House of Lords

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Monday 20 October 2025

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Leave of Absence

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

14:37

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, this week I am due to travel to Poland, at the invitation of the Marshal of the Polish Senate. Accordingly, I seek leave of absence from your Lordships’ House from tomorrow, Tuesday 21 October, until my return on Thursday 23 October.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

I thought that would get a laugh, so I sat down.

HIV: Testing and Medical Care

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:38

Asked by

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to increase HIV testing rates; and whether they will establish and invest in a programme to engage with the estimated 12,000 people living with HIV who do not receive medical care.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I declare my interest as a patron of the Terrence Higgins Trust.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, HIV testing rates in sexual health services increased last year by 3%. After nearly a decade of cuts, we increased the public health grant to over £3.8 billion in 2025-26, which funds HIV testing and sexual health services. This year we invested £27 million in HIV opt-out A&E testing, identifying undiagnosed and untreated HIV and increasing re-engagement in HIV care. The new HIV action plan, which will be out before the end of the year, will include HIV testing and care actions.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, while progress is greatly welcome—I applaud the Government’s efforts and commitment in this area—does the Minister agree that, unless we move much more quickly, we have no chance of meeting the target of eliminating new infections by 2030? Last year, there were still over 3,000 new diagnoses—a stubbornly high figure—while HIV rates among black African heterosexual men are, in fact, increasing and there are up to 12,000 individuals lost to care; they are aware that they have the virus but are not accessing life-saving drugs that would stop them passing it on. Will the Government act in two very important areas to try to bring this infection rate down? The first is to make sure that PrEP is available outside sexual health clinics and the second is to ensure there is a dedicated team of caseworkers in every HIV clinic who are laser-focused on finding those who are lost to care and getting them back in treatment.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I will certainly take those very helpful proposals back to the department. As the noble Lord acknowledged, we are developing the plan, which must be ambitious. If it not, exactly as he says, we will not meet what I think is a very correct target. I am sure the noble Lord welcomed the news on 17 October of the NICE publication of a recommendation on the use of cabotegravir, an injectable option for those who cannot have oral PrEP. It is important to look at the reasons why people do not access care and treatment and to find solutions, rather than leaving them as they are.

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

My Lords, I entirely support the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Black, but I urge the Government to go further. About 9 million people in the world who need HIV treatment are not receiving it at present. That position is being seriously worsened by the American Government’s regrettable decision to cut healthcare provision in so many programmes. Will the Government now lead a new international effort to increase funding to counter this new threat, which is becoming more and more obvious around the world?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As I am sure the noble Lord is aware and welcomes, alongside South Africa, the UK is leading the campaign to raise investment for the Global Fund’s next three-year funding cycle. I assure him that we will, as he does, continue to champion global health and certainly remain committed to UK support for the Global Fund. UN aid also plays a very important role in the response and our funding has contributed towards preventing new cases in key populations. Long may that continue.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, today, contracting HIV is no longer a death sentence as it once was, unless it is not spotted and treated in time. Testing is freely available, but we need greater awareness among all the communities affected. The currently growing groups tend to be heterosexual communities, and particularly women and ethnic-minority groups. We will not eradicate HIV if we do not spend the money on telling people about it. Are the Government planning to step up to this challenge and finance the eradication of this terrible blight?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We are currently in the process of reviewing existing mechanisms as well as options for improving retention and re-engagement in care for people who live with HIV. This is a crucial part of the new HIV action plan, for which we will not be waiting very long. The noble Baroness makes an important point: there are all sorts of reasons for disengagement from care. It can be due to complex mental and physical needs but also the fear of stigma, as she referred to, particularly in the most vulnerable population groups, which means that they are disproportionately challenged. However, I assure her and your Lordships’ House that the plan will take account of that. Indeed, the 10-year health plan already makes that commitment.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that routine opt-out HIV testing—offering HIV tests to all patients in healthcare settings, such as emergency departments, unless they specifically decline—has proved highly effective, having identified over 1,000 cases of HIV that may well have gone undetected otherwise? Do the Government have any plans to extend this approach beyond the current pilot projects?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly agree that giving people who are attending an emergency department a blood test as part of a routine examination—unless they opt out—has assisted very much in engaging people in care and in identification. We have 79 emergency departments in the programme and they are making a substantial contribution. We will continue to assess where it is successful and how we can extend the success into areas that are not currently benefiting.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, there has been a decline in the rate of testing of 16 to 24 year-olds, which is deeply concerning. Are the Government going to tackle that as a matter of urgency, recognising the need to target that group in particular?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As I have mentioned, the plan—which is due to be published by the end of this year—will include a focus on HIV testing and will take account of the groups that are less likely to be tested, because that will be key to our success in eradicating new HIV transmissions by 2030.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, every time we have debated this subject, we have acknowledged the difficulty in identifying at-risk people who do not come forward to be tested for HIV. One such group of people are those who go to pharmacies or GPs to get a prescription for PrEP medication. What information do we give them about the need for getting themselves tested for HIV when they approach pharmacies and other sources for PrEP medication?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Although I cannot answer specifically, I would be very happy to write to the noble Lord about what information is in pharmacies. I know the noble Lord will appreciate, as your Lordships’ House has welcomed, the greater use of pharmacies, not least because they are more accessible for those who otherwise would be disadvantaged.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, HIV testing rates are vital. When the Minister meets the devolved Ministers for the nations and regions, particularly the Minister for Health in Northern Ireland, I ask that she talks to them about this important area, with particular reference to Positive Life Northern Ireland, which is a voluntary body doing enormously good work with those with HIV. It received a shortage of funding, or did not receive funding, from the department this year.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly can assure my noble friend that, in our discussions with the devolved Governments, we highlight this area and will continue to do so.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I have a question about regional variations. Some 37% of all community tests were carried out in London in 2023, but only 1.1% in the north-east. What action will the Government take to deal with this regional variation?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The UKHSA supports local areas to improve delivery, not least through data monitoring and reporting, which is vital. Without commenting on specifics, I will say that there will be variation because of incidence and the needs of local populations. We account for this in our funding and direction. What really matters is equality of access and outcome, which will remain a real focus of the plan that I look forward to presenting to your Lordships’ House.

Musical Instrument Certificates

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:48

Asked by

[Baroness Keeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of introducing a fee for musical instrument certificates on touring orchestras and musicians, as proposed in the open consultation on reforming domestic implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have not yet fully assessed the impact of introducing a fee for musical instrument certificates for touring orchestras and musicians. We will do so based on the information submitted by stakeholders during the public consultation, which will close on 23 October. That consultation forms part of Defra’s wider work to ensure that our regulatory framework is both proportionate and effective, in line with the Corry review. We will continue to engage with DCMS, recognising the music sector’s importance.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It is very welcome that the Prime Minister made pledges to help our touring artists as part of improving the UK’s trade relationship with the EU, because since Brexit, UK musicians touring the EU have had many extra costs, including for visas, work permits and carnets. Can my noble friend assure me that her department will now look again at its proposal to start charging for applications for musical instrument certificates, which would add to those barriers for touring musicians? I also ask that it looks again at proposals to introduce civil sanctions, which would mean musicians travelling without a certificate, or even with a certificate not correctly stamped at the border, would become liable for a financial penalty.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said in my initial Answer to my noble friend, we are currently consulting on this range of proposals; it is part of the way we reform our CITES regulatory framework. The idea is that the reforms will support economic growth, reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and ensure effective protection for endangered species. The options include a proposal to revise the fees for permits and certificates, including those for musical instruments. This is in line with other countries. As I said, we are consulting, and we will look at all the information submitted to that consultation before we reach any final decision.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, this proposal for charging for musical instrument certificates clearly goes entirely against the promise the Government made in their election manifesto to help facilitate musicians touring the EU. Does this not illustrate the need for someone, preferably a Minister, who can oversee this promise, and the decisions made in relevant departments, to avoid such backwards steps, because for musicians, Brexit is such a cross-departmental concern?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The availability of the musical instrument certificates simplifies international travel for musicians with instruments. It is important to note that they are valid for three years. Currently, the musical instrument certificates are the only CITES permit or certificate available to applicants at no cost, so it is important that we consider through this consultation whether this is fair or proportionate as we move our current charging regime to full cost recovery.

I emphasise that no decisions as yet on fees have been made. The consultation is seeking feedback from stakeholders to ensure changes do not put disproportionate burdens on industry and businesses, including touring orchestras and musicians. The Government are supporting artists through measures such as the orchestra tax relief, the Arts Council England funding and the £30 million music growth package which supports talent development, music exports and grass-roots venues.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the burden on touring musicians of the botched Brexit deal has been so very punitive? Does she share our concern about any danger that this consultation will add to that botched Brexit deal and increase fees for those touring musicians? Could she please elaborate for the House on discussions that have taken place between her department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that this vital export to the UK is fully supported?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are continuing to talk with DCMS; it is an ongoing conversation. We are also continuing to constructively engage with the European Commission to tackle the challenges that face both creative and cultural professionals. To support touring artists, the Government are actively engaging with the EU on this specific issue. At the first ever summit between the UK and the EU, both sides recognised the value of travel and cultural and artistic exchanges, including the activities of touring artists, and we have committed to continue to support this.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Musicians’ Union, led by the excellent general secretary Naomi Pohl, which has been campaigning against this proposal. In my view, it is the sort of proposal that in a joined-up government should never have seen the light of day. Musicians and orchestras are facing great difficulties as a result of Brexit and already have additional costs. There is no current charge; the Minister is right in saying that. The difference is that now, if the Government introduce a charge, it will place a massive additional burden on musicians who are already suffering greatly in terms of being able to tour as a result of Brexit. I understand why she has to say in legal terms that the consultation is going ahead, but when it is over, I urge her to drop this proposal.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As my noble friend rightly pointed out, this is an ongoing consultation. As I said in response to other questions, we will take all views into account. The consultation does not close for another few days, so if anyone has concerns and they have not taken part, I urge them to respond.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the Independent Society of Musicians has called this proposal “disappointing” and “incomprehensible”. We have just heard about the dismay it has caused to the Musicians’ Union, and, as the noble Earl said, it flies in the face of the Government’s manifesto commitment to help touring artists. The Minister has been at pains to say that no decision has yet been taken, but the consultation document invites people to choose between two options: a cost of £61 for all permits and certificates, or a charge of £200 for all applications. Does that rather leading question suggest that the Government have made up their mind that there should be a cost of some form for people bringing instruments into this country?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The consultation is on CITES, which covers all sorts of areas and not just musical instruments. As I said, we are carrying out a consultation and will take the responses into account. It is important to show that we are supporting music. We support orchestras through the tax system and funding. At the Autumn Budget last year, the Government confirmed that, from April this year, orchestra tax relief on production costs was to be set at a generous rate of 45%. We also support orchestras through the Arts Council England investment programme; 23 orchestral music organisations are funded through its national portfolio investment programme for 2023 to 2026. We are keen to support the arts.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister cited the common understanding that emerged from the May summit earlier this year. Can she say—if not now then in writing—exactly what efforts have taken place since that meeting to support travel and cultural exchange?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness with that detail.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister said that the Government are still consulting, so I hope that my supplementary question can be part of that process. I am one of many Members in this House who are concerned about the future of youth orchestras. Can my noble friend say whether the current proposals imply that, in the future, youth orchestras would be subject to the charges involved? That would be an extremely serious additional burden to place on them when they are already facing difficulties in touring.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we are in consultation. A lot of assumptions are being made by many of the questioners. To reiterate, the consultation is an opportunity for the music sector to make its voice heard and to provide us with evidence about the kind of impacts being mentioned in this Question Time.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

Perhaps I may add to the question that I raised earlier. The musical instrument certificate is a very small part of CITES, and for the burden it will put on musicians, it will not raise very much money. Could that be an additional part of the consideration?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that if, the noble Baroness would like that to be part of the consultation, it could be taken into account. However, others may well have mentioned it already.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

Does my noble friend the Minister agree that hedgehogs, rather like frigates, are an endangered species, and that there is a need to look at some positive action by the Government to help protect our hedgehogs in this country?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am always impressed by the way in which my noble friend manages to get some sort of shipping into every question, no matter what the topic. Hedgehogs are endangered—we know that there is a problem there—but whether they are related to musical instruments is another question.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, I will return to the subject of touring orchestras and musical instruments. As the Minister said, the important point about the reset negotiations in May is that this might have been discussed. Looking to the future negotiations, particularly on the reset, the Minister mentioned the involvement of her department and DCMS, but can she assure me that the Cabinet Office will also be involved? That would enable the Cabinet Office, through Nick Thomas-Symonds, to look at this issue in the round, because a number of other issues come into account.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can assure my noble friend that there is not much that the Cabinet Office does not get involved in.

GDP Per Capita

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:59

Asked by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the latest estimates of the current GDP per capita, and of the factors contributing to it.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, the latest data from the ONS shows that GDP per capita has risen by 0.9% over the past year, in line with the OBR’s forecast, and this is the second fastest in the G7. This compares with a fall of 0.1% during the previous Parliament. The increase in GDP per capita in the past year is due mainly to the strong rebound in both private consumption and investment. Of course, we want to go further, which is why economic growth is the Government’s number one priority.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Indeed so, but the Minister will be aware that the ONS’s latest figures show that in the most recent quarter, economic growth per capita grew by only 0.2%—less than half than in the previous quarter. Will he accept that this is entirely due to the Government’s policies on the national insurance increase, the lack of business confidence because of the Employment Rights Bill, and the wholly unnecessary delay in the Budget? Would he like to clarify his previous remarks about the effect of Brexit being 4% on growth and productivity, when he knows very well that the OBR said that that would be over 15 years? This means that on a per annum basis, the effect is teeny and within the margin of error.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The answer to all the noble Lord’s questions is no. He points out that GDP per capita grew by 0.2% in the second quarter of this year; that compares with 0.1% over the entirety of the previous Parliament. If he wants to make comparisons, I am more than happy to do that. I do not accept the points he makes about the Government’s other policies. We are currently the fastest-growing economy in the G7. On his points about Brexit, the OBR has been very clear that Brexit has permanently reduced the size of our economy by 4%. Its calculations are absolutely clear on that point.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that GDP would have been higher had we not had a Government previously who wrecked the economy, wrecked public services, gave us Brexit and left us with massive debt?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely correct. The previous Government gave us austerity, taking demand out of the economy at exactly the wrong moment; a Brexit deal, which reduced GDP by 4%; and the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which crashed the economy. We will take no lessons from the party opposite when it comes to growing the economy.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the UK is the sixth-largest economy, measured by GDP. But, on the measure of GDP per capita, it is only the 18th largest. Our demographic profile, with a heavily aging population, is a key reason for this. This year, we expect to reach the scary benchmark of having more deaths than births. Of course, we need to upskill our population in advancing technology. Do the Government accept that we rely on net immigration to sustain the economy in the public sector and that there is no way out of that?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Baroness says. The OBR is currently considering the economic and fiscal impacts of the immigration White Paper published in May and will report back in its forecast in the autumn. Of course, she is right that we are in a global race for talent, with many countries seeking to improve the attractiveness of their immigration systems for highly talented individuals. The immigration White Paper announced that the Government will review the visa offer for highly talented individuals by expanding the high potential individual visa and reforming the global talent and innovator founder visas. We have also agreed that we will work towards an ambitious youth mobility scheme with the EU, creating maximum economic and cultural opportunities between the UK and the EU. Any scheme would give young Brits the opportunity to travel, to experience other cultures and to work and study abroad.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government’s pledge still holds—specifically, that the UK will deliver the G7’s fastest growth in GDP per capita for two straight years by the end of this Parliament—and explain why investors, both debt and equity, should buy into this view?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, I can absolutely confirm that that remains our mission. Our growth mission is to have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. We are currently the fastest-growing economy in the G7, and the IMF recently revised up the growth forecast for this year, the second time it has done so. I think both the IMF and the OECD currently forecast that the UK will be the second fastest-growing G7 economy this year. Our growth mission also includes living standards; since the election, living standards are up 2.1% compared with the 1.8% fall over the last Parliament—the only Parliament on record in which living standards were worse at the end of it than at the start. We also have a commitment on GDP per capita, as the noble Lord rightly says; the OBR currently forecasts GDP per capita to rise by 5.6% over this Parliament.

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

My Lords, the ONS reported recently that 53% of the population are net recipients of state benefits and therefore make a very modest, to say the least, contribution to GDP. Meanwhile, 1% of the population are producing 13% of GDP and paying 28% of our tax. Whether we like it or not, the UK is becoming ever more financially dependent on its top earners but at the same time making it less attractive for them to stay and contribute to the UK. The evidence is mounting—we saw it from France yesterday—that people are considering moving their assets abroad and potentially leaving the country. So does the Minister agree with me that, whatever your ideological view of wealth distribution might be, the UK needs to focus on retaining its high earners, and does he recognise that if only 10% of the top 1% leave—that is 35,000 people—our fiscal black hole would increase very substantially?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

That is a very long question but I can give the noble Lord a very short answer. Yes, of course, I agree with him. It is very important that we retain our high earners and retain as much talent in this economy as we possibly can.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, the equitable distribution of income to enable people to buy goods and services is essential for sustained economic growth, but all is not well. At Melrose, the CEO to average worker pay ratio is 1,112; at Tesco 375; at Marks & Spencer 261; at Associated British Foods 218; and 195 at Sainsbury’s. In view of this scale of inequity, what is the Government’s plan to secure equitable distribution of income for workers and, in doing so, also secure economic growth?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Clearly, we need to make sure that we retain top talent in this country, as the previous questioner asked me about, but we also need to make sure that we increase the living standards right across the income distribution, and particularly for working people. My noble friend will know that wages continue to grow and that in the first 10 months of this Government, real wages rose more than in the first 10 years of the previous Government.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, one of the problems facing the Treasury and the Bank of England is the quality, or lack of it, of workforce data. Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made with the ONS to improve the quality of the data that the Government have to make their decisions?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely correct. That is currently a significant issue. As I understand it, the ONS is reviewing that data, and that review is ongoing.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, per capita GDP is, of course, a proxy for productivity in the longer run, and I am very concerned that productivity has become an increasing problem for the UK economy. What do the Government plan to do about it, in both the public sector and the private sector?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely correct to say that productivity is a long-standing problem in the economy. As I understand it, productivity fell to the lowest in the G7 under the previous Government, so clearly it is important that we have prioritised that. One of the most important things we are doing for productivity is increasing investment in our economy. We have revised the fiscal rules to enable us to increase investment in the economy, and I regret very much that the party opposite opposed those changes to the fiscal rules.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister explain to the House the role of record levels of public investment and how they contribute to economic growth? In his answer, lest we forget, can he remind the House of the financial legacy that we inherited from the last Government—particularly the amount of the financial black hole?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is very generous in inviting me to mention the £22 billion black hole. She is correct that capital spending is a significant driver of growth in our economy. The OBR estimates that the increases in capital spending that we have seen have increased growth by 0.14% over five years, 0.43% over 10 years and 1.4% in the long term. It is very regrettable that the party opposite opposes those capital spending plans.

Healthcare Provision: Inequalities

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:10

Tabled by

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of inequalities in the provision and experience of healthcare among different population groups; and what plans they have to address this.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, the report on the NHS by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, casts light on a range of health inequalities which are both stark and unacceptable. In response, our 10-year plan for the NHS in England sets out a re-imagined service designed to tackle inequalities in access and outcomes for everyone, no matter who they are or where they live.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My noble friend Lady Brown’s supplementary is about the experience of women. Last month, the Secretary of State for Health went on record saying that women should have consistent pain relief when coils are fitted. My noble friend has campaigned for 10 years to get proper pain relief for women who are undergoing hysteroscopies. Manchester is piloting a way to deliver this, though many other hospitals are ignoring it. Can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that the Government are seriously looking at this and monitoring what Manchester is doing in this regard?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I can indeed give that assurance, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Brown for her voice on the matter of women’s poor hysteroscopy experiences. These are unacceptable and part of a wider issue of women’s pain being normalised. Women must be given the opportunity to discuss pain relief with a clinician before the procedure. While I am glad to say that updated guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists do emphasise minimising pain, it is clear that more action is needed. I assure my noble friend that we are updating the Women’s Health Strategy for England to address what I believe is a wider issue, and to improve the experiences of women across the country.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, clinical evidence has established that poor health care directly contributes to the current 22-year life expectancy gap between people with learning disabilities and the general population. Why is this unacceptable inequality simply becoming a grim statistic that the Government continue to pay millions of pounds to measure, but are reluctant to take statutory measures to end?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

It is an unacceptable situation, as the noble Lord says. However, I refer him to the national approach, which will inform action in communities, including for people with a learning disability and those who are autistic. The Core20PLUS5 informs the reduction of healthcare inequalities among a range of groups; and, extremely importantly, it supports NHS organisations in identifying who might be at risk of poorer experiences, and in addressing this. I agree with the noble Lord that this must include those with a learning disability and those who are autistic.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lord just said on raising concerns about those with learning disabilities. They have a long-standing issue with access to the health service, and we saw some particularly poor treatment during the Covid pandemic. The last Government took steps to improve training for those working in the NHS in order to improve the situation. Picking up on the Minister’s answer to the noble Lord, what is her ambition in terms of timescale? When might we see some significant improvement in how those with learning disabilities can access National Health Service treatment?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

In a number of ways—I refer, for example, to the Mental Health Act, which is very significant in respect of the group we are discussing. We have already taken action in that regard in a legislative form.

However, the noble Lord is right. We started in a difficult place, but I am more than hopeful about the whole approach through the 10-year plan. So while I cannot give a month-by-month answer to the noble Lord—much as I would like to—I can say that in the course of the next 10 years, the matters to which he refers will be addressed. I believe that a neighbourhood health service designed around the specific needs of local populations will be a great contributor to this.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, we have seen in debates across a wide range of medical matters such as perinatal care, dementia and cardiovascular issues that there is widespread geographical disparity within the country, often driven by different approaches taken by different NHS trusts. Can the Minister outline how she intends to use the 10-year plan as a driver for greater uniformity of services, to ensure that there is not that postcode lottery disparity for many patients?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The 10-year health plan has tackling inequalities at its very heart, and that is the big driver throughout. Health inequalities are strongly associated with deprivation, and it cannot be right that healthy life expectancy at birth for a girl born in Wokingham is 70.8 years, but 52.6 years for a girl born in Barnsley. I think we get a real sense of the challenge.

However, I would not expect every local area to approach this in exactly the same way, not least because the challenges are different. That is why the whole structure of the NHS, including funding, will allow local areas to meet the needs and the challenges, which are considerable in certain areas, in the way that will deliver the best outcome.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister look closely at the inequalities between rural and urban areas in delivering healthcare? The Minister is aware of the work I do with dispensing doctors. Is she aware that community pharmacies and dispensing doctors in rural areas are struggling, as they are not being reimbursed for the national insurance contributions increase announced at the last election? I understand that hospitals are having these reimbursed. Will the Government look at this to ensure that rural pharmacies and GP practices have a level playing field with those in urban areas?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We have discussed national insurance contributions a number of times in your Lordships’ House, and I can only repeat the previous assurance, given not just by me but by other Ministers: that in making the decision, the Chancellor took into account not just the funding available—for example, in the Department of Health and Social Care, which was notable and welcome—but the impact.

In respect of rural areas, the national approach to inform action to improve equality in healthcare does define groups, including those in rural and coastal communities, so I can assure the noble Baroness that this issue does get the attention she seeks.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, to address inequalities we need better data. We have heard from noble Lords about granular data in some areas, but in many areas we still need to collect data and publish it in a much more granular manner, based on region, ethnicity and income, but also other measures. What are the Government doing to improve the collection of data, and particularly its granularity, so that we can address these inequalities?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of data. We have discussed this a number of times in respect of racial inequalities. But it is not just about data; it is also about the use of digital services. We must ensure that those in the most deprived areas are not excluded because of their inability to deal with digital aspects. As the noble Lord knows, moving from analogue to digital is another core part of what we are doing. I assure him that we are improving data collection and its availability and use.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, one of the groups most disadvantaged and, I regret to say, ignored at times, is unpaid carers—those who have taken on the care of a very disabled child or an elderly relative. Will the Minister continue her work to persuade all the services to be altogether more sensitive to carers and, most of all, to accord them the dignity and care that they need?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely correct, and I can give him the assurance that he seeks.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:22

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:23

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 July be approved.

Relevant document: 33rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 October.

Motion agreed.

Companies (Directors’ Report) (Payment Reporting) Regulations 2025

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:23

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 July be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 15 October.

Motion agreed.

Official Secret Act Case: Witness Statements

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

15:24

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Thursday 16 October.

“I thank the honourable Member for the Question and for the opportunity to respond to it today. I appreciate how serious and personal this is for the honourable Member, who, like other Members of this House, is sanctioned by China and/or named in the witness statements.

Following the Security Minister’s Statement to the House on Monday, the Prime Minister updated Parliament yesterday, following the Crown Prosecution Service’s clarification that the Government were able to publish the witness statements of the deputy National Security Adviser. As the Prime Minister said in the House, he carefully considered this matter and, following legal advice, decided to disclose the witness statements unredacted and in full.

I reiterate that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, under this Government no Minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence. The Prime Minister cannot say whether that was the case under the previous Government, but I once again invite the Conservative Party to clarify that.

Having now had the opportunity to read the statements, Members will be able to confirm for themselves what the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have stated repeatedly: the DNSA faithfully, and with full integrity, set out the position of the previous UK Government and the various threats posed by the Chinese state to the UK, and did so in order to try to support a successful prosecution.

The first and most substantive witness statement is from December 2023, under the last Government. The second and third, which are both much shorter, are from February and August 2025 respectively. It is clear from these statements that the substantive case and evidence submitted by the DNSA does not change materially throughout, and that all three documents clearly articulate the very serious threats posed by China. The second witness statement, in particular, highlights the specific details of some of the cyber-threats that we face, and emphasises that China is the ‘biggest state-based threat’ to the UK’s national security. The third statement goes on to state that the Chinese intelligence services are

‘highly capable and conduct large scale espionage operations against the UK to advance the Chinese state’s interests and harm the … security of the UK’.

It is clear from this evidence, which all can now see, that the DNSA took significant strides to articulate the threat from China in support of the prosecution. The decision on whether to proceed, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, was taken purely by the CPS. It is also clear that the three statements are constrained by the position of the Conservative Government on China at the time of the alleged offences.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday and the Security Minister said on Monday, this Government’s first priority will always be national security and keeping this country safe. We wanted this case to proceed. I am sure all Members of the House did, and I know you did too, Mr Speaker. We are all profoundly disappointed that it did not”.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister answer whether the 1 September meeting, as reported by the Sunday Times, between senior officials and intelligence chiefs in the Cabinet Office, and reportedly chaired by the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, discussed the China espionage case and what evidence should be provided to the CPS? Will the Minister confirm whether the National Security Adviser provided a written update or Box note to the Prime Minister? If she can establish whether one exists, will she publish it with the related correspondence between the Cabinet Office, the CPS and No. 10?

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It is our third such outing on matters pertaining—well, our second, but the third in a week. To confirm, the meeting on 1 September was a discussion with the National Security Adviser about the management of the court case as it continued. There was no discussion of anything other than what would happen during the progression of the court case. Although I am sure all noble Lords have had various dealings with the person who suggested that a Box note was provided, I am not sure how he would know of such a Box note, seeing as no Box note existed. No briefing note whatever was provided from the National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister, nor was there any conversation about the case.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this case seems to boil down to the binary political question: conspiracy or cock-up? The Government vehemently deny conspiracy, so they must believe it is a cock-up. But where and how did this happen, and how will the Government find out this fact? A Joint Select Committee plans to investigate, and I am sure that the ISC will too. Will the Government co-operate fully and quickly with these inquiries and undertake to publish everything possible that arises from them?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important point. Our Parliament is at its best when it scrutinises the Government, and I am very pleased that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy is now undertaking its inquiry. The Intelligence and Security Committee, led by my noble friend Lord Beamish, will also undertake its investigation. How quickly those progress is obviously now a matter for Parliament. I promise noble Lords that both investigations will have our full co-operation and support. We expect this to be done quickly. All information will be given very quickly. I have met with officials today to make it very clear that Government Ministers expect full co-operation.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the DPP simply got the law wrong in deciding to drop the case? In particular, does she agree that he failed to appreciate that whether China represents a current threat to our national security is a question of fact for the jury, and that he failed to charge as an alternative attempted espionage, available on ample evidence, having regard to the leading case of Shivpuri? Will she tell the House what steps are being taken in the light of those failures?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and his continued interest in these matters. Although the Government share the disappointment that the prosecution could not continue, the DPP’s decision is independent of the Government. Any decision to draw on the Shivpuri case as part of legal proceedings in this espionage case, if relevant, rested solely with the Crown Prosecution Service. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are dedicated to ensuring that the UK has the most robust legal framework possible to tackle foreign interference in espionage, which is why we supported, on a cross-party basis, the introduction of the National Security Act 2023. The Government will continue to keep such legislation under review to ensure that the UK’s law enforcement agencies are equipped to respond to the evolving threat landscape. Indeed, Jonathan Hall KC was appointed in February last year to act as the Independent Reviewer of State Threat Legislation under the National Security Act. I reiterate that there is now parliamentary oversight, with a parliamentary investigation. I hope all noble Lords with the relevant expertise actively seek to participate in the review, as the noble Lord has already.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

Can the Minister clarify for the record that anyone invited to appear before any of these committees, including the DPP, the National Security Adviser and, if necessary, the Prime Minister himself, will attend?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord is aware that I cannot speak on behalf of the DPP, and while I wish I was in charge of the Prime Minister’s diary, no one has given me that responsibility. However, to be very clear, we expect full co-operation and that everybody invited to attend will give appropriate evidence as requested by the committee.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

Can the Minister explain why no fewer than three witness statements were required from the Government? Are we to conclude that the Government did not make their position sufficiently clear in the first two statements?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I think it would be helpful if we went through the timescale of what happened with this case. The alleged incidents occurred. The Government—who at that point were the previous Government—met, and they instructed the Deputy National Security Adviser to provide a witness statement. At that point, and as soon as charges were made, the Deputy National Security Adviser was constrained in his wider engagement. Politicians were informed, but not involved, from that moment onwards because he was an active witness. Noble Lords have now had the opportunity over the weekend to read all the evidence statements available and will be aware, as I believe them to be, that they are a very robust statement of our position on China—the position at the time and, from my perspective, the position that needs to continue going forward.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee. Given that detailed personal information about parliamentarians and others, including human rights activists, has, according to media reports over the weekend, been handed over to a top Chinese official described as very close indeed to President Xi Jinping, what assurances and support have the Government offered to these people regarding their personal safety, and what have they been told about the specific information that allegedly has been handed over?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes the most important of points. One of the things that has been missing from conversations, including our own debate over the past week, is that people who some of us know extremely well have been targeted by a foreign state. Their lives, political careers and families have all been affected by these alleged incidents and by what has followed in the public space. There is now a duty and responsibility on us to make sure that those people are protected. With regard to the human rights activists, I know that direct conversations have happened and will continue to happen. We have been proactive in the guidance issued by MI5 and GCHQ, but we will work with everybody where they feel there is an additional security threat.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the charges were brought under the Official Secrets Act, which dates from the beginning of the 20th century, which is one of the reasons it was changed? Unfortunately, the charges were brought when it was still running and in existence. Certainly in the beginning, that Act seemed to require that someone was an enemy of the United Kingdom, whereas it has evolved that, quite clearly, a nation can be a threat to national security without having to be publicly deemed an enemy. Therefore, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that the repeated requests were being made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, not someone well versed in jury trials from his experience, because he wanted someone to say that China was an enemy. This Government and the previous Government were unwilling to say that in the current climate, where, for all kinds of reasons, we are seeking to have some sort of partnership with China on certain issues. Is that the position of the Government?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Baroness invites me to question the independence of the CPS, and I am unlikely to do so.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

Not the independence of the CPS.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I apologise if I misinterpreted what she said. The legal position is a matter for the CPS, and I am not a lawyer—much to my mother’s disappointment. As to why we updated the Official Secrets Act, the noble Baroness is right that it required the definition of “enemy”. There was a reason why Members of your Lordships’ House spent many hours debating the National Security Act and why we have new legislation.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that China is a malign actor? It does not have our interests at heart and that the sooner we bring the Chinese embassy plans to a swift end, the better.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are unequivocal that China poses threats to UK security, including to our democratic system, and we will continue to hold China to account for this. That is the central message we should be trying to get back to: how the Government can work on a cross-party basis and how, with the CPS and others, we can work to ensure that this kind of thing can never happen again. With regard to the embassy, that is now a quasi-judicial decision, and the decision will be announced before 10 December.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Report (1st Day)

Scottish legislative consent granted, Welsh legislative consent sought. Relevant documents: 28th and 35th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee.

15:35

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“PurposeThe purpose of this Act is to—(a) accelerate the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure,(b) improve the planning and consenting processes,(c) support nature recovery through more effective development and restoration, and(d) increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the purpose of the Act.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, at the beginning of Report on this important Bill, I move my Amendment 1, which is to insert a new purpose clause at the beginning of the Bill to define what it is about. While this Bill aims to deliver significant change, without a clear guiding statement of intent we risk losing sight of the balanced objectives necessary to truly sustainable development. Amendment 1 sets out the core purposes of this Bill:

“to … accelerate the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure … improve the planning and consenting processes … support nature recovery through more effective development and restoration, and … increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development”.

This is not merely a statement of aspiration. It is an important mechanism for accountability and clarity that directs the interpretation and implementation of every subsequent clause.

In Committee, there was support from across the Committee for a similar amendment. The benefit of adding a purpose clause to the Bill is that it will enshrine in law the tension between the need for construction and the requirement for robust environmental and democratic safeguards. The necessity of explicitly stating the duty to support nature recovery, for instance, directly addresses those profound concerns debated in Committee on Part 3 of the Bill.

Equally, many have voiced concerns about the negative impact of these reforms on local democracy and community voices. The CPRE, for instance, has concerns regarding the “dangerous erosion of democracy” inherent in measures that increase ministerial powers, such as the ability to issue holding directions to stop councils refusing planning permission when they do not accede to the law. To prevent them by issuing holding directions is a huge step in denuding local voices and local democratic councils from making the decisions about issues that affect their areas and communities. The inclusion of, for instance, the need to

“increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development”

directly mandates that the Government and implementing authorities address these democratic deficits. It would transform community engagement from a burdensome hoop to jump through—a problem noted by the previous regime in the Planning Act 2008, which led to proposals removing pre-application consultation requirements—into a stated core objective of the entire legislative framework.

The Government’s stated objective for this Bill remains the right one: we must

“speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure”;

however, acceleration without clear direction risks unintended long-term consequences that undermine the very public good that the Government seek to achieve. By accepting Amendment 1, we would embed clarity, provide a crucial framework for legal interpretation and establish legislative accountability for all stakeholders, ensuring that this major infrastructure Bill delivers not just efficiency but genuine sustainable development and broad public confidence. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, so here we are again. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for focusing our minds at the outset on what this Bill is about. It is a welcome amendment because the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has at least attempted to bring some thematic coherence to a ragbag of proposals from a dozen departments, none of which appears to be talking to each other.

I have read the press notices and compared them to the Bill’s text—never has a Bill been more oversold by a Government. Belatedly, it now seems that the Government’s purpose for this Bill is to persuade the OBR that it will speed up the process of development so that its economic forecasts can help the Chancellor balance her books. But most of the proposals of this Bill will prove that Newtonian notion that, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It hands development veto powers to a self-serving quango and it talks about empowerment and streamlining processes, but it emasculates those with the local knowledge and mandate to unblock officialdom. Instead, it proposes a system whereby the Secretary of State is to become a one-person planning committee—good luck keeping to the 12-week determination deadlines on that one. It could have ironed out Hillside or introduced a proportionality test so that at least the little boys could get on, but there is boneheaded resistance there.

One talking head on the “Today” programme this morning bemoaned the lack of planning permissions, the number of which seems to be falling like autumn leaves, but failed to realise that it is the building safety regulator that has put the black spot on building in London, with a response rate of at least 44 weeks. On that, the Bill is silent. So, instead of unblocking the blockers, it creates an EDP process that is so ponderous that it is unlikely to unlock any stalled homes within this Parliament. It is three and a half years since we started the neutrality madness, and it will be at least another three and a half years before we can rip off that scab. So much for speeding up building; all it is doing is putting speed bumps in the way.

Of course, I welcome the important and critical proposals to free up the placement of roadside power poles to improve the electricity grid. But even this Government recognise that the potential of development corporations is something for the next Parliament—just at the moment that those structures and powers to unleash them are being thrown up in the air. For all the bluster and press notices, this Bill will slow development, not speed it up. By any measure, the Government’s purpose will be frustrated by their own legislation.

I come to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which would

“accelerate the delivery of new homes … improve the planning and consenting processes … support nature … and … increase community acceptability”.

This is what we will debate over four long days. But what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has done is laid out the functions of the Bill; they are not its purpose. The reason that this Bill is in such a muddle is that it has not been framed through the purpose lens that dates back to the Labour Government of the post-war period, when the planning system was established in the first place.

Quite simply, the purpose of planning is to arbitrate between private interests and the public good; everything flows from there, and that balance between private and public is what makes the system work. It makes the economy flourish and enhances the environment. This Bill gets that balance all wrong, with too much state interference and not enough private initiative, so I am sorry to say that it is bound to fail. That is a shame, because we need to get those homes built and those rivers cleaned up, that clean power flowing and those new towns going—but little will be achieved, because in this Bill all roads flow to Marsham Street, back home to the dead hand of the state.

15:45

I hope that the OBR is listening. Even at this 11th hour, it is not too late for it to make that call. Perhaps it will have more success than we have. In Committee, every single one of the 600 amendments tabled by noble Lords on all sides of the House was rejected. Perhaps the OBR is needed to clear the logjam—but I am not holding my breath.

This is a massive missed opportunity, because the Government did not spend a moment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, did, to work out for themselves what they wanted to achieve or set a purpose that works with the grain of the nation, rather than always kicking against the bricks that should be laid by the bricklayers—the ground workers, tilers and carpenters—who now sit idly as a result, until the moment when we get another planning Bill. I shall not stand against the noble Baroness, but I hope that she will reflect in winding that perhaps she could and should have gone a little further to frame her amendment in enhancing that delicate balance between the private and public interests, so that the economy can get going and these houses can get built.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward this purpose clause. It serves as a timely reminder of what the Bill is meant to achieve: the delivery of 1.5 million new homes and important infrastructure projects. It is increasingly hard to escape the conclusion that this goal is slipping further and further from reach. The problem is not simply one of ambition but of process and principle. The Government have tabled no fewer than 67 new amendments to the Bill, in almost 30 pages of legislative text, and have done so at a very late stage.

The media were briefed in advance, I note, yet this House received no explanation from Ministers when those amendments were laid until last Tuesday. Under normal circumstances, such sweeping provisions would warrant detailed scrutiny in Committee, not introduction on Report. To describe them as minor or technical, as Ministers have attempted to do, simply does not match the scale and significance of what has been briefed to the press. The Financial Times and others have reported that the Government’s own description of these measures is that they represent substantial reforms to the planning system, so which is it? Are these minor adjustments or a fundamental rewrite of national planning policy? It appears that we are witnessing a major talk-up—an oversell of provisions designed to mask the Government’s ongoing failure to deliver the homes. It is a conjuring trick, saying one thing to the press and quite another in this Chamber.

According to reports, the Prime Minister himself ordered a last-minute rewrite of the Bill, with Ministers working throughout the weekend to agree a package intended to speed up major housing and infrastructure schemes. That was on Friday 10 October. Earlier that same week, the Financial Times revealed that that rewrite forms part of a broader effort to boost growth and patch up public finances ahead of the November Budget—a Budget date already circled in the calendar of many families in this country and of businesses and pensioners, though not with much enthusiasm.

Monthly construction output fell by an estimated 0.3% in August 2025, after showing no growth at all in July. I therefore ask the Minister how the Bill will change that. Should not the Government instead focus on things such as modular construction, utilising 3D modelling and reviewing outdated regulations? No Act of Parliament can succeed if the construction industry itself is faltering under the environment the Government have created.

It is therefore fair to ask whether these amendments reflect deliberate legislative design or the political and fiscal pressures of the moment. By mid-October, the Treasury would already have seen the OBR’s preliminary focus and, I rather suspect, blanched at what it showed. It may be that in the face of deteriorating growth and revenue projections, someone in Whitehall decided that a hasty burst of planning reform might steady the nerves ahead of the Budget, but legislation made in haste rarely makes good law. The planning system must balance the urgent need for homes and infrastructure, with, as we have heard, the rights of local communities and the principles of democratic scrutiny. Bypassing consultation, local accountability and indeed proper deliberation in your Lordships’ House, the Government risk undermining the very trust and co-operation they will need to deliver their own housing ambitions.

The Government have clearly not learned. They crudely cut £5 billion from welfare in haste in the spring in pursuit of a green tick on the OBR’s scorecard. I fear that they are now making the same mistake again, rushing to legislate for the sake of appearance rather than outcomes for this country. That is why this purpose clause is so valuable. It brings us back to the first principles. What is the purpose of the Bill? Is it truly to build homes or to centralise power? We do not even know who is in charge of this legislation. Is it No. 10, No. 11 or MHCLG? The Minister knows that throughout the passage of the Bill, I have sought to offer the Government constructive support, but it becomes ever harder to do so when their approach borders on chaos: saying one thing and doing another; briefing the press with grand claims while sidelining Parliament and scrutiny. I hope the Minister recognises the depth of disappointment felt across this House.

In conclusion, whatever the Government’s intention, the manner in which these amendments have been introduced must not diminish the scrutiny they receive. The House has a duty to examine legislation carefully, especially when it touches on this delicate balance between local democracy and national authority. We will approach these amendments in that spirit—with diligence, patience and respect for due process—and we will not be rushed or intimidated into setting aside our responsibilities in the name of political convenience. The scale and consequence of these proposals demands nothing less than the full and thoughtful consideration of your Lordships’ House.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

Well, well, my Lords, that was a wide-ranging debate for an opening debate on a purpose clause. Nevertheless, I thank those who contributed to the debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I thank her for her extensive engagement between Committee and Report.

This is indeed an ambitious piece of legislation. It is our next step to fix the foundations of the economy, rebuild Britain and make every part of our country better off. The Bill will support delivery of the Government’s hugely ambitious plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that his Government had 14 years to fix the sclerotic planning system that has hobbled growth in this country for over a decade, yet they failed to do so. Our Government are working across departments—yes, and I welcome that—to deliver what the last Government failed to do, which is to build the homes we need and the infrastructure that will support those homes, and to get our economy moving again.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that I am afraid she cannot have it both ways on the amendments that the Government have tabled. She has accused me in this Chamber of not listening. Well, we did listen in Committee and some of the amendments are in response to issues that were raised then. A number of those amendments relate to the devolved Administrations and we rightfully had consultations with those Administrations between Committee and Report. There are some truly pro-growth measures that we feel are rightly pressing and need to be done to improve the delivery of infrastructure, and there are a number of technical, minor amendments.

The Bill is not the only step towards improving the economy and delivering against our plan for change. The noble Baroness will know that we have reissued the National Planning Policy Framework; we have provided funding and training for planners; and we have provided a huge packet of support for SMEs. I met the APPG for SME House Builders the other day and it was pleased with the package that is being delivered. There is more to be done in working with the APPG, and I will be happy to do that. We have also carried out a fundamental review of the building safety regulator. All these things will contribute to the growth we all want to see.

I outlined the core objectives of the Bill at Second Reading, and we also discussed these at length in Committee. I do not suggest that I do so a third time. I recognise that planning law can be a complex part of the statute book to negotiate and interpret, whether you are a developer, a local authority, the courts or even a member of the public. I also appreciate that where a Bill has one sole objective, a purpose clause could clearly articulate this, assist people with understanding the Bill and affect the interpretation of its provisions. This Bill has a number of different objectives, with much of it amending existing law. A purpose clause is not helpful in these circumstances and could create unintended consequences. It is simply not possible or prudent for all these objectives to apply equally to each provision.

I believe we are all united by a shared objective today. On whichever side of the House we sit, we all agree that this House plays an important role in scrutinising legislation to ensure it achieves the intended objectives and to maximise the Bill’s benefit. I firmly believe that the intention behind this amendment is noble. I understand that it is tabled to aid interpretation of the Bill. My issues with purpose clauses, and the reasons I cannot accept this amendment, boil down to two things: their necessity and the potential for unintended consequences. Well-written legislation provides a clear articulation of what changes are proposed by the Government to deliver their objectives. It is for the Government to set out in debate why they are bringing forward a Bill during parliamentary passage. By the time it reaches Royal Assent, the intended changes to the law should speak for themselves.

The Government’s objectives are clear. They are also woven into this legislation through reference to a number of different targeted documents that set out the Government’s strategic intent in specific areas of policy. It is right that these objectives vary according to the topic—some of these objectives will be more important for one issue than another. If this was not the case, the Bill would lose its strategic vision.

The Government strongly support a strategic approach to planning. The word “strategic” is mentioned 196 times in the Bill, as amended in Committee. The Bill inserts a part specifically called “Strategic plan-making”, intended to ensure that planning decisions are undertaken at a more strategic level. Large parts of the Bill are drafted to take a more strategic, targeted approach to achieving the Government’s objectives. For example, this legislation gives regard to other strategic documents, such as the clean power action plan. This is all done with the intention of making clear how this legislation seeks to deliver the Government’s objectives.

Adding a purpose clause to the Bill is not the answer to addressing the complexity of the statute book, or even this legislation. In practice, it would do the opposite; it would add additional room for interpretation to a Bill intending to accelerate delivery and simplify a system. It risks creating additional complexity in interpretation, gumming up the planning system further. It risks reinserting the gold-plating behaviour we are seeking to remove. Developers and local authorities, for example, would feel obligated to show how they have considered priorities that are much more relevant to other parts of the Bill for fear of legal action. A purpose clause would provide a hook for those looking to judicially review or appeal decisions in order to slow them down.

The measures in the Bill should be allowed to speak for themselves. They have been carefully drafted to be interpreted without a purpose clause. The courts should be left to interpret the law without having to navigate their way through a maze of different purposes sitting on top of strategic objectives. A purpose clause would create ambiguity rather than clarity.

It does not appear to me, from the debate I have heard, that the House is confused by why the Government are seeking to bring this Bill forward. I think we all know that we seek to achieve the growth and the homes that this country deserves. We should therefore move forward to further debate how best to achieve them. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everyone involved in this short but important debate and those who have supported, in word at least, the objective of Amendment 1, which is to set out strategic purposes for the Bill. From time to time, parliamentary procedures have been considered and purpose clauses proposed, so I think the debate will continue on whether it is right and helpful to have purpose clauses at the outset of a Bill, as they do set out strategy. I understand what the Minister is saying about the strategy being throughout the Bill, but if you have it right at the outset it provides clarity on what the Bill is supposed to be trying to achieve.

16:00

Perhaps I should have expected the debate to move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, stating everything else that she does not like about this Bill and the bits of things that she does like. In the end, it is important that we keep in mind throughout this Bill that we are trying to balance democracy, sustainability, infrastructure being built and taking a proportionate approach to it. Sometimes that is lost in this Bill, but I accept that this amendment will not make a substantive difference to the Bill and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Clause 1: National policy statements: review

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(1A) When carrying out a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must assess the cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects on—(a) the environment;(b) residents living in areas in which such projects are being developed.”

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to my Amendment 2 and, I hope, to extract a reassurance from the Minister in this short debate. The amendment looks at how it is expected that nationally significant infrastructure projects will operate in the planning process as set out in the Bill. I am not satisfied with the way that the process has been set out, and therefore the thrust of Amendment 2 is to call for a potential review, during the course of which the Secretary of State should assess the

“cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects on … the environment”

and, in particular,

“residents living in areas in which such projects are being developed”.

I first raised this issue on one of the statutory instruments giving effect to the clean energy Act. I was very grateful to the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for explaining to me how cumulative impact was meant to operate. It is clear that the cumulative impact of all the proposals set out in this Bill will be unexpectedly deep and wide for all those living in rural areas, yet their opportunities to be involved in the process will be curtailed if the Bill proceeds in its present form. This relates a little to the previous debate on the purpose of the Bill, because I believe that if the Bill is to function well—as I am sure the whole House would wish, having spent however many hours on it in Committee—it should ensure that it operates effectively.

I am deeply uneasy that the thrust of the proposals on nationally significant infrastructure projects are to benefit those living in the deep south of England and London, to the specific disbenefit of rural residents across the whole of the north of England. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that this amendment relates not so much to the housebuilding aspects of the Bill as to nationally significant infrastructure projects in the energy sector. I am thinking in particular of solar farms and the unimaginable scale currently foreseen.

This is not unique to this country. I follow developments in Denmark very closely. For the first time ever, a solar farm was going to be created in a deeply rural part of the northern mainland of Denmark, Jutland, but a very effective campaign, under rules in Denmark that are very favourable to this type of project, has been so successful that I am delighted to say that the project will not go ahead. I envisage similar concerns in this country once the full impact of the Bill is known.

My main concern, as the Bill is currently drafted, is this question to the Minister: should there not be a requirement that the cumulative impact assessment should be included in the local plan? My understanding is that currently that is not the case. If that is so, why is there no specific provision in either the planning applications or the Bill itself that such an assessment should be included in the local plan? Surely it is incumbent on developers, planners and the Planning Inspectorate to ensure that residents will see a joined-up planning application and that we will no longer see what we have seen historically.

For example, if there is an application for an offshore windfarm over here, people living in East Anglia think, “Well, that’s perfectly harmless, it won’t affect me, so that’s fine, it can go ahead”. Suddenly, the second stage of the planning application is to foist on them a major substation that they had no idea was going to be built on their doorstep. Then the third stage of the application is for overhead pylons, which is causing such great concern, particularly in East Anglia and other parts of eastern England: I am thinking here of east Yorkshire.

There have been two if not three Planning Inspectorate policy guidance publications, one in April last year and one in September last year. The Government are bringing forward their own proposals but, as I said earlier, the legislation is currently defective in this regard. What is most concerning about the September 2024 advice is that it specifically states:

“This advice is non-statutory. However, the Planning Inspectorate’s advice about running the infrastructure planning system and matters of process is drawn from good practice and applicants and others should follow our recommendations”.


So I have a further question for the Minister. If the advice published in September last year is non-statutory, how do we know that the advice and guidance will be followed? Surely it should be in the Bill, it should be statutory and it should be spelled out in plain English for all to see and understand, so that, when the fast-track process comes about, everyone knows. While the guidance was welcomed by civil engineers at the time it was published, lawyers were split as to how significant the changes would be for infrastructure developers. That makes me wonder whether it will have any effect whatever.

Therefore, in moving Amendment 2, I conclude by asking the Minister what assurance she can give the House that there will be joined-up planning applications in future. What checks will there be and what penalties will be imposed if the Planning Inspectorate’s advice is not followed in the fast-track procedure? I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, having attached my name to the amendment so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I will speak very briefly to explain why this is something the Government need to address and respond to.

We know that the Government tend to operate in silos and look at one project at a time, without taking a comprehensive view of the overall impact on the country. New paragraph (a) proposed in the amendment focuses on the environment. In the past 10 years or so, we have seen real progress in understanding that we need to think about the landscape on a landscape scale, rather than just going, “We’ve got a nice little protected bit here and a nice little area there”. This amendment starts to get to the issue of thinking on a landscape scale in terms of the environment.

It is not impossible to imagine. Recently, we have become very aware of the importance of corridors through which different populations of wildlife can be linked up. There could be projects where one on its own does not look like it will have a serious impact, but two together would effectively cut off and separate two populations of animals that might already be lacking in genetic diversity and not be able to afford that separation.

Then there are the humans: the “residents living in areas” where the “projects are being developed”, as the proposed new paragraph says. Over the recess, I was speaking to a couple of people very much affected by the Sevington customs facility and the impact of light pollution. This is the sort of thing that we do not think about nearly enough, but where we may see effects on people’s lives build up and up.

The other obvious area where the impacts may be cumulative is traffic. If there are projects for growing and linking together, the impacts of traffic could be absolutely disastrous on the lives of residents in those communities.

So I think this amendment is modest: it just asks the Government to think on a broader scale than I am afraid Governments—very typically—generally do.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I believe this amendment has merit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has just said, it is important that there is a comprehensive overview of the cumulative impact of a national strategic infrastructure project on a wider area than just the single project that is being considered.

In response to the first group, the Minister was very clear in stating that the Government wanted a more strategic approach to planning. I have issues with a more strategic approach, because it is often the details that matter most. But, if there is to be a more strategic approach, surely that must imply that it is not just on a single project but on the whole range of infrastructure projects—150—that the Government have in mind for the remainder of this Parliament.

For instance, there will be a cumulative effect of road infrastructure, and of the move to net zero, which we on these Benches totally support, and therefore more green infrastructure for energy creation. All of that requires an oversight of the totality of those projects, because it is important to understand the overall impact on local communities, rather than considering the impact project by project, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, explained, in terms of wind farms or solar farms, for instance. I support all of these, but we need to understand their cumulative impact on communities, the landscape and the environment.

So these issues are important and I am glad they have been brought up. I hope the Minister in her response will be able to satisfy those of us who have these concerns that the Government are not going to run roughshod over the needs of communities and the environment while making their rush for growth.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

First, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire.

I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for tabling her amendment and raising the issue of cumulative impacts. Under the Planning Act 2008, which governs nationally significant infrastructure projects such as major energy, transport and water developments, environmental and social assessments are already in place at various stages. However, my noble friend raises a very important issue: we should not look at developments just in isolation, whether or not they are nationally significant infrastructure projects, but consider their cumulative impact in an area.

My noble friend also raised what I refer to as consequential developments. If one were to build an offshore wind farm, by implication one would also have the consequential development of an electrical connection. Should this not also be considered as part of the planning process?

While we do not believe that this is the most appropriate mechanism—the Minister raised the issue of strategic and spatial planning, which is probably a more appropriate way to address this—we believe that it is an important issue. Depending on the Minister’s response, we may return to this at a later stage.

16:15

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her Amendment 2. It would require the Secretary of State to assess the cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIPs—on both the environment and the communities in which such projects are being developed, when reviewing a national policy statement.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue. I wholeheartedly agree that cumulative impacts—particularly those affecting the environment and local communities—must be given due consideration in the NSIP consenting process. I am therefore pleased to reassure her that the existing regime already provides for such considerations. It is already a statutory requirement for the Government to undertake an assessment of sustainability when designating or updating a national policy statement. These appraisals of sustainability—which include the strategic environmental assessment process—play a vital role in shaping national policy statements by evaluating their potential environmental, social and economic effects and any reasonable alternatives that could be used.

The strategic environmental assessment regulations require that the effects assessment includes an assessment of cumulative impacts. Non-spatial national policy statements that do not identify the likely locations of NSIPs are strategic-level documents, which means that it is not possible to identify cumulative impacts in detail. However, cumulative impacts are addressed, so far as possible at this level, to meet the requirements of the strategic environmental assessment regulations at this stage.

It is important that detailed consideration of cumulative effects takes place at the project level. By virtue of factors such as their nature, scale and location, NSIPs are likely to have significant effects on the environment around them. Under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, an environmental impact assessment process must be undertaken, and the Secretary of State is prohibited from granting consent until an EIA has been carried out. The environmental statement must identify and assess the direct and indirect significant effects on specified factors, including environmental factors, population and human health. Cumulative effects are one of the required types of effects that must be identified and assessed.

In short, while the concern raised by the noble Baroness is entirely valid, the existing framework already requires the consideration of cumulative impacts, both in the preparation and review of national policy statements and in the assessment and consideration of individual development consent order applications.

The noble Baroness asked me about the local plan process. The whole process of local plans focuses on cumulative impacts. One of its purposes is to start off with individual policies and work through a process towards cumulative impacts. This will be enhanced by the addition of strategic level plans, giving a direct link from neighbourhood planning to local plans and then to strategic plans, allowing the cumulative impact across the whole picture to be assessed. In light of this, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am most grateful for that response. I most humbly apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for not thanking her for cosigning the amendment in the first place, for which I am very grateful. I am grateful for her supportive comments, and for those from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock; they clearly set out why this is so important. I took comfort from the support from my noble friend Lord Jamieson on my own Front Bench, and from the Minister. I hope we can explore this further in the context of spatial planning.

I was a little bit concerned when the Minister used the expression, “This is addressed so far as possible”. She helps to make the case for me, but for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Clause 2: National policy statements: parliamentary requirements

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

3: Clause 2, page 3, line 33, leave out subsection (3)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent the removal of a requirement for the Government to reply to any resolutions by Parliament or recommendations from a select committee.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I raised this issue in Committee. This is an identical amendment to that tabled in the House of Commons by multiple chairs of Select Committees, who were concerned about the reduced opportunity for the Government to at least reply to the parliamentary scrutiny rightly undertaken in terms of national policy statements.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said in Committee, and I have not re-tabled a whole plethora of amendments, as I would not want to be thought to be trying to hold up national policy statements unduly, because they are a good thing. I have re-tabled this amendment because when Parliament puts forward recommendations or has a resolution, the least we can expect is that the Government will respond, rather than removing that as a requirement of the law, as this legislation does. In a nutshell, that is why I think this matters.

This matters because we are starting to see an increasing number of national policy statements. There is a lot of merit in trying to give a clear direction to the country—residents, developers or whoever—to make sure that they can continue to consider future development in a measured and structured way.

Reading the responses of the Minister here and the Minister in the Commons, I am conscious that a lot of focus seems to be on the fact that a Select Committee might take a bit of time, or that we would table a resolution anyway. Actually, although this House has the opportunity to table a resolution and vote on it, it has become quite hard to table things in the Commons unless you have control of the parliamentary timetable. I notice that while this House had a debate on nuclear power—and energy Statements, for example—it did not happen at the other end. Maybe everybody was happy, but it is more likely that certain parties did not have the opportunity to look at the timetable.

One of your Lordships’ Select Committees made some recommendations in its report regarding the energy grid. I am not aware that the Government have yet replied—although they may have—recognising that a debate is to be tabled on that report as a whole. Overall, this issue does matter: when this House is minded to at least give some comments or thoughts on national policy statements, we should expect a response from the Government. That is why I am minded to test the House’s opinion on the amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend. When I was chair of the Delegated Powers Committee under the last Government, we published a report regretting the trend that over the last 30 years, more and more regulations have bypassed Parliament—not just by using the negative procedure rather than the affirmative, but through departments issuing guidance after guidance, none of which came before Parliament.

The point I want to make is a simple one of principle. We see in legislation Parliament being bypassed, in that case and in far too many cases. Parliament should not be bypassed, and necessarily so. My noble friend’s amendment simply makes the point that the Government should consider Motions by Parliament and what Select Committees say. They do not have to accept it, but at least we should have a chance to give that input. Otherwise, as I also see in cases, we will depend on various stakeholders to comment.

On the number of consultations issued by departments, there is a huge list of stakeholders, some of them great and grand organisations, royal colleges and organisations such as the RSPB with goodness knows how many million members. However, often the local MP is not listed, parliamentarians are not considered—and possibly not even the Select Committee which might have relevant views on it.

I believe my noble friend is on the right lines here, and I hope the Government will accept her amendment or at least give us assurances that Parliament will not be bypassed in the way she has suggested.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we now have before us Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—which I thought was coming in the previous group—and there is much to agree with in what she said. The national policy statements set the tone and the content for the NPPF and then the further guidance on planning legislation, so they are the fundamental base of all further changes to planning law. They are very important.

For the Government to try to take out the opportunity for democratic oversight and scrutiny is not just regrettable but a centralising process which we should not support. Planning affects everybody’s life one way or another, be it major infrastructure projects or small housing developments. Planning affects people, and if it affects people, people’s voices should be heard, and so people’s democratically elected representatives ought to be heard. It is our role in this House to scrutinise legislation. That is what is happening now, and we are saying, “This will not do”. We cannot have more centralising of planning processes and removing democratic oversight in so doing. If the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, wishes to test the opinion of the House on this issue, as she has intimated, we on these Benches will support her.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

In Committee, I described this amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, as vital because it preserves parliamentary accountability, ensuring that government must respond to resolutions and recommendations from Select Committees. The safeguard strengthens transparency, clarifies policy direction at an early stage, and reduces uncertainty for those affected by these statements. Robust scrutiny helps to catch potential issues before they escalate later. I appreciate that the Minister has sought to reassure us with a new, streamlined process for updating national policy statements, and of course efficiency is welcome, but scrutiny must not become the casualty of speed. This amendment strikes the right balance. It enables timely updates while ensuring that Parliament remains meaningfully engaged.

Clause 2 concerns the parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements. While I accept that certain elements of the process could be accelerated, key aspects of the clause diminish accountability to Parliament in favour of the Executive. I struggle to understand why, given the enormous impact of national policy statements, the Government are proposing to remove such an important element of parliamentary oversight. We continue to support parliamentary scrutiny and as such, we will support this amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment.

Clause 2 introduces a new, additional streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements. National policy statements are the cornerstone of the planning system for our most significant national infrastructure. In the past, national policy statements have been too slow to reflect government priorities, planning policy or legislative changes, with some NPSs not updated for over a decade. As the National Infrastructure Commission has recognised, a lack of updates has created uncertainty for applicants, statutory consultees and the examining authority. It has also increased the risk of legal challenge and driven the gold-plating in the system that we are all trying to avoid.

16:30

A central tenet of this Government’s reforms of the NSIP regime has been to ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date. Clause 1 of the Bill ensures that no national policy statement can be more than five years old without being fully reviewed and updated. To support this, it is vital that the process for updating national policy statements is proportionate to the change proposed. Currently the procedure is the same regardless of whether the Government are making a material change to a national policy statement or designating a new national policy statement. This cannot continue.

Clause 2 therefore introduces an additional streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements. Where a change to an NPS reflects relevant published government policy, the amendment, revocation or repeal of legislation, a change to a published document referred to in the NPS not otherwise amended as a result of changes under the previous categories, or a relevant court decision, the Government will be required to publicly consult and carry out an appraisal of sustainability on the changes sought. Where required, a habitats regulation assessment will also be undertaken. The updated NPS will then be laid before both Houses for 21 days, during which time the House of Commons can resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with.

These amendments would remove this new procedure, adding months to the timeframe for updating NPSs and undermine the Government’s commitment to drive quicker decision-making in the NSIP regime. Updated NPS policy assists applicants and the examining authority, and the Secretary of State can have regard to it as an “important and relevant” consideration in the decision-making process for NSIP applications, even if the application is examined against the previous version as a result of transitional provisions in the updated NPS.

A number of noble Lords have mentioned the role that Select Committees can play in scrutinising and improving policy. Recognising this role, the Government have committed to ensuring that they notify the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period. The Minister will already have laid a statement before Parliament announcing the review of an NPS, regardless of the anticipated procedure to be used. The Government have also committed to making Ministers available to meet committees so far as practicable. Should a Select Committee publish a report within the timeframes of the public consultation period, the Government will take those views into account, before the updated statement is laid before Parliament, for 21 days, where it can be scrutinised by either House.

The new procedure cannot and will not be used to bypass due parliamentary scrutiny. Rather, we are adjusting the parliamentary scrutiny requirements when making certain types of updates to an NPS so that the process is more proportionate and enables NPSs to be updated more quickly. At the end of the reflective amendment process, the NPS as amended will still need to be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time the House of Commons can resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have heard the Minister but do not think that the answer has changed since Committee, which I regret. I am concerned that removing any requirement on the Government to reply to either House is not satisfactory when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

16:34

Division 1

Ayes: 235

Noes: 164

16:44

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

4: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Projects relating to water(1) Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008 (nationally significant infrastructure projects) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).(2) In section 27 (dams and reservoirs)—(a) in subsection (1)(b), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(b) in subsection (2)(b), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(c) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) In this section, references to “a person appointed by” a water undertaker include a person whose bid is accepted by a water undertaker under regulation 6(6) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”(3) In section 28 (transfer of water resources)—(a) in subsection (1)(a), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(3) In this section, the reference to “a person appointed by” a water undertaker includes a person whose bid is accepted by a water undertaker under regulation 6(6) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”(4) In section 28A (desalination plants)—(a) in subsection (1)(b), after “by” insert “, or by a person appointed by,”;(b) in subsection (2)(b), after “by” insert , or by a person appointed by,”;(c) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) In this section, references to “a person appointed by” a water undertaker include a person whose bid is accepted by a water undertaker under regulation 6(6) of the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1582).”(5) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a project where, before the day on which this section comes into force—(a) consent for the project was required, or otherwise provided for, by or under an enactment other than section 31 of the Planning Act 2008 (requirement for development consent in relation to development that is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project), and(b) any steps provided for by or under the enactment in question, to obtain that consent, had been taken.(6) In subsection (5), “consent” means any consent, approval, permission, authorisation, confirmation, direction or decision (however described, given or made).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow projects carried out by third parties appointed by water undertakers to fall within the definition of a nationally significant infrastructure project by virtue of section 14(1)(m), (n) or (na) of the Planning Act 2008, provided the other conditions in sections 27, 28 and 28A of the 2008 Act are met.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving government Amendment 4, I will speak also to Amendment 256. This proposal responds to concerns raised by Peers about the need to address water scarcity, particularly through easing restrictions on reservoir construction to encourage more reservoir development. Growing demand and climate variability have placed increasing strain on existing water resources, reinforcing the need for additional storage capacity. Without new reservoir capacity, we risk being unable to meet that future demand. Reservoirs are fundamental to maintaining secure public water supplies and supporting economic growth, yet delivery, particularly of major schemes, has been too slow under current processes.

This amendment removes a procedural hurdle, thereby streamlining the consenting process and enabling faster delivery of major water projects, after more than 30 years without new major reservoirs in England. Crucially, it enables third-party providers appointed by water undertakers to apply to deliver major water infrastructure, including reservoirs, transfer schemes and desalination plants, through the streamlined development consent order route. That will accelerate delivery of essential water infrastructure, help secure future water supplies, and unlock housing and economic growth, including delivery of new towns and our ambition for building 1.5 million homes this Parliament. Importantly, this change does not reduce environmental or public scrutiny: projects will continue to be subject to the full planning process, including statutory consultation and environmental assessment.

This amendment is an important step in responding to concerns about water scarcity and supporting the pro-growth measures contained in the Bill. I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter to ensure that it is quicker and easier to consent and build the reservoirs we need so desperately, now and into the future.

The Government are content to accept Amendments 5 to 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I am mindful that water infrastructure, particularly reservoirs, has had a difficult history in parts of the United Kingdom. Communities still remember the loss and upheaval caused by past projects, such as at Capel Celyn. It is therefore right that, as we modernise and expand the routes by which these essential schemes can be delivered, we also strengthen the mechanisms that guarantee their safety, integrity and public accountability.

These amendments make a helpful clarification to government Amendment 4. They will ensure that where a third-party provider is appointed to deliver a large-scale water infrastructure project under the specified infrastructure projects regulations, that provider must be formally designated as an infrastructure provider under Regulation 8. This means that they will be fully subject to the statutory safeguards provided by those regulations. Those safeguards are vital. They ensure that any company delivering major water infrastructure is formally designated and operates within a framework of strict oversight and accountability. Ofwat’s supervision, the requirement for licensing and consultation, and the ability to challenge decisions through the Competition and Markets Authority, together provide a robust system to protect the public and the environment.

I also clarify that these amendments do not alter the position for projects delivered through direct procurement for customers, known as DPC, the other competitive procurement route for third-party delivery of NSIPs. Under that model, water companies competitively appoint third-party providers to finance and deliver major infrastructure. This mechanism also has a strong regulatory framework, with Ofwat oversight, competitive tendering, and measures to protect customers from cost and delivery risks. DPC is a useful option for less complex NSIP-scale projects, providing an alternative route for competitive delivery. Under both schemes, projects benefit from strong regulatory protections for customers and the public, with clear oversight, risk management and accountability built in.

By accepting these amendments, we will bring greater clarity and reassurance that the statutory protections apply fully to third-party providers under the SIPR framework. This means that these important projects can be taken forward with confidence—safely, transparently and in the public interest. Faster, flexible delivery of major water infrastructure is essential to secure resilient water supplies, support housebuilding and unlock local economic growth, while always ensuring that safety, environmental and consumer standards are maintained. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for tabling these amendments and for his engagement on this important matter.

I welcome Amendment 7A, which seeks to require that applicants for dam and reservoir schemes seek separate consent for the heritage impacts of their project outside the NSIP regime. While I recognise that there may be concerns about the future impact of these desperately needed water projects on heritage assets, the Government believe that the thorough process set out in the Planning Act already provides adequate protections. Applicants for all projects, including dam and reservoir schemes, are already required to include information relating to heritage impacts from their projects, including an assessment of any effects on such sites, when they submit their application.

Further, where the development is subject to environmental impact assessment regulations because of the likely significant effects on the environment by virtue of its nature, size or location, the applicant is required to undertake an assessment of any likely heritage impacts, including cumulative impacts, as part of the environmental statement. This is also set out in the water resources national policy statement updated in July this year. Moreover, concerns may be raised by communities or statutory bodies through relevant representations where the examining authority considers that more information is required before reporting to the Secretary of State, and it can require it from applicants and schedule hearings.

In determining applications, the Secretary of State will identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposed development, including affecting the setting of a heritage asset, taking account of the evidence. The Secretary of State must also comply with the specific decision-making obligations relating to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments placed on the Secretary of State set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010. When making the decision, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historical interest that it possesses.

Requiring applicants to undergo a separate process to secure these consents would delay delivery of these critical infrastructure projects, adding additional process, complexity and costs. This goes against the intention of the Planning Act 2008 regime, which was introduced to provide a one-stop shop approach for obtaining consents for large-scale, nationally significant infrastructure. Moreover, it would also hinder this Government’s ambitions to speed up and streamline the planning process for major infrastructure projects.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for tabling Amendment 7B. It seeks to provide that in cases where a dam or reservoir is already defined as a nationally significant infrastructure project and will result in the demolition of 20 or more homes, those whose homes would be impacted are notified and may make representations to the Secretary of State before the scheme enters the NSIP planning route, with a view to perhaps preventing the project being determined through the NSIP regime. I acknowledge the significant impact that NSIP projects have, and that dam and reservoir schemes, in particular, can have when numerous homes near each other are demolished. It is clear, and we all agree, that a thorough process must be followed that allows all these issues to be understood before a decision is reached. That is why the Planning Act is so important. We believe that there are already sufficient legal requirements that provide adequate opportunity for impacted persons to be heard.

I am afraid that the amendment seeks to insert discretion for the Secretary of State in a part of the process that does not exist. Dams and reservoirs that meet the threshold set out in Section 27 of the Planning Act 2008 are not directed by the relevant Secretary of State. They are automatically treated as NSIPs once they meet the threshold in Section 27. There is no other route to consent than via the Planning Act 2008. I understand that the amendment is driven by a desire to ensure that the voice of impacted individuals is heard throughout the process and before the Secretary of State makes a final decision whether to grant or refuse development consent. I say emphatically that this is already provided for by the Planning Act 2008.

All individuals who are impacted or whose land is proposed to be compulsorily acquired are both recognised as affected persons and notified of an accepted application under Section 56. This notification means these persons are treated as interested parties under Section 102 without having to complete a registration form. This allows them to play an active role in the examination by submitting written and oral representations to the examining authority, so that their views and specific circumstances can be heard by that examining authority.

These affected persons are able to submit notice to the Secretary of State requesting a compulsory acquisition hearing, which the examining authority must hold if a request is made by at least one affected person within the deadline set by the examining authority. Individuals who are not directly impacted or whose land is not being compulsorily acquired can also submit a relevant representation and complete a registration form to be considered as an interested party. This provides an opportunity for those living nearby to engage and share their concerns with the examination.

Finally, local authorities are invited by the Secretary of State to submit a local impact report, which gives details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authority’s area. This may include the impact on individuals within that area. I do not agree that, in cases where there are significant local impacts, it should automatically be the case that local decision-making should be followed. This would remove the ability of the Government to make decisions in the national interest and ensure sufficient infrastructure is built which meets a strategic rather than a local need.

There is no easy answer to the impact of projects on individuals and communities. However, the Planning Act 2008 provides a means through which to balance the interests the nation has in building the infrastructure it needs, particularly water infrastructure, with the interests of those acutely impacted. Applicants will be expected to argue why alternative sites are not appropriate and how impacts, where possible, may be mitigated. For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will not press her amendment.

On Amendment 56, the Government already take steps to facilitate the building of both small and large reservoirs, and £104 billion of private sector investment has been secured through Ofwat’s price review. We continue to support farmers to develop local resource options to secure water supplies. Reservoir safety legislation does not prevent new reservoirs being constructed but ensures that structures are well built and maintained. Reservoirs which store water above ground level pose a potential risk to life, property, business and the environment, and would cause economic disruption to local communities if the dam structure were to fail. These risks are managed through reservoir safety regulation. Reservoirs which store water below ground do not pose the same risks and so are out of scope of reservoir safety regulation. The Government’s advice to farmers and landowners is to consider options for non-raised water storage first.

The Government are intending to consult soon on proposals to improve reservoir safety regulation, including making the requirements more tailored to the level of hazard posed and bringing some smaller raised reservoirs into scope. These proposals do not alter the need for more reservoirs, nor do they prevent new ones being built, but are to ensure that reservoir dams are structurally sound and that flood risks for communities downstream are effectively managed. There is already a permitted development right which enables the creation of on-farm reservoirs where they are reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes. Under this agricultural permitted development right, farmers can create ponds and on-farm reservoirs, subject to certain limitations and conditions, to manage and control impacts of development. We have not got the exact numbers but I believe there are around 3,000, so people are already taking advantage of that.

Changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation, as amendments to the general permitted development order, often following consultation. Carrying out a public consultation ensures the views of the public, including those who will benefit from the rights created, are taken into account. It also allows for consideration of any potential impacts of the proposal and how these might be mitigated.

The Government will continue to keep permitted development rights under review. It is important that new reservoirs are built in locations where they do not pose a flood risk for local communities, and that existing reservoir dams are structurally safe. I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment and ask that she does not press it, based on the actions already being taken forward to review safety regulations impacting small, low-hazard reservoirs, and the subsequent secondary route to make any necessary changes to encourage their creation. I beg to move.

Amendment 5 (to Amendment 4)

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

5: In inserted subsection (4) of subsection (2), at end insert “and is designated as an Infrastructure Provider under Regulation 8 of those regulations”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and other in the name of Lord Lansley to the proposed change to the NSIP legislation would secure that any person responsible for the construction of a water project would be subject to the statutory safeguards provided for under the Specified Infrastructure Projects Regulations.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 5, I will speak to Amendments 6 and 7 in my name. They are all designed to achieve the same purpose, which I will go on to explain, but happily I do not have to explain at any length because of the admirable way in which the Minister introduced Amendment 4 and explained her approach to Amendments 5, 6 and 7. I am most grateful for the time she gave for the discussion last week on the amendments and my proposals for amending that. Noble Lords will recall that there was no debate on this in Committee; these are amendments tabled just at the beginning of last week. I hope we all agree that the purpose is a beneficial one: to facilitate the pace at which we want to proceed with water dams and reservoirs as nationally significant infrastructure projects.

17:00

My point, when I looked at the amendments as tabled at the beginning of last week, was that it seemed to me that what the Government might have been looking for was that, when an undertaking has been appointed by a water undertaker to carry out an infrastructure project, that is sufficient in itself for the project to be designated as a nationally significant infrastructure project. But of course the 2013 regulations about specified infrastructure projects go on to say, after Regulation 6—which includes the point at which a person is appointed by a water undertaker—that there is a process, governed by Ofwat, for designating that person as an infrastructure provider under Regulation 8. That then gives rise to requirements for the provision of information and related matters under Regulation 9, and it links into Section 36D of the Water Industry Act, which provides specific powers and duties for Ofwat in relation to an infrastructure provider.

Looking at that, I was slightly worried that there would be a gap between a person appointed by a water undertaker to carry out a project and any subsequent point at which that person is designated as an infrastructure provider under the regulations. Indeed, perhaps they would not go on to be designated as an infrastructure provider, and there would then be serious legal risk associated with their position, since they would not be subject to the powers and duties related to Ofwat. So I am very happy that the Minister has agreed.

The worry is that this interposes a further delay. In practice, that need not be the case. For example, the 2013 regulations were brought in essentially to facilitate the Thames Tideway tunnel, and what happened in practice was that the financial close with Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd and the designation as an infrastructure provider happened on the same day. So there is absolutely no reason why these processes should not be able to be compressed. For example, on the Section 35 direction sought by Anglian Water to designate the Fens reservoir as a nationally significant infrastructure project, the letter to the department went in on 22 April and the letter from the department agreeing it was so designated was on 14 May. But the point that I noted when I looked at all these things was that the letter from the department says that, subsequently, whoever is the infrastructure provider must be designated as such under the 2013 regulations. So it all neatly ties together.

I hope there is no risk of delay, but certainly my Amendments 5, 6 and 7 would ensure that we avoid the possibility of a legal risk associated with a gap where somebody is appointed to do an infrastructure project of importance but actually is not subject to Ofwat’s duties and does not themselves have any information or other responsibilities.

I beg to move Amendment 5 and hope that, when the time comes, I can move Amendments 6 and 7. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting them.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I intervene very briefly. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, rightly pointed out, many of these matters were not dealt with in Committee, but they are arising now. The Minister referred to Capel Celyn and the controversy that arose in Wales with regard to what was known as the Tryweryn Valley scheme on that occasion. I would be grateful for some clarification as to whether the amendments being moved have any bearing whatever on the powers of Senedd Cymru to come to a determination on schemes in Wales—schemes that may be put forward by providers from outside Wales but which are located in Wales. Does Senedd Cymru have the powers, which it has always believed that it should have, to decide on schemes that may be regarded in Wales as being of national significance?

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this group of amendments and for the very helpful meeting that we had last week, particularly when we covered the role of smaller reservoirs. I said to the Minister then that, while I shall not stand against the creation of large reservoirs, I have some concerns about them. They are not always particularly efficient. Given the weather that we have had in successive summers with their intense heat, they can be inefficient as the water can evaporate quickly, as we have seen in north Yorkshire, where I think a hosepipe ban is still in place.

I do not know how many noble Lords remember the wonderful David Bellamy, who made his name when he was a professor of botany at the University of Durham—I see a number of alumni in the Chamber this afternoon. He was particularly concerned when a reservoir was due to be constructed at Cow Green in upper Teesdale, where I grew up, in the Pennines. The significance was that blue gentians grow in only some parts of the country, outside the immediate alpine regions of Austria and Switzerland, and upper Teesdale was one of them. We were all particularly grateful to Professor Bellamy at the time, as he spoke passionately against the need for creating such a reservoir.

That massive reservoir has meant that what was the highest waterfall in England at the time now has only one waterfall, in most cases, rather than the two, which were spectacular to see when the River Tees was in spate. It was not just about the tragic loss of a number of farms, which were flooded with the construction of the reservoir; it was the fact that the water was never actually needed. It would be helpful to understand how, in the process of these planning applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the need is felt to be so great at one stage—but then, when they are constructed, the water is never actually used.

There are alternatives to large reservoirs. We were asked to create a large reservoir for the “Slowing the Flow” project in Pickering, to prevent that town flooding to the extent that it had. I think that it was three times in 10 years but it may have been longer, perhaps over 20 years. Since it was deemed to be unaffordable to build the large reservoir required, a smaller reservoir was created along with other schemes, such as planting trees and creating smaller dams to soak up the water, which have proved extremely effective to date. Since the creation of the smaller reservoir, Pickering has no longer flooded.

Yorkshire Water also introduced a multimillion-pound project to transfer water from the water-plenty parts to the water-stressed part of the region. We now have the technology to do that across water regions. I hope that the Government may also look at that, rather than just considering the easy option of building a mega-reservoir.

My amendment looks at the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs and the case for smaller reservoirs. It was pleasing to hear what the Minister said as she set that out. I am sure she is also aware of the recommendations set out in 2019, some six years ago, following the Toddbrook and Whaley Bridge dam safety incident. My concern is that there is no sense of urgency and we have not seen anything happen since 2019 as regards a revision of the Reservoirs Act 1975. Currently, I understand that they are looking at not just amending that Act, which was the particular genesis of Amendment 56—the previous Government and I think this Government are probably pursuing that thinking. It would be good to have it on the record this afternoon that the Government’s intention is to replace the Reservoirs Act and to bring into effect the Balmforth recommendations, which were made as far back as 2019.

There are many pressing reasons for smaller reservoirs, both on farms and on sports clubs such as golf clubs. In the particular case of small farms, an excellent article recently in Farmers Weekly showed that because of the increasing water stress and water shortage owing to climate change, the many competing claims that farmers are finding, and the fact that water abstraction is to be curtailed in the future, it is particularly concerning that:

“Food is not seen as a public good when it comes to securing water supplies”.


If farmers face losing abstraction licences in April next year, this is a source of great concern to them. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on applications for smaller reservoirs on farms or on golf clubs, for the reasons that I have set out. For these reasons, I would still like to consider either testing the opinion of the House on Amendment 56 or bringing it back at Third Reading.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 7A in this group, which, like my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 5, is an amendment to government Amendment 4. I welcome many of the changes to the Bill that the Government have brought forward, particularly to Clause 41, which we will touch on later on Report. I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for their time over the Conference Recess to discuss the changes that they have made in that area of the Bill. But the 67 amendments which the Government tabled last week cover some significant new issues and it is regrettable, in many ways, that we have not had the same opportunity to discuss those, either in Committee or with the Minister and others in the intervening period.

Like my noble friend Lord Lansley, I agree in general terms with the Government’s intention to ensure that more reservoirs can be constructed, and more quickly. But just as with the Government’s original proposals in Clause 41 for infrastructure projects carried out under the Transport and Works Act, which they have, I am glad to say, brought forward amendments to alter now, the plans in the proposed new clause under discussion about projects relating to water give rise to concerns about the proper safeguards for our shared heritage. Noble Lords and, I am happy to say, the Government benefited from being able to discuss their proposals with regard to Clause 41 with a number of heritage groups. I am glad that those discussions fed into the changes that they have tabled later in the Bill, but of course the construction of a reservoir is a major undertaking as well. It is a significant and lasting intervention in our heritage—both our natural and built heritage.

I am almost the same age as Kielder Water, which was opened by Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in Northumberland the year before I was born. That holds 44 billion gallons and is the largest artificial reservoir in the United Kingdom by capacity. Like the manmade forest that surrounds it, it is a source of quiet marvel and pride across Northumberland, a county that is rich in an impressive array of civil engineering feats. Of course, there was a price to pay regarding displaced communities and lost heritage for that impressive reservoir. Some 95 residents lost their homes, a number of farms and a school were lost, and indeed the route of the former Border Counties Railway was partially submerged by the new Kielder Water reservoir.

17:15

Similarly, when Rutland Water was constructed in the 1970s—the largest reservoir by surface area, though not by capacity—a number of historic villages were lost below the waters there. The Jacobean old hall in Middle Hambleton, built in 1611 and home to the Barker baronets, now finds itself on the water’s edge, and several other dwellings find themselves underneath it. The historic church of St Matthew’s, Normanton, which was rebuilt in the classical style by Thomas Cundy in the late 1820s, at the behest of the Earls of Ancaster, on the foundations of a building dating back to the 14th century, was saved only because of a public outcry when the plans for Rutland Water were first mooted. When the plans were first introduced, a trust had to be hastily assembled to campaign to save this impressive place of worship. Thankfully, the trust was successful, and the church now stands on a sort of escarpment in Rutland Water, with an artificial causeway leading to it. But it was only because those civic-minded people had the opportunity—and, crucially, the time—to organise, campaign and propose an alternative scheme that the church was saved in the way that it is today.

In another time, we used to do these things by Act of Parliament; Thirlmere in the Lake District was brought in by the Manchester Corporation Water Works Act 1879, for instance. I do not suggest that we require full Acts of Parliament every time we build a reservoir—like the Minister, I am keen to see that these things can be built more speedily than they have been in the past—but I do worry about the watering down, if your Lordships will forgive the pun, of protection for our heritage through the Government’s sweeping new proposals introduced last week, which would allow third parties to be contracted on behalf of water companies. We may of course see new applicants that are not as familiar with making significant planning applications or dealing with affected communities as our water companies currently are. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, asked about the implications for Senedd Cymru and having a company that perhaps was not based in Wales but that could take a decision with significant effect for the community in Wales. I wonder whether some of these third-party companies might indeed be companies not based in the United Kingdom, which may make them less accessible, and it may be less easy for people to speak to them about their concerns. Maybe the Minister will be able to say a bit more about this.

I am grateful to the Minister for what she said in outlining Amendment 4 in this regard. She suggested that requiring consideration of heritage assets would slow the process down. I wonder whether she or her department has an assessment on how long they think we would be adding here. As I say, the significant church of St Matthew’s, Normanton, was saved only because there was a bit of time for the community to rally round and come up with a better scheme; it is now the location for many civil weddings, it is much loved by the community and it adds to the heritage and story of that part of the country, while we have made sure that we have the water we need for the future. I would be grateful if she can say more about that and understand the concerns that I and a number of heritage groups have about the proposals, which we only saw for the first time last week.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I speak on these amendments not with any great authority on them but because I had some experience of a heritage village being destroyed to create a reservoir when I was Member of Parliament for Penrith and The Border, a huge constituency in the north of Cumbria including the beautiful lake of Ullswater.

South of Ullswater, there is a reservoir called Haweswater, which was created in the Haweswater valley. In 1929, the Manchester Corporation took possession of the village. It moved out all the villagers, exhumed 97 graves and moved the bodies to Shap, and demolished the church and the pub. Then it flooded the village and created Haweswater Reservoir. That village in the Lake District National Park was called Mardale. We have no idea how beautiful it was—we have no photographs—but if it was in keeping with all the other villages nearby, we know that it was a superb heritage Lake District village bang-smack in the middle of a national park. We would hope that that would not happen these days, but that is why we need Amendment 7A to guarantee it. Wainwright said:

“Gone for ever are the quiet wooded bays and shingly shores that nature had fashioned so sweetly in the Haweswater of old; how aggressively ugly is the tidemark of the new Haweswater”.


I think the 1980s was the first time that, in a severe drought, the level of Haweswater dropped down to the bottom and we could see what remained. One reason that was interesting is that it destroyed the wonderful myth we had for about 100 years that on quiet, cold, still nights you could still hear the church bells clanging beneath the water level. When the village was revealed, the church tower was only about 10 feet high; it had all been removed and there was nothing left. How many houses were destroyed? We know how many bodies were exhumed, but we have no record of the number of people moved out. However, the ruins would suggest a village of more than 30 houses, including a wonderful church and pub.

Wainwright mentioned the ugly tide-mark. My constituency had Ullswater, the most beautiful lake of all in the Lake District, if I may say so. On occasions of drought in this country, the level of Ullswater is lowered by two enormous pipes, one 12 feet in diameter and the other eight feet, which pump all the water down to Manchester. I do not want Mancunians to die of thirst—the answer is to build more reservoirs there—but the damage it does to the landscape in the Lake District is extraordinary. We have these wonderful images of the Lake District and its lakes, but when you see the level in Ullswater 10 feet below normal, there is an appalling scar around the whole lake. The important point about the Lake District National Park is the landscape and the visual value of what you see. Lowering severely the level of Ullswater, with Haweswater pumping into it, causes enormous environmental damage, which is about not just oils, gases and pollutants but destroying the visual quality of some of our lakes.

On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Parkinson mentioned Kielder, which is superb. It is great for tourism and fish and really improves the quality of the landscape. I disagree with him on the tree planting. They planted millions of Sitka spruce around the lake but put them right down at the water’s edge, so you got acidic run-off. Now, as the forestry departments are cutting down those trees, they are replanting those nearer the lake with proper mixed English landscape trees which do not cause that damage. There is only one thing wrong with Kielder: it is in completely the wrong place in terms of where water is required.

Over my time as a Member for a constituency in Cumbria, every few years various schemes came up to build some huge pipes and pump Kielder down south. The cost was astronomical, not to mention the huge engines that would be required to do it. Then there were other wonderfully clever schemes to pump some of it into the Tyne, let it flow down, intercept it before it got to Newcastle, then pump it into the River Wear and intercept it before it got to Bishop Auckland—and goodness knows where it would go then. There were also ideas to pump it into canals and force them to be rivers. All these schemes have been reviewed and considered; they do not work and would not work even at enormous cost. The answer must be to build appropriate reservoirs where they are needed.

Reservoirs are needed in the south, and the problem with finding them “down south”—as we up in Cumbria would say— is that they will be in areas with wonderful villages and lots of people, and they are very difficult to construct because of the damage that may be done to those local environments. They may be in places with lovely villages and AONBs, or on the edge of a national nature reserve, or even taking in one of those nature reserves. I accept that destroying a village may be necessary, but in that case, the villagers must be consulted, and they must have a right to be properly compensated. It cannot be taken for granted that a national infrastructure project can overrule those requirements.

Turning to compensation, I will be very brief because it is not in the amendment. We can come up with compensation for people living in these places, but how do you compensate for the destruction of a wonderful 1,000-year-old Norman church or the local post office—buildings which, in some ways, are not owned by people, and involve no right to compensation?

In future, to create a reservoir it may be necessary to destroy villages, even heritage villages. In that case, we should have a protection, as my noble friends have suggested in Amendments 7A and 7B. I am happy to support them.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said that it was regrettable that these amendments were brought at this late stage. I have a feeling that it is unacceptable that the Government should, in the final throes of the Bill, introduce very significant amendments that will have a profound effect on our communities and the environment surrounding them. This is why we are having a long debate on this group of amendments.

The Government wish to find a different route for agreeing the construction of new reservoirs. While that is a laudable aim, the methods proposed in the Bill represent a huge backward step for environmental protection and democratic accountability, without considering perhaps more straightforward solutions such as water conservation. The Government’s proposals seek to shift the decision-making process from the local to the national. As a result, and in light of their amendments on removing pre-application—which we will come to in the next group—local residents, as the Minister has said, would have to register in order to speak against the decision or to make their comments heard. It is quite an ask for people to appear before the equivalent of a planning inspectorate examination, which can be quite daunting for residents to take part in. That is regrettable.

The other issue I have a problem with is that the Government intend that where a region has a water shortage and, as a consequence, housing is turned down because there is not enough water to feed the new estates, they will issue “holding directions” to stop councils refusing planning permissions and will consider call-ins to try to overturn those. How those people will get water is yet to be understood. We on these Benches believe that the Government, alongside pursuing some new reservoirs, ought to put greater emphasis on the solution to water scarcity, which should be about addressing demand inefficiency.

This includes getting water companies to reduce the scale of the leaks from their water pipes—which is approximately 20% of the totality—to 10%. That is achievable and, on its own, would solve the immediate issue of water scarcity. The use of grey water and black water—I hate those terms—within new developments also needs to be addressed by not requiring all water that is used in this country to be of drinking water quality, which is what happens now. When you get your car washed, the car wash uses water of drinking quality to clean your car, because all water produced is to that standard. There ought to be changes in that direction as well.

17:30

We also need to think about water transfers between water companies, which already occur from the great Kielder dam—44 billion gallons of it. It was built for steelworks that then closed, which is why it is so big. There is a huge volume of water there, which, if it was transferred down by pushing from region to region, could supply different areas of the country. That is possible already. How feasible it would be on a national scale is for the Government to resolve, but in my view it should be done.

The Government are clearly—and rightly—going to accept the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We on these Benches will support Amendment 7A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. With all the heritage issues that we have discussed in this planning Bill, we cannot always put speed and build ahead of heritage protection. We have got the balance wrong when that happens. Heritage is important to the pride of place that people feel. It is something we have heard about in the debate, and something we will support.

I am speaking ahead of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who has Amendment 7B. It is a pity she said 20 or more houses, because the loss of any number of houses to a large reservoir should cause us to stop and think. That will have a significant impact on people, on their family histories and on the whole way their little community works. If the noble Baroness pushes her amendment to a vote, we on these Benches will be inclined to support her.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s Amendment 4—the new clause to be inserted after Clause 2—relates to projects concerning water. As I understand it, this amendment would allow projects carried out by third parties, appointed by water undertakers, to fall within the definition of a nationally significant infrastructure project under Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008, provided that the other conditions set out in Sections 27, 28 and 28A of that Act are met.

While I appreciate the intention to streamline delivery and facilitate investment in critical water infrastructure, I must raise a number of concerns and questions to the Minister. First, what safeguards will ensure that the thresholds for NSIP designation—particularly those relating to scale and national importance—are still meaningfully applied? It is essential that this designation remains reserved for truly nationally significant projects, not simply those that happen to be large or, indeed, convenient.

Secondly, can the Minister clarify why the existing provisions—which limit NSIP status to projects undertaken directly by water undertakers—are now deemed insufficient? What problem, precisely, is this amendment intended to solve?

Additionally, are the Government considering similar extensions of NSIP eligibility in other sections of infrastructure? If so, it would be helpful for your Lordships’ House to understand whether this represents a broader shift in planning policy or an exceptional measure just limited to water infrastructure.

Finally, will the Government commit to a review of the amendment’s impact after, say, three or five years, to ensure that it has not led to unintended consequences, particularly in relation to accountability, environmental standards or the integrity of the NSIP regime?

I also welcome my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments in this group. I understand he has had many discussions with the Minister, and I thank the Government for their response on these amendments.

Amendment 56 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering also raises important questions for Ministers about the ability of farmers and landowners to develop small reservoirs that pose little potential threat to local communities. We know we need more reservoirs, and the Government have talked about this a great deal. We look to Ministers to show willing on smaller reservoirs too, and we encourage the Minister to listen to my noble friend on this important issue.

Finally, Amendment 7A in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson and my Amendment 7B are on introducing due process for communities and heritage threatened by reservoirs being delivered through the NSIP process. We tabled these amendments in response to the Government’s amendment tabled last Monday and we are keen to work with the Government to get a workable amendment into the Bill, if it is necessary.

I also say at the outset that we are fully supportive of the steps to get on with the delivery of critical national infrastructure, but where consultation of local communities and heritage protections are disapplied through the NSIP process, we have to be sure that is appropriate in those cases. As the Government seek to deliver more reservoirs, we want to ensure that communities, heritage and local individuals who have their homes, gardens and history invested in those areas are protected and that the Secretary of State takes proper account of their views. My noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay has spoken about a number of historical examples. If villages are to be flooded in the future, with all their history and heritage, we must make sure a proper process is followed.

It is not just in the north of England that we have reservoirs. I farmed near Bough Beech and I knew Bewl Water in Kent; both of these were where some communities were flooded. Decades and generations on, people are still talking about the community that is under that water.

We will therefore seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 7B and ask the Minister to seriously consider making sure that future communities will be protected.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will keep my comments relatively brief, because I had a lot to say at the beginning of this group. I start my concluding remarks by pointing out to noble Lords that it was concerns about water provision that encouraged the Government to bring forward further amendments in this respect. I thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in engagement both in the recess period, which I was very grateful for, and subsequent to that. I thank all those who met with me.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his contribution. He set out his concerns very clearly and we appreciated that. That is why we are able to accept his amendments.

On the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I understand the great and ongoing concerns around the Capel Celyn issue. I am afraid that the powers in this Bill are for England, but I will come back to him in writing about what powers the Senedd has to act in a way that might help with his concerns. If that is acceptable to him, I will write to him on those specific issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, discussed the efficiency of reservoirs. There have been recent improvements in that, but there is room for further improvement, and I am sure that colleagues in Defra are as exercised as she is in making sure that that is the case. I am very glad that she mentioned Professor Bellamy; that brought back some very happy memories. I will not try an impression—I am not very good at them—but he was a real character. His contribution to the natural world in this country was enormous, and I am very grateful for that.

The noble Baroness asked about how the need for water is assessed; the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to that too. Water companies have a statutory duty to provide a secure supply of water for customers efficiently and economically and to set out how they plan to continue to supply water through statutory water resources management plans. They are assessing that constantly. These set out how each company will continue to meet this duty and manage the water supply and demand sustainably for at least the next 25 years. There is therefore a constant assessment of that.

On the noble Baroness’s points about smaller reservoirs, I hope that I set out clearly in my comments that these can be undertaken currently under permitted development. We recognise the need to look at those permitted development regulations, and we will return to them.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I understand that I bounced this idea into the debate and that the Minister was not aware that I would do so, but can she write to me on the state of the proposals to dispense with the Reservoirs Act and bring forth recommendations from the Balmforth review from 2019? That is an incredibly long time. Can she set out what the timescale will be?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am happy to do that.

I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, out of order, because, as he said, some of the issues that he raised could not happen now; the Planning Act 2008 means that many of those issues would not be the case now. I am making my response to the noble Lord out of order because I want to come back to the points about heritage issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. As the noble Lord said, my colleague from DCMS and I have now set up a very useful round table with heritage organisations, or organisations representing heritage issues. I will raise some of those specific issues with the round table; it is important that we do so. The National Policy Statement for Water Resources Infrastructure has a dedicated section on the historic environment, which sets out what applicants should do in their development consent order application.

The Secretary of State will, when determining applications, specifically identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposed development. All applicants for development consent, including dam and reservoir schemes, are required to provide information about heritage impacts from their projects when they submit their application. Where development is subject to an environmental impact assessment, the application is also required to take that assessment, as I pointed out earlier.

With the examining authority considering that as part of the examination, and the Secretary of State identifying and assessing the particular significance of heritage assets, I hope that that gives some reassurance that proposed developments must comply with specific obligations related to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments. That obligation is placed on the Secretary of State and set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010. I hope that that offers some reassurance to the noble Lord.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, discussed some of the other measures that can be taken to conserve water; I do not disagree with her on that. Colleagues in Defra are exercised in ensuring that we make efficient use of water and that we are not setting up reservoirs unnecessarily. Because I come from one of the areas of great water scarcity in the country, I know what a huge issue this can be. I point out to her that, in contrast to where reservoirs were built for the steel industries and then the water was not needed afterwards, we are now looking at data centres as a new generation of economic activity. They need water, so I know that there will be new needs for water going forward.

17:45

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her contribution. She discussed how these projects can now be delivered. Only projects delivered by third-party providers appointed by a statutory water undertaker will be eligible to qualify as NSIPs under our Amendment 4. Those providers will have been successful in a competitive tender process run by a water undertaker. To address her question, the projects must also still meet the existing thresholds for classification as a NSIP, including criteria on size and capacity. That ensures that only genuinely large-scale, strategic water infrastructure qualifies, and that delivery remains under the oversight of regulated water companies or the water regulator.

All projects brought forward under the NSIP regime must still go through the full development consent order process, including consultation, environmental assessments and public engagement. Our amendment does not reduce scrutiny; it simply removes an unnecessary step to apply for a Section 35 direction for the third-party providers carrying out the development.

I recognise that the loss of homes or of heritage assets will be of great concern; I recognise the sensitivity of those issues. I hope that the steps that I have outlined, and the very detailed way in which the Planning Act 2008 applies, will have reassured Members and that they will feel able not to press their amendments. I commend the government amendments to the House.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. I beg to move Amendment 5.

Amendment 5 (to Amendment 4) agreed.

Amendments 6 and 7 (to Amendment 4)

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

6: In inserted subsection (3) of subsection (3), at end insert “and is designated as an Infrastructure Provider under Regulation 8 of those regulations”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and other in the name of Lord Lansley to the proposed change to the NSIP legislation would secure that any person responsible for the construction of a water project would be subject to the statutory safeguards provided for under the Specified Infrastructure Projects Regulations.

7: In the text inserted by paragraph (c) of subsection (4), at end insert “and is designated as an Infrastructure Provider under Regulation 8 of those regulations”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Lansley to the proposed change to the NSIP legislation would secure that any person responsible for the construction of a water project would be subject to the statutory safeguards provided for under the Specified Infrastructure Projects Regulations.

Amendments 6 and 7 (to Amendment 4) agreed.

Amendment 7A (to Amendment 4)

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

7A: After subsection (6) insert—
“(7) Part 4 of the Planning Act 2008 (Requirement for development consent) is amended as set out in subsection (8).(8) In section 33 (Effect of requirement for development consent on other consent regimes), after subsection (1), insert—“(1A) Paragraphs (f), (g), (i) and (j) of subsection (1) do not apply in relation to projects falling within section 14(1)(m) (dams and reservoirs).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that consent regimes for heritage sites apply in relation to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects which involve the construction of reservoirs.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the further information she set out, and to noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their support for my amendment.

I am glad to hear that the Minister will discuss the issue further with heritage groups in the round tables that she and the Heritage Minister are jointly holding; that is a very helpful step. Of course, that comes rather too late in our deliberations on the Bill. If this were Committee, I would be able to withdraw my amendment and see what they made of it following those discussions—but of course I cannot do so. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said, we are very keen to work with the Government if this amendment is supported and put in the Bill; we are happy to work with them at later stages in a way that is workable. Given the support that it has received today and given its importance, I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 7A.

17:48

Division 2

Ayes: 216

Noes: 175

17:59

Amendment 4, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 7B

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

7B: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Projects relating to water which require the demolition of villagesAfter section 35(4) (directions in relation to projects of national significance) of the Planning Act 2008 insert—“(4A) Where a development falls within the definition in section 27 and requires the demolition of more than 20 residential properties the Secretary of State may not give a direction under subsection (1) unless the persons who live at, or otherwise occupy, premises in the vicinity of the land have been notified and given the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State.””

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. However, for future communities who may be affected by the issues we have been debating, and in order to ensure not just proper consultation but proper engagement in those schemes, I wish to divide the House on my Amendment 7B.

18:00

Division 3

Ayes: 227

Noes: 168

18:10

Clause 3: Power to disapply requirement for development consent

Amendment 8 not moved.

Clause 4: Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

9: Clause 4, page 8, line 22, leave out paragraph (a)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the provisions in the bill which remove the requirements for pre-application requirements for development consent.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the importance of pre-application as a formal part of the process in determining NSIP applications. They are all much of a muchness. Amendments 9 and 10 seek to retain the current statutory pre-application consultation; Amendments 11 and 12 are similar. Amendment 12, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, seeks to put an emphasis on the importance of pre-application to the NSIP and setting out the purpose of it. The emphasis we have had from our Benches and the Conservative Benches today is on the importance of hearing the voices of communities and protecting heritage and the environment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, in the last group of amendments, talked about the importance of engagement of communities in these very important national infrastructure projects. That is where pre-application is very important, because although we accept and support the Government’s aim to speed up decisions on national infrastructure projects, it is equally important that a consensus be built with the community from the outset, which you do not achieve if you eliminate upfront engagement. The key to building consensus is maintaining a statutory pre-application process. The cost of giving up short-term speedy decisions could be long-term stability and success. Amendment 12 seeks to have issues resolved early. Community influence is built into the process so that people have their say at the outset, before a planning application is submitted for examination, to ensure that the applications are technically sound and that mitigation is embedded at the beginning, rather than added in later.

All those issues are vital if communities are to feel that their voice has been heard, even if in the end a contrary decision is made through the NSIP process. Throughout my long experience as a councillor, it always struck me that if people have had their say, they are more likely to accept the consequences of a view to which they are opposed. In response to arguments in Committee on this issue, the Minister argued that it was a tick-box exercise and that others took a more constructive view in building consensus and did it well. The answer should be not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but to ensure that all construction is done with a meaningful pre-app process.

18:15

We on these Benches feel that the democratic right of people to have their voice heard is very important. It will in the end benefit those big projects if they get people onside, understanding what is at stake and having their voice heard at the beginning of a process, rather than when it becomes much more of a legal test. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response, but if I am not satisfied I will—with the support, I hope, of the Conservative Front Bench—test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not know whether this is premature, but I wish to speak to Amendment 83.

The modern methodology of infrastructure planning is heavily dependent on the computer. Computer-aided design software has replaced the draughtsman’s drawing board. This has greatly expedited the design process. Moreover, CAD technology enables the design of houses and other structures to be made public at an early stage of development. The building information modelling standards are intended to facilitate the sharing of information, which can be consigned to the cloud to become accessible to all concerned, including the public at large. The transparent information is liable to be shared via a so-called digital twin model. Level 2 of the BIM standards was made mandatory for public projects in 2022. Level 3 was due to be made mandatory this year, but there has been a delay—indeed, more than a delay; there has been some backtracking.

The Minister’s response to the original version of the amendment was to declare that the requirement for a digital twin at an earlier stage of the development would impose extra costs and delays. This evinces a fundamental misunderstanding. It is precisely at the earliest stages of a project that modern technology is most efficacious. The question arises of what could have caused this misunderstanding. I am liable to attribute it to the civil servants as much as to the Minister. I imagine that one of the causes could be the experience of inappropriate applications of the BIM standards. There has been a minor change to the text of the original amendment. It now declares that the standards should not be imposed on projects concerned with limited extensions of existing buildings, or on those concerned with the restoration of existing buildings.

I have been told by an architect involved in the restoration of historic buildings of a demand to provide a fully dimensioned plan of a listed building, plus an inventory of all the materials involved in its original construction. The BIM standards were never intended to be imposed in this way. With this proviso, I propose the amendment as a serious attempt to promote a methodology of infrastructure planning, of which Britain is a leading exponent.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, were first brought forward in Committee, and I made the point then, which I repeat now, that Clause 4 systematically removes several of the existing pre-application requirements.

This amendment seeks specifically to retain Section 47 of the Planning Act, the statutory duty to consult the local community. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised, we have said throughout that it is only right and appropriate that local communities should be consulted and involved. Removing this requirement for pre-application consultation risks cutting communities out of the conversation altogether. It means local people may neither understand nor even be aware of the broad outlines or detailed implications of developments which, for better or worse, will have a direct impact on their lives and the local environment.

As I understood the Minister in Committee, the Government’s concern was not with the principle or value of consultation in itself, but rather with the potential delay cost that the current process might entail. However, delay and cost can be addressed through sensible reform of the system. That does not justify what feels like a nuclear option: the wholesale removal of the duty to consult. We remain unconvinced that the House has yet been given a satisfactory explanation as to why such sweeping change is necessary.

The Government have said:

“I am sure we all have experiences of the best in consultation—with a developer that not only consults but truly engages with communities over a period of time to get”


a better project

“and those at the opposite end that carry out a half-hearted tick-box exercise and then”

carry on regardless

“without changing anything, keeping a laser focus on”

minimising their costs, and that

“We want to encourage the former, not the latter”.—[Official Report, 17/7/25; cols. 2073-74.]

That is an admirable sentiment, but how is that objective served by the removal of the very mechanism that requires such consultation in the first place? These questions matter not merely as points of process but because they go to the heart of public confidence in the planning system.

The Government should provide clear and succinct guidance on pre-application consultation: that there should be genuine engagement with communities; that the relevant information should be provided transparently and in easily digestible form; that the issues and ideas from the consultations are reflected in the final application or a rationale for not doing so.

However, these amendments propose a much more prescriptive and, I might say, confusing and even contradictory pre-application process. While we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment in full, we equally cannot support the Government’s decision to sweep away the entire framework. A more balanced approach could have addressed legitimate concerns about delay, while enhancing the opportunities for local people to have their say on developments that shape their communities.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing back these amendments, which we debated extensively in Committee. Amendments 9 and 10 seek to reinstate the statutory duty for applicants to consult during the pre-application stage of a development consent order application. While we absolutely recognise the value of early and meaningful engagement, we have been clear that the existing statutory requirements have become overly rigid and are now contributing to delays and risk-averse behaviours.

Removing the statutory duty instead allows developers to tailor their engagement to the scale and nature of their projects, supported by guidance. I repeat: the Government still expect high-quality consultation to take place. We have listened carefully to the industry and the message has been consistent. The current statutory framework is slowing things down, encouraging excessive documentation and making developers reluctant to adapt proposals for fear of triggering further rounds of required statutory consultation. We are confident that developers will continue to consult meaningfully and that communities will still have further opportunities to engage through the examination process. We are so confident, in fact, that this will not undermine the quality of applications brought forward that we are amending the Bill to make reasons for rejection more transparent, a point which I will come to later.

Guidance will be published to ensure that applications remain robust and responsive to local issues. The Government are currently consulting on proposals associated with this guidance and will take into account responses when it is developed. If these amendments were accepted, we risk reverting to the status quo and failing to address the very issues we are trying to fix: delays, complexity and confusion. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment.

Amendments 11 and 12 seek to impose statutory obligations around guidance for pre-application consultation, despite the statutory requirement to consult being removed from the Planning Act 2008 through this Bill. The decision to remove the statutory requirement for pre-application consultation was not made lightly. It was introduced to tackle the growing delays and procedural burdens that have crept into the NSIP regime over time. We are trying to fix a system that has become too slow, too risk averse and too complex.

As we have discussed and recognised throughout the passage of the Bill, the current Planning Act requirements have led to rigid approaches, which are designed with the need to meet legislative prescription in mind, rather than the need to develop high-quality infrastructure schemes which are capable of improving the lives of local communities and delivering positive environmental impacts. I suppose my frustration here is that we all agree that we need to speed the system up but whatever we propose to do that, Members object to.

Over the last few months we have had the opportunity to meet a wide range of stakeholders and discuss the removal of pre-application requirements, including a number of bodies and individuals with valuable insight and experience of the NSIP regime since its inception back in 2008. We have seen a positive reaction to our proposals from those stakeholders. Speaking to local authorities and statutory consultees, it is clear that the existing requirements are not successfully driving constructive engagement and consultation.

Our discussions have reaffirmed our conviction that the existing approach is not working; changes are needed for the Government to meet the UK’s national infrastructure needs. These reforms will save time and money, benefiting everyone. This does not mean worse outcomes or poorer quality applications. Instead, it means resources can be focused on the main issues at the heart of the planning decision. It means there will be greater flexibility for applicants to innovate in how engagement is done when working through the iterative stages of an application during pre-application. It opens the door to more bespoke, targeted and effective engagement and consultation practices.

Requiring applicants to have regard to guidance about consultation and engagement, where the underlying legal duty to consult has been removed, would, we feel, be confusing. Moreover, the noble Baroness’s proposed amendment goes further by attempting to bind the content for future guidance to a fixed set of principles. While I understand these principles are well-intentioned, we do not believe it is right to legislate for them. The Government have already launched a public consultation on what the content of the guidance should be, and we want it to be shaped by the views of those who use guidance, not constrained by prescriptive legislative language developed before that process has even concluded.

All sides of the House agree on the importance of meaningful engagement and consultation; it is essential if we want to deliver infrastructure which is well designed and delivers positive outcomes for neighbouring communities and the environment. We expect developers to engage and consult proportionately and constructively, but we also believe that flexibility, not statutory rigidity, is the best way to achieve that. While I appreciate the spirit behind the amendments, they would undermine the very reforms we are trying to deliver, so I hope the noble Baroness will not press them.

Amendment 80 was a proposal previously raised in Committee. As the House will recall, the clause seeks to require the Secretary of State to consider how community consultation has been carried out when deciding whether a nationally significant infrastructure project application should be accepted for examination. It sets out a number of criteria, including whether the applicant has sought to resolve issues, enabled interested parties to influence the project during early phases, obtained relevant local information and enabled appropriate mitigation through consultation with the affected communities. As we discussed at length in Committee, the Government recognise the value of community engagement. Since 2013, the pre-application stage has nearly doubled in length. Our proposals could save businesses up to £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament by reducing delays across projects.

I say this to remind noble Lords of the reasoning behind these changes, including the “adequacy of consultation” test in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. We had a system where applicants focus on defensibility rather than dialogue, and where consultation is treated as a hurdle to clear and not a tool to improve proposals. The reformed acceptance test allows the Secretary of State to make a balanced judgment about the quality of the application, recognising that the NSIP process is a continuum from pre-application through to decision. It incentivises applicants to engage with the objective of producing good-quality applications, as opposed to meeting prescriptive statutory requirements.

18:30

Reintroducing a statutory test of consultation at the acceptance stage would risk reinstating the very behaviours we are trying to move away from. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government’s proposals do not diminish the importance of consultation. With these reassurances, I ask her not to press her amendments.

Amendment 83 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hanworth. I thank him for his continued interest in this important area. We absolutely recognise the potential of emerging technologies, such as digital twin modelling, to support the planning system. I looked into this in some detail when I had the artificial intelligence brief for the department—sadly, it has moved on to another Minister now, but I did have it. I looked at places where digital twins are in frequent use, such as Singapore and some parts of Spain. These innovations help to make complex infrastructure proposals more accessible and transparent to communities, and we welcome the growing use of those tools across the sector.

For example, the Government are delivering the digital planning programme, which aims to enable a modern and efficient planning system in England. That programme is supporting our digital ambitions, working with local planning authorities to adopt common data standards. It will make the planning system more efficient by providing better access to planning data, improving the data quality and making the data more open. We are committed to modernising the planning system and to streamlining processes. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to mandate digital twin modelling for every applicant through the Bill. There are three main reasons why I say that.

First, we are repealing the statutory duty to consult at pre-application stage. This makes the amendment unworkable in its current form. Secondly, it is not necessary to legislate to achieve this policy objective. If an applicant for development consent considers that the use of a digital twin would be beneficial to their engagement, they are able to make this available. Moreover, if we were to require or encourage the use of such tools, we could do so through existing powers. The Government have the power to make regulations in relation to the processing and provision of planning data through Sections 84 and 85 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Finally, I understand that some industry experts have expressed concerns about the use of this technology, relating to commercial sensitivity and security considerations. Further policy development and engagement is needed before taking such an approach.

We are committed to encouraging innovation, but we must be mindful of the practical impact on applicants and the system as a whole when government requires and mandates certain approaches. For these reasons, while the Government agree that digital twin modelling is an interesting development and has great potential for engagement with the NSIP process, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to mandate it at this stage. Instead, I would be interested in meeting my noble friend and the noble Baroness to discuss the matter further so that the Government can more appropriately consider how we can encourage digital twin modelling.

In conclusion, while we support the principle behind the amendment, we do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to include it in the Bill. I therefore respectfully ask my noble friend not to press Amendment 83.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the careful consideration that she gave to my amendments during the Conference Recess. I have again listened carefully to what she had to say today and it appears that there is agreement across the House that pre-application engagement with affected communities is vital, but we disagree on how it should be achieved. The proposal in the Bill is to remove the statutory requirement for pre-application engagement. That leaves us with the good constructions engaging effectively and the poor constructions avoiding doing it well. The contention on our Benches is that all projects and constructions should engage well. The only way to achieve that is by making it a statutory requirement.

The other point about removing a statutory requirement and having a set of principles by which it should be undertaken is that, if the amendment is not accepted, we will be left with engagement that is designed by the developers and often for the developers—not for the community, as it should be. As these issues are important for those of us who care deeply about hearing the voice of people and being able to engage early in a big application, while I shall not press my Amendments 9 to 11, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 12.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Amendment 10 not moved.

Clause 5: Applications for development consent: changes related to section 4

Amendment 11 not moved.

Amendment 12

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

12: Clause 5, page 10, line 24, at end insert—
“(7A) In issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to ensure pre-application consultation is meaningful, including, but not limited to, adherence to the following principles—(a) pre-application consultation should be open and transparent with information and evidence provided in a timely and straightforward fashion to provide affected or interested parties with objective and relevant information to enable them to make an informed response;(b) applicants should demonstrate a responsive approach to queries and challenges raised;(c) applicants should ensure consultation and engagement activities are inclusive and enable affected or interested parties to have a reasonable opportunity to participate;(d) applicants’ interpretation and representation of results should be fair and objective;(e) all pre-application consultation should be undertaken through meaningful engagement with communities and stakeholders, offering genuine opportunities to influence proposals;(f) pre-application engagement should be proportionate, with applicants providing the right level of information to enable positive outcomes to be delivered.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides principles which the Secretary of State’s guidance required by new section 50(2) of the Planning Act 2008 must have regard to, to ensure that pre-application consultation is meaningful.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I beg to move.

18:36

Division 4

Ayes: 61

Noes: 154

18:46

Clause 6: Applications for development consent: acceptance stage

Amendment 13

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

13: Clause 6, page 11, line 14, leave out subsection (2)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the amendment made by clause 6 to section 37(3) of the Planning Act 2008, with the result that the test for acceptance of an application for a development consent order would remain unchanged.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak first to Amendments 13 to 16, 18 and 20, which revise Clause 6. They are essential to ensuring that the Bill delivers on its core objective: to speed up the delivery of infrastructure by removing unnecessary complexity and delay from the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime.

As noble Lords will know, Clause 6 was originally introduced to provide flexibility at the acceptance stage by allowing the Planning Inspectorate—PINS—on behalf of the Secretary of State to request minor changes to applications. It also introduced a new form of words at the acceptance test, requiring PINS, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to determine that an application was

“suitable to proceed to examination”

before it could be accepted. This would have replaced the existing test, which is for the application to be of a “satisfactory standard”.

Although a decision not to accept an application at the acceptance stage is rare, the uncertainty that this may occur has contributed towards the growing delays at the pre-application stage. Clause 6 intended to address this in two ways: first, by reducing the risk of a decision not to accept an application by PINS, on behalf of the Secretary of State, by inserting a discretionary power for PINS to delay a final decision while applicants remedied minor issues; and secondly, by making it clear that the acceptance test should focus on whether an application is suitable to be examined.

Since that time, the Government have proposed more radical steps to streamline the system. In future, guidance for applicants will support them in their approach to engagement and consultation on national infrastructure projects. The Government also published a consultation on changes to consultation guidance over the summer.

Although Clause 6 was intended to speed up the system and provide greater certainty, feedback from the sector throughout the Bill’s passage has made it clear that these changes risk doing the opposite. There are concerns that the change of language on the acceptance test is unclear and subjective. One concern is that it may require PINS to routinely interrogate whether there has been sufficient agreement on key issues. There are also concerns that the acceptance test will be too vague and open to interpretation. There are justified concerns that this could lead to inconsistent decisions or even higher barriers to entry of the system. Equally, there are concerns that the new process whereby PINS could request minor changes to applications before they were accepted may be routinely used by PINS to delay applications, rather than being used on rare occasions to assist applications that would otherwise fall.

That is why I am moving amendments that listen to and seek to address those concerns. They restore the original, clear test for acceptance, requiring applications to be of a “satisfactory standard”. They remove the power to delay acceptance decisions through requests for further information and they strip out the consequential provisions that would otherwise support or reference these now removed powers. These changes are simple, targeted and effective. They preserve clarity, reduce uncertainty and ensure that the acceptance stage remains focused on what it should be: assessing whether an application is complete, clear and ready to move forward in statutory timeframes, not interrogating whether every issue related to the project has been resolved.

Although we want applications to be well developed at the acceptance stage, it is not right or realistic to aim for consensus or agreement between all parties at this stage of the process. At the acceptance stage, we want application documents to meet the required standards and we want applicants to be well prepared for the upcoming examination. This means having an awareness of the issues likely to arise and using pre-application to develop a high-quality application, but it does not mean that PINS needs to see that all issues have been resolved.

I can be very clear and say that we remain absolutely committed to high-quality applications being accepted into the NSIP regime. However, in the light of feedback, we no longer think that these select provisions in Clause 6 support achieving that.

PINS will still have tools available to request that applicants address clear gaps, correct deficiencies or provide additional information early on in the process, through either Section 51 advice prior to submission or making procedural decisions during the pre-examination stage. These mechanisms allow for clarification and improvements to documentation, but without creating uncertainty or additional process for applications which meet the acceptance criteria.

These technical amendments are pro-growth, pro-delivery and pro-certainty. They reflect what we have heard from noble Lords and the sector, and they align with the broader reforms we have already made. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting them.

Government Amendments 17 and 19 introduce a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to publish reasons for deciding not to accept a development consent order application at the acceptance stage and clarify the point in the process when a legal challenge against such a decision can be brought. These amendments respond directly to concerns raised in Committee by noble Lords from across the House, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, who rightly highlighted the importance of and need for transparency and accountability in the early stages of the nationally significant project regime. A transparent process holds everyone to account, and applicants should be reassured that this amendment removes the risk of arbitrary or opaque decision-making.

While I disagree with the position that our pre-application consultation changes will create greater uncertainty in the system or allow poorer-quality applications to progress further, I am in favour of shining a light on the decision-making process and ensuring that the system is as transparent as possible. In other words, we are putting our money where our mouths are. The Planning Act 2008 requires the Secretary of State to notify the applicant of their reasons when they decide not to accept a DCO application. At present, and in line with its openness policy, PINS, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, already publishes reasons for its decisions not to accept a DCO application. However, as noble Lords noted, there is no statutory obligation to do so. These amendments aim to improve the legislation to address this gap.

The amendments align the acceptance stage with the principles already embedded in Section 116 of the Planning Act 2008, which requires the Secretary of State to publish reasons when refusing development consent. The amendments ensure that applicants, stakeholders and the wider public can understand why and on what basis a decision has been made not to accept an application, supporting the integrity of the NSIP system. This is a principled response to concerns raised in Committee, and I hope it shows that we are listening carefully to noble Lords’ concerns about how our changes impact the system as a whole. I therefore commend this amendment to the House and urge noble Lords to support its inclusion in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened in Committee to the concerns that were raised about the acceptance process. I am pleased that there has been a rethink. The changes proposed in the amendments are not opposed by these Benches.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have before us the Government’s latest set of amendments to Clause 6—or should I say what used to be Clause 6 before the Government took a pair of legislative shears to it? This clause as originally drafted, as we have heard from the Minister, would have changed the test for when an application for a development consent order is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. The Government now appear to have decided that their proposal was, in fact, unnecessary, perhaps even unworkable, so we are back to the status quo: the clear, objective test that ensures that applications are accepted only when they meet the proper standards of completeness and adequacy. Thank goodness for that. The test protects everyone: developers, communities and the integrity of the process. It ensures clarity at the gateway stage, not confusion. I thank the Minister for making these changes to the Bill.

Amendment 13 agreed.

Amendments 14 to 20

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

14: Clause 6, page 11, line 19, leave out subsection (3)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 6, page 12, line 31.

15: Clause 6, page 11, line 25, leave out subsections (5) and (6)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 6, page 12, line 31.

16: Clause 6, page 12, line 1, leave out paragraph (c)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 6, page 11, line 14.

17: Clause 6, page 12, line 29, leave out from “must” to end of line 30 and insert “—
(a) prepare a statement of the Secretary of State’s reasons for that decision,(b) provide a copy of the statement to the applicant, and(c) publish the statement in such form and manner as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement of reasons for any decision not to accept an application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008.

18: Clause 6, page 12, line 31, leave out subsections (12) and (13)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove new section 55A of the Planning Act 2008 which would have permitted the Secretary of State to require an applicant for a development consent order to provide further information before accepting the application. It would also make provision consequential on this.

19: Clause 6, page 13, line 33, at end insert—
“(13A) In section 118 (legal challenges relating to applications for orders granting development consent), in subsection (3)(b), for “notifies the applicant as required by subsection (7)” substitute “provides the copy of the statement of reasons for the decision to the applicant as required by subsection (7)(b)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the substitution of section 55(6) of the Planning Act 2008 by clause 6(11) of the Bill.

20: Clause 6, page 13, line 34, leave out subsection (14) and insert—
“(14) In consequence of the amendment in subsection (10), omit section 137(4) of the Localism Act 2011.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 6, page 12, line 1.

Amendments 14 to 20 agreed.

Amendment 20A

Moved by

[Lord Ravensdale]

20A: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Applications for development consent: low carbon energy infrastructureAfter section 35D in the Planning Act 2008 (timetable for deciding request for direction under section 35B) (inserted by section 3 of this Act) insert—“35E Representations by relevant authorities, net zero and sustainable development(1) In relation to relevant nationally significant infrastructure projects, relevant authorities should have special regard to the matters in subsection (5) when carrying out the activities in subsection (6).(2) The relevant nationally significant infrastructure projects are—(a) the construction or extension of a generating station within the meaning of section 14(1)(a) for the purpose of low carbon electricity generation, or(b) the installation of an electric line above ground within the meaning of section 14(1)(b) for the conveyance of electricity generated by a station in subsection (a).(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) it does not matter whether the electric line is also used or intended for use in connection with the conveyance of electricity generated from other sources.(4) The relevant authorities are—(a) the conservation bodies in section 32 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (UK conservation bodies),(b) the Environment Agency, and(c) such other bodies as may be prescribed in regulation by the Secretary of State.(5) The matters referred to in subsection (1) are the need to contribute towards—(a) achieving compliance by the Secretary of State with part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (Carbon target and budgeting),(b) the achievement of biodiversity targets under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,(c) adapting to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and(d) achieving sustainable development.(6) The activities referred to in subsection (1) are any representations under Part 5 and Part 6.(7) In discharging their duty under subsection (1), the relevant authorities must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by Secretary of State.(8) In this section “low carbon electricity generation” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Energy Act 2013.””

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis.

I was reassured by what the Minister stated in response to this amendment in Committee, but I have a few additional points of clarification, hence bringing this back on Report. I am grateful to the Minister for her time last week in discussing the response to this amendment.

Moving in this direction is important for a number of reasons. The first is to help speed projects through the system by ensuring that regulators are aligned with the Government’s goals, in the case of this amendment relating to electricity generating projects and infrastructure. It is all about ensuring that regulators are concerned not just with the micro view, the local impacts of the project on the environment, but the macro view, the potential benefits that that project will bring for the country, whether that is net zero or environmental benefits—in effect, assessing the benefits as well as the costs. That will help some of the issues we have seen in the logjam of projects related to offshore wind and nuclear.

It will continue the work that Peers have undertaken to apply a consistent duty across regulators. We had the duty on Ofgem under the previous Government, on Ofwat under this Government, and on other organisations such as the Crown Estate. This takes inspiration from the Private Member’s Bill that is being taken through by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about a consistent duty across all regulators.

It is consistent with the output of the Corry review to help prevent, in the words of the review, the “regulatory overload” that has emerged over time. Simplifying duties on regulators is another key point in helping to speed projects through the system.

I shall not delay the House any further. I would be grateful if, in summing up, the Minister could provide answers to the following points. In Committee, the Minister stated that:

“As we review and develop guidance on all aspects of the NSIP process, we will consider, alongside government policy in national policy statements, how we can support the intent of this amendment”.—[Official Report, 17/7/25; col. 2094.]


Can the Minister please provide additional detail on how duties on regulators are being brought within that guidance and national policy statements now that consultations in that area are under way?

There is still the point on the statutory duty. So far, the Government are going down a guidance route; we have had numerous debates on guidance versus statute throughout the Bill. What plans do the Government have to bring forward statutory duties on regulators to align with the work already done on Ofgem and other regulators? I believe that long-term strategic certainty and drive can be done only via statute.

Finally, on timescales, I would be grateful if the Minister could give an update on the strategic policy statements for all regulators—the commitment that was made by the Government coming out of the Corry review—and what that programme looks like. I beg to move.

19:00

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 20A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. We welcome this amendment; it is a well-judged and timely proposal which will give practical effect to the commitments Parliament has already made in law to achieve net zero, protect biodiversity and promote sustainable development within the planning system and nationally significant infrastructure projects.

In essence, this amendment is about coherence—ensuring that the way we plan consents and deliver low-carbon infrastructure genuinely aligns with the environmental and climate obligations this country has already bound itself by. At present, there remains a troubling gap between our statutory climate targets and the machinery through which we approve major energy projects. The Planning Act 2008, however good it is, pre-dates our key climate primary legislation. This amendment would help bring the planning regime for major projects into line with a more modern legislative landscape. It would create a new Section 35E, placing a duty on the relevant authorities—conservation bodies, the Environment Agency and others—to have specific regard to four key objectives when they make representations on nationally significant projects.

I will not detain the House any longer, but we support this sensible amendment.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. It seems that all the experience we have is that there is not coherence where there ought to be. I thank the Minister for her earlier willingness to react to the House and show that she was able to make the changes the House asked for. I hope she will say to her colleagues how much it helps the Government if we feel that they listen on things which are not party political but about how best to organise ourselves.

With the range of regulators we have, it is crucial to get coherence. I believe that we all know we have not got it at the moment. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, may not be ideal—I do not think he sees it in those terms—but it seeks to get from the Government a coherent programme for coherence. We all know that every day the urgency that climate change forces upon us gets more and more obvious. I have just come back from Northern Ireland, where businesses right across the board were saying how important that was and—I have to say to my noble friend—pointing out how unacceptable it is to try to change the architecture we have to try to deal with this. That architecture will work much better if we get a greater coherence across the board.

Therefore, I hope the Minister will be kind enough at least to give us some understanding of the way in which the Government hope to bring about that coherence and, in that, give us something about dates and times. I was a Minister for rather a long time and I know perfectly well that it is very easy to promise in general about the future almost any nice thing but what really matters is when and how it is going to be done.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 20A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, was considered in Committee. A number of questions were asked, and I think a number of questions remain unanswered. While we fully recognise the importance of sustainable development, we are not persuaded that this amendment is necessary. It appears to us that the Government already have—or should have—the tools they need to guide public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process, and I think we are satisfied that these powers are sufficient.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for meeting me during recess to discuss this. His Amendment 20A seeks to ensure that, in relation to NSIP for low-carbon energy, relevant authorities should have special regard to the achievement of Government’s environmental targets and sustainable development.

The amendment is similar to one debated in Committee. It refers specifically to compliance by the Secretary of State with carbon targets and budgeting and adapting to current or predicted climate change impacts under the Climate Change Act 2008, the achievement of biodiversity targets under the Environment Act 2021, and achieving sustainable development.

As the Government made clear in Committee, we recognise the importance of this issue, but we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It is vital that we move forward and deliver the critical infrastructure we need, not least to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. The Bill will deliver a win-win for growth and nature. Developments such as clean energy infrastructure are key to tackling the climate crisis and supporting nature recovery. The Government also appreciate the important role that these bodies play in the planning system. That is why we have taken action in response to the Corry review to ensure that these bodies are joined up and aligned with the Government’s broader priorities. I will say a bit more about that in a moment.

As I did in Committee, I reassure noble Lords that the Government are already utilising the tools they have to guide the considerations given by public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process. The first of these relates to national policy. The energy national policy statements already take full account of the Government’s wider objectives for energy infrastructure to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and to ensure that the UK can meet its decarbonisation targets. We are also strengthening national policy statements through this Bill by requiring that they are updated at least every five years, and by making it easier to undertake interim updates for certain types of material amendments. The Government have recently concluded consultation on drafts of EN-1, EN-3 and EN-5, which will be updated to reflect the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan.

The second relates to guidance. It is critical that public bodies engage fully in examinations so that the examining authority has access to their expertise and can properly scrutinise the application before reporting to the Secretary of State. Through the Bill, the Government are introducing a new duty on public bodies to have regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State in making representations as part of examinations. This guidance will support government objectives by ensuring that these bodies engage effectively in the process and can provide the right information in a timely way.

We are currently consulting on reforms across the NSIP system to streamline the process. As well as consulting on what pre-application guidance to applicants should contain, we are seeking views on whether to strengthen expectations that statutory bodies attend hearings in person where relevant. As we then review and develop guidance on all aspects of the NSIP process, we will consider how this, alongside government policy in national policy statements, can support the intent of the amendment.

As I have made clear today, the guidance the Government will issue to statutory bodies about their role in the NSIP process will play a vital role, I hope, in addressing noble Lords’ concerns. The Government are clearly in the process of developing policies to update, streamline and rationalise the operation of these bodies and that of regulators and their role in the operation of the planning system, in response to both the Corry and the Cunliffe reviews. My colleagues would welcome further engagement with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and others in the House who have a particular interest in this area, as we undertake the important work.

Complex projects engage multiple regimes, and I understand that they find themselves batted backwards and forwards between Defra regulators. So we are piloting a lead environmental regulator model to provide a single point of contact for developers on the most complex schemes. We have already made a start, working with the Lower Thames Crossing on this.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, asked about the timescale for releasing strategic policy statements for Defra regulators in response to the Corry review. This is one of nine fast-tracked recommendations—and I mean fast-tracked. We will communicate on this very soon—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that I am sorry to use that term—and, when I say “very soon”, I am talking about days, not weeks or months; I hope that gives him some guidance. As the noble Lord knows, the Secretary of State must have regard to matters that are relevant and important to decisions. For all those reasons, I hope the noble Lord is reassured and will withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for those remarks. I am reassured by what she said on timescales and the work that is being undertaken on the NSIP process and the guidance that will come out of that. I would certainly welcome the opportunity to work with her and her team on that guidance. There is more work to do here. The key is ensuring coherence, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said. But I am encouraged by the progress and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 20A withdrawn.

Clause 11: Changes to, and revocation of, development consent orders

Amendment 21

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

21: Clause 11, page 17, line 28, at end insert—
“(4A) After paragraph 104(2)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (decisions in cases where national policy statement has effect) insert—“(ba) any Environmental Delivery Plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 which has effect in relation to development of the description to which the application relates,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that when determining whether planning consent should be granted for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, the Secretary of State must take into account any EDP applying to the land which will be developed.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has just said potentially her favourite words. She spent a lot of Committee on this Bill saying that “in due course” was her least favourite phrase, so it was delightful for her to be able at least to say “very soon”. I wonder whether the same might apply to my amendment; sadly, I expect not. In Committee, I mentioned that I was not satisfied with the response of the Minister and that I would be minded to bring the amendment back on Report. It is somewhat clunky, but it is just the nature of the Bill that we are discussing NSIPs and, as a consequence, I have to speak to my amendment at this stage of the Bill.

So what does my amendment basically say? In essence, we will have environmental delivery plans; what I am asking is that, alongside other matters that the Secretary of State has to consider, they should consider the environmental delivery plan when it comes to an NSIP. For me, this seems logical. I am conscious that other provisions in Section 104 of the Planning Act refer to the need to consider

“any national policy statement which has effect in relation to development of the description to which the application relates”.

It requires

“the appropriate marine policy documents … determined in accordance with section 59 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009”

and consideration of “any local impact report” as well as—I am conscious the Minister may say this—

“any other matters which the Secretary of State thinks are both important and relevant to the … decision”.

The reason why I believe the proposed wording merits being included in the Bill and put into legislation is that, in other parts of legislation, the primary duty of the Secretary of State for Defra is to achieve a variety of targets for nature recovery. But, as we debated in Committee, in reality what we are considering now is what the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will consider. Let us be candid: there has not always been a happy exchange between the two departments in previous history, especially with the new Secretary of State, having just been the Secretary of State at Defra, now talking about “Build, baby, build” and rolling out a whole series of reasons for why infrastructure is being held up—which could not necessarily be stood up properly.

Coming back to my amendment—by the way, I tabled a similar amendment on councillors’ consideration of matters that are not NSIPs—we are trying to get to the bottom of what the EDP will really do, which is still unclear to me. On the whole purpose of this, it is quite possible that an environmental delivery plan may cover land being used by an NSIP. But, according to the answer from the Minister in Committee—I appreciate that she did not use this phrase—it is the quintessence of cash for trash: “That will have already been considered and we don’t need to think about it ever again. There should be no reason for it to be even considered by the Secretary of State when they’re making their determination”. However, I believe it matters so much that it should be.

19:15

So one thing I am hoping to hear from the Government today is a little more detail, before we get to Part 3, about how decisions will be made in reality on significant areas of the country where some compulsory purchase may have been done, according to the powers in the Bill. Will that really not be taken into account? Should we not be trying to make sure that we achieve the primary aim of the Environment Act 2021 and our international treaties, which the Government are quite rightly very fond of? I am thinking in particular of the GBF, negotiated three years ago. Those are the sorts of issues that I would have thought the Government would welcome being in the Bill.

This does not mean that a variety of activity would be stopped, but at least the Government or the Minister would need to show that they had considered the environmental delivery plan against what may or may not be detrimental—it is more likely to be detrimental because that is the whole reason for having established EDPs in regard to how infrastructure is processed. This is sufficiently important that we should consider it as a routine, rather than on the whim of whoever holds office at the time.

As a consequence, I am conscious that we will get properly into EDPs in Part 3, and I do not anticipate that we will do that until sometime on Wednesday or next week. So the timing may not be right but, if I am not satisfied, although I might not press it today, I may consider other mechanisms for this to be considered before the Bill gets Royal Assent. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is right to raise this as an issue of importance. Equally, she pointed to the fact that the impact and effect of EDPs will be discussed at more length when we discuss Part 3. Although EDPs do have a significant part to play in any NSIP consenting regime, the essence of this is about EDPs. Therefore, I hope we can look to a further debate on the whole issue of EDPs when we come to Part 3 later on Report.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing forward Amendment 21. Ensuring that planning consent adequately considers environmental protections is vital and must not be overlooked. However, we are clear, and indeed passionate in our conviction, that the implementation of environmental delivery plans in their current form is deeply problematic. As drafted, the policy risks riding roughshod over our current environmental regime. We must also not forget the interests of farmers and land managers, who are, after all, the principal stewards of our natural environment. My noble friend Lord Roborough will speak in more detail on this topic and develop our position further from Committee in the coming days. My noble friend Lady Coffey is right to highlight how a local environmental delivery plan will interact with a nationally significant infrastructure project. The Government must be clear on how this will work in practice and what they intend to consider when reviewing the impact of these projects.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that any applicable environmental delivery plan, or EDP, is taken into account by the Secretary of State when making a decision whether to grant permission to a nationally significant infrastructure project.

I can assure noble Lords that the way in which EDPs will work in practice means that this amendment is not necessary. Meeting the relevant environmental obligations with an EDP, just as when satisfying them under the current system, is a separate part of the process to the granting of permission. When a promoter commits to pay the levy in relation to an EDP, the making of that commitment discharges the relevant environmental obligation.

I emphasise again that it will, aside from in exceptional circumstances, be a voluntary decision for the promoter of a nationally significant infrastructure project to decide whether they pay the levy to rely on the EDP. This means that while the Secretary of State will need to consider a wide variety of matters, for the purposes of these decisions, the EDP will not be a consideration other than as a way of reflecting that the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature will have been addressed. It does not need to be considered beyond that in the decision to grant permission. This notwithstanding, the Secretary of State may already have regard to any matters which they think are both important and relevant to their decision.

I therefore hope, with this explanation, that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I was clearly hoping for a little bit more than that from the Government—but I am also conscious that we need to get into the real nuts and bolts of the EDP in practice, which we will consider later. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.02 pm.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

19:22

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat the Statement made by my colleague the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the other place. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the legacy of the Troubles, which still hangs heavily over the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.

The Good Friday agreement—that extraordinary act of political courage—brought peace. Although its architects knew that legacy would have to be dealt with, they were not able to do so. This is therefore the unfinished business of that agreement, and it is why so many—too many—victims and survivors are still waiting for answers about what exactly happened to those whom they loved so much.

The previous Government’s legacy Act failed to win support in Northern Ireland, failed to comply with our international human rights obligations and was undeliverable. Whatever its intentions, it was no basis for trying to move forward. That is why the Government are today introducing new primary legislation and laying a draft remedial order under the Human Rights Act as we seek to fulfil our King’s Speech commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act. This legislation will give effect to the framework that I announced with the Irish Government on 19 September, which reflects the principles of the Stormont House agreement and contains sovereign commitments by both the UK and Irish Governments.

The new Troubles Bill will reform the independent commission, to be renamed the Legacy Commission, giving it statutory oversight to provide accountability and confidence, and—learning from Operation Kenova—a statutory victims and survivors advisory group. It will significantly strengthen the governance of the commission, with two co-directors of investigations, statutory conflict of interest duties, and appointments made only following independent advice. It will enhance the investigative powers of the commission and put in place a fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the commission has the powers that it needs to find answers for families and can make public the maximum possible information, consistent with the state’s responsibility to protect life and national security.

The Bill will fulfil the commitment that we have made to restore the small number of Troubles-related inquests that were stopped in their tracks by the legacy Act, and refer the other inquests that had not yet commenced to the Solicitor-General to independently consider whether, in each case, they are dealt with most appropriately by the reformed Legacy Commission or via the coronial system. It will enable the reformed commission to hold new proceedings in cases that are transferred to it from the coronial system. Consistent with the provisions in the Inquiries Act, that will provide for public hearings, the consideration of sensitive information in closed hearings, and effective next-of-kin participation, including through legal representation.

We will also address in the Bill, rather than in the remedial order, the UK Supreme Court ruling in the Adams interim custody order case regarding the application of the Carltona principle. We must put beyond doubt Parliament’s intention by clarifying the fact that the relevant legislation allowed such orders to be made by junior Ministers as well as by the Secretary of State.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the 250,000 Northern Ireland veterans who served with honour and distinction to keep people safe and who worked with the police and other emergency services in the most difficult circumstances imaginable. Their service and their sacrifice will never be forgotten. That is why, having worked closely with the Defence Secretary and the Armed Forces Minister, the Government are introducing strong safeguards for veterans that respond directly to the concerns that have been expressed to us. Those safeguards will also apply to other people, such as former police officers. They will mean that no witnesses will need to travel to Northern Ireland to engage with legacy mechanisms. They will have a right to do so remotely, because coroners and judges in the commission will be legally required to allow it, and support for veterans will be available to assist them in that regard. The commission will be under a duty not to duplicate the work of any previous investigations, unless there are compelling reasons that make it essential to do so. The welfare of veterans will be given proper consideration as part of any assessment as to whether they are required to give evidence, and that will include the right of veterans to seek anonymity when doing so.

Our protections will not be limited to legislation. Any contact with veterans will be facilitated through the Ministry of Defence, protecting veterans from cold-calling, and veterans will not be required to rehearse the historical context surrounding incidents when such information can be obtained from other sources, including the Ministry of Defence. These measures will provide what the three UK veterans commissioners have called for: not immunity from the law, but fairness under it.

The remedial order, which I am also laying today, will remove the previous Government’s much-criticised immunity scheme, which offered false promises, was never introduced and would have enabled those who had committed the most appalling terrorist crimes to be granted immunity from prosecution—the principal reason why the Act was so strongly opposed in Northern Ireland—and it will lift the current prohibition on Troubles-related civil proceedings.

I am grateful to the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, and his team for their open and constructive approach in reaching the framework agreement, which recognises that helping families affected by the Troubles is a shared responsibility. That is why the joint framework contains specific and unprecedented commitments by the Irish Government to facilitate the fullest possible co-operation of the Irish authorities with a reformed legacy commission; to establish a dedicated unit within the Garda to deal with Troubles-related cases, including all outstanding cases in Ireland; and to make a financial contribution of €25 million to help legacy mechanisms. That is, of course, in addition to the £250 million already committed by the UK Government. Where required, legislation will be introduced by the Irish Government to implement those commitments. We are also establishing with the Irish Government an independent commission on information retrieval—initially on a pilot basis—to give families an additional means of obtaining information.

Since my appointment last year, I have had many discussions with political parties, victims and survivors organisations, human rights groups, veterans and others affected by the Troubles. Given the views held by so many people—often diametrically opposed—it was always going to be impossible to set out a plan that gives everyone everything that they want. There will be elements of our approach that some people will welcome and others will not. I also recognise that, because of what has gone before, there is a great lack of trust in all of us in the House on the part of victims and survivors. That is, unfortunately, the reality—but it is not, and it never has been, an argument for not trying to find a way forward. I hope that those who want to see a fair and effective approach to legacy that can command greater support in Northern Ireland will recognise that these measures represent fundamental reform, and that they will therefore be given a chance to succeed.

Time waits for no one, least of all for the many families who lost loved ones, and they, ultimately, will be the judge of whether these new arrangements can give them the answers that they have sought for so long. I hope that we will together be able to grasp this opportunity, and so help the people of Northern Ireland to look to a future freer of the burden of the past. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

19:30

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement. At the outset, it is right that in approaching this issue, first and foremost in our thoughts are the victims and survivors of the Troubles. Over 3,500 lives were lost, tens of thousands more were maimed and injured, families were broken, and communities and livelihoods were destroyed, overwhelmingly at the hands of terrorists right here in this United Kingdom.

We also recall with pride those who stood in the front line against terrorism to protect the community, to uphold democracy and to maintain the rule of law. As the Statement acknowledges, and I welcome this, the vast majority of the more than 250,000 people who served during Operation Banner did so with the utmost courage, total professionalism, even-handedness and restraint in the face of often the most fierce provocation. Without their efforts, there would have been no peace process and no Belfast agreement, and we all owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. Unfortunately, our concern over the proposals now being brought forward is that, in honouring that debt, they sadly fall short.

I do not need reminding at all how difficult, sensitive and emotional these matters are. Finding consensus, often even within communities or the same groups, has eluded successive Governments, including, I admit, my own. Yet the previous Government’s legislation, while never perfect—as I often made clear—sought to establish a route towards providing victims and survivors with more information about what happened to their loved ones, while at the same time providing protections to those who served. While acknowledging the legal challenges, the current Government could have pursued the appeals that we had lodged. Instead, they took the political decision to abandon them, and today, however much they seek to dress this up, we have a set of proposals that will see elderly veterans hauled before the coroners’ courts to account for the events of decades ago—or, worse still, face the possibility of criminal prosecutions at a time when we all know that the chances of former paramilitaries facing the courts will be vanishingly small.

The Government will of course point to the package of six so-called protections that they will introduce, but can the noble Baroness confirm that a number of them, such as anonymity or appearing remotely, are already at the discretion of the court? The Statement says that the protections will apply to other groups, such as police officers, yet inexplicably it omits to mention whether they apply to former paramilitaries, presumably a drafting oversight by the Northern Ireland Office. In September, when asked to clarify whether the protections were for everybody who came forward, including paramilitaries, the Prime Minister said, “No, it’s for veterans”, but we know that this is not the case. Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister was wrong and that five of the six so-called protections for veterans will apply equally to former paramilitaries?

On inquests, will the noble Baroness tell the House how many will now resume and how many will be referred to the Solicitor-General? Will the resumed inquests include Loughgall, where the SAS prevented a murderous IRA attack on a police station in 1987? On those referred to the Solicitor-General—not, we note, the Attorney-General—what criteria will be applied to determine whether they are allowed to proceed or whether they will be taken on by the legacy commission?

At the point at which they were stopped, more than 700 civil cases had been lodged with the courts in Belfast. Can the Minister therefore tell us what additional resource will be provided to the courts service to deal with this backlog and the inevitable new wave of cases, presumably mostly directed against the state, that the Government’s proposals will unleash? Do they intend to provide extra support to the PSNI for the additional burdens placed on it by reopening inquest and civil cases, in addition to the £250 million committed to legacy by the previous Government?

On Gerry Adams, can the Minister set out in more detail how the Government’s proposals will prevent him and others receiving a single penny of compensation, not least since Mr Adams has already announced his intention to challenge this?

On the role of the Irish Government, we welcome their new-found enthusiasm to address legacy matters, when there has not been a single prosecution for a Troubles-related incident within their jurisdiction since 1998. Can the Minister tell us what “fullest co-operation” means in practice when exactly the same words were used in respect of the Omagh public inquiry, yet the Omagh families remain highly critical of the role of the Irish Government?

Finally, is it not an unbelievable approach to negotiation that the Government would agree to a joint framework with Ireland while it maintains an interstate case against the United Kingdom in Strasbourg? They criticised our legislation for lacking consensus, yet is it not a fact that the only consensus they have achieved is with an Irish Government who hold a threat over them that they will not drop this case until they are satisfied by legislation passed in this United Kingdom Parliament relating to a part of our own country?

I look forward to the Minister’s detailed replies. If she is unable to give the detail needed at the Dispatch Box today—I appreciate that she has quite a long day—will she commit to write to me?

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made in the House of Commons last week. Dealing with the past is a highly complex subject that inevitably provokes strong emotions. It is not surprising but is, I believe, highly regrettable that when the Good Friday/Belfast agreement was signed 27 years ago, legacy issues were left for the most part unresolved. Time may have passed but the pain and anger felt by so many victims, survivors and their families remain very real and deeply painful.

From the nearly 10 years that I have been covering Northern Ireland from these Benches, I observe that it is relatively easy to criticise the Government of the day in their response to dealing with legacy issues, but it is rather harder to come up with concrete proposals once in government. It is extremely difficult to have proposals, as the Statement says, that are acceptable to all, but it has to be a question of fairness, balance and proportionality. Most of all, we need an approach that helps to rebuild trust in the process through transparent institutions capable of delivering reconciliation based on truth, justice and closure.

I do not doubt the sincerity with which the noble Lord, Lord Caine, with all his experience, is criticising many of the Government’s revised legacy proposals and has asked so many questions, but we should, none the less, recall that the legacy Act from the previous Conservative Government was almost unique in recent times in its achievement of uniting all Northern Ireland political parties, as well as the victims’ groups, against it. It was also challenged in the courts, proved not to be compliant with our international human rights obligations and was unworkable in practice, so the current Government were duty-bound to reverse many of the elements in that Act, notably the section on immunity.

I welcome that the Government are once again attempting to square the circle and move us forward on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. In particular, I welcome the commitment to ensuring that the legislation is ECHR-compliant. In that regard, can the Minister confirm that she now expects the interstate case against the UK by the Republic of Ireland to be dropped once this legislation has been passed—and, I sincerely hope, even sooner?

We will have lots of time to examine this Bill in great detail during its passage through your Lordships’ House and to press the Government on how many of its proposals will work in practice, but since the Bill’s publication last week it is clear that the greatest area of concern has been that regarding the rights of veterans. As my colleague Al Pinkerton MP has so rightly put it, veterans

“need to feel that the process of prosecution does not become persecution”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/25; col. 257.]

I know that the Minister is an honorary captain in the Royal Navy and cares very deeply about these issues, but can she confirm that she personally has been consulting with veteran groups? Will she say a little more about how veterans will be protected from vexatious cases following this legislation? I understand from the discussions in the House of Commons last week that it is proposed that the Ministry of Defence will act as a point of initial contact, but can she say a little more about how she sees this operating in practice?

In conclusion, from these Benches we look forward to engaging constructively with the Government on this Bill and to finding ways to ensure that it keeps victims right at the heart of this process, while ensuring fairness and proportionality for veterans.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I have lots of bits of paper in front of me, so please bear with me. I need to start by putting on record my genuine thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for everything he did, and the previous Government for everything they attempted to do—some of which I agree with, and some I do not. But we are using all their work as a basis to try to fix the things that simply are not working, to make sure that cross-community faith is heard in the legacy commission, and to fix the things that, candidly, were false promises, as it turned out, for members of the veterans community. But there is no one in your Lordships’ House who would question noble Lord’s commitment to peace in Northern Ireland, nor that of his Front Bench, and the same goes for the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I am beyond grateful for the time they give me, both inside and outside this Chamber, to try to make sure that we can actually deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, and the people who were touched by the Troubles and still do not have answers.

There is a reason why we are bringing forward this legislation. It is not because there is nothing for your Lordships to discuss or do at the moment—noble Lords will be aware that we will be sitting until quite late again this evening—but because we genuinely believe that this is the final opportunity to deliver on the promise of the Stormont House agreement and the promise of the Good Friday agreement, and to make sure that the next generation does not carry the burden of the past, but can move forward.

There are victims waiting for answers. They include the families of veterans who lost their lives and paid the ultimate sacrifice during Op Banner, when they ran to put themselves between terrorists and the general public. They are also the people who suffered horror at the hands of terrorists, and it is only right that people receive answers. That is why we are all here, and I hope that as the legislation progresses through your Lordships’ House, it is what we all seek to do.

There are many questions that were asked, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Caine. If I miss any, which is inevitable, I will write to the noble Lord. But it is fair to say that we will be discussing these issues for many hours in your Lordships’ House, so inevitably I will cover them all. Whether it is today or not, I commit to write to all Members present if there is anything I have missed.

Before I touch on the issue of veterans, on which, unsurprisingly, I have a significant amount to say, I put on record my personal role as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. While it is an honorary role, I do have a uniform, and I consider myself part of the military family and therefore I take these issues—the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, is absolutely right—very seriously. I have engaged personally with veterans both at home and in Northern Ireland on my visits, including when I visited Omagh in August to mark the anniversary of the bombing, and met with an extraordinary group of men. I subsequently met some of the women who also were present on that day, who must deal with the consequences of what they saw every day. They are dealing with one of the worst examples of what happens when you are told the wrong location of a bomb and you push people towards it, as opposed to away from it. People are still suffering every day because of their experiences in Northern Ireland.

I want to be really clear to noble Lords, as I will be throughout this process, on the protections available to veterans. We have listened to the veterans community. The reality is that immunity was a false promise and did not deliver for them. It has never been enacted, and we must make sure that veterans have actual protections in place, not false promises—they deserve so much better. There will be, without doubt, a huge amount of contention about this. It is very important to reference the fact that this is the reality of where we currently stand. Noble Lords are absolutely right that some of the protections we are announcing apply to more than just veterans, because they have to. They must also apply to other people, other groups that served, including the RUC and others. There is not a word that helps us get to just to one point of people, but I want to reassure noble Lords that this legislation was drafted with veterans at its heart.

The protections, while they may apply to others, were designed specifically to help veterans. Those protections include protection from repeated investigations; the legacy commission will not needlessly duplicate previous investigative work veterans may have already participated in, unless it is necessary. Veterans will not need to explain historical context that is already known. It is ludicrous to me that junior officers, or non-commissioned officers, were asked to give evidence about strategic environments; they may well have been under 20, and they were having to give an overview. It is unnecessary, and the MoD has experts on hand who can provide that context. They will have the right to stay at home: veterans will not be forced to travel to or around Northern Ireland to give evidence as a witness to the commission or to an inquest. They will have the right to seek anonymity: veterans will be able to request anonymity when giving evidence. They will also have protections in old age. At the weekend I listened once again to a podcast on 50 years on from Bloody Sunday. In fact, now it is 53 years on. We are talking about people who need protection in old age. Veterans’ health and wellbeing will be taken into account by the commission and coroners if they are required to give evidence, and they may not need to give evidence at all based on those considerations.

On protections from cold calling or unexpected letters, veterans will be contacted only through official channels, with Ministry of Defence support. This is an incredibly important thing, because it will also ensure that no veterans slip through the net and end up getting contacted by accident. On the specifics raised by the noble Baroness, the MoD will also make an independent expert adviser available to remove the need for veterans to give testimony or historical context in the operations. In addition, every time they are contacted, we can make sure that the MoD can provide the bespoke support needed for that veteran. My noble friend the Minister at the MoD has been clear in making sure that this is in place, and I thank him for it.

Turning to another incredibly important thing, one of the additional parts of the legislation is the right to be heard. There will be a statutory advisory group for the legacy commission, which will provide an opportunity for the voices of all victims and survivors of the Troubles to be heard, including ones from a service background. It is very important that those voices are heard, including throughout the operation of the legacy commission.

I will move on to some of the other issues that were raised. Nine inquests will immediately restart; the others will be assessed by the Solicitor-General, as one of the law officers. There will be up to 24. She will be analysing each case based on the relevant sensitive issue, and there will always be a presumption in favour of referring that case to the commission. She will also be assessing the capacity to undertake the reinstatement of the inquest. Within 18 months of the Act gaining Royal Assent, she will provide for what will happen to the additional outstanding cases. On funding for the PSNI—a very topical question today—we have committed to £250 million. I will revert in due course to additional funding if required. Obviously, there will always be ongoing conversations. On the capacity of the MoJ, I will be in contact. I will write to the noble Lord on the question about the court service and what additional support we are putting in place, although I do not recognise the number referred to.

Gerry Adams is obviously at the heart of this conversation. There are several outstanding cases around the ICOs, but in the legislation we are bringing forward a reinstatement of the Carltona principle in the context of the interim custody orders. The previous Government’s attempt to address this following the 2020 Supreme Court judgment in R v Adams has been found by the Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our international obligations. We need to find a better way of reaffirming this principle. The Government’s belated attempt to do so via an amendment to the legacy Act has been found by the Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our international obligations. That is why we are including it in primary legislation. I look forward to debating that in due course with all noble Lords.

I realise that I am over time but I have two more points, if noble Lords will indulge me slightly. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble Baroness for raising the interstate case. I would expect that as soon as this legislation gains Royal Assent, there will be absolutely zero grounds for the continuation of the interstate case and I look forward to it disappearing at that point, if not before. Secondly, on Omagh, I have been there twice this year. I have met the people giving evidence to the public inquiry and others. We are quite clear on the issue of Omagh. I welcome the MoU to the inquiry, which has been signed by the Irish Government, to bring forward more evidence. I hope that we will see genuine efforts. I want to be clear that a public inquiry is currently under way; anything that would undermine that while it is still trying to get to the facts of the case will not help us. I welcome its work and thank Lord Turnbull for the work he is doing. The Irish Government have committed through the MoU to working forward; I am really pleased with that step and look forward to seeing the outcomes.

I realise that I may not have touched on all the points, but I will write to noble Lords about the issues I have missed.

19:52

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I too pay tribute to all the victims, the survivors and their families, who have suffered so much over many decades of the Troubles. She will be aware that there was great annoyance that this Statement was originally made when the other place was in recess and on the very final sitting day of this House, contrary to promises and pledges made to all the parties. The Government should apologise to parliamentarians in both Houses for that.

It is also important that, as we take this legislation through, there is no conflation of innocent victims with the perpetrators of violence, no conflation of the security forces of Northern Ireland—including the Army, the UDR and the police—with terrorists of whatever hue, and no conflation between those of us who advocate on behalf of the victims of terrorism and violence and those such as Sinn Féin which advocate on behalf of terrorists against the security forces. These basic principles must be re-emphasised if we are to give confidence to those who have suffered so much at the hands of criminals and gangsters. Will the Minister commit the Government, here and in the other place, to talking to the victims and veterans throughout this process and hear what they think of this legislation? So far, it appears that the only consultation that has taken place has been with the Dublin Government.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord not just for his comments but for all the work he has done as a genuine leader in his community. There are still times when I call him and cannot believe that his name is in my phone. I am grateful for everything that he has given me. He is absolutely right that I need to apologise that we could not do this because of the timings of the international agreement, which is what the framework was. The noble Lord is very aware that the timing was not of my choice. I apologise to him and your Lordships’ House that it has taken us this amount of time to get here. I also make it clear that we are here today because Northern Ireland business should never happen on a Thursday, so that noble Lords can actively participate.

The noble Lord touches on a very important point about the victims of terrorism. Many people have made that clear, including Ben Wallace. I debated using this quote but, when Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace said that:

“No-one is above the law. The British Army uphold British values, which is the rule of law, and that’s what we stand for. That’s why we are better than the terrorists”.


I am clear about our responsibility to make sure that the people affected by the most heinous terrorism of my lifetime on our shores get the answers that they are working for. There is not a day in the calendar on which someone was not murdered in the Troubles. As we stand here today, people will be grieving and remembering what happened to their loved ones. We all talk to victims’ groups regularly, as well as the NIO.

I will make one offer to noble Lords. I will be in Northern Ireland on a number of occasions before this legislation comes forward, and definitely between now and Christmas. If there are people whom the noble Lord would like me to sit down with—that offer goes to all Members of your Lordships’ House who live in Northern Ireland—and talk to about their experiences and what they need from this legislation, then my time is theirs.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the statement that my noble friend has just made, as well as the Statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the primary legislation that the Government are introducing. The previous legacy Act was never going to be sustainable. I never thought that the noble Lord, Lord Caine, who was very open to discussion on that Act, for which I thank him, was a 300% advocate for it. Its immunity provisions were opposed by every victims’ group and political party, so it is good that it is being repealed.

I have two specific points. On the legacy commission, I would like some clarification on the welcome reference in the Statement to “learning from Operation Kenova”. That operated to criminal justice standards, which meant that you could in principle refer cases for prosecution, although it was very difficult given their longevity over many decades and the difficulty of finding sustainable evidence. Is that what “learning from Operation Kenova” means? Secondly, the commission has not enjoyed support on a cross-community basis from the different victims’ groups or the parties. What does the appointment of codirectors for investigation mean? Is it designed to give it some kind of independent authority and oversight? I would welcome it if that were the case, because that would enhance its credibility.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his questions, his work as Northern Ireland Secretary and his role in working with victims’ groups, including WAVE, with which he has a long-standing relationship. He is absolutely right about immunity, which was opposed by everyone. That is one of the reasons why it was in our manifesto; we are delivering on our manifesto commitment. Criminal investigation standards are what we are expect from the legacy commission. The other learning we take from Operation Kenova is that voices will be heard within the commission that are currently not. There will be victims’ voices, as well as those of veterans, whom I have spoken about, and other people affected, which we hope will guide the work of the legacy commission going forward.

On the codirectors for investigation, we are also bringing forward a new governance structure to make sure that there are clear reporting lines and accountability for the legacy commission. There will be two roles for the codirectors: one for someone who has expertise and a history of investigations in Northern Ireland, and another for someone who has experience of investigations, but not in Northern Ireland. That means that we can make sure that, if there is a perceived conflict of interest, it is answered. I hope that will go some way to reassuring people who should be accessing the legacy commission for help.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I have one specific question in relation to the proposal in paragraph 6 of the joint framework to replace the existing Commissioner for Investigations with two co-directors for investigations, one of whom must have experience outside Northern Ireland. Is it envisaged that this appointment will go to someone from the Irish Republic? This would place in their hands the authority enjoyed by a commissioner to confer the powers of a constable on an individual within the legacy commission, along with access to highly sensitive national security and intelligence-related material.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. There will be an open process, and the person appointed will be appointed by the Secretary of State. There is no commitment or expectation that the person will be from the Republic of Ireland, and I would be surprised if they were.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement this evening. I also thank her for the engagement we have had over the last few weeks and for the letter I received today in response to the representations I had made. I totally condemn all that violence and terrorism, and the murder of innocent people over all those long years. For those of us who lived in Northern Ireland and grew up during that period of violence, it was very difficult. I have two questions, one of which has already been referred to.

First, will the new legacy body be independent of the Secretary of State? That was one of the issues that was raised with the previous legacy legislation. Secondly, will the Government ensure that a victim-centred process is pivotal to all of the legislation? I welcome the fact that there is a joint British and Irish Government approach because the problem with the previous legislation was that there had been no consultation with the Irish Government. Therefore, what further consultation will take place on a formal and informal basis with political parties and all the victims’ groups in Northern Ireland?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

One of the most important things about the additional powers we are giving to the legacy commission is the new governance structures, which I hope will give a level of confidence about its independence. That is not to say the Secretary of State will be completely isolated; we are talking about some issues relating to national security and there will be some responsibilities for the Secretary of State, all of which are outlined in the legislation. However, we are putting in an independent governance structure where we can make it very clear about who is responsible for what when, and so that people can have confidence that this is independent of the British state where necessary.

On a victims-centred process, let us remember why we are doing this: it is about victims, their families and people. Candidly, it is not about most of us in your Lordships’ House—though there are notable exceptions to that. This is about making sure that everyone has the answers they need. Every family I have talked to needs a different set of answers and is looking for different things from the commission; we need to ensure that what they want and need is at the heart of it.

Of course we will continue engagement. Legislation has now started in the other place and will come to us. All political parties will be engaged, both inside and outside the Chamber. We will continue to actively engage with all victims’ groups.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I speak as a victim of IRA terrorism. As I stand yet again to speak on legacy matters, I feel that trauma rising in me; I feel my heart beating and the distress, and for those who have suffered both outside and inside this House, it is always traumatic when we get to these things. However, I welcome the Government’s proposed legislation, though I have not had time to consider it in detail. I want to make two points.

Having had members of my family serve in the military in Northern Ireland, I understand the position with regard to veterans. However, it will be profoundly important—and I hope the Minister can assure me—that veterans, former members of the PSNI and any serving members of the PSNI from that era and ordinary people in Northern Ireland will all receive the same treatment under the rule of law and that there will be no special treatment for veterans.

For example, many people who suffered in the trauma of the Troubles left Northern Ireland. They presumably will be afforded the same right to give evidence and be interviewed at a distance as those veterans who are in Northern Ireland. It is profoundly important that happens because there was no trust in the Northern Ireland Troubles legacy Act and it is vital we get this right to allow people to have trust in it.

Secondly, despite £250 million being allocated, it is going to be vital that there is not just support for the PSNI in this. Our public prosecution and court services are broken; cases take far too long to get to court and there does not seem to be the lawyers to operate and move things along smoothly. There needs to be real thought about how we underpin the processes we are going to set under way. I therefore ask the Minister for assurances that there will be wider consideration there.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. She reminds all of us of the personal cost that many people in your Lordships’ House and across Parliament have paid. She also reminds me of why I am so passionate about what we are trying to achieve: making sure that she and others get answers, but also making sure that this is the final generation that has to carry this burden. When I was in Northern Ireland earlier this year, I met with a group of people who called themselves the “peace babies”. It is incredibly important that we hold on to the peace babies and that they do not have to carry the burden of this trauma.

With regard to the specifics, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. The Veterans Commissioners of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales said in July that this is not a call for immunity from the law but for fairness under it. That should apply to everybody; everyone should receive the same treatment under the law. Protections will apply to all victims. I want to be very clear to noble Lords that this legislation was drafted with a view to what was specifically impacting veterans; while other people will benefit from it, we did start with that process.

On the court system, the noble Baroness makes a very valid point, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Caine. My hope and expectation is that most people will seek to use the legacy commission. That is why we are strengthening the commission, its governance and hopefully giving more people confidence in it, so that it will not overburden the courts. I will revert on the other points that she made.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I compliment the Minister on her deep feeling about what was said. I will comment on veterans. This Parliament, people sitting on these Benches and down there, sent young men, such as myself, to Northern Ireland into the face of danger. Many of them were killed. Not all of them behaved perfectly—I know that perfectly well—and some went to prison, but mostly people were doing their duty. We need to remember that the whole time.

On the other hand, we have IRA terrorists, such as Gerry Adams, who almost certainly was responsible for the murder of Jean McConville. I cannot mention any other cases. The Minister would expect me to remember people such as Andrew French, a friend of mine, and Simon Ware, a friend of mine, who were murdered by terrorists. I do not think that anybody has ever been caught for their murder, so I say to the noble Baroness: please remember that soldiers went there to do their duty. They may not always have got it right, but that is why they were there, sent by people sitting on these Benches.

Secondly, please make sure that no murdering terrorists, such as Gerry Adams, get money from the state, having murdered many members of the state and indeed the people of Northern Ireland.

Thirdly, if there is a problem with the law, change the law.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I will start with the final point: we are changing the law, and that is what we are spending a lot of time on. This includes the re-establishment of the Carltona principle, to ensure that the principle that several Members of your Lordships’ House used when they were Northern Ireland Ministers and believed that they were acting in good faith exists in law and is retrospectively applied.

I thank the noble Lord, and everyone who served, for his service. We sent many young men to Northern Ireland. Many did extraordinary things to keep us safe and I thank them for doing their duty. I make it clear that veterans’ families, including the families of the veterans he named, need answers too. I hope they will seek to go to the legacy commission to make sure that they get answers. It is why we want to make sure that veterans’ voices and those of the victims’ families are heard and are at the centre of the commission.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, the Belfast agreement has been held up in high esteem here. But why are the Irish Government involved in this part of the scheme? The Irish Government were not involved in strand one of the Belfast agreement, so why do we need agreement from them now to take this forward? It is nonsensical. They have done nothing down the years to support the people of Northern Ireland against terrorism—in fact, on some occasions they have facilitated terrorism in Northern Ireland, which is an absolute shame. I quote the Minister’s own words: “We are better than the terrorists”. It does not appear that way, if there are to be new inquests into the eight terrorists of Loughgall who tried to murder and maim everybody in the station there. It is absolutely terrible and ridiculous. We are not starting off from the same basis at all. There is not fair treatment, simply because security forces hold all the information, terrorists do not. Is this a departure from the Belfast agreement? Has she set the Belfast agreement aside, in the interests of trying to get some deal with the Irish Government?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord served with distinction for many years. I am grateful for the time he gives me and for the work that he has done in Northern Ireland to deliver peace.

As someone who was born in 1979, for me, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was something I celebrated and welcomed and consider one of the most successful achievements of the last Labour Government. The reality is that the Republic of Ireland is a co-guarantor of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is one of the reasons why it is so incredibly important that we are working with it. This is an unprecedented level of commitment from the Irish Government about the Troubles and I am truly grateful that they have moved forward. They have been clear that they will facilitate the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant authorities with the commission. They are establishing a dedicated unit to deal with Troubles-related cases, acting as a single point of contact for families within the Irish system. They will make a financial contribution of €25 million over three years to resource legacy mechanisms. Consistent with the Stormont House agreement—which I know the noble Lord’s party was not supportive of but which shows that the Irish Government have been party to this for many years—the two Governments will establish the independent commission on information retrieval to make sure that people get the evidence when they need it.

I know that there are concerns, and that the proof will be in the pudding, but working with the Irish to deliver answers for the people of Northern Ireland is incredibly important. As I have said consistently throughout, this is about answers for the people who are still waiting for information about what happened to their families. It is they who are front and centre in all of our efforts.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Report (1st Day) (Continued)

20:14

Amendment 22

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

22: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Whistleblowing and oversight for nationally significant infrastructure projects(1) For the purposes of this Act, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) is responsible for receiving and investigating protected disclosures in connection with nationally significant infrastructure projects.(2) In particular, NISTA is responsible for—(a) receiving disclosures of information from individuals or organisations relating to suspected misconduct, mismanagement, breach of environmental regulations, or any other matter of public interest connected to nationally significant infrastructure projects;(b) assessing whether such disclosures fall within its remit and merit investigation;(c) undertaking investigations where appropriate and referring matters to relevant regulatory, law enforcement, or oversight bodies;(d) providing advice and guidance to individuals considering making protected disclosures in relation to such projects;(e) reporting on the nature, volume, and outcome of disclosures received, with appropriate protections for confidentiality and whistleblower anonymity;(f) establishing and maintaining a framework setting out the protections afforded to whistleblowers, including remedies for individuals who suffer detriment as a result of making a disclosure, and procedures for seeking redress.(3) For the purposes of this section, “protected disclosures” are those that meet the conditions set out in section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (disclosures qualifying for protection), as they relate to the planning, development, or operation of nationally significant infrastructure projects.(4) NISTA is responsible for ensuring it has—(a) an appropriate governance structure;(b) clear processes and criteria for assessing disclosures;(c) mechanisms for collaboration with other statutory regulators or planning authorities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment places responsibility on the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) to receive, investigate, and oversee whistleblowing disclosures relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects, ensuring protections for whistleblowers and coordination with relevant regulators.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I recognise there is a lot of business to get through tonight, so I will be brief.

When whistleblowing was discussed in Committee, speakers from around the Chamber—except, sadly, the Government—seemed to recognise that the current whistleblowing framework is unfit for purpose. It is the framework that left whistleblowers on HS2 and Crossrail at best sidelined and at worst silenced and persecuted. The cost to the taxpayer because trouble was covered up and not nipped in the bud and managed has run into billions. This has happened on many other transport and power projects where problems are covered up and exposed too late.

In Committee, as I have done before, I proposed a new whistleblowing framework, including an office of the whistleblower. In that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, constructively suggested that, instead of a separate office, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, NISTA, could be an effective body in which to place whistleblowing powers and a whistleblowing channel related to infrastructure. A redrafted amendment, Amendment 22, now reflects that proposal.

I still have a preference for a single office of the whistleblower under the Cabinet Office, but I am also a realist. Change on that scale will not be achieved anytime soon. However, if we launch a new drive for infrastructure—which we all recognise is essential for growth—without fixing the whistleblowing framework, we would be fooling ourselves if we expect not to repeat the scandals we have seen historically. Cover-ups will continue and will seriously damage the growth agenda. I hope that the Government, with this revision, will respond more constructively to the issue of whistleblowing and to the approach that places the framework inside NISTA.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as I did recently in the Moses Room on the same issue of whistleblowing. The noble Baroness is our pioneer, expert and leader on whistleblowing. I signed this amendment because it is important to demonstrate that this is an issue of broad concern.

The noble Baroness made clearly the case that we have huge problems with effectively and cost-effectively delivering major projects so that they do what they say they will do on the tin. The people who are most likely to know that something is going wrong are people within the organisation. It is terribly important to ensure that whistleblowers feel safe and will not tear their life apart if they come forward to report the issue.

The noble Baroness, helped by other Peers, has come up with a creative solution for NISTA to pick up this role in this context. I therefore hope that we will hear some movement from the Government on the issue.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as we said in Committee, Amendment 22, from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is a clear and well-intentioned proposal that raises important questions about how individuals can share their concerns relating to NSIPs. However, as we noted previously, establishing independent bodies through amendments is not straightforward. The former Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, addressed that point, and the Government have set out their enthusiasm to work with organisations that support whistleblowers. We will hold the Government to account on that assurance and continue to work with your Lordships’ House to ensure that whistleblowers are protected.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, proposes that the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—NISTA—be given a new responsibility to receive, assess, investigate where appropriate and oversee whistleblowing disclosures related to nationally significant infrastructure projects. The amendment seeks to ensure appropriate protection for whistleblowers and co-ordination with relevant regulators and planning authorities.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue and have listened carefully to her remarks. While I recognise the intention behind the amendment, I must say again that I do not share the view that there is evidence of whistleblowing being a current, widespread concern within the NSIP regime. As she will know, there is already a well-established framework of prescribed persons and bodies to whom whistleblowers may turn, independent of their employer, as provided for under the Employment Rights Act 1996. They include organisations covering areas such as environmental protection, health and safety, transport, utilities and local government, which are of direct relevance to NSIPs.

Adding NISTA to this list would duplicate existing functions already carried out by regulators, such as the Environment Agency, which have the appropriate expertise and statutory powers. Given this existing framework, we believe that adding another body to the list would create a duplication of roles and, in any event, would not require primary legislation to achieve, as new persons or bodies can already be prescribed through Section 43F of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In the light of this, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am saddened by the Government’s response. The next time we have a major project and there is a major scandal, they will have to take ownership of it. They looked at the framework that delivered us the problems on HS2. The names of the whistleblowers are now public: Doug Thornton and others reported that financials had been distorted, misrepresented and covered up, which delayed the making of a series of appropriate decisions on HS2. In the end, they were fundamental in requiring the truncation of what had been a much larger scheme. Crossrail is a similar example. Until about eight weeks before it was due to open, nobody in political decision-making knew that the project had fallen into deep trouble. It ended up being delayed by four years and was £4 billion over budget. This is repeated again and again. We have had similar problems with Hinkley Point and many other projects. That is what the current framework, which the Minister defends, actually delivers.

If the nettle is not grasped, we will see the same experiences again. Even if it is in only 10% of the projects that are anticipated for the future and that will be relevant to the growth agenda, the consequences will be significant. The existing framework, no matter what it says on paper, has demonstrated that it is unfit. Look at the Post Office scandal, the contaminated blood scandal, the issues in the NHS, the PPI scandal and the series of financial scandals—the framework does not work.

I ask the Minister to take the issue away, speak with some of his colleagues and see what can be done to make sure that, at least within the context of infrastructure, there is an effective channel that works. It must provide protection for whistleblowers in a real way, not just on paper, and lead to the necessary investigations. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 22 withdrawn.

Amendment 23

Moved by

[Viscount Hanworth]

23: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Decisions in cases of development consent orders for critical national priority projects(1) In the Planning Act 2008, after section 117 insert—“117A Orders granting development consent: critical national priority projects(1) Schedule 3A applies to an order granting development consent for a project that is a critical national priority if, at any time before the order was made, the applicant for the order had made a request in writing to the Secretary of State that Schedule 3A should apply to the order.(2) A project is a critical national priority if a national policy statement that has effect in relation to the application for development consent for the project specifically identifies the project as a critical national priority.”.(2) After Schedule 3 to the Planning Act 2008, insert—“Schedule 3AParliamentary confirmation of orders granting development consent for critical national priority projectsOrders granting development consent subject to this Schedule
1 (1) An order granting development consent to which this Schedule applies may only come into force if approved by an Act of Parliament passed in accordance with this Schedule.(2) Sections 130 to 132 (special parliamentary procedure in relation to National Trust land, commons, open spaces, etc) do not apply to an order granting development consent to which this Schedule applies.Introduction of order confirmation Bill
2 (1) As soon as practicable after making an order granting development consent to which this Schedule applies, the Secretary of State must introduce into Parliament a Bill for confirmation of the order, which is to be treated as a public Bill.(2) The Bill must include the order as a Schedule to the Bill and must be accompanied by an Environmental Report prepared by the Secretary of State.(3) The Environmental Report mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) must set out a summary of the likely significant effects on the environment of the project granted development consent by the order and the main measures proposed to be taken to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects of the project.Petitions against order confirmation Bill
3 (1) If, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which a Bill to which this Schedule applies is introduced into either House of Parliament, a petition is deposited against the Bill in that House, the petition stands referred to the Chairmen for examination in accordance with this paragraph and Standing Orders.(2) Within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which any such petition is deposited, the Secretary of State responsible for the Bill or the applicant for the order may deposit a memorial objecting to the petition, or any part of the petition, being certified as proper to be received, stating specifically the grounds of their objection.(3) As soon as practicable after the expiration of the period of seven days mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), the Chairmen must take into consideration all petitions referred to them under sub-paragraph (1) and any memorial deposited under sub-paragraph (2), and if the Chairmen are satisfied with respect to any such petition that the provisions of this paragraph and of Standing Orders have been complied with in respect of the petition, or part of the petition, they must certify that the petition or the specified part of it, is proper to be received.(4) The Chairmen must not certify that a petition, or any part of a petition, is proper to be received if the petition, or that part of the petition, relates to matters considered during the examination of the application for the order conducted under Chapter 4 of Part 6 of this Act and subsequently by the Secretary of State under Chapter 5 of that Part, other than—(a) matters relating to sections 130 to 132 (special parliamentary procedure in relation to National Trust land, commons, open spaces, etc), or(b) matters relating to the compulsory acquisition of any interest in or right over land provided for by the order.(5) In respect of every Bill to which this Schedule applies, the Chairmen must report whether any petitions have been presented against it and, if so, what petitions or parts of them, have been certified as proper to be received and whether any amendment to the Bill proposed by the petitions would, if made, alter the scope of the Bill or affect the interests of persons other than the petitioners; and subject to Standing Orders, every such report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.Proceedings following petitioning period
4 (1) Where a petition or part of a petition has been certified by the Chairmen under paragraph 3 as proper to be received, the Bill—(a) after being read a second time in the House in which it is presented, is to be referred to a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament for the purposes of the consideration of that petition or part of it, except where either House has resolved within the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which the report of the Chairmen referred to in paragraph 3 is laid before it, that the petition or part of the petition should not be so referred,(b) after it has been reported by the joint committee, is to be ordered to be considered in the House in which it was presented as if it had been reported by a committee of that House, and (c) when it has been read a third time and passed by that House, is to be treated as having passed through all its stages up to and including committee stage in the second House.(2) A joint committee shall consist of three members of the House of Commons and three members of the House of Lords, in each case to be nominated by the House’s Committee of Selection within 10 sitting days of the Chairmen’s report having been laid before both Houses of Parliament under paragraph 3.(3) Where no such petition or part of any petition has been so certified by the Chairmen under paragraph 3 as proper to be received—(a) the Bill is, after its presentation, to be treated as having passed all its stages up to and including committee in the House in which it is presented,(b) the Bill is to be ordered to be considered in that House as if it had been reported from a committee of that House, and(c) when the Bill has been read a third time and passed in that House, the like proceedings on the Bill are to be deemed to have been taken, and to be taken, in the second House.Powers and proceedings of joint committee
5 (1) Where any petition or part of a petition against a Bill to which this Schedule applies is referred to a joint committee under paragraph 4, the Bill is to stand referred to that committee for the purpose of the consideration of the petition or part of the petition, and the committee must report the Bill either without amendment or with such amendments as they think expedient to give effect, either in whole or in part, to the petition or to the part of the petition, and with such consequential amendments, if any, as they think appropriate.(2) The joint committee must conduct its consideration of the Bill and of all petitions and counter-petitions in accordance with any instruction given by the House concerned after second reading of the Bill, and must report the Bill in accordance with any programme set out in the instruction.(3) Subject to Standing Orders, the report of the joint committee is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.Costs
6 (1) A joint committee considering a Bill to which this Schedule applies has the same power to award costs as a select committee of either House in relation to a Provisional Order Bill under sections 9 to 12 of the Parliamentary Costs Act 2006 (as a result of section 15(4) and (5) of that Act); and sections 9 to 12 of that Act apply accordingly subject to any necessary modifications.(2) Sections 2 to 8, 13 and 14 of that Act apply with any necessary modifications to costs incurred in respect of a Bill to which this Schedule applies, as they apply to costs incurred in respect of a private Bill.Standing Orders
7 (1) Except as may be provided by Standing Orders made under sub-paragraph (2), the Private Business Standing Orders, and the custom and practice of Parliament relating to private business, do not apply to a Bill to which this Schedule applies.(2) Standing Orders may be made by the House of Commons and the House of Lords for any purpose relating to the provisions of this Schedule, to the extent they are compatible with this Schedule, and in particular— (a) for regulating the manner in which petitions against a Bill to which this Schedule applies must be framed and deposited,(b) for regulating the manner in which memorials relating to petitions against a Bill to which this Schedule applies must be framed and deposited,(c) for extending the periods prescribed by this Schedule in relation to the deposit of petitions and memorials in any case where either period expires on a day on which the House concerned is adjourned for more than four days,(d) for providing, in the case of any amendment to a Bill proposed by a petition, for a counter-petition to be deposited by any person or body whose interests would be adversely affected by the amendment; and for prescribing the cases in which a counter-petitioner has the right to be heard before the joint committee, and the cases in which the counter-petitioner may be allowed to be heard by the joint committee if the committee thinks fit,(e) for the withdrawal of petitions, memorials and counter-petitions,(f) for enabling the functions of the Chairmen under this Schedule to be performed by any deputy appointed in accordance with Standing Orders,(g) for regulating the proceedings of the Chairmen in connection with the examination of petitions and memorials under this Schedule,(h) for prescribing the cases in which a petitioner whose petition, or any part of the petition, has been certified as proper to be received, has the right to be heard before the joint committee, and the cases in which the petitioner may be allowed to be heard before the joint committee, and for enabling the Chairmen to determine in the case of any particular petition whether the petitioner has such a right to be heard or may be allowed to be heard by the Chairmen,(i) for prescribing the quorum of any joint committee, and(j) for regulating the proceedings of any joint committee.Effect of order confirmation Act
8 (1) Any Act of Parliament made with reference to this Schedule is a public Act of Parliament that may not to be questioned in any court or tribunal.(2) In the case of any order granting development consent confirmed by an Act of Parliament made with reference to this Schedule, any reference in this Act to the date when an order granting development consent has been made, published or comes into force, and any reference in the order to when it was made, published or came into force, is instead to be taken as being the date on which the Bill for the Act receives Royal Assent.(3) Section 134 of this Act applies to any order granting development consent confirmed by an Act of Parliament made with reference to this Schedule with the following further modifications—(a) in section 134(7) after “A compulsory acquisition notice is a notice” omit “in the prescribed form”, and(b) omit section 134(7)(d).(4) In all other respects any order granting development consent that is confirmed by an Act of Parliament made with reference to this Schedule is to be treated as an order granting development consent.(5) In particular, an order granting development consent confirmed by an Act of Parliament made with reference to this Schedule may be— (a) corrected through the exercise of the power contained in section 119, and(b) changed or revoked in accordance with section 153 and Schedule 6.Non-justiciability of proceedings in Parliament
9 A court or tribunal may not question any Bill or proceedings in Parliament that purport to be conducted in accordance with this Schedule.Interpretation
10 In this Schedule—“the Chairmen” means the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of Committees,“the Chairman of Committees” means the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, and includes any deputy acting on their behalf in accordance with Standing Orders,“the Chairman of Ways and Means” means the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, and includes any deputy acting on their behalf in accordance with Standing Orders,“joint committee” means the joint committee to whom a Bill is referred under paragraph 4,“the order” means the order granting development consent proposed to be confirmed by the Bill mentioned in paragraph 2,“the Private Business Standing Orders” means the Standing Orders of the House of Commons relating to Private Business 2019 ordered to be printed on 19 December 2019, and the Standing Orders of the House of Lords relating to Private Business 2018 ordered to be printed on 18 December 2017, and“Standing Orders” means standing orders of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons made under paragraph 7(2).”.(3) After section 118(1) of the Planning Act 2008 (legal challenges relating to applications for orders granting development consent), insert—“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an order granting development consent for a project that is a critical national priority for the purposes of section 117A and to which the provisions of Schedule 3A apply, and accordingly such an order is not to be questioned in any court.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause would provide for a development consent order relating to a critical national priority project to be confirmed by an Act of Parliament after the order had been made by the Secretary of State, if the applicant for the development consent order had requested that before the order was made. In the normal way the resulting Act of Parliament would not be subject to legal challenge in the courts. Once confirmed by such an Act, subject to some necessary modifications, the development consent order concerned would be treated like any other development consent order and could be changed or revoked through the existing procedures contained in the Planning Act 2008.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to move Amendment 23 in my name; I believe it to be of fundamental importance. A similar amendment, Amendment 52, was moved on day one in Committee on 17 July by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I spoke in support of it. The amendment was not supported universally in the House, and it has since been modified to take account of the advice of officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and indeed of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, was concerned that it should be made clear that the provisions of the amendment should apply only to infrastructure projects of significant national importance.

In July, I observed that our planning system has become sclerotic. The time that it takes, on average, to secure planning permission, known as development consent, for major infrastructure projects has more than doubled in the last decade to more than four years. The development consent system is nowadays beset by objections and judicial reviews, with several judicial reviews sometimes affecting the same project. The effect of the delay may be to cause an otherwise viable project to become uneconomic and unaffordable.

I gave the example of the Stonehenge tunnel, which was delayed by over four years by two sets of judicial reviews relating to two separate development consent orders—DCOs. A similar delay was caused to Manston Airport, which has reopened recently. There were two sets of judicial reviews necessitating two development consent orders, and there was a delay of almost four years.

In 2020, a judicial review affecting the airports national policy statement took over two and a half years before the principle of a third runway at Heathrow was endorsed. The Government’s current judicial review reforms contained in the Bill are very modest. They will make little difference, because they relate only to the prior permission stage for judicial reviews. Approximately 75% of judicial reviews are given permission by the court to be brought forth when they proceed to a substantive hearing, which, in turn, can take a considerable length of time.

The Bill does not address this problem of judicial reviews and the consequent costs and delays. There is little indication that the necessary reforms to address the problem are under consideration. Meanwhile, judicial reviews continue to arrive. Last week, 10 grants for an intended judicial review of a recent decision to give development consent for Gatwick Airport’s second runway were announced, and one expects that the judicial review will be initiated soon. The present amendment provides an acceptable alternative to judicial reviews of nationally important infrastructure projects, and it has constitutional precedents.

The amendment would allow for approved development consent orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects to be confirmed by a one-clause Act of Parliament. It would reactivate the system which prevailed when provisional order confirmation Bills were commonplace. After due consideration by Parliament, including a Joint Committee, the resulting Act incorporating the approved development consent order would essentially be incontestable after it had been ratified.

The amendment is accompanied by an extensive schedule, Schedule 3A, which declares how this system of parliamentary confirmation of these nationally important DCOs would operate in practice. The schedule provides for a process of petitioning against the Bill, largely in relation to matters not already considered by the examination process for the DCO and subsequently by the Secretary of State. This would preserve the rights of the affected parties.

However, once this process has been undergone and the DCO has been confirmed by an Act of Parliament, the possibility of wilful obstruction to the delivery of the project concerned would be minimised. Neither the Act nor the DCO could be questioned in any court or tribunal.

However, if circumstances do change, such as to require a later modification of the DCO—for example, because of project design changes—the amendment allows for the DCO to be changed in accordance with the procedures set out in Schedule 6 to the Planning Act 2008, as proposed to be amended by Clause 11 of the Bill.

The revised amendment carefully reflects the points that were made in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, was concerned that this procedure should not be applied to the commonality of development consent orders, but only to those relating to projects of critical national importance. At the start of the amendment, there is now an explicit link to the relevant national policy statement. The parliamentary procedure would be open only to those projects set out in the national policy statement as being of critical national priority. The revised amendment accepts that the parliamentary procedure should be resorted to only if the applicant for the DCO had asked for it to apply. There is no need for a separate Secretary of State determination of critical national priority status.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, was also concerned that the objections of those facing compulsory acquisition through the development consent order should have an explicit right to be heard by the parliamentary Joint Committee, and such a right is now accorded in the revised wording of Schedule 3A.

20:30

There was a concern that the amendment raised complex constitutional questions about the balance between Parliament and the judiciary, and that this procedure might fundamentally unsettle the balance in our constitution. I believe that there can be no risk of it causing any kind of constitutional difficulties. That parliamentary procedure is adopting, with some necessary modifications, procedures that are still on the statute book; namely, the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 and the procedure for Bills to confirm ministerial orders that are subject to a process called special parliamentary procedure under a 1945 Act. The parliamentary procedures proposed by the amendment would take considerably less time—estimated to be between four and eight months—than the alternative, which is a judicial review of a decision to make the DCO, followed by a redetermination of the DCO application in the event of a judicial review being successful. As has been observed, such processes can take several years.

The parliamentary process proposed by the amendment includes a petitioning mechanism and Joint Committee scrutiny, ensuring that public concerns can be raised and considered, if not already considered during the DCO process. It includes safeguards that would enable meaningful public involvement in relation to points not raised during the DCO process. All these provisions are included in the lengthy schedule. This might still require some fine-tuning, which could incorporate the advice of various parties, parliamentary draftsmen, and so on. I urge Ministers and their officials to consider this amendment in the light of the very real challenges that large infrastructure projects face and that they will continue to face, even with the measures already in Part 1. I therefore commend my amendment to the House.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this is a significant proposed new clause, which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, spoke to in Committee, where he made broader remarks on the functionality of our planning system, which he has repeated today. I recall the comments about the length of time it was taking to get a bypass round Stonehenge, and my comment that it will take longer to build that bypass than Stone Age man took to build Stonehenge.

We agree with the issue that the noble Viscount is seeking to address: that the planning system does not work all the time for these large national infrastructure projects. They take too long, the costs go up and deliverability goes down. So I have immense respect for those who have taken the time to draft this new clause reflecting some of the comments made in Committee—I really appreciate the time that that has taken. The noble Viscount proposes that each order determining an application to be a critical national priority must be presented to Parliament as a full public Bill. Paragraph 3 of the proposed new schedule then sets out a petitioning process, a counter-petitioning process and a reporting process. The remaining parts of this lengthy amendment provide a highly detailed description of how such a Bill would progress through a Joint Committee and then complete its passage.

However, we do not consider that presenting a Bill to Parliament with all the associated procedures would be a proportionate proposal. We are somewhat sympathetic to confirmatory Acts in areas such as nuclear, but this is a prescriptive amendment and therefore one that we cannot support, even if we understand the issue.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount for Amendment 23, which builds on a previous amendment tabled in Committee. It proposes a process for projects designated by the Secretary of State as “critical national priority”, where development consent orders would come into force only once approved through an Act of Parliament. This amendment seeks to bypass judicial review and insulate these projects from challenge and thereby speed up the building of infrastructure.

Although the provision does not directly alter the judicial review process itself, it uses parliamentary process to significantly reduce the public’s ability to challenge government decisions on these types of critical projects. This amendment proposes a mechanism for the Secretary of State to designate certain classes of development as “critical national priority”, based on identification in a relevant national policy statement.

It is important to remind the House that this status already exists and is actively applied—for example, to renewable and low-carbon energy projects through the energy NPS, to strengthen the need case for such infrastructure. However, this amendment seeks to go much further. I cannot support it for a number of key reasons. First, the proposed ouster in new Section 118(1A) would shield decisions from judicial review even where they were unlawful. For this reason, it is an approach which the courts have historically resisted. Given that this would be applied to some of the biggest and most controversial schemes, it is likely that challenges would be lodged in respect of the confirmed DCO, thereby undermining the time savings sought in the first place.

Secondly, the amendment would result in a constitutional confrontation between Parliament and the courts. This may result in questioning of well understood constitutional conventions, inviting further legal uncertainty.

Finally, there are serious practical impediments to the amendment. It would introduce a new, truncated parliamentary procedure for applicants to undertake after having completed the DCO process. It risks creating confusion and slowing the delivery of our most important projects by layering parliamentary procedures on top of an already rigorous regime. That adds more work and uncertainty for applicants—particularly detrimental for our largest projects—at a time when clarity and efficiency are essential. We recognise that the amendment is driven by valid concerns that lengthy legal challenges delay projects and add costs. However, the right approach to tackling this problem is by still enabling legal challenges but supporting the courts to handle them efficiently.

Further to our commitment to implement the Banner review and limit the ability for meritless cases to return to the courts, the Government recently decided to go further. On 15 October, they announced their intention to work with the judiciary to implement further procedural changes to ensure that NSIP cases are dealt with more quickly and consistently. The changes include introducing clear target timescales for NSIP cases in the High Court, aiming for a substantive hearing within four months of the application. We are also making it clear that NSIP cases in the Court of Appeal should be handled by judges with appropriate planning experience.

Together with the recent reforms, these further procedural changes will help make the judicial review process for major projects quicker, clearer and more predictable. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment and for the thoughtful debate that it has prompted.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

I am somewhat disappointed by that response, because we face a crisis. There is nothing in the Bill or forthcoming that will address the crisis adequately. However, I must defer to the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

Clause 17: Managing connections to the network: strategic plans etc

Amendment 24

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

24: Clause 17, page 23, line 6, at end insert—
“(2B) In deciding how to comply with the duties under this section, the Independent System Operator and Planner shall have regard to the need to assist the owners of renewable energy projects below 10 MW in dealing with the requirements of the application processes for establishing a connection to the grid.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to ensure prioritisation of support for small scale renewable energy projects.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will move Amendment 24 and briefly speak to Amendment 46 in this group. I will start with Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, because this is a very important amendment talking about the idea of local area energy plans. I signed the amendment, or a related one, in Committee but had not quite caught up with this one.

Both amendments deal with how the Government throughout this Bill and overall are talking about giant-scale projects. However, very often, we are going to find local solutions to local problems using local resources. That is something on which you can be sure to have local consent after local democratic engagement. A local area energy plan is a way of ensuring that we do not chase after these large-scale projects that so often go wrong, at least solely, and that we have local alternatives working at small scale that can be quite nimble and quite fast. That is what Amendment 46 does.

My Amendment 24 is rather more limited because it is a very specific, technical amendment talking about how the independent system operator and the planner should have regard to renewable energy projects below 10 megawatts to help them in dealing with the requirements for the application process of establishing a connection to the grid.

I think back over the years to small-scale hydro projects in Wales, projects I visited, and to solar farms in the south-east of England; connections to the grid were what people kept tearing their hair out about all the time. That is a huge barrier that the amendment aims to provide a modest solution towards to ensure that we prioritise small-scale projects that have local consent—very often a community energy project—so they can go ahead.

I note that your Lordships’ House has collectively been a long-term champion of community energy projects, wrestling with the former Government and this one, eventually successfully, to get acknowledgement of their importance. It is something that we really have to make sure is in the Bill, so I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 46 in this group on local area energy plans, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his support.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, moved an amendment calling for government guidance, and I moved an amendment which was pretty mandatory on local area energy plans. At the time, we both talked about the need to go away and maybe come back together with a joint amendment, and that is what we have done today. However, we have done more than that; we have taken the time to reflect on the debate that happened in Committee. I realise that the amendment that I moved then was too prescriptive, so I want your Lordships’ House to be clear that this is an entirely different beast of an amendment, and it is far less prescriptive on the Government. It aims to make some progress on this really important issue, which is an important part of our energy transition.

I want to also acknowledge all the things that the Government are doing in this space, and I recognise that it is quite a crowded environment. We have local plans; we have the regional energy strategic plans; we have the warm home plans; we have the heat network zone; and we have local work being undertaken by the newly established Great British Energy. We recognise that this is a complex landscape, and we recognise the argument from the Government that so much is going on at the minute that this would only further complicate this landscape and not necessarily help.

I want to push back against that just a little bit. This is a vital bottom line and the missing piece in the jigsaw. To have a full systems view for our energy and the energy transition, it is important that we do not ignore or do not look specifically at this bottom tier. I look at it a bit like the parcel delivery problem. It is really important that we get energy to every door and that we get the energy transition delivered to every single property.

Our local authorities know better. They best understand their areas. They best know how to join things up locally. It is really important that they are involved and we develop these local area energy plans.

The Government were also concerned about burdens on local authorities and about the prescriptive nature of the previous amendment. So to be clear, I have gone away, and this amendment is very different. It calls on the Government to conduct research. It gives a timeframe for that to happen. Then, based on those research findings that come back, the amendment simply calls on the Government to formulate a policy and to publicly speak whatever that policy happens to be. I am not saying they have to implement local area energy plans; I am saying that they should go away and do this research on this part of the energy transition and, based on that research, come up with a coherent policy and then come forward to Parliament with an argument that makes sense about how that works.

This amendment is really important. By adopting it, we get closer to the energy transition. We will get rid of energy inefficiency and make the energy system more stable. It is also important for local community energy, for tapping that in and for making sure that we bring people with us and that they can benefit from the energy transition as well. It inherently makes our grids and our energy systems much more stable and robust to the challenges that they will face.

That is my amendment. I want to thank the Minister and her officials, because we have had meetings since the holidays, and I am very appreciative of the time that we have had.

I think there is still a little confusion from the Government on what my amendment does. Today, I want to push the Government at least to pick up some of the research aspects of this amendment. I hope the Minister will be amenable and receptive to that. I leave that there.

I will speak briefly on Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which I support. It is a clever and worthwhile idea. As the noble Baroness alluded to, the House has a long tradition of supporting community energy. Such projects struggle to get the funding to compete against large players and get their systems up and running, so this amendment about helping with the energy system operator is clever and worth while, and we support it.

20:45

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I have just a few brief points to add to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, stated. For me, this goes back to the governance system. Of course we have made progress in recent years; we have the strategic spatial energy plan, which is being managed by NESO, but we are hearing some feedback on that plan. In effect, it tries to map out what energy projects should be located where, in minute detail across the country. The industry has highlighted a number of problems with trying to do this at that scale; we need local knowledge flowing up into these plans. As well as the top down, we need the bottom up. We need to capture all the great knowledge that local areas and local authorities have.

I will just take heat as an example. One area may be better suited to heat pumps and another to heat networks. One area may have relatively well-insulated housing stock; another, poorly insulated housing stock. We need to capture all that and bring it into the energy transition. It is an important piece of the puzzle to making this energy transition work and making it cost effective. A recent study by UKRI highlighted tens of billions of pounds of savings if a place-based approach is taken over a place-agnostic approach, so it is important that the Government make some progress on this. We have not seen the progress needed.

We have had some good pilots using this approach in various areas across the country, but we now need the Government to get behind this approach to feed all the benefits of that local knowledge into the energy transition. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister at least on timescales, on how they see this programme developing and on it reaching a decision on the role that local area energy plans will play in the energy transition.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to ensure that small-scale renewable energy products are prioritised by the independent system operator and planner. As the noble Baroness knows, we on these Benches are very concerned about energy prices and want to see Ministers taking a pragmatic approach to delivering the energy infrastructure that we need.

I know that there is a particular interest in renewables, but we need to take a whole-system approach, tackling policy costs as well as the marginal costs of electricity. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the current support for renewables at a smaller scale, and it would be helpful for the House to know what plans the Government have on smaller renewables.

Although we feel that Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is too prescriptive, it raises an important question about planning our energy supply for the future. Clearly, local needs should be taken into account. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Amendment 24 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, though well intentioned, is not necessary to achieve the desired outcome of greater support with the grid connection process for smaller renewable energy projects. The amendment seeks to require the independent system operator and planner to prioritise support for smaller renewable energy projects when they apply for a grid connection. I recognise the noble Baroness’s helpful attempt to support smaller renewable energy projects. The Government appreciate the important role that smaller renewable energy projects, such as rooftop solar and community energy, can play in meeting our clean power mission, reducing energy costs and engaging communities in renewable energy.

Along with the independent energy regulator, Ofgem, the Government also recognise that more needs to be done to support smaller electricity network connection customers, including renewable energy projects, but this is achievable within the regulatory framework without the need for primary legislation. Indeed, Ofgem has already proposed stronger incentives and obligations on network companies to provide better connection customer service. Following a consultation earlier this year, it expects to publish further details and next steps in the coming weeks.

The amendment’s wording would also not meet the desired outcome. Section 16 of the Electricity Act 1989 requires electricity distribution network operators to connect customers. The amendment would place an obligation on the independent system operator and planner only in terms of the way in which the duties under Section 16 are complied with. However, the independent system operator and planner has no duties under Section 16. Given the legislative unworkability of the amendment, and given work already under way to support smaller renewable energy connection customers, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw it.

Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to require the Government to commence a programme of research and analysis on the imposition of a statutory duty on local authorities to produce local area energy plans, and publish a report on their findings; and to require the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to make a formal policy decision on a statutory duty within two years. We recognise that the amendment moves the debate on from Committee so that an immediate burden is not placed on local authorities to produce a local area energy plan, and nor are the Government required to immediately produce national guidance for local authorities on local area energy plans. The amendment places this work in the context of planning for electricity infrastructure, but the approach set out in the amendment risks constraining and duplicating work already under way, and it may constrain the way the Government continue to work in partnership with local government.

The overall approach to this work is being undertaken jointly with local government through the ministerial Local Net Zero Delivery Group, which meets quarterly. This is co-chaired with the Local Government Association. The group has discussed the development of a framework for local government to provide more clarity on the roles and responsibilities for net zero and energy. This group will need to reflect on the role of local government on energy planning and net zero in the context of the warm homes plan and Great British Energy’s local power plan, both due shortly.

The kind of research envisaged by the amendment is already under way. This has been commissioned by DESNZ from local government officials working in local net zero hubs. This includes preparing guidance for local authorities on what they need to do on energy planning to prepare for the regional energy strategic plans that Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator—NESO—are producing. Ofgem and NESO are looking to consult on the approach and methodology later this year. They are also developing guidance and tools for local government to help it specify and procure high-quality data to support energy planning, with outputs due by January 2026.

In conclusion, we do not believe that primary legislation is the right place to set out in such detail a programme of work to review local energy planning. We are sympathetic to the points raised and agree with the point made in Committee about the importance of including local understanding in delivering the bigger picture on energy planning. I hope I have been able to give some assurances that the Government agree that local involvement in energy planning is important and that the kind of work the amendment envisages is already under way.

I must stress the need to review local area energy planning in the context of ongoing work and other policies and strategies as and when they are published, rather than to the timetable and in the way set out in the amendment. Preferably, this should be in partnership with local government, reflecting needs and approaches. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is satisfied with our response and will consider withdrawing her amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and everyone who has taken part in this short but important debate. I was sitting here thinking of the volunteers who are undoubtedly sitting at home in front of their spreadsheets trying to plan for a local energy scheme, trying to make it work, trying to pull it all together, trying to solve all the issues. I hope they are at least feeling a warm glow, given the strong expressions of support for the principle of what they are doing from around the House, including from the government Benches.

The Minister said, essentially, that the drafting of my amendment is faulty and not quite correct. I am, of course, seldom, if ever, attached to the detail of the drafting. The point is that putting something in the Bill provides some sort of long-term certainty and security. The Minister said that there are regulations, and that the regulator is doing this, but we all know that what we need is long-term security of planning in our energy system, and that is simply not being delivered.

A phrase was used by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, that was important and deserves to be highlighted: “place-based solutions”. We often talk about the right tree in the right place; we also need the right energy provision in the right place, and that is what Amendment 46 was seeking to achieve. But we are where we are, and the debate has been had. I still hope we might see some movement from the Government somewhere down the track, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

Clause 25: Long duration electricity storage

Amendment 25

Moved by

[Lord Fuller]

25: Clause 25, page 34, line 33, at end insert—
“10Q Long duration electricity storage: safety(1) The Authority must ensure that the scheme established by section 10P includes measures to be taken by LDES operators (as defined by that section) to reduce fire risk and protect public safety.(2) The scheme must ensure that before installing long duration electricity storage, LDES operators consult the local fire authority who must assess the fire risk posed by the installation.(3) The LDES operator must pay the local fire authority a reasonable fee for their assessment of the fire risk under subsection (2).(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, to define a “reasonable fee” for the purpose of this section.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that proposals for long duration energy storage systems, which may contain flammable batteries and equipment, are designed in consultation local fire authorities to minimise fire risk and protect public safety.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, when I moved this amendment, which is now Amendment 25, in Committee, the lamented noble Lord, Lord Khan, went as far as he could at that point to open the door to accepting the principle that when electricity storage systems are planned, it is with the full knowledge, connivance and consent of the local fire authority, so that the fire and public safety risks and mitigations are fully understood. I am therefore disappointed that the meeting to discuss this is scheduled for after completion of Report. I fear that, rather than agreeing to my sensible, proportionate and non-controversial proposals, precious time is now being wasted litigating it on the Floor of your Lordships’ House and, wholly avoidably, with additional time spent in the Division Lobbies.

As the grid is reinforced, the ability to stabilise the electricity supply and isolate it from surges and shocks is essential. A number of long-term and short-term technologies exist to smooth the path of electricity from the generator to the consumer, and LDES facilities are part of that mix. These solid-state devices are needed alongside rotational energy sources in the energy balance. The people of the Iberian peninsula—where I am travelling to when the House rises this evening—will attest to the consequences of failing to have network stabilisation in place. A tiny 0.2 hertz perturbation in the grid set in train a chain reaction that brought down their entire grid, which required an unprecedented black start. That is what is at stake here.

Some of these long-term storage technologies contain highly flammable materials such as lithium. Hydrogen storage could be another possibility, but I am going to restrict my remarks to lithium for the purposes of proving the point. Not a day goes by when a fire is not caused by a lithium battery in a car, in a refuse freighter, or in a block of flats when a scooter overheats. The issue is clear: when a lithium battery catches fire, huge quantities of water are required to extinguish it. I will not remind the House excessively about the details of the car-based conflagration at Luton Airport, but once it took hold, the batteries in electric cars quickly made the fire unfightable for longer, more so than had petrol and diesel alone been involved.

21:00

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, reminded us in Committee about the ship the “Felicity Ace”, whose cargo contained 4,000 electric vehicles, including Porsches, Audis, Lamborghinis and Bentleys, and which caught fire and sank off the Azores. The lithium batteries in the electric vehicles on board kept that fire burning until the ship was consumed by the Atlantic Ocean. I can see some faces on the government Benches who are not really shedding a tear at the prospect of the Lamborghinis and Bentleys ending up in Davy Jones’s locker, but the issue of fire needs to be taken seriously. This Bill, as drafted, fails to do so.

The Bill glosses over the consequences of failures in long-term and short-term energy storage, including large-scale battery storage systems and their risks. You do not need to be a bright spark to realise that an electrical spark can be dangerous when mixed with huge electric capacity, flammables and oil-rich transformers. Many of the proposed LDES and BESS—battery electric storage system—schemes in particular are in the countryside, where hydrants are few and far between. 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, a deep-seated hard to fight fire can spawn secondary blazes that run wild across the whole area.

By contrast, in towns the proximity of other businesses, schools, homes and buildings adds a dimension of public safety to the mix. When there is a fire, local residents are told by the fire brigade to keep inside and close windows and doors—noting that, when these fires occur, they can last for hours or days and produce toxic emissions. There must also be consideration of a leakage of lithium to the underlying aquifer from the firefighters’ run-off.

This is a serious matter, but in Committee it was said, “Don’t worry, there’s a national organisation, the HSE, which is the competent body to assess the risks of an installation catching fire”. That may well be the case, and it may continue to be so, but that is only part of the story. Once an installation is burning, all the warm words and soft soap from the HSE headquarters in Bootle, miles away, count for nothing. When you dial 999, it is not the HSE that turns up mob-handed; it is the local fire brigade and the local planning authority, possibly with emergency tents and residents’ refuges. National bodies such as the HSE just do not have the staffing, powers, equipment or local knowledge to pick up the pieces appropriately when the deep-seated fire gets out of control, or indeed to anticipate the local consequences.

That is why 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 solar must be required to engage with emergency services and contribute fairly to risk assessments and preparedness. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve. In Committee it was suggested that my amendment would place a new and unwelcome burden on the fire authority. That suggestion was straw-clutching from the Minister, because it is those organisations that have pressed me to act. This amendment would provide the safeguards they need in the fulfilment of their statutory duty. It would enforce the 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 pay a reasonable fee to do so. Everyone can be forewarned and forearmed. Why would any Government wish to resist this?

If the Government do resist this stipulation, I will consider testing the opinion of the House so that we can all dip our elbows, so to speak, in understanding the risks of uncontrollable fires to people, property, businesses and the environment, at significant cost to the wider taxpayer. Government exists to protect the public. Why would a Government act so recklessly by not accepting my proportionate proposals? I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is very similar, as he noted, to the one he tabled in Committee.

In Committee, we welcomed the debate on these important topics. We take fire safety and the safety of large-scale energy storage systems extremely seriously, and I know the Government do as well. However, we are not able to support this amendment because we feel that the systems currently in place are adequate and coherent, and we worry about the additional burden and problems associated with the amendment as proposed.

In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said that

“this Government take fire safety extremely seriously, but we do not feel this amendment is necessary or proportionate, and it risks unintended consequences”.—[Official Report, 1/9/25; col. 568.]

On these Benches, we agree with the Government’s position.

This seeks to establish a statutory duty for long-duration energy storage operators to consult and pay a fee to local authorities for risk assessment prior to installation. So, as I said, although we absolutely share this general intent, the question on this amendment is: are these proposals necessary, proportionate and effective, and do they bring benefits overall or do they disproportionately create new unintended consequences for the rollout of our net-zero energy infrastructure? I make it clear that LDES facilities are an emerging technology, but they have a very high safety standard.

As in Committee, the noble Lord put forward a number of examples of batteries catching fire. I make it clear that all the examples given relate to individual batteries, and in most cases those kinds of fires relate to counterfeit or illegal imports. Actually, those issues are the subject of a Private Member’s Bill in the name of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, which I hope the noble Lord will be able to support. As far as I am aware, there have only ever been two fires at LDES large-scale battery storage facilities in the UK, so they have an extremely strong safety record.

The Minister gave a coherent answer in Committee, setting out that robust safety systems are in place already, including that the Health and Safety Executive already regulates battery energy storage system sites with a comprehensive framework, mandating designers, installers and operators to uphold the highest safety standards. Existing planning guidance also encourages developers to engage with local fire and rescue services prior to submitting their planning applications and to consider guidance issued by the National Fire Chiefs Council. So engagement is already taking place. We already have other avenues as well. We have the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the general fire safety regulations, and we must ask whether these additional burdens bring benefits. In Committee, the Minister also noted that this would have an impact on the LDES cap and floor system, making it far more complicated to implement.

There are some issues with the definition of LDES. The amendment speaks about “LDES operators”. Not all LDES is equal, and not all of it needs to come under the scope of this amendment. If I am running a large-scale piped hydro facility, these requirements would not be necessary or helpful, and they would not bring about benefit. There is also a small drafting mistake in the amendment. Based on this, we feel that the systems in place now are adequate and sufficient, and we feel that, on balance, this amendment would create more burdens than benefits.

But we must not be complacent about these matters; they are important. I will ask the Government Front Bench one question about the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, the then Minister. In summing up at the end of Committee, he said:

“The Government are considering additional measures to enhance the regulation of the environmental and safety risks of BESS. Defra recently published a consultation on proposed reforms to environmental permitting for industry, including the principle of including BESS in scope of the environmental permitting regulations. This would give further safeguards for both people and the environment”.—[Official Report, 1/9/25; col. 568.]


I take the opportunity that this amendment presents to ask the Minister kindly to reconfirm this commitment from the Dispatch Box and to give further assurances on these matters, perhaps going beyond “considering” and possibly some giving timeframes for when those further safety measures might come forward.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his amendment, which raises the important question of fire safety and long-duration energy storage. It is right that there should be a role for local fire authorities in looking at planning applications involving potentially highly combustible materials. It is clear that energy storage based on lithium batteries or other highly reactive materials, if not suitably engineered, could pose a fire risk.

This is still a relatively new large-storage technology, where councils and fire authorities are building their levels of expertise. In this context, having clear national guidance on safe installation and construction akin to building control, taking account of HSE, fire, industry and other experts would facilitate the assessment of these schemes. Do the Government plan to provide such clear guidance that councils, industry and others can rely on in assessing applications for LDES that would also streamline consultation and hence facilitate local engagement with fire authorities?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his amendment. I start by apologising to him for the meeting date, which I understand is 30 October. He will know from comments made earlier that I have had a great number of meetings before Report, so I can only assume that it was a misunderstanding and apologise to him that it was not held before we got to Report.

The noble Lord said that over on this side we would not be shedding any tears about the price of Lamborghinis going up, but he obviously does not understand my guilty pleasure of fast cars—but then I come from the same town as Lewis Hamilton, so I have an excuse.

The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to require long-duration electricity storage—LDES—operators to consult the local fire authorities to assess the project’s fire risk before installation. In Committee, the noble Lord commented on the frequency and danger of lithium battery fires. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the distinction that he made between individual battery fires and these large-scale ones. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government take issues relating to fire safety extremely seriously—I know that my noble friend Lord Khan gave the same reassurance—but we still do not feel that this amendment is proportionate or necessary, and indeed it could create unintended risks for fire services.

I understand that these concerns are largely in relation to lithium-ion batteries. Analysis from DESNZ suggests that fires at battery energy storage sites are rare. The latest available five-year annual average fire incidence rate for GB batteries is 0.7%, which is lower than that for wider non-domestic building fires in England, which is around 0.8%. We expect all LDES developers to ensure that their sites are safe, regardless of the technology employed. It is still, of course, vital that any risks are appropriately and proportionately managed to ensure that we maintain public safety and trust. We have spoken previously of the role that the Health and Safety Executive plays in regulating storage assets. Developers and operators of these sites have a legal duty to manage risks, and government expects them to engage with local fire services when drawing up emergency response plans.

Defra will conclude its industry consultation shortly on the modernisation of environmental permitting for industry, which includes proposals to bring BESS within scope of the 2016 permitting regulations. If introduced, EPR would require developers and operators to demonstrate to the Environment Agency how specific risks are being managed, while providing for the ongoing regulation of battery storage sites. While it is already the Government’s expectation that developers engage with fire services during the planning process, this amendment risks imposing additional administrative burdens on fire services which are not proportionate to the risks associated with this technology.

DESNZ is actively engaging fire authorities and the battery storage industry on the whole issue of battery fire safety. In fact, Minister Shanks hosted a round table today on battery safety, which included representatives from the National Fire Chiefs Council and battery developers, so I can reassure the House that Minister Shanks is taking this issue extremely seriously. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is satisfied with the reassurances and will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I came to this debate keen to divide the House on this important matter. However, during the debate a number of issues have come to light, not least the meeting held today by Minister Shanks and the acceptance that we are still owed a meeting where we can discuss this. Rather than detain the House at this point with a Division, I wonder whether the Minister and I might have an understanding that we will keep the date in the diary and, if I am not satisfied, then the opportunity will come to bring this back at Third Reading.

21:15

Before concluding, I want to explain that complacency can be easily mis-held. We were complacent about the oil-filled transformers at Heathrow that exploded. The world’s second-largest battery energy storage system, in California, was consumed last January. Rather than fight the fire, they had to let it burn out. These are really important issues, and just saying that we have got down to 0.7%—or whatever it is—is, I am afraid, not good enough. These things are multiplying; they are growing like Topsy. From the occasional installation, we now have them in urban areas, countryside areas and wherever. They should be regulated.

I am reassured that the Minister is going to consider this. I wonder whether, between now and 30 October, we might distil some of that knowledge and bring back a more important amendment, possibly divisible, when we get to Third Reading. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 25 withdrawn.

Clause 26: Benefits for homes near electricity transmission projects

Amendment 26

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

26: Clause 26, page 36, line 8, leave out from “regulations” to end of line 13 and insert “under this section”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes all regulations implementing the consumer benefit scheme subject to the affirmative procedure.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in my name seek to ensure that all regulations relating to the bill discount scheme set out in Clause 26 are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.

The Government welcome the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, through these amendments, we accept its suggestion. We understand and recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and agree that the regulations discussed in Clause 26 are matters of substance. These amendments will help ensure that the regulations implementing the bill discount scheme are appropriately reviewed by Parliament, aiding their workability and ensuring a smooth implementation of the scheme. I cannot guarantee to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that there will be a Halifax clause, but I hope that the House will support the amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I cannot react to the Halifax clause, since I do not live in Halifax.

I welcome the move to the affirmative procedure but remind the Minister that there are already 22,000 high-voltage carrying pylons in this country, over 250 of which are in Doncaster and over 700 of which are in North Yorkshire, including in the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

That leads me to the argument I made in Committee: if the Government are minded to provide compensation for those residents and customers who live adjacent to new plants, either transmitting or creating electrical energy, then, as the Minister confirmed in Committee and in a conversation we had during recess, that payment—that compensation—will be a burden added to every electricity customer. That does not seem right to me. If those folk who are going to have a new imposition of electrical infrastructure are to have compensation, surely it should be funded by that electricity region and not by those that have, for instance, had pylons for many decades because regions knew it was in the national interest to do so.

I am pleased that we are going to the affirmative measure in consideration of compensation, because it will enable me to make arguments in favour of not the Halifax amendment but the Huddersfield amendment—let us call it that, as it is a bit nearer home. It is important, because to me this is about fairness. Those of us in the north—the very far north—and the Midlands should have fair treatment compared to those who have the infrastructure now. I am sure that the Minister will enjoy having that debate with me when we get around to doing the SIs.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, group 14 concerns a matter of principle that cuts across the Bill: the appropriate level of parliamentary oversight for far-reaching executive powers. New Section 38A introduces a consumer benefit scheme to provide financial compensation to those living near new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. The principle behind this is entirely sound. It is right that communities that host nationally significant infrastructure should share in its benefits.

We support Amendments 26 and 27 in the name of the Minister. Amendment 26 would ensure that all regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure, not just those relating to offences or enforcement. These regulations will define who qualifies for support, how benefits are delivered and the responsibilities of electricity suppliers. These are substantive decisions that should not be made without oversight of Parliament.

Amendment 27 is a necessary consequential amendment to reflect this change. Given the wide scope of delegated powers in the new section inserted by the clause, it is entirely appropriate that Parliament has a say in how much a significant scheme is developed and applied. The affirmative procedure does not prevent progress. It simply ensures that when Ministers exercise broad powers, they do so transparently and with accountability.

We believe these amendments strike the right balance between enabling the Government to deliver the scheme and ensuring that Parliament plays its proper role. We are pleased to support them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses for speaking, and I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for getting Halifax and Huddersfield mixed up. But neither Halifax nor Huddersfield will be getting their own clause in the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment 26 agreed.

Amendment 27

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

27: Clause 26, page 38, line 36, leave out “in relation to which section 38A(6) applies” and insert “under section 38A”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment at page 36, line 8.

Amendment 27 agreed.

Clause 28: Use of forestry estate for renewable electricity

Amendment 28

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

28: Clause 28, page 39, line 11, leave out “appropriate forestry authority” and insert “Commissioners”
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment standing in my name seeks to create powers to ensure that seismic array systems are protected in areas where windfarms are proposed to be built. Sorry, I am on the wrong group. I have got ahead of myself—who thought I would do that at 9.30 pm? My apologies; I turned over too many pages.

I am in fact speaking to an amendment to Clause 28, which amends the Forestry Act 1967 to enable the development of renewable electricity projects in the public forest estate. The clause as currently drafted applies to both England and Wales. The Government have tabled these amendments to remove references to the

“Natural Resources Body for Wales”

and “Welsh Ministers” from the clause. At the start of today’s proceedings, I referred to some amendments which are there to respond to the devolved Administrations. Although Clause 28 represents an important and shared objective, the Welsh Government have indicated that they wish to pursue existing, non-legislative processes to develop renewable energy on the Welsh Government Woodland Estate. Following extensive negotiation, this amendment alters the provisions in Clause 28 so that they apply only to the Forestry Commission.

I turn to government Amendments 36, 37 and 40. The provisions restrict the exercise of the powers of the Forestry Commission by giving the Defra Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring the commission first to obtain her consent. The purpose of the Secretary of State’s power is to ensure that Ministers are sighted on projects above a certain size and can assess the use of the land appropriately. In its report on the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised concerns that the regulation-making power was broader than the stated policy intent. The Government therefore propose Amendments 36, 37 and 40, which will amend the clause to clarify that consent may be required only for projects exceeding specific capacity thresholds.

The thresholds are set at 5 megawatts for wind and 50 megawatts for other sources and are now laid out explicitly in new Section 3B. New Section 3B also includes a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to change the relevant wattage of the capacity thresholds, allowing flexibility to reflect future advancements in renewable energy technology. This change provides greater legal certainty while maintaining the original policy intent, and I therefore commend these amendments to the House.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 44, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. It would place statutory duties on the Forestry Commission, in the context of any planning, development or infrastructure function it might have, to take all reasonable steps to contribute to biodiversity targets set under the Environment Act 2021 and targets set under the Climate Change Act 2008 and to contribute to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act. It would also add a requirement for the Forestry Commission to balance the development of energy infrastructure with the maintenance of ecosystem services, alongside a requirement to avoid any direct or indirect adverse effects on designated sites and irreplaceable habitats.

The driving force behind Clause 28 is the need to increase the amount of renewable electricity that can be generated in the UK. This will enable the Forestry Commission to increase its contributions to government targets set under the Climate Change Act. The Forestry Commission already has legal duties on afforestation and conservation, and by its very nature is already providing significant benefits to help tackle biodiversity loss and climate change. It is therefore my view that the amendment is unnecessary.

Of course, the Forestry Commission will have regard to the Government’s biodiversity targets while exercising these new powers. It has clear responsibilities to consider and act to improve the environment via its biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, as strengthened by the Environment Act. This legislation requires public authorities, including the Forestry Commission, to consider and take action to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. In doing so, it must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy as well as any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.

Furthermore, I can assure the House that the Forestry Commission will consider the importance of the climate in its use of these new powers. It has existing ambitious net-zero targets which it is working to meet via several significant projects for woodland creation and peatland restoration currently under way across the public forest estate. In the context of climate adaptation planning under the Climate Change Act, the Forestry Commission already provides reports on how it is adapting to or proposes to adapt to climate change, and it will continue to do so.

However, in recognition of the Forestry Commission’s importance to the achievement of our statutory targets concerning climate and nature, the Government may consider changes to the Forestry Act 1967 should a suitable legislative vehicle become available. It is my belief that these wider considerations of the Forestry Commission’s duties would be best considered in the round rather than in relation to this specific measure, which limits the application of the duties to the development context. Given these commitments, alongside existing provisions, I hope the noble Earl is reassured and will not press his amendment.

21:30

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Defra Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for meetings around Clause 28. In the Bill, there is still a concern about industrial-scale biomass. I have been assured by the Minister that the 1967 Forestry Act stops that from happening. I have read the Act, and I am not totally convinced but I take the Minister’s view on it as being correct.

What concerns me about Amendment 40 is the two limits on wattage. The limit of 5 megawatts on wind turbines is understandable as they have a low footprint, and I can see how that might work as being a limit on wind power. There is a 50 megawatt limit on all others, including solar. I am very much in favour of solar, but to put 50 megawatts of solar—which seems to be envisaged in Amendment 40—on Forestry Commission land seems completely excessive, even to me as a renewable energy advocate. At the moment, 50 megawatt solar farms are some of the most popular sizes because they have just come in below the nationally significant infrastructure projects level. I seem to remember, from a statutory instrument we went through in the Moses Room some months ago, that is now changing.

However, a 50-megawatt solar farm covers a huge acreage. When we are behind in terms of our national targets on tree planting, I cannot see why the Forestry Commission should be able to cover that amount of their own land with solar panels without the approval of the Secretary of State, when we are so desperate to increase our woodland planting. Where on earth did these figures come from? They do not seem consistent to me; if they were the other way around—5 megawatts on solar and 50 megawatts on wind power— they might make sense, because there is a much smaller footprint in terms of wind. I am very keen to hear from the Minister how this is justified.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 44. I begin by thanking the Minister and apologising, because strangely the Minister has answered my amendment before I have spoken to it, but that is just the way that this group has operated. My speech is slightly back to front, so I will go through it and then come to the end.

Amendment 44 is in my name and is also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who are both in their places. This is an important and timely amendment, and I am delighted that it has the firm support of the Wildlife Trust and Wildlife and Countryside Link. Amendment 44 would require the Forestry Commission, when exercising its functions, to contribute actively to the achievement of our legally binding climate and biodiversity targets. The Forestry Commission, founded in 1919, manages some 5% of all publicly owned land in the United Kingdom.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, reminded us in Committee, it is now nearly 60 years since we last legislated comprehensively on forestry. The commission’s core duties remain, unfortunately, deeply rooted in a 20th-century focus on timber production, despite its remit having long been broadened. We need to complete the task of modernising its responsibilities, aligning them with the Climate Change Act 2008, the Environment Act 2021 and the environmental improvement plan, so that the commission’s huge influence over land use supports the delivery of statutory targets, rather than leaving them to chance or good faith and good management.

Without these changes, the Government are in danger of trying to deliver their climate and nature ambitions while failing to direct one of their key public bodies to act in joint support of delivering it. I have said this before, but it is a little like a general knowing the strategy but neglecting to tell their own troops. We cannot expect effective delivery in the Forestry Commission if it is left without a clear duty to act.

The public forest estate contains some of England’s most ecologically valuable land, including irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland, yet there is currently no explicit statutory duty for the commission to protect these sites or to prioritise biodiversity outcomes. Clause 28 already extends the commission’s remit to allow greater renewable energy activity on public land, and that duty makes it more vital that the nature aspects of the estate are given equal statutory weight to ensure that the drive for renewables proceeds hand in hand with the protection and restoration of nature.

The new clause we propose after Clause 28 does precisely that: it would place,

“a duty on the Forestry Commission to contribute”,

to the achievement of the climate and nature recovery targets, to avoid harm, to designate conservation sites in ancient woodland and to balance energy and timber production with ecosystem services such as biodiversity, carbon storage, access and recreation. It is a low-cost but high-impact reform that would modernise Governments, ensure accountability and bring clarity and consistency to decision-making about land acquisition, leasing and woodland creation.

As we know already, between Committee and Report there has been substantial progress on this matter. I am very grateful not only to the Ministers but to their officials for the time that they have given to us in discussing these amendments, and for the movement the Government have made on this important issue. I know that the Government now intend to address this issue as part of a wider and broader package of measures. We are not against that as a system and a means of addressing this problem; in fact, it is a welcome strategy. We are buoyed up by the progress we have made on the Crown Estate Act and the Great British Energy Act, where collaborative work with Ministers and across the House—across all parties—achieved similar provisions. We look forward to the outcomes here.

The Minister has already spoken to give her comments. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who has been pushing on these issues. He of course has his important Private Member’s Bill and I hope that, as part of this package of measures, some of the broader aspects in his Bill can also be taken up. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her work on these matters.

The Government’s words are very welcome and I am thankful for them. We push the Government to go slightly further on the duties of the Forestry Commission, and for a little more clarity on when this legislation might come forward. However, we have come to a reasonable place. What we would like now is to see this legislation come forward so that progress can be made on these matters. With that, I thank the Minister and those involved, as this is a sign of real progress to come.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak in support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on his Amendment 44, which I put my name to. The Forestry Commission is a really important organisation; it is the largest landowner in England. What it does can not only influence the Government’s climate and biodiversity targets; it can inspire other people to do stuff that will deliver those targets. Therefore, it is really sad that we have got to the point where, by a process of accretion, the legislation surrounding the Forestry Commission’s duties is so complicated.

When the Minister responded in Committee, for which we thank her, it revealed just what a piecemeal patchwork of responsibilities is laid on the Forestry Commission—not just by the aged Forestry Acts, dating back 60 years, but by extensions to its duties from the Countryside Act 1968, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the NERC Act 2006, strengthened by the Environment Act 2021. In addition, the Minister’s account, both in Committee and today, has brought up other requirements, such as those laid on the Secretary of State in the national policy statement for renewable energy on his influence over the Forestry Commission. It is a bit of a quagmire of legislation. It is certainly not clear to the Forestry Commission how it will help it do that important job of meeting government targets in any systematic way, rather than by an accretion of decisions made that reflect various bits of legislation.

I, too, thank the Ministers and their staff for the discussion behind the scenes, but we have to press on moving forward from saying that the Forestry Commission will use its best endeavours or have regard to various pieces of policy. Instead, we have to try to nail down whether there is a real commitment within government to update the legislation surrounding the Forestry Commission—and when a suitable legislative vehicle might come forward that would allow it to operate in a systematic way within a modern, comprehensive and effective framework. We need to make sure that its important work will be carried forward systematically.

The alternative way of doing this is to adopt the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who, alas, is not in his place. In his Private Member’s Bill, he sought to give these duties to any public body that had the ability to deliver, in a substantial way, the climate, environment and biodiversity targets—that would be the simple way of doing it. However, if we have to do it piecemeal, can the Government say how soon and in what way it will be done?

Very briefly, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on Amendment 40. He is absolutely right that we have the limits the wrong way round.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. They are leading and I am following on Amendment 44, which is about the duties of the Forestry Commission. Given the hour, I will be brief in bringing out two points.

First, the noble Earl rightly said that both Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Wildlife Trusts—two of our key organisations—totally back the approach in the amendment, which says that the Forestry Commission needs a clear mandate on climate and nature. As the noble Baroness just set out, this has just been nibbled at, changed and fiddled with over many decades, but that has not given the Forestry Commission the clear remit that it needs.

Secondly, the point that I will make that has yet to be made is about how incredibly precious our forests and woodlands are specifically because we have so few of them. Having just been to Ukraine and Poland—the latter is nearly 30% forest—it was striking that forest is part of just about everything I looked at. Even Ukraine, with its huge reliance on arable agriculture and the destruction it has been enduring, still has a higher percentage of forest than we do. We are talking about a terribly rare resource for Britain in looking after our climate provision and our nature. We cannot afford the Forestry Commission, which is such a major landowner, not having clear direction from legislation stating that its job is to look after climate and nature.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendments in this group. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests as a renewable energy developer and as a forester and forest planter.

First, the removal of the application of Clause 28 to Wales is interesting. I am most grateful to the Minister for her explanation for why that should be. Secondly, limiting the powers granted under Clause 28 is a welcome change, in response to the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The DPRRC recommended that the Government constrain the power to make regulations, so that the Secretary of State’s consent can be required only in relation to generating stations that exceed certain capacity thresholds. As pointed out in its report, the Bill was originally drafted with a wider power, but the Government’s policy intention is that the Secretary of State’s consent is required only for significant renewable electricity projects. We welcome that change.

I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on 50-megawatt solar farms. It does seem strange that we should be allowing developments of that size. In general, areas that are most suitable for forestry tend also to be suitable for wind, but less suitable for solar. I would be most grateful to the Minister for any clarification she can give about the intention of this amendment. We will of course return to the competing uses of land between renewable energy and traditional rural interests in a later group.

21:45

On Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we agree that the Forestry Act 1967 has been on the statute book for some time and is in need of review. We cannot support the direction of travel proposed by Amendment 44, though we certainly feel that the Government should look again at this policy area. I am grateful to the Minister for her earlier commitments. With regard to this amendment, we are concerned that imposing multiple duties on arms-length bodies can bring confusion and conflict, as well as greater bureaucratic process, cost and time. The noble Earl highlighted the confusion that is possible under this.

The Forestry Commission already takes its environmental and climate responsibilities seriously, as the Minister has highlighted, and these are intrinsic to its existing functions. However, if there is to be a review, we would welcome consideration of the potential for conflicts within the Forestry Commission’s existing structure, in particular regarding its role as a competitor to private forests, as the regulator and as the grant awarder. That role occasionally brings the potential for conflicts and would be worth some further attention. I look forward to working with the noble Earl and all noble Lords who have signed this amendment in order to seek consensus on how the proposal to review the 1967 Act should go forward.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly respond to questions I have been asked during the debate. I agree with what has been said about the Forestry Act 1967. It was a long time ago now, but I firmly believe that the Act needs reviewing in the round, not in bits and pieces; otherwise, we will just exacerbate the current problem.

On the thresholds, the thresholds of five megawatts for wind and 50 megawatts for other sources were based on current data to illustrate the typical scale, visual footprint and land use of renewable energy projects at those capacities. If the amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State for Defra will be able to amend the capacity thresholds in future through secondary legislation. All renewable electricity projects that export electricity to the grid on the public forest estate will be reported to Defra each quarter.

The Secretary of State, as the landowner, and other Defra Ministers have decided that they would like early visibility of proposed developments above the relevant thresholds. The Forestry Commission will be required to submit an application for ministerial consent before entering into any significant legal or commercial agreements. This early-stage safeguard ensures appropriate oversight of land use decisions. Ministers decided that they want to assess at the pre-planning stage all projects above an agreed size on the public forest estate; that means all significant projects. As previously stated, the thresholds have been set at five megawatts for wind and 50 megawatts for all other technology types.

I hope that has helped to clarify the role of the Secretary of State and of the Forestry Act 1967. With that, I beg to move the government amendments.

Amendment 28 agreed.

Amendments 29 to 40

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

29: Clause 28, page 39, line 13, at beginning insert “English”
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.

30: Clause 28, page 39, line 17, after “across,” insert “English”
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.

31: Clause 28, page 39, line 19, at beginning insert “English”
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.

32: Clause 28, page 39, line 27, after “on” insert “English”
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.

33: Clause 28, page 39, line 30, leave out “appropriate forestry authority’s” and insert “Commissioners’”
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.

34: Clause 28, page 39, line 34, leave out from “41(2)” to end of line 35
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.

35: Clause 28, page 39, line 36, leave out “appropriate forestry authority” and insert “Commissioners”
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.

36: Clause 28, page 40, leave out lines 1 to 18
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment at page 41, line 13 would replace the current power to impose consent requirements on the exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 28 with a narrower power limited to generating stations above a certain megawatt capacity.

37: Clause 28, page 40, leave out lines 20 to 23
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment at page 40, line 1.

38: Clause 28, page 40, line 30, at beginning insert ““English”
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.

39: Clause 28, page 40, line 31, leave out “appropriate forestry authority” and insert “Commissioners”
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments that would result in Clause 28 no longer applying in relation to Wales.

40: Clause 28, page 41, line 13, at end insert—
“3B Section 3A: power to require Secretary of State’s consent in certain cases(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations that, in a case within subsection (2), require the consent of the Secretary of State to an exercise of the Commissioners’ powers under section 3A.(2) The cases are those where—(a) a proposed exercise of the powers is intended to enable the construction on English forestry land of the whole or part of a generating station (including an extension to an existing station), and(b) the capacity threshold is exceeded.(3) In the case of the construction of a new generating station, the capacity threshold is exceeded if it is expected that the generating capacity of the station would equal or exceed the relevant wattage.(4) In the case of an extension to an existing station, the capacity threshold is exceeded if it is expected that—(a) the extension would cause the generating capacity of the station to equal or exceed the relevant wattage, or(b) the extension, whether alone or taken together with previous non-consented extensions, would increase the generating capacity of the station by at least the relevant wattage. (5) An extension is “non-consented” for the purposes of subsection (4)(b) if—(a) it was enabled by an exercise of the Commissioners’ powers under section 3A, and(b) that exercise of those powers did not have the consent of the Secretary of State under regulations under subsection (1).(6) But an extension ceases to be “non-consented” for those purposes if—(a) a subsequent extension to the station in question is constructed having been enabled by an exercise of the Commissioners’ powers under section 3A, and(b) that exercise of those powers had the consent of the Secretary of State under regulations under subsection (1).(7) The relevant wattage is—(a) 5 megawatts, if the station generates electricity from wind, and(b) 50 megawatts, if it does not.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to change the relevant wattage (including by adding or combining categories of station in relation to which a particular wattage is prescribed).(9) In calculating the relevant wattage there is to be disregarded—(a) in the case of a generating station only partly situated on English forestry land, any generating capacity that can be attributed to parts not situated on English forestry land;(b) in the case of a generating station whose capacity is provided in part by facilities for the storage of electricity and in part by other means, the capacity provided by those facilities.(10) In this section—“generating station” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 (see section 64(1));“storage” is to be read in accordance with section 3A(9).3C Regulations under section 3B: further provision(1) Regulations under section 3B(1) may—(a) make provision about the process by which consent is to be sought and given or refused;(b) provide for consent to be given subject to conditions.(2) Regulations under section 3B may—(a) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(b) include consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provision.(3) Regulations under section 3B are to be made by statutory instrument.(4) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under section 3B(8) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 3B(1) (but not regulations under section 3B(8)) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 40, line 1.

Amendments 29 to 40 agreed.

Amendment 41

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

41: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—
“Wind generating stations that may affect seismic array systems(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations about planning permissions or consents relating to wind generating stations that may affect the functioning of a relevant seismic array system.(2) A “relevant seismic array system” is a spatially distributed system of linked seismometers, arranged so as to enhance the detection and characterisation of seismic signals, that—(a) is used for defence purposes, and(b) is in use on the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The regulations may provide for—(a) an exclusion zone, and(b) a restricted zone,around a relevant seismic array system.(4) The regulations may—(a) require a planning decision-maker to refuse, or decline to determine or accept, a planning application relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in an exclusion zone;(b) provide that a relevant development order or MCA scheme may not be made if it would grant planning permission for development relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in an exclusion zone;(c) allow the Secretary of State to direct that a relevant development order or MCA scheme may not be made if it would grant such planning permission.(5) The regulations may, in relation to a planning application relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in a restricted zone—(a) require the applicant to provide specified information about the seismic impact of the proposals (“seismic impact information”) to which their application relates;(b) require the planning decision-maker to use the seismic impact information in a specified way when determining the application (including when determining conditions relating to a permission or consent);(c) require the planning decision-maker to refuse, or decline to determine or accept, the application in specified circumstances;(d) require the planning decision-maker to provide the Secretary of State with the seismic impact information, and to seek the Secretary of State’s views on the seismic impact of the proposals;(e) require the planning decision-maker to refuse, or decline to determine or accept, the application if the Secretary of State objects to it on grounds relating to the seismic impact of the proposals.(6) The regulations may—(a) require a person proposing to make a relevant development order or MCA scheme to consult the Secretary of State if the order or scheme would grant planning permission for development relating to a wind generating station that is (or would be) situated in a restricted zone;(b) allow the Secretary of State to direct that a relevant development order or MCA scheme may not be made if it would grant such planning permission. (7) The regulations may include provision about the procedure for planning applications to which they relate, such as—(a) provision enabling or requiring a planning decision-maker to decline to determine or accept an application;(b) provision modifying the process for determining an application;(c) provision allowing the Secretary of State to give a direction to the planning-decision maker about the procedure for an application;(d) provision modifying or disapplying a right of appeal or review;(e) provision disapplying a duty imposed on a planning decision-maker when determining an application.(8) The regulations may require a planning decision-maker to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.(9) Regulations under this section may—(a) amend or repeal provision contained in an Act of Parliament or an Act of the Scottish Parliament;(b) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(c) make provision binding the Crown;(d) make transitional, transitory or saving provision;(e) make incidental, supplementary or consequential provision.(10) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section which amend or repeal provision contained in an Act of Parliament or an Act of the Scottish Parliament may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(12) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(13) If a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section would, apart from this subsection, be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.(14) In this section—“MCA scheme” means a masterplan consent area scheme made under Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;“planning application” means—(a) an application for planning permission under Part 3 or Part 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,(b) an application for planning permission under Part 3 or Part 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997,(c) an application for an order granting development consent under section 37 of the Planning Act 2008, or(d) an application under section 36 or 36C of the Electricity Act 1989 (consent for construction etc of generating station);“planning decision-maker” means a person who determines a planning application;“relevant development order” means—(a) a local development order made under section 61A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; (b) a Mayoral development order made under section 61DA of that Act;(c) a neighbourhood development order made under section 61E of that Act;(d) a development order made under section 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;“wind generating station” means a generating station that generates electricity from wind.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would empower the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to planning permissions for wind generating stations that may affect the operation of seismic array systems used for defence purposes that are in use at the time that the Act is passed.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment standing in my name seeks to create powers to ensure that seismic array systems are protected in areas where wind farms are proposed to be built, thus enabling the development of onshore wind where it will not have an adverse effect on seismic array systems. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who has a very deep knowledge of this subject and who kindly agreed to have a meeting with me even this morning on the topic, so I am grateful to him.

This amendment will enable regulations to be brought forward for the safeguarding of current Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty essential seismic arrays, notably the Eskdalemuir seismic array in southern Scotland. As a component of the international monitoring system for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, signed by the United Kingdom in 1996, the array is critical for maintaining effective defence monitoring capabilities.

The amendment allows for regulations, subject to forthcoming consultation, to underpin more accurate measuring of the seismic impact of wind turbines, create clear zones within which seismic impacts must be taken into account, and set out how the Ministry of Defence would make these assessments. This would create certainty for planning authorities, the Ministry of Defence and developers, enabling appropriate proposals for wind farm development to be brought forward.

Enabling the development of onshore wind in the Eskdalemuir area will be a positive step towards the Clean Power 2030 mission and net-zero targets, with up to 3 gigawatts of onshore wind that could deliver by 2030. This 3 gigawatts could bring with it up to £2 billion of investment into UK-based onshore wind services. It could deliver up to £15 million per year to communities in the Eskdalemuir area through community benefit funds.

The amendment has been introduced at a late stage to allow for ongoing development of technical and policy work to identify a solution that effectively safeguards the array and enables onshore wind within the Eskdalemuir Working Group, a collaborative forum that has historically been led by the Scottish Government, to whom we are indebted, and has input from the UK Government, including the MoD.

The Bill represents the last available opportunity to secure the 3 gigawatt onshore wind capacity in time for 2030, and the economic benefits that it would bring. Not proceeding at this time and delaying further would impact deployment, reduce critical investor/developer confidence, and halt the momentum to resolve this issue. That being the case, I hope that the House will support this amendment.

Amendment 42, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to specify the maximum extent of zones within which onshore wind development may be totally restricted, and within which relevant regulations will apply. Such specificity at this stage risks pre-empting the government decision-making prior to the launch of a public consultation, which the Government committed to in the onshore wind taskforce strategy in July 2025. To do so could result in the most appropriate options for safeguarding seismic arrays and enabling onshore wind being discarded without proper consideration, as they would not be possible under the primary powers as amended. Safeguarding zones around MoD assets are constructed from specific criteria appropriate to individual assets.

The Government are seeking legislation to enable regulations that both protect seismic arrays and create certainty for onshore wind developers and planning authorities. If these zones are created through regulations, it will not be with the aim of blocking all onshore wind development, as is the case currently, but with the intention to safeguard seismic arrays and allow appropriate onshore wind development.

I hope that clarifies the approach we have taken, and that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment. I beg to move the government amendment.

Amendment 42 (to Amendment 41)

Tabled by

[Earl Russell]

42: In subsection (3), leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) an exclusion zone of not more than 10 kilometres, and(b) a restricted zone of not more than 50 kilometres,”

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to my Amendment 42, which seeks to amend government Amendment 41. I have written a speech, but I might just speak off the top of my head.

The Government’s amendment came out on Report, and when it did it is fair to say that in relation to Eskdalemuir, and particularly to CWP Energy, there were worries about its possible impacts. As the Minister said, Eskdalemuir is a very big proposal for a wind development of 3 gigawatts of energy.

These matters are complicated. They relate to the interplay between the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty ground-based sensors and a monitoring system which has second-tier arrays that are part of the treaty, providing a global monitoring system for above-ground and underground nuclear tests. As the Minister alluded to, at one point in my life I did research on nuclear arms control and did my master’s in it, which is how I know a tiny bit about some of the policy side—not the technical side, to be clear.

When the government amendment was tabled, there was worry in the industry that these exclusion zones and their extension would have significant impacts on what is a big renewable energy deployment that is important for the UK. It is important for us to reach our clean power targets. It is also important for the Borders area and for more than just that area and this wind site going ahead. This corridor of development has good fibre-optic cables. The plan is to develop data centres and link them to the cables and the network stuff that is happening there. There is a whole bunch of economic development here that could be impacted by this.

The industry was worried that the government amendment would, in effect, stymie this wind project. The people who have been developing the project have been trying to find mitigations and solutions for how we can have our onshore wind energy generation and meet our Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty monitoring obligations. As part of that process, they have invested over £200 million. Instead of having sensors on the surface, they have come up with plans to bore down from 60 metres to 200 metres. They have worked with one of the founders of the treaty. The sensors that they want to put in place are recognised by the CTBTO. When they are in place, because they are not on the surface, they will no longer be subject to other vibrations. It is not just wind. It could be quarrying or forestry or all sorts of other activities that could interplay.

The hope is that the project developers get to a place where they can fund not only the research, development and placing of these sensors but their ongoing upkeep. Some technical conversations need to take place between our people in the MoD and the AWE and the Government, to make sure that they can do their stuff so that we can have both these things together and do not have an either/or.

To cut my speech short, following the conversations that I have had with the Minister, I am satisfied that the Government will work to find a way forward and that in the fullness of time the experts can get together. Because we already have solutions with offshore wind for these kinds of problems, I am hopeful that these can be resolved. I appreciate the Government’s and the Minister’s time.

Amendment 42 (to Amendment 41) not moved.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I speak slightly in awe. I am not the world expert on seismic arrays, so I will keep my comments brief. This is the practical bit. We recognise that the Government are trying to create a balancing act between the safe and critical operation of seismic arrays and the opportunity of wind farms. From this side of the House, without the technical knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, can we receive an assurance from the Government that they have that balance right and that we will not compromise those seismic arrays and the potential national security and treaty obligations?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that we are working very closely with our colleagues in the MoD on this issue and will endeavour to make sure that the balance is right in both cases.

Amendment 41 agreed.

Amendment 43

Moved by

[Lord Fuller]

43: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—
“Prohibition on the application of the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime to large-scale solar developments on the best and most versatile land(1) Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008 (nationally significant infrastructure projects: general) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Large-scale solar developments must not be considered nationally significant infrastructure projects where they are built or developed on agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a.”.(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3ZA) The Secretary of State may not use orders under subsection (3)(a) to extend the application of subsection (1) to large-scale solar developments.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that planning decisions remain in the hands of local councils for large-scale solar developments on the best and most versatile land through prohibiting such developments from falling under the nationally significant infrastructure projects provisions in the Planning Act 2008.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 43, co-signed by my Front-Bench colleagues, is simple and straightforward, rather like Amendment 45 from my noble friend Lady Hodgson, who, sadly, is not in her place.

Our amendments are similar, but I prefer my own, because my proposal is not the complete ban on solar developments on the best and most versatile land contemplated by my noble friend. What mine seeks to achieve is that where such proposals do come forward, they are successful only with the consent and agreement of local people. It recognises that solar farms have a role to play in our energy security, but that role must be balanced with an effective use of our best farmland for food security.

This amendment will not prevent or fetter the development of solar farms on the poorest-quality land or restrain smaller proposals on better-quality land where they command the support of the local authority. But where large-scale solar proposals do come forward that include the best and most versatile land, my amendment means that the NSIP process cannot and will not be engaged. It is not the absolute ban on solar on the best land, but it does put a hurdle on which the applicant will need to work hard with local people to surpass, and that restores the balance of negotiating power that has become out of kilter between the developers and local residents.

22:00

Before I get stuck into the meat of what I wish to say, it is important to explain what I mean by

“the best and most versatile land”.

As somebody with a degree in agriculture, it is second nature to me to understand that the process of agricultural land classification, which has been in place since the Harold Wilson Government 59 years ago, accurately recalls the different productive capacities of various fields.

Now, I have no desire to embarrass anybody, but after Committee, I spoke with a noble Baroness on the Government Benches who had no idea that the productive capacity and cropping of a grade 1 silt field in Lincolnshire was any different from a picturesque north-facing hillside in the Yorkshire Dales. To her, fields were just, well, fields, and I hope I got some learning into her, as we say in Norfolk.

How much of this best and most versatile land is there? The Library tells me that grades 1, 2, and 3A—the best grades—comprise 42% of the cultivated land in Great Britain. By difference, therefore, a substantial majority, 58% of the agricultural land, is in the poorer grades 3B, 4 and 5. This would still be available for larger-scale solar under my proposal, and 58% is still plenty to go at—it is more than 12 Norfolks, or two and a half Waleses. So, to repeat: my amendment is not a ban on solar, but it would focus it on the less productive land, of which there is plenty.

The amendment seeks to strike the appropriate balance between food and energy security. This week it has been reported that British farmers have suffered the second worst harvest ever. Many areas, including on land I farm near Great Yarmouth, have had a 40% yield reduction on account of the spring and summer drought. There are no guarantees about the weather, so that is why we need the land buffer to secure our food supply.

Last week I attended Prime Minister’s Questions in the other place and heard the Prime Minister say

“that food security is national security”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/25; col. 371.]

Is it too much to hope for that Ministers belatedly realise that the risks to food security are greater than they ever have been; that we are no more than three meals away from societal breakdown; that the best land should be reserved for food production; and that food security, the Prime Minister and the British people are being gaslit by the Energy Secretary in some of this regard? That is quite an appropriate term for an Energy Minister.

The Prime Minister boasts in the other place about his commitment to food security, but the Government’s rhetoric is at odds with his reality. I say to him and to Mr Miliband: when the chips are down, you cannot eat a solar panel. While they may be happy with imported quinoa, the rest of us outside the M25 prefer bread, biscuits and beer, fruit and veg, grown on the best land, for the most part, harnessing the best our nation can produce.

We know there is not the grid capacity to accept all the solar that has been promoted when the sun suddenly and intensively comes out from behind the clouds. If grid capacity is limited and there is only so much solar surge the grid can take, only a fool would disagree with limiting the proposals to the poorest land first.

I have heard it said that we do not really need to worry about this. Only the amount of land currently used for golf courses and the like is being used for solar, something like 0.5% of all land. That, of course, is simply not true; it is a 19th hole story that has grown with the telling. The Government’s land use framework contemplates fully 9% of all land to be used for non-agricultural, environmental and energy schemes.

The principle of controlling solar development aside, the amendment is also important in that it seeks to remove the loopholes and abuses that we have seen from the misuse of the NSIP regime for solar applications, including artificially stringing together a series of small schemes into a big one to get over that 100-megawatt hurdle value. Where I live, a local proposal comprises a dozen different blocks of land spread out over a canvas of 15 miles by eight miles as a device to get over that NSIP threshold. That is an abuse.

Even more so, once designated an NSIP, the private promoter—in my local case, an Australian merchant bank—is awarded CPO powers to confiscate British farmland for those whose only purpose is to collateralise the countryside. I can see that it may be in the landowner’s private interest to sign up for solar; on normal arable economics, a farmer would do well to earn £200 an acre from the fruits of his labours, having invested millions in plant and equipment and subjected himself to the weather. So converting it to a guaranteed payment sounds like good business, even if they get to sit on the beach, index linked, for 40 years.

But this has seen landowners of really quite small holdings, which have been aggregated together as part of an NSIP, giving their tenants notice to quit so that they can enjoy the inflation-linked payments themselves. Our tenant farmers are the most entrepreneurial growers, not having had the benefit of inheriting land, and we cannot afford to lose their dynamism. That is at stake here.

I attended the public consultation locally for the East Pye proposal close to me, where I uncovered the surprising statistic, hidden away at the back of binder 10 out of 13, that the total land area in the best and most versatile categories represented 86% of the entire proposal. A further 12% represented the productive land grade 3b and only a negligible 3% represented the poorest categories. I drew attention to that calculation and the developer’s representative was surly and dismissive. It was only when I declared my interest as a Member of your Lordships’ House that a change of tone was divined.

There we get to the heart of the matter: I have seen with my own eyes that there is little incentive for these developers to tell the truth on large-scale solar over the heads of the little people, because they think that Mr Miliband will simply rubber-stamp their proposals regardless, without the appropriate level of scrutiny, honesty or integrity. The normal balance of power must be restored.

My amendment would stop these bad behaviours from those who think that stringing together smaller schemes into big ones will give them a free pass. It would stamp out the threats of menaces over CPOs. The amendment would prevent local people being airbrushed from key decisions affecting their most productive landscapes and it would ensure accountability for the faceless investors who are driving this gold rush, who do not give a jot about the countryside, still less our ability to feed ourselves.

In summary, it is not a ban on solar. Well over half the land in this country would still be available for it under NSIP, just not the 42% that most reliably feeds us. I am trying to strike the right balance between food security and energy security, as well as the security of the democratic process. That is why my amendment is important. I will listen very carefully to the debate, but I announce my intention to divide the House if I am not satisfied. I beg to move.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a word about Amendment 45, which has been tabled by my noble kinswoman, my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. My noble friend cannot be here—she is part of an IPU delegation in Geneva—and she asked if I would come tonight, apologise to the House for her absence and make a few remarks about this amendment on her behalf.

I am happy to do this not just for reasons of domestic harmony, although domestic harmony is very desirable, but because this amendment runs very parallel to one about food security that I moved in Committee. My issues then looked top-down at the world position and how it would impact this country’s food security; this amendment looks bottom-up at what we need to do to make sure that we do not unnecessarily and unduly impede our ability to feed ourselves, which must surely be a key responsibility of any Government.

My noble friend asked me to make a number of points. Before I do, I remind your Lordships of my entry in the register: my family investment company owns a few acres of agricultural land.

The first point is that solar power development should not take place on higher-quality agricultural land, which was the point that my noble friend Lord Fuller made. We need to keep this productive land to feed ourselves and remember that, if we lose it once to solar panels and solar farms, we have probably lost it for ever.

The Minister might refer to the forthcoming land use framework as providing the answer to this, but that will not come out until this Bill is an Act. One hears the awful sound of a door slamming behind a bolting horse.

The second issue is another point made by my noble friend Lord Fuller, about the continuing and rising tensions geopolitically. We need to keep those always in mind when we consider this country’s position and our ability to feed ourselves by bringing in food from overseas. We grow just over half our food ourselves.

The third point is that using agricultural land for solar panels has too often been the soft touch and the easy option. As has been said, farming is not particularly profitable and is cyclical. Therefore, it is much easier for a farmer to sign a long-term contract that provides security for a generation, for himself and for his family. That is one route.

The other route, of course, which is much more difficult, is to go down the commercial channel. There, the Government are likely to see much more hard-headed commercial resistance. For example, as a first step, why are we not putting solar panels on every new house we build? Why are we not insisting that solar panels are put on every new factory and every commercial building that is constructed? Why are we not thinking about retrofitting solar panels to existing buildings where suitable? All that would improve the situation without us having to reduce the amount of land available for production of food.

My fourth point takes the Minister to a point she made in Committee, to which she was not, to be honest, able to give an entirely satisfactory response. What plans do the Government have to monitor the continuing ownership of these solar farms—not just the person who builds them and owns them initially but when they are sold? If the Government argue that solar power is critical to this country, some monitoring of who owns that critical facility is obviously important. The Minister has written to my noble friend—she is grateful for that—and indicated that the Government are thinking of some form of monitoring, but it is not clear in what form the statutory basis of the monitoring will be. Will it be in statute? Will it be guidance? Will it be advisory? Who will enforce it? My noble friend Lord Blencathra and I have spent enough time dealing with secondary legislation to know that there are all sorts of ways in which this can be effective or not. It would be very helpful for the House to know what the Government have in mind for this critical part of our future national life.

Finally, no proper account has been taken to assess the permanent damage to our countryside—not just the short-term implications for roads, with tons of material being brought in to establish a solar farm, but the long-term visual impact on our country. In an age when mental illness is rising, we should not underestimate the value of open country. Not for nothing did Octavia Hill, one of the co-founders of the National Trust, write:

“We all want quiet. We all want beauty … we all need space. Unless we have it, we cannot reach that sense of quiet in which whispers of better things come to us gently”.


The Minister will say that the Government have clocked this and are working hard to make sure they are collecting all the appropriate statistics to ensure that these risks are being examined. Indeed, she concluded a long paragraph on this in Committee by saying:

“The Government therefore already have legal requirements to report regularly on matters relevant to food security in the UK”.—[Official Report, 15/9/25; col. 1963.]


I do not for a moment suggest that the Government are not collecting lots and lots of statistics. The critical question is what they are then doing with them. Which government department and Secretary of State are responsible for taking all this information, which we are told is now being collected and we all agree is very important and has a real impact on our future as a country, assessing it, working with it, interpreting it and using it to guide future policy?

I think the House is entitled to know from the Government how it is being used, how we can be reassured that our future is being properly assessed, and that it is not falling between the stools of different departments and that there is a Secretary of State responsible who is going to be able to keep us, Parliament and the country, informed that our future is safe.

22:15

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, in supporting these amendments, I must first declare my family farming and land-owning interests for the purposes of Report on this Bill. I should say in this context that we have both food production and some land—less good land, I may say—with a solar array on it.

Normally, in the past, I have stood up and said on these land use decisions that we should wait until we get the land use framework, which we are told is imminent, any minute now. But I have had a conversion. First, I am not quite sure to what extent conformity with the land use framework is going to be mandatory for local planning authorities or indeed for Secretaries of State. Having been chairman of the Land Use in England Committee, I have had a glimpse of what the Government’s response to the consultation is likely to be. I am not disclosing any secrets here but they seem to be saying that, when it comes to solar arrays, merely—I underline that word—that lower-quality agricultural land is preferable to higher-quality agricultural land. That is seriously not good enough. We should take this opportunity to ensure that our best food-producing farmland is legally protected for the long term.

I firmly believe that good food production should be sacrosanct. Whatever the land use framework comes up with, now or in any future iterations—there no doubt that it is going to change as demands change over the decades—there is no doubt in my mind that the long-term defence of our realm depends crucially on our ability to feed ourselves, more so than on the number of regiments we have, frankly. Indeed, so does the peace of our realm. I think it was over 10 years ago that I first mentioned in this House that we are only ever nine meals away from total anarchy. At the time, I had to explain exactly what I meant by that phrase; nowadays, I think people take it as read and know exactly what I mean by that phrase.

Whatever the passing needs of our energy requirements, our best food-producing land should remain constantly sacrosanct, and the flexibility of our land use should never include or usurp our best food-producing land. There is, after all, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said, lots of other land all over the country, often south-sloping hillsides, that is less than optimum for producing our food and which therefore can be used for solar panels.

There is no doubt in my mind that in every local planning authority and every county, maybe every year, there are going to be lots of people trying to produce solar panels. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, just asked, who is going to be monitoring this? We need somebody to monitor what is going on, because every year we are going to be whittling away at our capacity to feed ourselves. I do not believe we should allow that to happen, so I strongly support Amendments 43 and 45.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. I cannot match the eloquence of other speakers, or the length of their speeches for that matter, but I want to support my noble friend Lady Hodgson’s Amendment 45. The reason I want to support it is that I want, as has just been said, some clarification about the Government’s position regarding the use of agricultural land for solar panels—and, I suppose, for battery storage plants, which are equally a concern to an awful lot of the public at present.

In Yorkshire, at the moment, we have a plethora of applications, all speculative, without apparently much resource behind them, and all hoping to get permission from local planning authorities, being just below the 50-megawatt limit that would require them to have more strategic consideration. There are so many of them at present that the planning officers are quite undermined in their work and unable to deal with them—but they will do. The problem we have is that, unless the Government are a little clearer on their view about the use or misuse of very good agricultural land, lots of these matters will proceed much against the wish of agricultural experts, farmers and local rural communities in particular.

I therefore urge the Minister to make it quite clear not just that the Government prefer that we do not utilise grades 1, 2, 3 and 3A agricultural land for solar panels, and that it should be used for agricultural purposes—preferably the production of food—but that this will not be allowed. They should tell planning officials that that is the view of the Government, because otherwise, simply preferring something is absolutely pointless.

The only other point I wish to add is that every single one of these speculative operators that seem to have come on the scene, certainly in Yorkshire and I believe elsewhere, try to placate local communities by saying that this will be only for 40 years—that in 40 years everything will be put back to its present state, or improved for that matter. I do not think I shall be here in 40 years, and I do not think most of the speculative companies will be. Without a proper bond in place, showing that they are worth the resources that they claim they are, this is a totally useless and pointless statement. The Government should point that out at all opportunities.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger and her Amendment 45, to which I tried to add my name but was too late. It was persuasively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, and I will try to be brief.

The essence of responsible political choice is to look to the long term. Good agricultural land is one resource that should be with us for ever. Development should not be allowed to prejudice the long-term interests of our nation. While I support Amendment 43, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, which was well supported by his local knowledge, I prefer Amendment 45 because it would guarantee the protection of grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3A land against the substantial commercial pull of solar at prevailing returns in the energy and agriculture sectors.

Such protection would help to reverse the short-sighted change to planning guidance based on short-sighted thinking, to my view, by the Blair Government. Labour has never been a real friend of the farming community, despite its national importance, articulated so well by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the need to grow our own food. It would be wonderful to see a change of heart in the changed circumstances we see today, where food security is so important.

My view is that we should concentrate solar investment in urban areas and on urban rooftops—for example, on businesses and on supermarkets, which I promoted in my years at Tesco—especially in countries such as Hungary and Thailand, where the sun is hot and shines more brightly. I should perhaps end by saying that I have an interest as a part owner of two small fields, the remnants of a family farm long since sold.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, there are 3.3 billion barrels of oil easily available in the North Sea. An independent study by Westwood Global Energy Group for Offshore Energies UK suggests that up to 7.5 billion barrels could still be produced, while the Government’s own figures suggest about 3.2 billion barrels. The North Sea Transition Authority estimates that there are 6.1 billion barrels of oil of contingent resources and 4 billion barrels of oil in mapped leads and prospects—whatever those are—plus an additional 11.2 billion barrels in plays outside these mapped areas. There are billions and billions of gallons of oil that we could use, and we need. But we have a fanatical Secretary of State for Energy who is obsessed with the last bit of his title: the Minister for Net Zero. He is destroying the UK’s energy needs on our doorstep—or under our seabed, to be more precise. Energy should be our priority.

Without substantial new investment in domestic production, the UK is projected to import about 70% of its oil and gas needs by 2030, rising to over 80% by 2035. Even with a goal of net zero by 2050, the UK will still need between 13 billion and 15 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent to meet its energy needs. Although demand for oil and gas will fall significantly, they are expected to meet a quarter of energy needs by 2050 to provide long-term power and support the energy transition, especially when paired with carbon capture technology. So a quarter of our energy needs will still come from oil and gas. We are sitting on billions of gallons of oil that we will not extract from our own country, and we will then import billions from abroad. How barking mad is that?

This fanatical energy department is not only destroying our oil and gas production systems but putting whole swathes of British industry out of action, making it uncompetitive by removing a cheap commodity that all our competitors use. There will never be Labour’s dream of growth while the Secretary of State is still in post—no wonder most of the Cabinet want him sacked. His obsession with net zero is also leading to the destruction of some of our finest countryside and the imposition of massive—

[Earl Russell (LD)]

What does this have to do with the amendment at hand?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

That is in the sentence that I am just about to say.

The Secretary of State’s obsession with net zero is now leading to the destruction of some of our finest British countryside, with the imposition of massive solar farms on some of our finest productive land. We would not need all these solar farms if we actually dug out the oil sitting under our own North Sea, but he has now put a stop to that. That is the point of my introduction. No doubt, as the MP for Doncaster North, he will still get his avocados, soya milk and pomegranate seeds from overseas, while our UK farms, producing the food that most Britons eat—our beef, our lamb and our wonderful vegetables, such as broccoli, cabbage, brussels sprouts, et cetera—will be covered over by solar panels.

My noble friend has made that point, and I will raise a different but related one tonight. My friend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not with us tonight. Noble Lords may have heard of a report about a month ago that a bus lost control in Victoria Street and crashed into a bus stop, including pedestrians. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was one of those injured and was rushed to hospital. The photographs of his injuries are quite horrific, but he says that he believes he has not suffered catastrophic injuries, despite the bus fracturing his spine. He is in a brace, recovering. We wish him a speedy recovery and wish him back here as soon as possible.

Crucially, of course, he is as mentally sharp as ever, with lots of posts going out weekly defending victims of human rights abuses in all those countries that kill, torture, enslave and abuse their citizens. One of those countries is China. It is a threat to us militarily, as it builds a massive military complex superior to the United States. It is a threat to us commercially, as it steals every commercial secret we have. It is a threat to us politically and culturally, as it infiltrates our universities, institutions and even this Parliament.

The important point I want to make in this debate tonight is to say, in my inadequate way, what I think the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would have said if he were with us tonight. My concern is that we will be filling England with some of the products from that oppressive and hostile regime. China manufactures 80% of the solar panels in the world. Some 68% of all the solar panels sold and used in the United Kingdom come from China, many made by the slave labour of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province. Even those not made in that province are still made in the hostile Chinese regime, which has an appalling human rights record.

What has happened to the Labour Party, which permits the Secretary of State to cover our countryside with products made by such a deplorable regime? Some of the Members opposite will be old enough to remember the late Robin Cook, Labour Foreign Secretary, and his ethical foreign policy. It did not quite work out as planned, but at least he sought to have one. Underpinning the ethical initiative was the guiding idea that Britain would seek to advance the cause of human rights in international affairs. I know that is not easy, and I appreciate how Governments face difficult problems and have to get into bed with some awful regimes in order to keep out even more awful regimes, but this is an easy one as far as solar panels are concerned.

I want a commitment from the Government that all the solar wind farms rubber-stamped by Ed Miliband will have a condition that they will not use any Chinese-produced solar panels, bearing in mind that 32% of the solar panels in this country are not Chinese—so there are alternatives. I understand that there is a company based in south Wales called GB-Sol that manufactures a wide range of solar panel modules for domestic, commercial and specialist applications. There is a company called UKSOL, a British solar modules brand, that produces high-efficiency PV modules. There is another company called Romag, a large and established manufacturer that also produces British solar panels, as well as one called Anglo Solar, which I found—another UK company.

22:30

My plea to the Government is this: if they persist in covering our precious countryside in solar panels, for goodness’ sake let us use British-produced ones and not ones produced by slave labour. There are some ludicrous calls from some people and organisations that we should make reparations for the slave trade of more than 250 years ago, even though we took the lead to stop it. This Bill has some amendments to it in later groups that would protect our cultural heritage in the countryside. Would not it be appalling to look out over England in 10 years’ time and see millions of solar panels, knowing that two out of three of them in our once green and pleasant land that was now under these things were made by slave labour? I do not want that to be part of my cultural heritage in this country. We cannot correct the injustices of 200 years ago, but we can stop them from being repeated.

Once again, I call on the Minister for an assurance that there will not be a single Chinese-produced solar panel used in those applications approved by the Government. We cannot stop others or private individuals, but the Government have the power to do the right thing, and I call on them to do so.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I would just like to say a few words, because I actually believe that solar energy is a very good thing. We have installed it—and I must declare my interest, in that my family bulb-growing and farming industry business in south Lincolnshire is obviously on grade 1 land. All our land is grade 1, and we do not want solar panels on it; our neighbours do not want solar panels on their land. But we have installed solar panels on all our warehouses that we use for our business.

There are ways in which the farming community can co-operate with the general wish to see regenerative energy available to the well-being of the country. But if you live in south Lincolnshire, you live on a corner of the coastline where so many powerlines go through and there is a risk that it is so convenient—there are so many substations and so many points of contact with the national grid that go across that particular area of the Wash—that it is a temptation. All I would say is that, while solar energy is good, so is food production. While bulbs, which most people know I produce, are not edible but are just for the delight of people in their recreation, most of our land is agricultural land producing vegetables and all the sorts of things that people need to have a healthy diet in this country. We would be wrong to do other than support the amendments proposed by my noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Fuller.

There has been a lot of rhetoric, and I think some of it has been counterproductive. The Secretary of State for Energy is doing what he feels is his mission. However, this House should send amendments to this Bill that remind him that there are priorities other than renewable energy and, by passing these amendments, we would provide a contribution to the debate that makes it sensible for Governments of whatever colour or party to realise that food security is equally as important as energy security. I hope that noble Lords will see this question in the round and not from a partisan point of view and support these amendments.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to both these amendments, considering the hour. We cannot support either of these amendments, which are both too prescriptive and too absolutist. Indeed, there is a complete disconnect between the amendments at hand and the speeches that have been made to defend them.

Amendment 43 would prevent certain solar projects from being treated as nationally significant infrastructure projects, fragmenting a regime that already provides national oversight, rigorous assessment and opportunities for local consultancy. Amendment 45 would go even further, imposing an outright ban on ground-mounted solar on land grades 1, 2 or 3a. Together, these amendments would send a chilling signal to investors, delaying deployment and weakening our ability to decarbonise our power system.

The Tory policy on climate change seems to change more often than the wind changes direction. I cannot accept these amendments and do not like this whole narrative that we have either food security or energy security. We can have both. Indeed, the biggest challenge to our food security is climate change itself. We have had the five worst harvests in the last 10 years; it is either too wet or too dry. We must do something about climate change.

Solar panels and agrivoltaics can fit together with agricultural land. When we face a warming climate, deploying agrivoltaics might actually be a way of safeguarding our food security, as opposed to challenging it. A quarter of our farmers in the UK already have some form of solar deployed, either on their roofs or in their fields. It is an important way of supporting our farmers, in the face of a changing climate that is weakening their abilities to make a profit from what they do, so that they can continue to survive and provide food to put on our tables.

This whole narrative that it is one or the other is absolutist. It is not helpful and does not get us further forward on this debate. If there were amendments coming forward saying more must be done to make sure that the last resort we use is agricultural land, I would listen to those proposals. We need to do more to get solar panels on rooftops, on warehouses and on balconies, but the Government are taking action on this. They have got policies for rooftop solar. We will be getting the warm home plans, and other plans so that we have rooftop solar on all new builds. We need to go further on that, but these amendments are not helpful.

The idea that you cannot take a single millimetre of grade 1 agricultural land is not helpful. Nobody on these Benches ever asked how much high-grade farming land is used for golf courses, driveways or any other need at all. Somehow, it is only ever solar panels which are a threat to our food security. It is a very simplistic, unhelpful narrative that is designed on propaganda. It is not about food security or protecting our country in any way.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

Before the noble Earl sits down, where is his amendment to improve the Bill? Why has he not presented something to this House? I think it insults the House that he condemns positive constructions from the House in general while not presenting anything of his own.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

It is a very fair question. The noble Lord is entitled to ask me any question he wants and I welcome his intervention. I have tabled loads of amendments in Committee on the Bill. This is not a Bill about solar; it is about the wider planning system. I am happy with the system as it is, so I have not put an amendment in.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller for Amendment 43 and to my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for his loyal and able introduction of Amendment 45 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. I declare my interest as a farmer, although not of as much best and most versatile land as I would like. To illustrate the point made by my noble friend Lord Fuller, I point out that solar currently offers risk-free returns roughly five times as great as farming land. From a farmer’s point of view, the incentives for doing this are very strong and it is up to the Government to regulate and protect the best and most versatile land.

I will not repeat the arguments that we have heard. They have been very well made and were made at earlier stages of this Bill, as well as on previous Bills, debates and Questions. I will briefly outline our position on these amendments.

We on these Benches are steadfast: food security is national security. Protecting our best and most versatile agricultural land is essential, and we will not apologise for standing up for our farmers and consumers. When the most productive agricultural land is lost to solar developments, our food supply is less secure when it need not be. Where solar developments are pursued, they should be developed on weaker land, not on our most productive farmland. My noble friend Lord Fuller indicated that 42% of UK agricultural land is best and most versatile, but there is also a great deal of unclassified land. So if it is far less than 42% of our landmass, why are we building these large-scale solar farms on it?

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that there was not a problem here, but since the last election we have seen a number of NSIPs brought forward that include a significant amount of best and most versatile land. It is not necessary to use this best and most versatile land; plenty of land is available that is weaker and could support the incomes of the farming community while providing the energy that we are looking for. Should my noble friend Lord Fuller wish to test the opinion of the House, we will support him. I look to noble Lords on the Benches to my left to join us in standing up for farmers and underpinning our commitment to food security. It will be very disappointing if they are unwilling to support this important amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Before I respond, I send our best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for a very speedy recovery. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, his amazing contributions to our debates, particularly on human rights issues, are greatly missed and I hope he will be back with us as soon as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson—whom the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, ably stood in for—have tabled amendments relating to solar generation on agricultural land. This was debated at great length in Committee. While I appreciate the very strong feelings on this issue, the Government’s approach to these propositions has not changed.

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, it is important that every project is submitted to the planning process which befits its impact, scale and complexity. The Government believe that large solar farms, even when they propose to use higher-quality agricultural land, are best dealt with under the NSIP regime. The NSIP regime is rigorous. Local engagement remains at the heart of the process. Developers taking projects through the NSIP regime must undertake meaningful community engagement before any decision is taken. The level and quality of community engagement, among other factors, will be taken into account by decision-makers.

In Committee, the noble Lord appeared to suggest that the involvement of Ministers in the NSIP regime undermines public confidence in its ability to assess the costs and benefits of solar projects. I reassure him and your Lordships’ House that all ministerial planning decisions must be taken in strict accordance with planning policy and the Ministerial Code. This is in line with the policy governing decision-making by local planning authorities. As a result, as I explained on the last occasion when we debated this, we would not expect the planning outcomes to change.

As I argued previously, the Government are fully aware of the benefits of returning control, where suitable, to local authorities. At the end of the year, we shall double the NSIP threshold for solar, enabling projects of up to 100 megawatts to be decided locally. There is only one solar farm above 100 megawatts at the moment, and that was decided through an NSIP process.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

By the previous Government.

22:45

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Yes. Any marginal gain in public confidence from returning control to local authorities must be weighed against the likely costs of this proposal. First, giving responsibility for the complex and lengthy examination of NSIP-scale projects to local planning departments will increase the burden on resources that are already under pressure. Secondly, for proposals that are of strategic importance to the country, central government is the most appropriate decision-maker. Changing policy to give these decisions to local authorities may increase investor uncertainty at a pivotal moment. Lastly, accepting this amendment would imply that the NSIP regime is either not competent or not qualified to adjudicate on some issues. It may reduce confidence in NSIP decisions that have already been taken and in those that will be taken in the future.

On the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, the Government sympathise with her objective to protect fertile farmland from overdevelopment. In Committee, she mentioned how the war in Ukraine has brought into sharp relief the need to protect food security. This gets to the heart of the matter, for another lesson of the war in Ukraine is the strategic vulnerability of relying on volatile imported fossil fuels for our energy supply. We must find the right balance between food security and energy security. That is why food security and energy security are currently balanced in the planning system, which considers both these factors.

This amendment tilts the balance too far in one direction, so we must oppose it. It would prevent a significant portion of the solar development required to deliver energy security. Many fields contain land that varies in quality. It would not be proportionate to reject an otherwise beneficial project because a small portion of its total area was classified as “best and most versatile land”. This blunt instrument would jeopardise the Government’s plan to achieve clean power by 2030 and, in turn, our work to deliver lower bills in the long term, high-skilled jobs, and, yes, energy security.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned the monitoring of solar farms. The Renewable Energy Planning Database lists all projects larger than 150 kilowatts, such as solar farms, including their precise locations. It covers projects at all stages of the planning process, from application to operation.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to the land use framework and whether it is a material consideration in terms of the planning process. By law, planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise; what constitutes a material consideration is for the local planning authority to determine, based on the circumstances of a particular case. The evidence base that underpinned the land use consultation and feedback on it will inform the Government’s wider strategic planning agenda.

I would like to make a few brief comments on what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said about China—

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

The Minister talked about the monitoring procedures. Her remarks indicated they were going to be only when the projects were in their early stages. The worry is what happens maybe three, four or five years later, when the people who start owning it pass it on to someone who may be less attractive to the future of this country. Will the monitoring be a continuous process throughout the life of each project?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I believe I said—I hope I did—that all stages would be monitored, from application to operation. I hope that is reassuring to the noble Lord.

In relation to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on China—it is important to pick them up—the Government are committed to tackling the issue of Uyghur forced labour in supply chains, including the mining of polysilicon used in the manufacture of solar panels. We expect UK businesses and solar developers to do everything in their power to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chains. The Procurement Act 2023, which came into force on 24 February, enables public sector contracting authorities to reject bids from and terminate contracts with suppliers that are known to use forced labour themselves or anywhere in their supply chain.

The Government are considering how to strengthen Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which places a requirement on businesses with a turnover of £36 million or more to publish an annual modern slavery statement, including possible penalties for non-compliance, as well as working with a wide range of stakeholders to update the Section 54 statutory guidance. I hope that gives the noble Lord some reassurance that we are taking this very seriously indeed.

From my time as the Minister in MHCLG with responsibility for net zero, I know that we have looked extensively at the UK supply chains and what might be done to further promote and help them to grow their businesses. All this being said, I agree with the sentiments of the noble Baroness that more should be done to install solar on rooftops. We are pursuing various measures in connection to this, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, from solar on schools and hospitals and our new building standards to tax breaks and our new £13.2 billion warm homes plan. We have recently conducted a call for evidence about solar car parks, which the noble Baroness praised in Committee.

It is important that we do not overstate the amount of agricultural land that might be occupied by solar infrastructure. I know the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, questioned the Government’s figures on land use. Without being drawn into that discussion, it is clear that a relatively small amount of land, 0.4% in the most ambitious scenarios, is due to have solar installed by 2030. This does not constitute a threat to food security or to British farming, which the Government will always champion. Rather, the primary threat to British agriculture comes from the damaging effects of climate change, and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, already mentioned the impact on harvests this year. We have to take that into account as well. I, for one, think that Britain should do its part in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Building low-carbon power plants is an essential aspect of this.

I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will note the steps the Government have taken to return the decision-making of more solar projects to local authorities and the existing robust provisions for planning authorities to consider impacts on food production, and that the noble Lord might consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her winding. I do not intend to relitigate the debate we have just had; it is very late. It is almost as if the Government timetabled this debate after hours so the viewers at home could not see it. That is a shame, because the viewers would have seen for the first time the Lib Dems’ touching concern for the chilling effect on the investment prospects of the international investors for whom they wear their hearts on their sleeves.

We have reached a turning point in our nation’s story. We have a choice: will we stand up for those who put food in our bellies or is the Minister stuck in the middle of a fight between the Prime Minister on one hand, who says he believes in food security being national security, and an Energy Minister on the other who is impoverishing our nation, sacrificing thousands of British jobs on the altar of net zero while importing the jobs we used to make, but this time for more polluting factories overseas, which achieves nothing but to make us poorer?

We have a choice before us. It is not a binary choice of one or the other, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In our proposal, 58% of the national land would continue to be available. That is not binary; that is proportionate. Here is an opportunity for us all to get the balance right between energy security and food security by agreeing to my amendment. The counterfactual is that we condemn our countryside to an uncontrolled future, where our landscapes are impoverished and collateralised, passed around the global financial system like chips on a poker table.

To govern is to choose. Will this Government continue their war on the countryside or will they, even at this late hour, support our landscapes, the food producers and the rural economy? We should know. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

22:53

Division 5

Ayes: 32

Noes: 57

23:03

Amendments 44 to 46 not moved.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

General Cemetery Bill [HL]

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons agreed to.

House adjourned at 11.04 pm.