Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

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

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Young of Old Scone Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my environmental interests in the register.

I think we all recognise the need for changes in the planning system to deliver really important infrastructure and housing, but we need to recall that the planning system is there to do more than “Dig, baby, dig”. It is a system whereby a balance is struck between economic, social and environmental outcomes for the good of citizens and communities.

The narrative in this country on this has become too polarised over recent months: you are either a builder or a blocker. It is either development or the environment. We are smarter than that; we can deliver both. Part 3 will need considerable change if we are going to do that. That view is shared by the Office for Environmental Protection, which regards this part of the Bill as regressing from our environmental standards.

The provisions in Part 3 on environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund are fine to deal with the delays in the planning system caused by environmental issues best solved on a wider-than-site basis—on a catchment basis. There are issues such as nutrient neutrality, which has already been mentioned, recreational pressures and other water quality and quantity issues. But the proposed system is not right for resolving many protected species issues or for dealing with irreplaceable habitats. For the latter, the clue is on the tin: these habitats cannot be replaced, and indeed both the revised NPPF and the biodiversity net gain guidelines make provision for their protection. I ask the Minister to tell the House how irreplaceable habitats will be protected under Part 3.

Part 3 also removes the snappily named mitigation hierarchy, which encourages developers and planners, as a first step, to think hard about avoiding protected sites—first do no harm. If the Government are going to meet their statutory nature conservation targets, they must both protect what is already there by way of important nature and create more strategic habitat.

The delivery of Part 3 relies on Natural England, which is already creaking for a lack of resources and staff. I ask my noble friend the Minister what assessment has been made of the capacity of Natural England. How many environment delivery plans do the Government expect Natural England to prepare, and how long will that take?

There are other issues in Part 3, which, in the interests of time, I will pass over. I could go on, but I would begin to sound like the polarised narrative I said we should avoid. I do not believe that is where I stand, because we are smarter and there is a win-win solution. Many of the elements of that system are already in place or are being put in place by the Government: the land use framework approach, regional spatial strategies and revised local plans linked with local nature recovery strategies, all of which can enable developers to steer their applications to places where they can be sure of an easy run through the planning system.

The ecological surveys and environmental impact assessments will have been done in advance at strategy and plan level, and not be a delay factor at planning application stage. There are other simple changes that will streamline the system, and I look forward to working with the Minister on alternative proposals. In the meantime, can the Minister advise us when we will see the government amendments, signalled by Minister Pennycook in the other place, to address these concerns?

One last point is that several of the larger developers, both in infrastructure and in housing, are increasingly anxious about Part 3. Sweeping away important nature protections is not a good look for a housebuilder or an infrastructure developer that has pledged to deliver a national or international environmental accreditation. They are concerned that this will be done in their name. There are also concerns that they will incur costs and complications from having one system inside EDP areas and another outside, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, highlighted. Are the Government listening to those concerns from developers? I look forward to the Minister’s responses.