of applause to the Minister. That was very to the Minister. That was very concentrated information over about 15 minutes without even a breath. My congratulations to her. Clearly there is another debate that needs to happen. I am absolutely fascinated by Baroness Coffey's comments. The Forestry Commission is not too strongly into planting trees. That could just explain the fact that we are rather behind on our treeplanting target in this country.

But I really welcomed the noble Lord's in depth practical view of how the Forestry Commission worked. As far as my own amendment is concerned then, I can see from what the Minister said in answer to one of the other amendments that may be the role model here is what is happening in Scotland. I will look at that further. Try to understand further what the government is trying to achieve in terms of the Forestry Commission and renewable energy. It may be or maybe not that I will come back at report stage,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but at this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is your Lordships pleasure that amendment 87 withdrawn. It is by amendment 87 withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 88, ill leave withdrawn. Amendment 88, ill Russell. Amendment 88 a, Baroness Russell. Amendment 88 a, Baroness Coffey. 88 a and 88 seed taken Coffey. 88 a and 88 seed taken together. The question is that clause 28 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The contents have it. I beg to move that the House is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the House is resumed. We would then move to consider the statement. We will not consider the statement. We will not return to the bill before 2040 8pm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

return to the bill before 2040 8pm. The question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. I will leave a short pause for the peers to change Repeat Repeat of Repeat of a Repeat of a statement Repeat of a statement made Repeat of a statement made in Repeat of a statement made in the House of Commons today about the Middle East.

Middle East.
20:10
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
I will make a statement on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. On the ground it is unimaginably bleak. Horrifying images and accounts will be seared into the minds of colleagues across this House. They are almost impossible to put into words. We can and must be precise with our language because on 22 August the UN IPC mechanism confirmed what we are witnessing. Famine. Famine in Gaza City, surrounding neighbourhoods, spreading across the wider territory. Famine which unchecked will spiral into widespread starvation.

Mr Speaker, this was The obstacles we have warned about for six months. Since 1 July over 300 people have died from malnutrition, including 119 children. More than 132,000 children under the age of five are at risk of dying of hunger by June 2026. This is not a natural disaster, it is a man-made famine in the 21st-century. I am outraged by the Israeli Government's refusal to allow sufficient aid. We need a massive humanitarian response to prevent more deaths. Crucial NGOs, humanitarians should be allowed to operate.

The stop of aid on Gaza's borders should be released. Over 2,000 Gazans have been killed trying to feed their families. Hamas are exploiting the situation. I know these words of condemnation echoed across legislators across the world are not enough, but be in no doubt we have acted where we can. We have restored funding to UNRWA, we have suspended arms exports that can be used in Gaza, we signed a landmark agreement with the Palestinian Authority, we have delivered three sanction packages on far right Israeli ministers for incitement.

We have suspended trade negotiations with the Israeli Government and we are at the forefront of the international community's work. Ability and peace. We have provided nearly 250 million over the last two years. An additional £50 million of aid and medical equipment will be provided. We continue to work alongside regional partners including Egypt and Jordan to ensure aid reaches those in need. Brave medics in Gaza tell us that essential medicines are running out and they cannot operate safely. That is why we are funding field hospitals.

We are funding WHO Egypt to treat thousands of evacuated Gazans. Meanwhile as the Home Secretary said earlier, we are working with the World Health Organization to get critically ill and injured children into the UK where they will receive specialist NHS treatment. The first patients are expected to arrive in the UK in the coming weeks. Extracting people from a war zone is complex and dangerous. It relies entirely on Israeli permissions. I'm pressing for this to happen as quickly as possible. We are also supporting William students granted scholarships to escape Gaza so they can take up their places for the coming academic year.

I recognise that this only touches the edges of this catastrophe. We all know there is only one way out, an immediate ceasefire. The unconditional release of all hostages, a transformation in the delivery of aid. We know this, our US and other allies know it and our golf partners know it. We are working towards a ceasefire and a wider process to deliver long-term peace. We need the disarmament of peace. We need the disarmament of Hamas and a new framework for Gaza.

In contrast further Israeli military operations in Gaza City will only prolong and deepen the crisis. So together with our partners we demand an immediate halt to this operation. Each week brings new horrors. Last week's double strike on hospital, one of the last remaining major health facilities in Gaza killed 20 people, including five journalists. I remind Israel that international law requires the protection of healthcare workers, journalists and civilians. These actions will not end the war, they will not bring hostages home and make them safer as hostage families have recognise.

They also despair and anger across the region for generations. In the West Bank the Israeli Government is tightening its stranglehold on the Palestinian Authority and continues to approve illegal settlement to approve illegal settlement construction. Just recently east of Jerusalem there are plans to erect a permanent barrier. I describe before the UN Assembly intentions. Unless the Israeli government ends the appalling situation in Gaza... This commitment stems from our historic responsibility to the region's security, reaching back over a century.

As I said last month in New York and deeply proud it was a British Foreign Secretary that help to establish a homeland for the Jewish people, but the same declaration promised that nothing should be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the Palestinian people. Those rights are more under threat than at any point in the past century. To those who say recognition rewards Hamas of threatens Israeli security, it does neither. Recognition is rooted in a two state solution which Hamas rejects.

We have been clear that any Palestinian state should be demilitarised. It's been confirmed in writing by President as to in writing by President as to Security comes from stable borders, not indefinite war. I would also like to finish by updating the house on Iran. The snapback mechanism was triggered which means that if no new agreement is reached in 30 days, the sanctions that were lifted in the nuclear -- Iran nuclear deal will come back into force.

These include a full arms embargo and restrictions Drone programme. This is not a decision that we took lightly. For years, we worked with international partners to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The 2015 deal was meant to do just that. Iran has repeatedly undermined the agreement. Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium is now 45 times over the limit. Despite this, we have made every effort to bring Iran back to compliance. These efforts have continued in recent months. I have urged foreign minister to de- escalate.

We offered Iran more time if it agreed to return to negotiations with the US and restore full access to the international atomic agency. Last month, I warned Iran that time was short and we would have little time to trigger snapback. I regret to inform the house that Iran has not complied with its legal obligations are chosen the path of diplomacy, so we had no choice but to act. I have long been clear that I will not allow snapback to ex-dire -- expire without a comprehensive deal.

It would be unacceptable to allow the issue to fall of the UN security council agenda. Snapback is not the end of diplomacy. As secretary Rubio has recently underlined, Iran can still meet our conditions. It can restore access to IEA and return to negotiations. Alongside our partners, I will continue to urge Iran to choose this path. In the worst of times, this government will continue to take all the steps we can to alleviate suffering, to help bring regional conflict to an end and to create the conditions for long-term peace and security.

We will not rest until there is a ceasefire in Gaza. The hostages are returned and the flood of aid reaches those in desperate need. Despite the obstacles between us, we will work with partners to preserve a two-state solution. I commend this statement to the house. statement to the house.
20:20
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, let me start by thanking the noble Lady very much indeed for repeating that extremely important statement. I want to start by expressing my sympathy for the people of Afghanistan who have now been affected by last night's earthquake. I'm sure we are all thinking of them. I agree with that noble Lady that the ongoing conflict in Gaza is awful. It has claimed too many lives already and I know that noble Lords across the house share our desire to see a peaceful resolution to the conflict and the resumption of work towards a sustainable peace based on a two- state solution.

Hamas is still refusing to release the hostages who have been in captivity in Gaza now for coming up to 700 days. This is an appalling situation and the government must redouble their call for the release of the hostages, which I know they did again today. Can the Minister please update the house and the government work to influence that situation and help secure the release of the 48 hostages who remain in captivity and the urgent delivery of more aid into Gaza? Hamas is a terrorist organisation and we must all work together with our international partners to prevent them from having any role in the future governance of Palestine.

As the government embarks on the path to recognition, could the noble Lady tell us what engagement ministers have had with international partners about a plan to end Hamas's role? Turning to the humanitarian situation in Gaza, again, I think noble Lords would agree that the situation is dire. Will want to see a sustainable resolution of the conflict as soon as practically possible. We also need to see more humanitarian aid delivered to citizens in Gaza. -- Civilians in Gaza. Can the Minister confirm what steps have been taken to unplug the situation so that more aid can get into Gaza? On Palestinian recognition, it is disappointing that ministers conveniently chose to announce this major change to UK foreign policy shortly after the house broke for the summer recess, meaning that we did not have the opportunity to ask immediate questions of ministers at the time.

The noble Lady this afternoon refused to answer my afternoon refused to answer my question on the Montevideo Convention at Oral Questions. Let me give her another opportunity. The sets out the international criteria for state recognition. This includes defined territory, a permanent population, functioning government and the capacity to enter into international relations. Can I ask her again, specifically, which of these Montevideo criteria are fulfilled by the state of Palestine that they are about to recognise? Will this recognition apply just in the West Bank under the control of the Palestinian Authority, or will it also apply to Gaza, nominally still under the control of Hamas? The government often tell us they are bound by international law so it would be useful to know what work the government have done to establish whether Palestine meets these criteria under international law.

There is an unfathomable symmetry and the demands being made by the government. Can the Minister please give the house total clarity on this point. Will the government proceed with recognition of Palestine the hostages are still being held by Hamas? Bizarrely, the government was macro transmission plan seems to be being pursued purely as some sort of punishment of Israel. The PM has made lots of demands of Israel but none on Hamas. Hamas have predictably welcomed Labour's plans and whose actions were the cause of the current conflict.

Recognition must not happen well kept hostages remain an activity. The government's current plans were neither secure the release of the hostages, nor will it increase the amount of aid getting into Gaza. It seems to be pure gesture politics designed to appease the Labour backbenchers in the other place. Earlier today in the response at Oral Questions, the noble Lady quoted the figure of 2000 cousins being killed queueing afraid. -- Gazans. Could she confirm the source of this information? Can the noble Baroness the Minister also provided update on the current assessment of Iran's nuclear capabilities?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Since this is my first occasion
20:24
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
to speak in the chamber since my predecessor retired, I would like to put on record my appreciation of him and express from these benches how and express from these benches how much we admired his leadership over the last 10 years -- nine years. There is a terrible humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, I would also like to put on record my dismay that the world's worst humanitarian crisis, worse than Ukraine and Gaza combined, carries on in Sudan.

Hundred civilians have died today of Hundred civilians have died today of hunger incident. -- in Sudan. Now famine in Gaza as well. Avoidable man-made famine is something that should have been an impossibility. Man-made means deliberate. Man-made is the reason for women and children dying of hunger are also primarily the result of political decisions of men, increasingly detached from the humanitarian needs of civilians. And Gaza, the provision of wholly inadequate supplies of food from THF have become a killing zone -- GHF.

have become a killing zone -- GHF. With the IDF operations in Gaza, there is now no safe area. And did, the most dangerous areas are those that have been defined as a safe. The casualty levels a testament to this. The images of the emaciated hostages treated so brutally by Hamas terrorists was responded to by the families of the hostage family forum who speak so powerfully and movingly. They also do so of the opposition of the continuation of the violence and attack pics of the Netanyahu -- and the tactics of the Netanyahu government.

The Minister knows that these benches have called for the recognition of Palestine as a state for 45 years. 17 years before Hamas was formed, so cannot possibly be seen as a reward for their actions. We welcome the position of the government, but we did not share the conditionality, which were out of the hands of the Palestinians themselves. That said, recognition could come in less than three weeks. The government must now indicate that the conditions that it set are not being met.

And did, the recent statement by Netanyahu means that they are impossible to be met. His and his extreme ministers in his government are moving to expand military campaigns in civilian areas. Illegally expand territory and widen the area for settlements in the West bank. If the UK recognises Palestine, and we hope that it will, then it will must surely be honoured as an act as a vital and urgent to prevent the 1967 borders from being reduced and removed altogether.

Bulldozing civilian areas in that border area and occupying them is a workaround. Collective punishment is a war crime. Refusing food and medicines are workrooms. That's why we believe these extreme ministers and Netanyahu should be sanctioned by the UK. We also believe there should be no arms sales to the Israeli government at all and the government should now conduct and publish an urgent human rights assessment as allowed for in the UK -Israel trade partnership agreement. The grim reality is that unless there are specific, deliberate and measurable interventions beyond eloquent statements and diplomacy, that that will not be an effective means to end the suffering, and it will continue.

The civilians were starving should not have to wait. starving should not have to wait.
20:29
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and I thank the noble Lord in particular for reminding us of the situation in Afghanistan and he is right about the plight of those people there. I expect we will be making further comments on this in the next few days. I'm very happy to continue to never stop for calling for the release immediately for the release of those hostages who should be returned today and who were so cruelly, by radically removed from their families.

Also for the return tragically of the bodies of some of those who were taken. I met with hostage families and I made them a promise that I would continue to do that and I'm happy to do that until the day they are all home where they belong. Hamas because macro should end -- rule should end -- Hamas's rule should and. Hamas is a terrorist organisation and should have no role in Palestine. When we are asked for our view on this and why we are working with the Palestinian Authority, are feeling strongly is that it is essential that there is a group of leaders were able to administer and to lead responsibly in a Palestinian state.

If you don't believe that then you don't really truly believe in the viability of a two-state solution and this government is believe in that. When it comes to aid, we are... We have spent just over £200 million in the last period on aid. We will continue to that. We have made some announcements on specific commitments to maternity care. I do remind noble Lords there are still babies are born each day in Gaza. I cannot imagine the difficulty of giving birth in such circumstances, particularly without the assistance of, medical assistance including anaesthetics.

That is the situation we are in and we will continue to provide aid that is needed for as We continue to call for and encourage the movement of aid. And the timing of the announcement on recognition, yes, that did happen once we had risen for summer recess. It wasn't an announcement of recognition itself. It was announcement of an intention to recognise in certain situations at the end of September. It was known there would be opportunity for us to debate that.

I regret that we have had to get to this position at all. I have stood here many times and said that recognition should part of the peace process. I had hoped that recognition could take place in far more positive circumstances as part of a negotiation perhaps. That is not where we are. Recognition is not taking place against that backdrop. We will make an announcement on the basis of international law when the time comes, if the time comes, as seems increasingly likely, but Hamas does not want a two-state solution.

They will not want to listen to our conditions. They are not interested in peace. They are a terrorist organisation and I think that our recognition of that is something I note in noble Lord shares. It does seem a little odd to ask us why we are not having some sort of dialogue with them. On the source of data I accept that we don't have sufficient data to be able to make the kinds of assessments we would like to in other circumstances. It is not good enough we are relying on the information that we are.

It should be better, but the ability to have more accurate information, to have party cooperation, to have journalist able to report, that is the decision of the government of Israel to prevent that, which leads us to rely on information that I know he finds so unsatisfactory. This could be remedied and I only wish that it could be. I echo what Lord Purvis said about Lord Newby. It is good to hear him make those It is good to hear him make those remarks.

Viscerally I wish him well, too, in his new role, and with his new look. I am glad he talked about Sudan because as he rightly said that is by far the biggest humanitarian crisis on the planet at the moment and shows little sign of improvement. I was on the border there myself earlier this year and the situation and the accounts we are hearing our desperate. We have taken the decision to protect our aid to Sudan. It's a very helpful suggestion of his that we should make some sort of statement as to our assessment of the current situation and I will take that back.

We have long said that we believe we We have long said that we believe we too recognise the state of Palestine whilst it's happening on conditionality. What has made this happen now is that we feel that if we don't do this now, then the whole concept of the two-state solution becomes jeopardised, given the situation on the ground. I agree as well that the futility of these statements is becoming increasingly sickening. I only wished that there was what we were able to do that would have an effect on the ground.

I deeply, deeply regret that is not, our words are not heeded or listened to sufficiently by the government of Israel, but that does not mean we don't use our voice when we can to say what we think is right and that is what this government intends to continue to do. continue to do.
20:36
20:37
20:38
20:39
20:40
20:41
20:43
20:44
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
I think is an eyeblink sometimes when we look back, and I was in South Africa in 1994 just before the elections. I remember that time of huge optimism, but also great fear in certain parts of the population. I recognise completely what he says. I think sometimes we look back and we forget just how desperate things get in South Africa at various points and the things that were done. It is difficult if not impossible to feel that sense of optimism now, either about Sudan or the situation in Gaza.

I think the fear that I have is there is a government I will say is deliberately acting in a way which it knows is leading to enormous suffering and death in Gaza. This can be prevented, it can be prevented very, very quickly and if prevented very, very quickly and if dialogue is needed, dialogue is what we should have. It would be a very good thing to move forward in a way that takes us to a place where there is a process.

When there is a structure to negotiations. Whether UK are any other, any country who is able to bring parties together and maybe that is our friends in the region. It does not have to be some of the usual partners that leave this, but I think dialogue is the only way ultimately this gets resolved, but the problem today is one of desperate need and starvation one of desperate need and starvation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to refer to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to refer to the lessons of South Africa. I don't presume to be more of an expert then presume to be more of an expert then him on that matter. Of course there was a process for promoting reconciliation and dialogue there is also a place for sanctions on a also a place for sanctions on a pariah regime. That brings me to a
20:46
20:47
20:47
20:48
20:50
20:51
20:52
20:53
20:54
20:55
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
The issue with F-35s is that the components are provided on a pool basis and if we stopped the provision of those, my understanding is that it would disrupt the ability of... There are other situations in which there would be an outcome we wouldn't want to see. But I really do agree with her on this issue of the provision of aid in the way that the Israeli government have gone about it. When this idea was first suggested, we expressed our concerns, we said we didn't believe that the aid could be distributed safely.

It has not or on a sufficient scale. It is fixable. You could get the agent very quickly now, but we need the government of Israel to agree to that. I think there is more aid getting in the there had been at various points but still nowhere near enough. Once you have famine starting, it is not simply a case of get some more aid in and all will be well. The effects take some time and the medical attention that is now needed is something I fear we are about to see and we also see the increased prevalence of diseases, which they are now respecter is of borders.

We need medical supplies and food to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enter Gaza as soon as possible. A short pause before we resume

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House House to House to be House to be again House to be again in House to be again in committee House to be again in committee on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
20:57
None Portrait Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill - committee stage (day 3) - part two
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. To move that the ones the house

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To move that the ones the house once again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The question is that the house

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the house once again resolve itself into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee upon the bill. After close 28, Amendment 89,
20:58
None Portrait AMDT: 89 Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Hodgson. I stand to speak to amendment 89 in my name. This amendment seeks to in my name. This amendment seeks to insert a new clause after close 28 insert a new clause after close 28 which will prohibit the development of solar power generation on high- of solar power generation on high- quality agricultural land. As many now, agricultural land is classified now, agricultural land is classified into five grades based on various physical and chemical characteristics that reflect its characteristics that reflect its long-term agricultural use.

Grade one is the highest in grade 5 is one is the highest in grade 5 is those. Grade 3 covers medium quality those. Grade 3 covers medium quality land capable of consistently producing high yields of a range of producing high yields of a range of cross -- crops. Subsection B of amendment 89 prevents power generation development which would generation development which would involve building or installation at ground level. As I and others argued at second reading, the government does need to be turned up when considering infrastructure.

Despite the high level meetings over the summer in Alaska, the current situation in Ukraine remains significantly worrying and the threat will remain even when the war in Ukraine has been resolved. Our defence policy has pivoted to deterrence against possible war, that we should be more were-ready. Although defence as a first priority of government, surely our second should be food security, as an island nation. Solar firms will take island nation. Solar firms will take up much -- large areas of land that should be used for food production.

The Minister has suggested that these concerns are not proportionate. That it is estimated to only impact one percent of agricultural land. According to the government 's on statistics released in March this year, utilised agricultural land account for some 16.8 million ha in 2024. 1% is the equivalent of one and 5000 football pitches or around four and half times as big as the Isle of Wight. It's not something to just be brushed aside. We've already had clear examples were impact assessments estimates -- estimates...

The government's own National Security Strategy tells us that we must actively prepare for war and currently we import more than 40% of our food. This bill would see badly needed productive land lost to solar firms. Our agricultural land is needed for food production and it is vital that we become more self-sufficient and resilient in producing more food in resilient in producing more food in Solar farms are hard to guard and therefore could be so easily disabled by drone strikes.

This amendment seems fundamental to safeguard future need regarding food production. Subsection B of this amendment helps provide the answer to where we should put panels instead. I and others question why we need to be putting solar panels at ground level at all. In the second reading it was highlighted that scope 2 the panels and our existing transport infrastructure. Indeed, it was pointed out that France have already mandated for installing solar panels on car parks, but about bus garages, train depots, railway stations, state schools, prisons? The Minister built to respond to my suggestion that the Government could also mandate for them to be on Government buildings and what about incentivising owners to have them fitted on industrial buildings as well as insisting they go on with those.

If all of those actions were to be put in place I wonder if it would exceed what current aims hope to achieve. Not just generating clean energy but also to reduce pressure and improve our energy and structure resilience against disruption whilst preserving maximum options regarding food production. The negative environmental impact of solar farm should also be recognised in the clearing of land to facilitate solar farms causes major disruption causing many to be put down and many lorries going down tiny country roads that would have to be widened for the purpose.

The construction would degrade that land, consistent and displaced wildlife upsetting the balance of diverse wildlife insects and birds and we should not forget that green open spaces involve absorbing carbon through photosynthesis and Green Spaces Bill reduce the overall concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, reducing who would affect which helps mitigate the impacts of climate. Green open spaces act as carbon sinks, improving air quality. And the panels themselves contain hazardous materials. For example, cadmium and lead, raising concerns about these.

They are usually only guaranteed for about 25 years and the replacements will, again, because excessive intrusion into the rural areas. There are also concerns as recycling infrastructure for solar panels are still developing and there are worries or future waste as the solar panels reach the end of their lives. All of this disruption when we know that solar power is intermittent and I understand that these panels only produce power when the sun trends. I know that we have just had a wonderful summer.

However, solar panels produce less electricity when it is very hot because excessive With With every With every degree With every degree over With every degree over 25C. With every degree over 25C. And, With every degree over 25C. And, as we all know, there can be precious few sunny days in the UK winter months. So, electricity for solar panel cannot be guaranteed and backup power and storage solutions need to be put in place and these can be costly. I understand that many of these proposals for solar farms are being put forward by foreign investment companies.

I would like to question the Government whether the Government is aware of these and with that they are in the U.K.'s interest. Whilst I know that there is register requiring foreign companies owning UK land to register, does the economic transparency and enforcement act 2022 also make it mandatory to be transparent about long leases? As many of these companies will be leasing land and take it out of UK food production for up to 60 years. Coming back to my earlier point about resilience, some foreign powers may see this as a subtle way of reducing that UK food security.

The UK monitoring these proposals in this regard? An understanding who is truly behind them? Does the Government have any policies on who can buy land in the UK? And can the Minister clarify if these foreign investors were given taxbreaks to invest in these solar farms? My Lords, I would also like to raise the issue about the impact of solar farms on the countryside and on the people who live there. We live in a beautiful country. And the UK countryside is treasured, especially by those who live in it.

The majority of people live in rural areas and do so because they love looking out over rolling green fields and finding the natural green habitats that they live in. They do not wish to look out over a sea of silicon solar panels, glaring when there is sunlight. Putting in a solar farm industrialise is the countryside and changes the character of the area forever. It is causing huge upset for many who live in rural environments and are threatened by the solar development on their doorsteps.

Many feel very threatened and the level of distress is incredibly high. If you drive through the areas where solar panel farms are being proposed, often there are masses of signs along the roads of people who try to roads of people who try to demonstrate against them. This is happening in Butcher, Sussex, Oxfordshire, County Durham, to name some. This situation was epitomised by an article in the daily Telegraph last weekend by the solar farm proposed markers of its house in Sussex.

We live in a country that prides itself on property rights. We should not be casually disregarding local people's wishes and creating such distress. Especially at a time when the world is such a threatening space. I have heard vulnerable people to development of solar farms on their doorstep saying they will have to move and this will have a dramatic effect on property prices in the area. It will also affect the culture and fabric of our countryside. We hear about the explosion of mental health blooms since COVID.

It is well recognised that the countryside and green space can have a significant negative effect on mental health. To be underlined by the monoculture of solar panels. I have been lucky enough to spend the recess in a rural area of Shropshire where we have a house and I have watched the harvesting, the farmers working at all hours of the day and night. I know from talking to many people in the area that the countryside feels not understood and attacked by this Government.

Proposals for solar

**** Possible New Speaker ****

farms and agricultural land are yet under another attack. I beg to move. Amendment proposed to close 28 insert the following clause as
21:08
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshall list. My Lords, I rise to speak on Amendment 92 in my name and the amendment is simple and straightforward. It recognises that solar farms have a role to play in our energy security and that role must be balanced with an effective must be balanced with an effective use of the best farm land for food security. My Lords, I have to observe that the lack of Labour observe that the lack of Labour Party backbenchers says more than we need to think about their views on need to think about their views on the farm and food security.

Now, this amendment will not prevent the development of solar farms in the development of solar farms in the poorest quality of land or smaller performance on the best land where they can command the support for the local planning authority. But where local planning authority. But where larger scale solar proposals come forward that include the best and most versatile land, my amendment most versatile land, my amendment means that national in process will not and cannot be engaged. To be not and cannot be engaged.

To be clear, this is an absolute ban on large-scale solar farms. It is just that if those proposals come that if those proposals come forward, they will need to be determined locally by the planning authority. Now, it is said that authority. Now, it is said that Munton Society is no more than three meals away from rectum, and in the meals away from rectum, and in the hierarchy of needs, food in the belly is the number one IRT. And when the chips are down, you can't eat a solar panel.

Last year, it was found to be 20% on account of what whether and this year the yield compliment is similar but because of dry weather. And just as there are no guarantees on the weather, we cannot be careless with our food supply. I have recently heard encouraging noises from DEFRA Ministers who belatedly realise that the risks of food security are greater than they have ever been before, but the best plan should be preserved for food production. Were can be used more productively and purportedly productive and can be harnessed for other uses.

Or economics. And I welcome this and I venture there is no common ground to tune people like myself who appreciate and value food security and the Government that would make my amendment easy to achieve, so the right balance is struck between right balance is struck between eating and heating. I would not go into quite so much detail as my Noble Friend, but let's talk about what I mean by the best and most versatile land, because this tells me that under the 1966 agricultural act Process the grade 12 and three land comprises 42% of the cultivated area of great written, and by difference, therefore, the substantial majority, 58% of the agricultural land is in the poorer grades, 3B4 and five.

This would still be available for large scale solar, energy under my amendment. And there are millions of poorer hectares together. That is over 12 Norfolk South half Wales. If we go down the football pitch analogy. The noble Baroness Lady Hayman explained to us in the case of a recently approved proposal in Suffolk that the proposal did not include some of the best and most versatile land. Now, I will not criticise her for an honest mistake, but I regret to tell the House that there was plenty of the best land, including grade 2 land, in the proposal will stop land that is not lost to food production for a generation.

My Lords, on so many levels, the Governments rhetoric is at odds with the reality. They have lost control of the numbers, and, in so doing, by peddling our food security, which is national-security, so that in Lincolnshire, the county that more than any other poor spread on our tables, already 2% of that is under threat from solar. And, was, thanks to my Noble Friend, we learn that the majority of the hacking of the pedal is majority great Wonderland under the 1966 rules.

Now, in Norfolk, we ask from last November, the Government reported that 1,400 ha of land were currently under N said applications, but that reality was that it was 7,500 ha. Another number is greater still. So, we know from Great British Energy, and I'm pleased to say the Noble Lord Hunt in his place that there just is not the grid capacity to accept all of the solar that has been promoted. So, the point about the bill is that it is enabling us to put the structures in place to actually get the grid capacity up and running.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

True, and he makes a good point. I sense even further a degree of I sense even further a degree of consensus on both sides on this matter. But if we take the fact that grid capacity is not there to exempt grid capacity is not there to exempt all of the solar that is being promoted because it is seasonal and promoted because it is seasonal and it comes in very big flashes which can overwhelm, it capacity to absorb can overwhelm, it capacity to absorb is limited, only if would disagree that limiting the proposals to the poorest land first, no, I have said, poorest land first, no, I have said, we need not worry about all of this, we need not worry about all of this, only the amount of land currently used for golf courses is being used for solar.

Something like half a % of the land. That, of course is simply not true. It is that 19th hole tell, the Governments land use framework contemplates that 9% of framework contemplates that 9% of all land would be used for all land would be used for environmental and energy skills. And environmental and energy skills. And let me say straight away also that the agri-solar is a story out fantasy. The solar panels are taller so they seem more visually intrusive so they seem more visually intrusive with even more chemicals used so that they do not shed the panels or that they do not shed the panels or wrap their tendrils around.

The principle of controlling social development outside, this is important because it seeks to remove the loopholes and abuses that we have seen flow from the misuse of the regime, the solar applications, including artificially stringing together many disparate smaller schemes, some miles apart to get over a hurdle threshold. And where I live the threshold comprises a dozen different blocks of land spread over a canvas or than 15 miles wide and 8 miles tall as a device to get over their instant threshold.

That is of use. I can see that in the form as private interests normal arable economics the farmer would do well to earn £200 an acre due to the fruits of his labours and plans and equipment and subjecting himself to the risks and the market. By contrast, solar developers are offering them the chance to sit on the beach with an index linked at £900 or more. So, landowners, really quite small, aggregated together and giving farmers notice to quit so that they can enjoy those payments over 40 years and at many times the rent.

And our tenant farmers not having had the benefit of inheriting land and we cannot afford to lose their dynamism. And I have heard it first hand and also about the threat of medicines for the compulsory purchase for those that do not follow the line emboldened, as it is, by the availability. I attended a public consultation event in July for the proposal close to me where I uncovered a surprising statistic, albeit the display told different stories that has not permitted me to develop but on this particular proposal the developers owned agricultural land classification by a team of 13 I calculated that the total land area in the best and most versatile category represented 86% of the entire proposal.

And, further, a 12% represented the productive land in three the productive land in 3B only eight negligible 3% was in what one might call the poorest two categories. And I drew attention to my calculations deferred from the display boards that the developers representatives were dismissive and it was only when I declared my interest as a member of your logic tells that they conceded that if correction consultation may be necessary, and my subsequent letter seeking clarification and confirmation have clarification and confirmation have I have seen with my own eyes, there was little incentive to tell the truth on a larger scale solar over the heads of the little people, because they believed that Mr Miliband will rubberstamp their proposals, regardless of the facts we don't have the appropriate level we don't have the appropriate level of scrutiny or integrity.

There is no recognition by developers, many of them foreign investors, as my noble friend says stop food security is even a thing. My amount. The bad behaviours, by promoting stringing together smaller schemes into a big one, so the end sip process will give them a free pass. It will be over and stand over those threats with CPOs. My amendment will stop local people from being airbrushed from key decisions affecting the most productive landscapes. My amendment will ensure there is accountability for those fatal investors were driving this gold rush and don't give a jot about the countryside far less our ability to feed ourselves.

Half the land in the country would still be available, just not the 42% that reliably feeds just not the 42% that reliably feeds us. Put simply, the loophole for solar means that preventing our nation from striking the right and appropriate balance between food security and energy security is still lesser than the security of our democratic process and that's why it should go.
21:18
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
A temple to amendment 94

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A temple to amendment 90 4B higher quality agricultural land. higher quality agricultural land. I'm also speaking to 90 for a table by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. According to the Herald newspaper, According to the Herald newspaper, Drumline. This is all affecting the fact that the concerns that I am I noble friends have about what is happening on higher quality agricultural land, which as we've heard is critical for food security. heard is critical for food security.

I will speak to my noble friends amendment first. This does reflect quite a lot of concerns expressed in quite a lot of concerns expressed in the House of Commons. And thinking the House of Commons. And thinking of Wendy Walton, cerebral, Mike Wood and a number of other people who have been speaking in debates in the have been speaking in debates in the House of Commons, concerned for a House of Commons, concerned for a couple of reasons on why battery energy storage systems seem to be literally not exploding, some of them are but expanding, certainly.

I think this is an important point to understand about how on one hand we have seen progressively the previous administration of this government, trying to get a group with managing the energy production and trying to get a proper strategy going. Meanwhile, in the Clean Power Action Plan 2030, the proposal is that we need about 27 GW by 2030, about 29 GW by 2035 and about, a broader estimate although a couple of thousand of 50 GW by 2015. -- 2050.

I'm quoting from RenewableUK published in December 2024. Which suggested there were 5 GW total operation capacity and there were 127 GW in the pipeline. You do not need an A-level in a mass to add up that comes to 132. And of those, I think it is fair to say that 40 GW have already been consented, there are 30 GW in the planning process and a further 47, 48 GW being developed, to go into the planning system.

So my concern and those of my honourable friends and right honourable friends is that we already have actually in our process, already approved, pretty much all that has been wanted by our energy operator. So why is it that we are in effect seem to be encouraging even more to come through. I'm conscious that not every application will necessarily produce the outcome that so desired. We see that with other things. Frankly for those people who have got planning consent, you have got the consent, you should actually be making sure they deliver what they going to do.

Instead of yet again, building up, potentially blocking land being used for food production, too, perhaps, calm an area for battery energy storage, in the future. When actually we will have already achieved our outcome. I know that we already discussed significantly a lot about safety earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley spoke to that. I think it is fair to say he spoke comprehend lovely. What I will point out to him, there have been some instances, for example where chemical interactions meant that hydrofluoric acid was produced and I can assure my noble Lords, I did my PhD in chemistry, HF is one of those chemicals I did use.

I can say that if you get it on your skin, you will not realise for a couple of days actually that your burns are basically crumbling right inside your skeleton. Indeed if you get it in your eyes, well game over frankly. On a very serious note, I think it is fair to say that there are significant risk, that while the HSE has been cited as having a framework in place and a similar, never Lord Khan of Burnley referred to the Defra consultation, about bringing these regimes into the arm.

It was only published last week. I think what was noteworthy and this is no criticism of the Minister. Basically, it did say, I have quoted word for word, "It is not the plan all of the planning system to limited risk.... Sorry, one of the key features of the planning system key features of the planning system is to consider fire. I think it is worth the Minister looking at that again. I'm sure his officials will be keen to do so as well.

Because we need to make sure that these things

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm reminded just to refreeze what the noble Lord, Lord Khan said earlier about the need to have pre- scrutiny. The fact that a national scrutiny. The fact that a national organisation, the HSE was the competent body. What I've been reminded of as you've been speaking, reminded of as you've been speaking, my noble friend is that it is at the local organisations, the local planning authorities that make those planning authorities that make those determinations. National bodies like the HSE do not have the capacity or the local knowledge to comment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appropriately. I think that is right and the agency itself on its own website, refers to the fact that it cannot comment on every application and comment on every application and only needs to be in effect privately contented if it is considered to be a major risk. I'm also conscious a major risk. I'm also conscious that the river is thought to be under threat noble friend, Caroline Nokes and for people who are interested in these things. I interested in these things.

I commend the speech of my honourable friend who spoke about gender rights friend who spoke about gender rights and very knowledgeable well researched speech about thermal researched speech about thermal runaway and the like. Coming back to the fundamental proposal of my noble friends, Lord Forsyth. It is friends, Lord Forsyth. It is specifically asked me to talk about the safety stop it is about the concern of overdevelopment and and then the loss of food, for agricultural production. We will keep coming back to this, I think, on this side of the House.

Recognising how important the security it is alongside the other elements of the national security. In terms of my own amendments, I table this and perhaps I should declare an interest. I've referred to this a few times before. This is about energy substations. Again, I am worried that there is an element here about thinking about where we do energy generation are other aspects of interconnection. Actually, if the government thinks that the only way it can get these things done is by ripping apart environmental protection law, seeing a food production lead, then do not connect at those areas that have these environmental designations, or are key producers of food, in this country.

Now specifically my amendment referred to one, two or three. I am aware that most land is grade 1, two and 38. Defra does not publish where three a and 3BR. Apparently it is too difficult to do. That requires individual local site surveys on determining whether a particular field is three a or IIIB. As a Lord Fuller has pointed out, there is an element here about the fact that frankly after this stuff was only, effectively a light touch considered in 2010.

Fundamental parts of our land have not been assessed, in terms of their contribution towards food production, food security, for probably the best part of 40, 50 years. As a consequence, bracket rising the target set by the government, recognising the challenges that we face. Unconscious that the land use framework, did you do a draft of this nearly free three years ago. One of the challenges. It is this competing element for what we do with the land that we have. Let us be straightforward about this.

Once agricultural land is gone it is gone for good. I am not blaming farmers, or landowners who, candidly, I'm afraid the policies of the last 12 months have given farmers even more reason to get a secured income on the value or use of their land. One of the foibles in a way of doing things like leasing out land for solar is that it doesn't adjust, in terms of the agricultural elements of inheritance tax. But, when farmers can get a guaranteed income, for a portion of their land, while other things are so uncertain.

Then I don't blame them for wanting to make that choice. My Lords, my honourable friend, my noble friend, sorry, apologies, still learning about this. I noble friends put out eloquently are some of the issues. There is definitely got to be in place for solar, across our country. I think one final point I would make a battery energy systems is that we really do need to target with a going to be. There is no point in having batteries in parts of the country where they are nowhere nearly going to create, nowhere near most of the energy is going to be use.

That's why proposed the amendment's.
21:28
21:30
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendments 89 and the name of my noble friends Baroness Hodgson of Abinger, amendment 92 in the name of a Lord Fuller, amendment 94 a in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and amendment 90 4B in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. These amendments focus on a matter of strategic national importance was that the protection of prime agricultural land in the face of increasing pressure from nonagricultural developments. Particularly the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure.

I think the arguments have been well made in many short debates, can be brief. My noble friends rightly highlight the wider context with which we debate this issue. The agricultural site has been under immense pressure market volatility, environmental challenges and punitive tax measures, such as the family farms tax rate. Against that backdrop it is more important than ever that we protect our best and most versatile land, not just farmers but for the long term these security of our nation. The government must support an approach that balances the needs to scale up renewable energy with the critical needs to maintain ability to feed ourselves.

These amendments make a strong case, for preventing the unnecessary loss of high quality agricultural land. As I another level of the previously highlighted, in this House, some of the largest solar developments are being approved, without proper regard for the quality of the land being sacrificed. Every one of the large- scale solar farms approved under NFIP that I've looked at has been materially low hated on best most versatile land. That is not a matter for the farming community, it is a matter of national food security for that we cannot create it future when we can switch on our lights and heat our homes but are unable to feed ourselves.

We must not let the pursuit of energy security, the This This have This have highlighted, disproportionate percentage of the versatile land is going to solar. This is madness. When 58% of our farmed land is not in the BMV category and is also significant amount of unclassified farmed land that could be used for renewable development. With the government's ambition to triple cirque capacity by 2030, the pressure on land is only going to intensify, unless To get that developing sensibly and strategically, we will continue to see the erosion of our agricultural capacity and, with it, increased dependence on importing food.

These and men's are both timely and necessary. They would ensure that solar and other agricultural developments are directed towards less productive land or even non- productive land. Leaving our best farmland for the essential job of feeding our population. I urge the noble Baroness the Minister to take these amendments seriously and to offer clear assurances that under no circumstances will the Secretary of State improve developments and State improve developments and compromise the UK food security.
21:33
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I now turn to amendments 89, 92, 95 and 90 4B which relate to clause 28 and the production of agricultural land and can I think the noble Baroness Lady Hodgson and Lady Coffey and the noble Lords of drumlin, is that the right pronunciation? For tabling these amendments. Glad that he is not here because they were shouted me if I got it wrong. Turning first Amendment 89 tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Hodgson which seeks to prohibit the construction of mounted solar farms on land upgrades one, solar farms on land upgrades one, two, three a.

May I start by sender Government views food security as a national security championing British farming and environmental protection? All solar projects undergo a rigorous planning project considering the environmental impacts, local community views, and any impact on food production. The Government believes solar generation does not threaten food security. As of the end of September 2024 solar PV panels covered in estimated 21,200 ha which is only around 0.1%, not 1%, it is 0.1% of the total land area of the UK. Even in the most ambitious scenarios, only up to 0.4% of UK land would be devoted to of UK land would be devoted to solar.

In 2030. So, the Government is in total agreement with the Noble Lady that as far as we want to get the balance right between protecting fertile agricultural land and facilitating the ability. The Government agreed the protecting food security should always be a priority. That is why land use and food production are already material considerations in planning. Planning evidence makes clear that wherever possible they should utilise brownfield industrial contaminated or previously developed land and whether developed of agricultural land has shown to be necessary lower quality land should be preferred to higher quality land.

However, we do not believe that the accelerated rollout of solar power in the present planning arrangements poses a threat to food security. The Government and cetacean on the land use framework sulphate on what improvements are needed to the agricultural land classification system to support effective land use decisions. The land use framework to be published later this year will be published later this year will set out the evidence, data, and tools needed to help safeguard our most productive agricultural land. It will also lay out how Government intends to align the different incentives on, insured roundup decisions are made at national and local levels, and make accessible and high quality data available.

As such, we believe that this amendment is not necessary to protect agricultural and. Moreover, total ban on the use of land may have several deleterious consequences. Quite often, a site suitable for this role contain soil of varying quality. At the moment, they would have high quality land to be developed is examined by manual offices. This is a consideration and planning decision. Where this amendment to be incorporated into the bill large projects can be rejected, for the sake of a small area of higher quality which constitutes a small fraction of the overall site.

This amendment will reduce that number of economically viable sites for solar generation and this would increase the cost for developers. They may seek to recoup this by placing higher bids in the contract scheme and this cost is, ultimately, born by Bill Pears. In short, the development of higher quality land may endanger the government's mission to gain power by 2030. Increasing the exposure to volatile imported fossil fuels. And, just touch on the noble Ladies points about solar? On domestic and nondomestic buildings.

Deploying rooftop solar makes a key priority for the Government. The Government will publish the future this autumn and a new standard will ensure that solar panels are installed on the vast majority of new build homes once it comes into force, saving households hundreds of pounds eager on their energy bills. That will support our ambition that the 1.5 million homes we will build over the course of Parliament will be higher quality, well-designed and sustainable. Additionally, the recently published solar roadmap contain several actions for both Government and industry to support the deployment of solar PV in the commercial sector.

This includes unpicking the complex landlord tenant considerations in the sector by developing and distributing a toolkit for owners and occupiers. The Government set out rooftop solar panels in playing an important role in the future building standard. The Government has also announced £180 Government has also announced £180 million of the Great British Energy to help around 200 schools and 200 NHS sites to install rooftop solar. We expect the first of these installations will be complete by the end of the summer, the summer being the fixable concept of whenever that comes.

The Government is assessing the potential to drive the construction of solar panels on outdoor car parks over a certain Closing next year and we will be publishing the Government response to that consultation. So, I trust that the noble Baroness is satisfied in their response and I would kindly ask her to withdraw her amendment. Turning out to amendment 92 tabled by the Noble Lord which seeks to remove solar projects on high quality land for the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. I wish to thank Noble Lord for his engagement on the subject.

I know he spent many years serving in the Labour Government and has considerable expertise. I do hope he recognises the contradiction in his argument that at the same time as he is arguing about the very difficult conditions that farmers are facing in terms of food growing, these pointed out by climate change and he is using them as arguments not to tackle it by moving to clean energy, so there is a bit of a contradiction in that there. It is vitally important that everyone is submitted to the business which sees its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

impact, scale and complexity. The The difficulty that farmers are under, may be aggravated by poor under, may be aggravated by poor weather, but the real problem is this Government has engaged on a war this Government has engaged on a war in the countryside by undermining every family farm, damaging the food every family farm, damaging the food production, even with the stuff on ethanol, taking one half million ethanol, taking one half million tonnes of wheat out of the market, and that is the reason why farms are doing so badly.

Not to do with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

climate change. The Noble Lord was referring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lord was referring specifically to limit impact on food growing. I felt it was a bit ironic growing. I felt it was a bit ironic as we are trying to tackle the climate change that is bringing that about, exactly with these measures about, exactly with these measures to use clean energy. The Government to use clean energy. The Government recognises the benefit of returning control over decisions to local planning authorities. As of 31 December, 2025, we will be doubling December, 2025, we will be doubling the threshold for solar projects from 50 MW to 100 MW.

However, the from 50 MW to 100 MW. However, the Government believes that large solar farms, even when they propose to use farms, even when they propose to use high quality agricultural land are best dealt with under the process. The regime is a rigorous one, although the decision is not taken locally, local engagement is still at the heart of the process, under the current legislative process, development has taken projects through the regime and is required to undertake community consultation as part of the preparation for the application.

This gives communities ample opportunity to feed in their views and shape the project. Currently, the level of community consultation amongst other factors is taken into account by decision because and I am glad the Noble Lord made a protest about the one that he was subject to and I hope that communities will do that if they feel that those consultation processes are not being carried out in good faith. Moreover, considerations under the regime include any impact on land use and food production. Planning guidance That poorer quality land should be preferred to higher quality land, avoiding the use of the most versatile agricultural land where possible.

This is in line with the policy of governing decision-making via local planning authorities, even when they gain public confidence and return the decision to local authorities we would not expect the outcomes to change. This marginal gain must be weighed against the costs of this proposal. Firstly, a proper examination of the potential impact of the large-scale solar farm is a major undertaking, giving this responsibility to local planning departments may place an untenable burden on resources that are already under pressure.

Secondly, it is the project of such scale, size or complexity as to be nationally significant should be considered through the process. These proposals are of strategic importance to the country as a whole and, as such, central Government is the most important decision-maker for the change in policy to allow decisions about these projects to be taken by local authorities may increase investor uncertainty at a pivotal moment for the government's 2030 clean power mission. That may jeopardise our work to reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels, increase energy security, and protect consumers from global price shocks.

Just at the time when members have raised the issues of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security. I am only prompted to intervene

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am only prompted to intervene through the fact that the Noble Lord through the fact that the Noble Lord comes ahead seems to be nearly falling off with nodding. The point falling off with nodding. The point is that the regime is actually is that the regime is actually combining schemes which, frankly, would normally go through the local planning authority. These are disparate schemes, small, stand- disparate schemes, small, stand- alone schemes, that only fall over this because the system is being abused to string them altogether, quite artificially.

There is no capacity with constraints in local Government to deal with smaller Government to deal with smaller schemes. We know what they are, we schemes. We know what they are, we know the issues, but to suggest that stringing this together in a dozen stringing this together in a dozen small schemes is nationally significant demonstrates the falsehood and the positive behind falsehood and the positive behind These are the geographical schemes and as I said, we are increasing the size of schemes that would go into this.

Lastly, I am concerned that acceptance would imply there are some issues on which the regime is either incompetent or not qualified to adjudicate. This is simply not the case. Setting this president may reduce public confidence in the system as it applies to other types of infrastructure. It may undermine trust in decisions that have already been taken and for all of those been taken and for all of those reasons that I have outlined would not have convinced the Noble Lord but I hope he will withdraw his amendment and continue to work with us on this issue.

Turning next to amendment 495 tabled Sarah, 90 4A, tabled by the Noble Lord Forsyth and the noble Baroness Lady Coffey, which seeks to prohibit better redevelopment on the most versatile agricultural land. The Clean Power Action Plan set out in expansion of renewable technology required to achieve the 2030 ambition, including the acceleration of grid scale battery development from around 5 GW at present to at least 23 to 37 GW by 2030. Grid scale batteries which are rapidly falling in cost and increasing skill and now the power system to restore cheap accessible renewable energy and use this rather than expensive polluting gas in times of need.

If these increases are not delivered, it would have a negative impact on achieving clean power by 2030 which could expose bill payers to volatile global gas prices for longer periods. This amendment intends to safeguard the best and most versatile agricultural land, the Government agrees, as I said, food security is national security. Meeting both energy security and climate goals is urgent and of critical importance to the Government. These goals can be achieved together with maintaining food security. We recognise this requires an integrated and special cross covenant approach.

To that end, that land use framework that we published later this will help guide us to make the most of what our diverse landscapes have to offer. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that planning policies and decisions should contribute to an enhanced local natural environment, by recognising the intrinsic characteristic of the countryside and the wider impact on the natural ecosystem services, including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. With significant element of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of high quality.

The total amount of land required for battery deployment is likely a tiny fraction of best and most versatile agricultural land and many if not most projects can be built on other land. However excluding the entire pipeline of battery projects from the significant proportion of England's agricultural land will, inevitably, The government does not believe that it poses a threat to food security. The total area of land devoted to greyscale batteries is minimal. As of August 2025, there was 5.8 GW of grid scale battery storage, the electricity grid with a typical 200 MW battery scheme, requiring only 13 That That ban That ban on That ban on batteries That ban on batteries and agricultural land is simply not necessary to ensure food security.

The government consultation on the land use framework sought feedback on what improvements are needed to agricultural land classification systems to support effective land- use decisions. Following on from that, the land use framework set out the evidence of data and tools the evidence of data and tools needed to help safeguard our most reductive and agricultural land. It will lay out how the government intends to align different incentives on land, ensure joined up decisions are made and make accessible and high quality data available. So I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth or Lady Coffey, on his behalf, will agree to withdraw that amendment.

Amendment 90 4B table by Lady Coffey will prohibit the construction of energy substations on land of grades one, two and three, without the explicit consent of the landowner. May I begin by saying the Government is in total agreement with the noble Lady, as far as we want to get the balance right between protecting agricultural land and facilitating the development of electricity and infrastructure. Planning guidance makes clear that wherever possible developers should seek to minimise the impacts of the best and most And lower quality land should be prioritised.

There are robust statutory processes for compulsory acquisition. Applicants must first explore voluntary arrangements and decision-makers must soon be satisfied that there is a compelling case in the public interest the inclusion of powers of compulsory acquisition. The government on the land use framework sought feedback on what improvements are needed to support these effective land-use decisions. And the land use framework will set out how we are going to safeguard the best and most versatile land. In addition, the National Energy System Operator is considering how to take account of agricultural land, within the strategic planning and network infrastructure.

Because jolting on the methodology for a centralised strategic network plans and have proposed and have proposed agricultural land classification in England and Wales. And national scale land capability of agriculture in Scotland as categories for consideration and appraisal. Therefore we believe this amendment is not necessary to protect... Protect agricultural land. This amendment could reduce the number of viable signs for network Increase network development which ultimately born in the electricity bill payers. The serious delay in the delivery of network infrastructure critical for the government's mission to achieve clean power.

Also, for economic growth. Delaying the delivery could increase constraint costs by billions of pounds. This infrastructure is critical to connect and transport our home-grown clean electricity. It will create good jobs, support economic growth, bring down bills, tackle the climate crisis and get us off the rollercoaster of the global gas prices for good. For these reasons I trust that noble Lords and Baroneseses understand these amendments are not necessary and I kindly ask that they withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble Lady sits down, she's already sat down. I have a question. Could the noble Lady a deal with the problem of patches of
21:50
21:51
21:51
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
to thank all know is who have contributed to this debate and especially of those who have given support. Many interesting points have been raised and some very worrying statistics. I would like to simply repeat that especially given the international situation we really do need to think about national food security and We are importing 40% of our food and if we got into a war situation we would need to grow more than we are at the moment and it seems absolutely counterintuitive to be allowing a good agricultural land to be used to generate electricity, when this can be done elsewhere.

I'm not going to repeat all the points that were previously made, except to say that we also need the goodwill of the British people and we need to ensure that local people can have their views heard. I was heartened when the noble Baroness the Minister said that there would be community consultation. Too often these consultations are then pinned and not acted on. People listen and then some other outcome happens. I would hope that consultation were local people expressed that they really did not want solar farms would be respected and schemes would be turned down.

I was slightly disappointed that the noble Baroness and the Minister did not address the whole point about these foreign investors buying leasing this land a long-term and we don't seem to be I imagine we do not know who they are and were not kind of checking on who and were not kind of checking on who I suppose I am very disappointed to hear that the Minister is not prepared to recognise the depth of feeling on this issue and they will withdraw the amendment now but will hope that perhaps we can have further consultations and some movement can be made to address what I think all of us have tried to say about making sure that prime about making sure that prime agricultural land doesn't have solar farms on it.

I reserve the right to bring this back at the next stage of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. We now come to amendment
21:54
None Portrait Amendment 90
-

90, Lord Wilson.
21:54
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I stand to open this group of amendments all on local energy plans. I move my amendment to insert a crucial new clause after clause 28 of the bill. My amendment which I move the mandate that all local authorities and combined authorities must create a local area energy plan. Considering the late hour I'm going to give a condensed version of my original speech. I want to start by saying I also express my strong support for a moment 177, the other amendment in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale and supported by the noble Lord Hunt.

This amendment will require the Secretary of State to publish vital guidance, for all local authorities on local area energy plans within 12 months of the act being passed. To my mind that is almost the flipside to the same coin to what I'm asking and I believe that the amendment I'm tabling and this other amendment actually work well together, complement each other and make each of the amendments stronger than they would be without the other. So, from my point of view I think it would be good if it is possible to progress both amendments in this group, going forward.

I do not really want to go into too much detail, I realise what local energy plans are. They are really vital to devolving this down to local authorities including local people. I think they work really It It is It is good It is good that It is good that we It is good that we speak It is good that we speak to It is good that we speak to local people, it is good that we include them. I think it is good they have a say.

I think it is good that we take account of local people's needs, what is happening in local areas. I think it is good that we do this level of granular work, on the ground, talking to people. They happening in some places, they are obviously happening in Wales. There are some places where councils are voluntarily doing these things, whether it is London or other Metropolitan authorities. What doesn't exist in legislation is a mandated requirement for these things to be done, or for a mandated support to help local authorities to do these things.

I think it would help this government to meet their environmental climate change targets, were this to happen. Frankly I do not know how we got to where we got to without having it in this bill. I'm wondering if that is purely just an oversight. But from my point of view, I look forward to working alongside the Minister and Lord Ravensdale, to include this in the bill, fit within the bill, help deliver targets, help us to get to where we need to be.

Help empower local authorities. Really I will leave it at that, considering the late hour that we are sitting. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

genuinely think this would help all round. I move my amendment. Amendment proposed for clause 28 insert the following new clause is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the marshalled List. Seven in my name and declare my interest as the chief engineer interest as the chief engineer working as a director of PS4 for the working as a director of PS4 for the Thank you for his support for the amendments. I like to say I completely agree with what the noble
21:58
21:58
21:58
Lord Ravensdale Portrait Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-
-
that guidance set out for local authorities so that we have a consistent approach to planning, but ultimately we need a funded program, ultimately we need a funded program, we need funding available to local authorities to enable them to authorities to enable them to undertake these plans and get to a place where we need to be with the noble Earl's amendments as well. A noble Earl's amendments as well. A very complimentary in that sense. To add to what the noble Lord Russell add to what the noble Lord Russell said.

I put this amendment forward to the energy at 2023, a couple of years ago. I think it is worth reflecting on what we have seen so far, in terms of the energy transition is a very top-down driven transition is a very top-down driven approach. But we have seen some really good progress, we have the formation of the National Energy formation of the National Energy System Operator, the NESO, we have System Operator, the NESO, we have started to see that thinking about local regions and areas with the Regional Energy Strategic Planner role.

I think there is a missing piece of the puzzle in terms of that piece of the puzzle in terms of that flow down to local areas. That bottom tier which is what the local area energy plan, for fulfils. And for that in terms of spearheading the transition it is important we the transition it is important we get the system we have some guidance out there for local energy area plans. As the Minister knows this isn't a conceptual approach it is a well tested road.

In fact by the end well tested road. In fact by the end of last year, Wales, these are now rolled out and completed for all 22 Welsh councils. There is a funded program there are technical adviser to ensure coherence the guidance to ensure the systems approach. Now they've got that basis there is then that flow up to their own national plan as well, which does offer great benefit. So, what this amendment does is it puts a duty on the Secretary of State to publish guidance for local authorities on local energy planning and to clarify some of the criteria that should be included.

This is based on the energy system guidance and includes how local energy plans contribute towards meeting our net zero environmental and adaptation targets? I was so very briefly, just illustrate one of the reasons, when we look at the pilots that were undertaken in the UK, in Newcastle, Bridgend and Bari in Manchester. The pilots divided into zones suitable for different types of heating technology. -- Bari Manchester. Very Manchester. In Newcastle the plan found that roughly half the homes, in Bury was less than 30%, in Bridgend 15%.

In Bridgend a far higher proportion of homes needed to be heated with high temperature heat pumps, to save on the extra insulation and poorer quality housing stock. This does highlight the importance of the approach. Local authorities have the best view of their local areas and joined up coordinated approach to planning, led by government, providing local authorities with the support they need, could potentially save tens of billions of pounds, through the transition, compared to organic approaches to energy planning.

It was also a key recommendation for the regional what we did in the Midlands engine energy security white paper, that was one of the key recommendations in terms of getting local planning and local join up in Are to ensure the energy plan, ensuring that we have the view from the gun to inform the national plan and inverter have a properly joined a few of energy systems governance from local plans to regional plans, right up to the strategic plan to build the system at a national level and accepting this amendment the Government would agree to take a critical first step because by providing guidance they could start to ensure a coherent set of plans have been developed by local authorities.

Following this, if funded program of advisers to ensure consistency could follow, so a really great opportunity for the Government to get energy planning moving at a local level and ensure coherence, so I look forward to working with the Minister and the office going forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to offer my strongest possible support for amendment 90 in
22:03
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
possible support for amendment 90 in the name of the novel Earl Russell which I have attached my name to and some slightly qualified support from amendment 177 that we have just heard about and coincidentally without any prompting from me I started the day rather a long time ago now speaking to a senior civil servant speaking that the frantic great malaise of the UK was people's lack of a sense of agency, lack of ability to step up and take control and change what is around them to change the direction of the country.

And I think that this amendment, starting with the local, starting with say here in your community you can get a council three or local authority through combined of to decide how to deliver your enemy is actually the perfect way to start to address those issues. We are the most centralised quality in Western Europe. The power of resources are overwhelmingly concentrated here in Westminster. And we have almost universal agreement that we have two have an energy transition.

This is a major infrastructure element in all of our lives as we have been discussing through this evening. We also must have a just transition so that no community is left behind for everything we need the opportunity to make plans for the future. That is exactly what amendment 19 seeks to achieve. And I note that this is something that there has been a great deal of work and resources put into over a long period of time. So differ climate engagement at the University of Cambridge is actually funded by innovate UK, the net zero living program.

Building on the work of the Skidmore review, so we are of the Skidmore review, so we are talking about cross party, approaches across all of the benches, which emphasises the importance of local Government, leadership and playspace actions in the entire dealing with a climate emergency and this goes back a very long way, the Council of Andrew Cooper who was working through the European committee actually got the UN process to acknowledge locally determined contributions. Everyone has heard of nationally determined contributions would locally determined contributions.

No, of course the energy system is only part of this, but it is a very crucial part that impacts on people's lives, and communities, on what they look like. And the House actually has long wrestled against consecutive Governments finally got importance of community energy and I think that what we will see is local combined of being keen to encourage and support that community energy which, of course, is where we can see the public support growing are seeing the financial returns were not some giant multinational company coming in but your community seeing red, how do we want to generate our energy? That has to be the foundation.

Now, I said about 177, I am broadly in favour of it, but I guess the question is the weight and the shape of the guidance because we are talking about local energy plans and anything provided from the centre should be support. Not as we see, for example, in planning in terms of housing allocations direction. If it is indeed guidance then I think that 177 is what is in the right direction and together these amendments are really crucial and I can see no reason for the Government not to.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support the noble Lords amendment to which I have added my amendment to which I have added my name and also sound very sympathetic to the Noble Lord Russells amendment. I mean I think Baroness
22:07
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
amendment. I mean I think Baroness Bennett raised good question about the centralisation of this country. In one sense, this bill is, I think, about further centralisation when it comes to major infrastructure projects which are so crucial to our growth because, in essence, in the housing agenda, I would argue in a lot of the energy infrastructure projects, local Government has not been very helpful, it has been obstructive, and, in a sense, it would believe that growth is strategic aim of Government, which I believe it to be, then actually stronger central direction is vital.

I think that the question is whether it can be complemented by local initiatives which does indeed give local people ownership and this is where I agree with the Noble Lady Baroness Bennett that the community schemes are a fantastic way to actually leverage support from local people with the kind of changes we want to make our energy structure. And the Noble Lord obviously speaks with great authority as an expert and is also playing a hugely important role under cottage had the Midlands regional national security task for and across the energy plans and certainly when I was a minister I became very much aware of the potential of local community based projects and on one visit to my own city in Birmingham the auspices and footsteps base for the local carbon future and a number of groups really dedicated to community energy projects.

But were seeking support from the centre, from agency, to actually deliver something tangible. And, interestingly, hosting a launch by the Lord Mair of Birmingham in a couple of weeks time, Birmingham's first net zero retrofit demonstrated community hub. And really the potential of hundreds of projects like this up and down the country is very clear. And the amendment which the Government brought to the Great British Energy Bill which added projects involving or any fitting local communities to the crucial object section in the new act was, I think, very, very important.

And working with local councils and mayors to fund community led energy projects. Noble Lords will be aware and offering local authorities to rob a commitment to net zero and ironically this is taking place as the site of the evidence of climate change becomes ever clearer and I do not think I can let this go by and in essence the noble Baroness asks well what does guidance mean as Mackay think we have to put the two together, I take the Noble Lord Russells amendment to be a statutory requirement to local authorities to encourage local energy and develop local energy paths, I think that is really important in light of some decisions being made by local authorities, then the guidance that we are suggesting seems to be into that structure, so I hope that the Government will be sympathetic, basically to make sure that local authorities do not pass on the groups.
22:11
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Portrait Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to this group of amendments that relate to the development and implementation of local energy plans. These proposals raise important questions about the role of local authorities in our transition to a decarbonise to cure and efficient energy system and we had some thoughtful contributions about the tensions between local and central Government, but also the enormous potential when the right balance can be struck between the two. But it may begin with amendment 90 in the name of the novel Lord Russell that would require all local authorities to prepare and publish local energy plans.

These plans would current and future energy and the decarbonisation pathways. The underlying intent here is one we could all recognise. The energy transition cannot only be delivered centrally. Local authorities must have a clear understanding of their energy demands and the means to meet them sustainably and the Noble Lord result made a number of good points reinforced by the Noble Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and which we might all agree in principle. However, while we acknowledge the ambition had the amendment we would caution them against placing an additional statutory duty against all local authorities.

Particularly at a time when many face for stretch resources and competing authorities and blanket requirement risks creating a burden of compliance that may prove challenging for councils already struggling with delivery. We must ensure that our expectations at local Government are backed with adequate support. Turning to amendment 177 tabled by the Noble Lord, this six to define the approval process for the energy plans and mandates the provision of guidance to assist local authorities in their preparation.

We recognise the positive intention here to provide clarity, consistency, and technical support to authorities seeking to engage with this important agenda. This also aims to widen the uptake of such planning and to define that at the role of local authorities in delivering the future energy system. Those are commendable aims and we must avoid procedural hurdles or risk diverting local effort away from practical delivery into practice heavy reporting and we hope that the Noble Lord the Minister will consider this amendment carefully.

In conclusion, these amendments rightly draw attention to the importance of powering local authorities and the energy transition. I welcome the debate and the ideas put forward but also urge a cautious and pragmatic approach and look forward to the Noble Lord the Ministers response and any reassurances he can give on the Governments direction in this space.
22:14
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I turned to amendment 19 and 177 which relate to local energy plans. I thank the Noble Lord Russell, the noble Baroness Lady Bennett, and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for tabling these amendments. Turning first amendment 19 tabled by the Noble Lord that seeks to require all combined authorities with the energy plan, the Government is committed to working in partnership with local Government and in recognition of local places play in accelerating to zero and supercharging our mission to deliver by 2030.

We recognise that in support of this role some local authorities are working with local energy plans and using them to plan for the investment that they need for delivering net zero in their areas and we welcome the work that many local authorities have undertaken and to deliver their local energy plans and we will be considering how planning their future energy needs would form part of these plans and contribute to Ofgem and nestle's work and strategic plans. However, this is not the right time for the burdens of local authorities and planning in underdevelopment.

We are considering how these plans might align with their regional and national plans, including the strategic plans network zoning and British local work. With that in mind, to consider that net zero plans having working with partners in local Government such as then it zero, British energy, Ofgem and UK. Were also learning with the work of several local authorities to undertake to develop their own plans in recognition of the importance of local authorities. In the meantime, local authorities wish to assess energy planning whether it fits with their wider plans and accelerated support to help them develop including the tools and advice available on the net zero digital platform supported by the Department and the advice and support available to them in the local net zero.

Finally, it should be noted that many areas of the country have multiple tiers of local Government. The amendment, as drafted, risks duplication of effort and diction overlapping plans in the same geography. I hope that the Noble Lord and the noble Baroness Lady Bennett are satisfied with our response and I kindly ask that they beg leave to withdraw their amendment. Finally, attend to 177 tabled by the Noble Lord of Kings Heath at seeks to require Government to abolish guidance of the local Many say they are supporting the transition of the local communities to net zero, however as previously said before this is not the right time the government introduced national guidance for local area energy plans.

Require that local authorities regard such advice at the time of the approach to energy planning is still being developed. We will need to consider how energy planning might affect the range of vision and national plans, such as their heat network zoning, Great British Energy and NESO's energy strategic plans. This yet clear what energy planning will play in these wider strategic plans. It is not the right time to publish guidance, that may well be superseded. Local authorities already have access to guidance and support our net zero issues including energy planning.

This includes a net zero goal as mentioned before, funded by business, a library of free tools and guidance. They also have access to support from the five local net zero hubs, funded by day Chukwudubem Ifeajuna. In the development of the area plans. I hope the laws Rafa Nadal and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath satisfied with our response. I kindly ask to beg leave to withdraw these amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Minister sits down, I welcome the Minister's response to both my amendment and the moment in the name of Lord Ravensdale. However, what I'm hearing from the
22:18
22:19
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I appreciate the noble Lords contribution and I politely disagree with him in the sense that there is a lot of advice and support from local net zero funds funded by DESNZ. We have all said this today, we want to get moving as fast as we possibly can, I speedy manner. This is part of the agenda. We want to make sure we get things right and be concise and do the right level of engagement to ensure that when we kind of have the clear plan forward it as well understood and doesn't I just wanted to compliment what the noble Earl just said, a couple of noble Earl just said, a couple of years back when I raise this as part of the NG Act 2023, I do remember a similar response back then that this was still being considered by the government and how this was going to fit into the bigger picture.

I do think the government needs to recognise here the real importance of that governance level flown out from national to regional to local. The importance of that local The importance of that local understanding in the picture. The real priority that needs to be placed on developing this guidance placed on developing this guidance and this strategy for local areas, and this strategy for local areas, to take this forward. I hope the Minister will reflect on that. I take note of the noble Lord Raven still complementing the noble Lord Earl Russell and I recognise that there is a lot of work to do I appreciate that the now we actually have a planning infrastructure bill, which will go and fix and the foundations of the whole growth to net zero and clean energy 2030.

My final point again to this important point is that the way SA is not the right time because we don't want to put in a further burdens on local authorities, while we are still developing and finalising our energy planning. Rest assured I reassure the noble Lord that we want to make sure this happens as fast as possible and this would help us change a lot of the infrastructure and the thinking in place to help our country to grow.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would draw my amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Among the 91 already debated, not Among the 91 already debated, not Among the 91 already debated, not moved. Amendment 92? Not moved., already debated, not moved, number 94, not moved, 94 a not moved. 94, not moved, 94 a not moved.
22:22
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

94. C. In the final stretch, recognising

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the final stretch, recognising the past the usual hour. It matters about the future the energy about the future the energy infrastructure matters about where it is in the country because of it it is in the country because of it matters to national security and that is why I have tabled 90 4C it that is why I have tabled 90 4C it is no secret to those people who have been in this chamber, what about energy, about recognising that about energy, about recognising that as part of Suffolk, which has, as part of Suffolk, which has, actually a huge number of NSIP's relating to energy.

I will talk about various issues in the three about various issues in the three different groups and I've done this different groups and I've done this somewhat deliberately to Ministers and officials from each of the departments have really considered departments have really considered what it is that they're signing up to in what is happening, with progress of electricity infrastructure, across this country. I'm not in any denial when we need I'm not in any denial when we need to consider as we got the transition, we are moving to a different sort of grid.

This is to different sort of grid. This is to be considered very carefully in terms of concentration. In terms of concentration, it is quite a small part of the country where, in about 10 years time, about, it may have gone down little bits, it is probably about 30% the country's electricity that is being generated or acting as the host point for interconnection from the continent. It will actually be concentrated in not 50 mi are referred in my amendment but considerably smaller than that.

That is happening through the continuing generation of Sizewell B, the future generation of Sizewell C, but also into connectors happening, coming in at well various points on the Suffolk coast, in terms of interconnected to the continent, their energy wind farms, the offshore wind farms which are already operational currently being expanded. One of my concerns I appreciate is another issue I never managed to persuade my former colleagues but I'm hoping the government will listen that actually I think there is a huge matter of national security.

We are concentrating so much of the energy in this country in a very, very in this country in a very, very small part, geographically and that overemphasis, frankly, I won't say it is a sitting duck, and conscious of all the security that goes into nuclear power stations but it is an overconcentration which when we're thinking about the impact that actually the breakdown and resilience can have actually could end up depriving the rest of the country of desperately needed energy.

So it is for that reason that I do believe genuinely strategically the government should be thinking about spreading our electricity principle generation around the country. I will come to other regions are why I think the relation doesn't work either. It is that sort of threat which you should be considering right now. I'm aware of the concerns that have happened in continental Europe, about the deployment of certain grades of weapons, by foreign actors. I'm aware of the risk that has to be monitored and assessed and we should be doing that, in this country, as well.

That is why I genuinely believe that the government should reconsider in terms of its accumulation of projects that should be far more strategic in considering where all these different energy sources are being placed, in this country. So to that end I do believe that we should be looking to reflect the fact that we have opportunities, in different parts of the country, whether government already has land, by the way doesn't need to acquire land. It is the Ministry of Defence refusing to take on some of these projects because they want to do various practices and different things at that.

The same time we also have 20 of agriculture that is being sacrificed. Unconscious we somewhat have that debate to do not want to dwell on it. It is for that reason I really hope that by taping the simple amendment that their snares were considered with other parts of the department about whether or not they really are treading down the right path of concentrating energy production and should be more strategic in its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thinking -- DESNZ. Article 28 insert the following

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Article 28 insert the following new clauses printed on the marshalled List?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled List? I write as briefly to speak to amendment 94 briefly to speak to
22:28
22:29
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Amendment 94 Amendment 90 4C which is designed to limit infrastructure by reference to a percentage of the national total. In other words it is addressed all concentration of infrastructure, in particular places. The Government agrees with the noble Lady that the siting of electricity infrastructure should be considered carefully while the government is taking a strategic view it is doing so by the strategic special energy plan and the centralised plan due for publication by the end of 2026 and 2027 respectively.

It is unclear how exactly the amendment is intended to work in practice given the consequent consequences of practices is not in the national interest for individual applications to be assessed or prevented by reference to a subjective threshold. They must be judged on the needs, the case and the infrastructure weighed against local impacts and that is decisively what the current system achieves. Projects are designated as nationally significant or is NSIP's, there is also a national policy statement approved by Parliament which sets out in detail the need case for this infrastructure and other considerations that must be applied when presenting it.

This amendment would add further complexity to the consenting system which would lead to a slowing down of the decision-making process for low carbon electricity infastructure projects for this country. Although in practice the threshold of 10% of the entire country and energy is so high I think it is highly unlikely that any project would in fact reach such a threshold. The government agrees that infrastructure planning should have a special element and a strategic special energy plan will support a more actively planned approach to energy infrastructure across England, Scotland and Wales, land and sea, between 2030 and 2050.

It will do this by assessing and identifying the optimum locations, quantities and types of energy infrastructure required for generation and storage to meet our future energy demand, with the clean and affordable secure supply that we need. To produce this Strategic Spatial Energy Plan, the National Energy System Operator walk conduct economic modelling to identify potential cost effective locations, for future electricity and hydrogen infrastructure, with an energy security, decarbonisation and environmental constraints. The centralised strategic plan or cc -- see SNP will build on the energy plan and strategically planned across the whole transmission network onshore and offshore, realistically enabling coordinated and efficient network and ensuring access to reliable, clean and affordable electricity.

The see SNP will include environment and community and impact as determining recommendations and also including a strategic environment assessment which considers and in cumulative effect I believe that the noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw this amendment. I appreciate the art he's given me. I would say there is A1. Where me. I would say there is A1. Where perhaps it would be worthwhile days and there's genuinely looking and
22:32
22:33
22:33
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
the National Grid is part owned by private equity may wind up a little private equity may wind up a little bit more. This is fundamentally the concern which communities around the concern which communities around the world, I've seen it much more locally is that the planning system, when it comes to energy projects is when it comes to energy projects is a complete and utter joke. It is already decided, regardless of what happens in the planning system, happens in the planning system, these projects will go ahead.

It doesn't matter if they don't quite doesn't matter if they don't quite fit the planning, it doesn't matter, fit the planning, it doesn't matter, there are a few tweaks that can be made. It doesn't matter what the community thinks. It doesn't matter what the department thinks. Ofgem what the department thinks. Ofgem has already made decisions, make determinations. These projects can determinations. These projects can go ahead, start spending the money for these projects, before they've for these projects, before they've To give you an example, Norwich to Tilbury, Ofgem came up with that early consultation, early early consultation, early consultation funding in April 2025.

It's planning submission was only It's planning submission was only submitted on Friday. Sealing a project that I will continue to fight for as long as I can. Had its funding announcement, ECF funding announcement made. Normally Ofgem's policy is only 20% of the funding granted in effect, they have given 48% to National Grid to proceed with ceiling. They had there I think planning movement in it had to be delayed because there was an error in the actual process, so that is only ongoing last month as well.

This is what the people and communities in various parts of the country see, what is the point? So, that is my huge frustration, that in effect there is predetermination that planning applications are already going to be made. This is going somewhat I am still slightly surprised that people have been successful in certain aspects at getting this. Here we are, we have good projects going when I say they have not barely started, they had not even started the planning process.

My Lords, the reason I put this in here is to restore some credibility to planning, to restore some credibility to the fact that it is not just a commercial deal, it is a done deal. Ofgem should be restrained for cutting the sort of funding or funding process to actually happen until at least the document has actually been submitted, ideally being given consent. And, for what it is was, a lot of this kind of scepticism would go away if there was a genuine belief that actually the planning system mattered at all.

So, my Lords, I am conscious that to try to get a 2030 on this accelerated timetable that we need to get on with these projects, I have already referred to previous ones were the planning processes are still under way and we have already reached the capacity for a series of energy projects, and yet they still keep coming. No wonder people are desperate and tabling these reaction protocols and the like because they are so frustrated with the machinery to say yes, we will do the basics, so, to that end, this is the reason I feel particularly strongly and wanted to table 90 4D just to be a wanted to table 90 4D just to be a That our country actually respects law, it respects that there is not a predetermined nature, God alone only knows how my consultations I went to as the Secretary of State being told by Kevin, you cannot come to a predetermination in all of this.

And yet Ofgem of course does anyway. So, my Lords, I will not say any more. I do not expect the response to be candid from the Minister. I am not trying to move in advance but perhaps predetermine what I am expecting to hear, but, nevertheless, I am saying this for the people right across the country. Let's do the right thing and let's make sure that we are not allowing money to be printed for developers who have not even started the actual

**** Possible New Speaker ****

planning process. Amendment proposed after close 28

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after close 28 into following clauses in the
22:38
22:38
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I will now turn to amendment 90 4D tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Coffey that seeks to prohibit the gas and electricity markets authority from granting or considering early construction funding for accelerated strategic funding element list planning consent has already been given. Whilst I understand that network company should not be given excessive funding on projects where procurement or procurement costs are not yet incurred, I must urge noble Lords to consider the unintended consequences this amendment would have on our energy infrastructure and our collective ambition to deliver eight net zero grid.

Let us be clear the mechanisms in question, early construction funding not blank cheques. They are carefully staged investments, including stages and design associated support the work in the workplace this includes environmental assessments, design, stakeholder investment and technical feasibility studies. These are not luxuries, they are prerequisites for any responsible planning application. To deny access before funding is granted creates a paradox, planning consent cannot be obtained without purpose rework and property were cannot be funded without planning consent.

This amendment risks trapping vital transmission projects in a bureaucratic cul-de-sac. My Lords, we are not debating theoretical infrastructure. We are talking up the backbone of our future clean energy system, project that would connect offshore wind, solar, and enable homes and businesses across the country. These is our economy, delaying them risks not only in clean energy transmission and commitment but also the security and affordability of our energy is great capacity is needed, to power investments. Moreover, Gemma already operates under a rigorous framework of accountability and oversight, funding decisions are not made lacking.

They are subject to scrutiny, concept analysis and alignment with strategic national priorities to impose statutory constraint at this stage would not enhance that process, it would injure it. I therefore came to as the noble Baroness Lady Coffey to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. I beg leave to withdraw. Is a geologic pleasure that the man be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 94 by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 94 he. Amendment if, Baroness Coffey.
22:41
None Portrait Amendment 94F
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

he. Amendment if, Baroness Coffey. I have taken this from the other
22:41
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have taken this from the other iteration and to cut to the chase, iteration and to cut to the chase, we need to make sure bearing in mind some of the debate we already had earlier about how we are going to achieve objectives, not only of having a future that is a fit for purpose grid but also how we move the energy transition along, consistently I have been trying to make the case that this cannot be done at the expense of nature, the natural environment.

One of the things that arose from the Environment Act's 2021 is a duty on Ministers, specifically to talk about policy in terms of environmental principles. I think I am right in saying there is also a requirement to effectively require the impact of projects when the Minister is giving consent to them about the genuine impact will stop there will be an element here of biodiversity, but also very specifically considering that national capital accounts on which we do annual balance sheets which are put forward by the Treasury, there should be a key consideration of what is happening as a consequence of the environment to any particular project.

And one of the things that I am afraid is shrouded in mystery is normally just a response that yes, we have considered this a nothing we have shared with the country, and so this is intended to be looking to see the transparency and I unconscious the rule might apply as there is already a legal case against the Deputy Prime Minister in her consideration of her statement regarding this bill by extension I am assuming that applies to the Minister as well.

But in terms of the section 20 statement, it is important that not only do Ministers understand the wider ministry understands quite what is happening in this balance and the reason I say that is because we do have primary legislation already in place that the primary indicator is about recovery of assets, namely thinking as a species. As a consequence, it is absolutely vital that the only has absolutely vital that the only has been regularly pushing on exactly the sort of information, so we do have a sense of whether or not we are going to be anywhere near close are going to be anywhere near close to hitting the targets that this Parliament has already agreed to in terms of both its primary legislation but also in terms of secondary legislation as well.

On secondary legislation as well. On

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that basis, given the time of the evening, I will just simply move my amendment at that point. Amendment proposed after close

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after close 28, insert the following new clause as printed on the Marshall list.
22:44
22:45
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I was beginning to feel a bit of dej vu there in place of the projects. Amendment 90 4F tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Coffey seeks to ensure that where an energy infrastructure requires an assessment to the Secretary of State or the markets authority, this assessment and any advice provided and considered as part of that assessment is published. As highlighted throughout today's debate and in earlier discussions of the bill, it is essential that we press ahead and deliver article infrastructure that we need to bring in house gas emissions to 2030 and I think the Noble Lady Baroness Coffey for tabling this amendment and for the opportunity for sitting out how the principles statement and the environment of principles will look into this regard by the Government.

The running process plays a key role in safeguarding the environment. Temperamental protections embedded in planning regulations through mandatory environmental assessments and habitats, regulation assessments, to ensure that projects are designed and delivered in a way that minimises harm and Receptors are understood and plans are in place to manage these impacts appropriately before granting consent. These are published as part of the documentation that goes out when the Planning Inspectorate website when a decision is taken. Under the environmental at 2021 Legal duty to give regard to the environmental principles policy statement, when making policy decisions.

The duties not designed to capture individual regulator planning or licensing decisions made by Ministers or authorities acting on their behalf. Indeed they are specifically excluded from the duty. Therefore decisions made by the Secretary of State, whether development consent should be granted to nationally significant national infrastructure projects is not subject to the environmental principles policy statement duty, nor does the duty applied to Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, in respect of individual and military decisions. In respect of planning policies such as the National policy statement framework for decision- making, on a nationally significant national info to projects on the planning Act 2018 for.

The government is currently updating at the National policy statement for energy and we expect to publish these before the end of 2025. Ministers will therefore give due regard to the environmental principles policy statement and considering updates which have been made to the National policy statement ahead of publication. These reasons I kindly ask the noble Lady big sleeve to withdraw this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will turn to part three of the bill, so I will withdraw the Is it your Lordship's pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. 94, F? I bow to move that the House be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I bow to move that the House be resumed. The question is that the House be resumed? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The ... That the House do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page