Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

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

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

Amendment 80 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

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

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