Lords Chamber

Monday 20th October 2025

(began 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:48
14:49
None Portrait Oral questions: Fees for for musical instrument certificates on touring orchestras and musicians, as proposed in the open consultation on reforming domestic CITES implementation in UK Baroness Keeley (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

the plan, which I look forward to presenting to your Lordships' House. Second oral question. Baroness Keeley. Yeah.
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Latest estimates of the current GDP per capita, and factors contributing to it Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-

The third oral. starting in my name on the Order Paper.
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Well, clearly we need to make sure that we retain top talent in this country, as the previous this country, as the previous questioner was asking me. But also we need to make sure we increase the living standards are right across the income distribution and particularly for working people. The my noble friend will know that wages continue to grow. And in the first ten months of this government, real wages rose by more than in the first Economy.

Economy. So Economy. So what Economy. So what does Economy. So what does the Economy. So what does the government Economy. So what does the government plan to do about it, both in the public sector and in the private sector? sector? Well, the noble Lady is absolutely correct to say that productivity is a long standing problem in the in the, in the economy. As I understand it, I think productivity fell to the lowest in the G7 under the previous government. So clearly it's very important that we prioritise that one of the most important things we are doing for productivity is increasing investment in our economy.

We've revised the fiscal rules to enable us to increase investment in the economy, and I regret very much that the party opposite oppose those changes to the fiscal rules.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can my noble friend, the Minister explained to the House the role of record levels of public investment record levels of public investment and how that contributes to economic growth? And in his answer, lest we growth? And in his answer, lest we forget. Could you remind the House of the financial legacy that we of the financial legacy that we inherited from the last government, most particularly the amount of the financial blackhole?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

financial blackhole? Yes. Yeah, I'm a noble friend. My noble friend is very generous in noble friend is very generous in inviting me to mention the £22 inviting me to mention the £22 billion black hole. But she's also absolutely correct to say that capital spending is a significant capital spending is a significant driver of growth in our economy. The OBR estimates that the increases in capital spending that we've seen capital spending that we've seen increased growth by 0.14% over five years, 0.43% over ten years, from years, 0.43% over ten years, from 1.4% in the long term.

And of course, as I've already said, it's very regrettable that the party
15:11
None Portrait Oral questions: Assessment and plans to address inequalities in the provision of healthcare among different population groups
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposite opposes those capital spending plans. Fourth oral question Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fourth oral question Baroness Pitkeathley on behalf of Baroness Brown and so on. Behalf of my medical friend and
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
None Portrait Business of the House
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

This This message

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This message from This message from the This message from the Commons. That they have passed the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill to Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill to which they desire. Your Lordships Agreement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agreement. My Lords, Sustainable Aviation is. Now, for the first time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now, for the first time. The question is that this bill will be now read a first time, as many of that opinion, say 'content' many of that opinion, say 'content' do not content the contents kept. My do not content the contents kept. My Lords, we now come to two instruments previously debated in instruments previously debated in Grand Committee building safety Levy Grand Committee building safety Levy income. I will start again. My income. I will start again.

My Lords. We will. We now come to two instruments previously debated in instruments previously debated in Grand Committee Building Safety Levy, England Regulations 2025.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Levy, England Regulations 2025. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Action. Is that this motion be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content. The contents it companies directors report. Payment Reporting Regulations 2025. Lord, Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords are back to approve the motion. Standing my name on the order of faith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content contrary,
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
before clause one, amendment one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords. The beginning of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The beginning of. This report stage of this important. Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. I move again. Amendment one in my name, which is to insert a new name, which is to insert a new purpose clause at the beginning of the bill to define the obviously, to the bill to define the obviously, to define what it's about. While this bill aims to deliver significant change without a clear guiding change without a clear guiding statement of intent, we risk losing sight of the balanced objectives sight of the balanced objectives necessary to truly sustainable development.

So amendment one sets. development. So amendment one sets. Out the core purposes of this act to accelerate the delivery of new homes accelerate the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. To improve the planning and consenting processes, support nature recovery through more effective development through more effective development and restoration, and increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development. Now, 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.

At committee stage, there was support from across the House for a similar amendment. The benefit of adding a purpose clause to the bill is that it will enshrined in law the tensions 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 three 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, and I quote, the dangerous erosion of democracy, inheritance inherent in measures that increase ministerial powers, such as the ability to issue holding directions, to stop councils refusing planning commissions when they don't accede to the law, to prevent them from issuing holding directions is a huge step in and denuding local voices. Local democratic councils from making the decisions about issues that affect their areas and their communities.

The inclusion of, for instance, the increased community acceptability and input of infrastructure and development directly mandates the government that the government and implementing authorities address these democratic deficits. It transforms community engagement from a burdensome, burdensome hoop to jump through a problem noted by the previous. Regime and the Planning Act of 2008, which led to proposals removing pre-application concerns. Consultation requirements into a stated core objective of the entire legislative framework. So the government's stated objective for this Doe 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 seeks to achieve by accepting amendment one, we 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public confidence. I beg to move. Amendment proposed before clause one. Insert the new. Clause printed. On the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the. Marshalled list. thank. The.
15:42
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Noble Lady, the Baroness Lady Pinnock for focusing on minds here at the outset on what this bill is at the outset on what this bill is about. And it's a welcome amendment because while the Lady Pinnock has attempted to at least bring some thematic coherence for a ragbag of proposals from a dozen different departments, none of whom appear to be talking to each other now, I've read the press notices, and, my Lords, I've 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 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a self-serving quango. It talks about empowerment and streamlining. Processes, but emasculating those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Processes, but emasculating 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 the proportionality test, introduced the proportionality test, so at least the little boys could get on. But there's boneheaded get on. But there's boneheaded resistance there. One talking head on. The today programme this morning bemoaned the lack of planning permissions, the number of which permissions, the number of which seems to be falling like autumn leaves, but fail to realise that it's the building safety regulator it's the building safety regulator that has put the black spot on building in London, with an at least building in London, with an at least a 44 week response rate.

And on that the bill is silent. So instead of unblocking the blockers, it creates unblocking the blockers, it creates the EDP process that is so ponderous it's unlikely to unlock any sort. it's unlikely to unlock any sort. Homes within this Parliament. In the three and a half years since we started the nutrient neutrality started the nutrient neutrality madness, it will be at least another three and a half years before we can get to rip off that scan. So, so get to rip off that scan.

So, so much for speeding building, and all it's doing is putting speed bumps in the way. Now, of course, I welcome the important and critical proposals to free up the placement of rose roadside power poles to improve the electricity grid, but even this government recognises 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. So for all the bluster and press notices, my Lords, this Bill will slow development, not speed it.

By any measure, the government's purpose will be frustrated by its own legislation. So I come to the amendment, and which is to accelerate the delivery of homes, to improve the planning and consenting process, to support nature and increase community acceptability. And this is what we will be debating over four long days. What Lady Pinnock has done is laid out the functions of the bill. They are not its purpose. And the reason that this bill is in such a muddle is that it hasn't been framed through the purpose lens, which 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 the private interest and the public good. Everything flows from there, and that balance between private and public is what makes the system work, makes the economy flourish and the environment in harms. My Lords, this bill gets that balance all wrong. Too much state interference, not enough private initiatives, so it's bound to fail, I'm sorry to say. And it's a shame because we need to get those homes built, those rivers cleaned up, and that clean power flowing and those new towns going.

But little will be achieved because in this bill, all roads flow to Marsham Street, that home to the dead hand of the state. So I hope the OBR is listening. Even at this 11th hour. It's not too late for them to make that call, because everyone and perhaps I've had more success than we have, because at committee stage, every single one of the 600 amendments that were made by noble Lords on all sides of the House was rejected. Perhaps that OBR is needed to clear the logjam, but I'm not holding my breath and it's a massive missed opportunity because the government didn't spend a moment, as Lady Pinnock did, to work out for itself what it wanted to achieve, to set a purpose that works with the grain of the nation, rather than always kicking against those bricks that should be laid by the bricklayers, the ground workers, tilers and carpenters who now sit idle as a result.

And until the moment where we get another planning bill, I will not stand against Lady Pennock, but I hope that she will reflect in the winding that she perhaps could have and should have gone a little bit further to frame her amendment in terms of enhancing that delicate balance between the private and the public interests so the economy can get going and these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

houses can get built. My Lords first.
15:47
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords first. Of all, can I declare my interest as vice president of the Local Government Association?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government Association? My Lords, 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 of my Lords is not simply one of ambition, but of process and principle. The government have tabled no fewer than 67 new amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Almost 30 pages of legislative.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Text. And have done so at a very late stage. The media, I note, briefed in stage. The media, I note, briefed in advance. Yet this House received no explanation from ministers when those amendments were laid until those amendments were laid until last Tuesday. Under normal circumstances, such sweeping, circumstances, such sweeping, sweeping provisions would warrant detailed scrutiny, scrutiny and committee not introduction at report committee not introduction at report to describe them as minor or technical, as the ministers have technical, as the ministers have attempted, simply does not match the scale of 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 description of these measures is what they represent is substantial reforms to the planning system. So reforms to the planning system. So which is it, my Lords? Are these minor adjustments or a fundamental rewrite of national planning policy? Because it does appear that what we are witnessing is a major talk up, are witnessing is a major talk up, an oversell of provisions designed to mask the government's ongoing failure to deliver the homes.

A conjuring trick, my Lord, saying one thing to the press and quite another 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, the 10th of October. Earlier that same week, the Financial Times revealed that this rewrite forms part of a broader effort to boost growth and patch up public finances ahead of the November budget.

A budget date my Lords already circled in the calendar of many families in this country and of businesses and pensioners, though not with much enthusiasm. I have to say monthly construction output fell by an estimated 0.3% in August 2025, after showing no growth in July at all. I therefore asked the noble Baroness, the Minister, how will this bill change that? Should the government not instead be focusing on things like modular construction, on utilising 3D modelling, on reviewing outdated regulations? No Act of Parliament can succeed if the construction industry itself is faltering under the environment the government has 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 preliminary forecasts and, I rather suspect, blanched at what they 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, my Lords, legislation made in haste rarely makes good law.

The planning system must balance the urgent need for homes and infrastructure. As with, as we have heard, the rights of local communities and the principles of democratic scrutiny by bypassing consultation, local accountability and indeed proper deliberation, your Lordships' House and the government in the Lordships House, the government risks undermining the very trust and cooperation they will need to deliver their own housing ambitions. My Lords, the government clearly have not learned. They crudely cut 5 billion from welfare in haste in the spring in pursuit of a green tick on the OBR scorecard.

I fear 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 this bill? Is it truly to build the homes or to centralise power? And my Lords, we don't even know who's in charge of this legislation. Is it number ten? Is it number 11 or is it MHCLG my Lords and noble Baroness the Minister knows that throughout the passage of this Bill I have sought to offer the government constructive support.

But it comes becomes even harder to do so when their approach borders on chaos. Saying one thing, doing another, briefing the press, plan claims, while sidelining Parliament and scrutiny. And I hope the minister recognises the depth of disappointment felt across this House. In conclusion, my Lords, 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 with that spirit, with diligence, with patience and respect for due process. But we will not be rushed. We will not be 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and thoughtful consideration of your lordships House. Yeah. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well. Well, well, my Lords, that was a wide ranging debate for an opening debate on a purpose clause. But
15:53
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
debate on a purpose clause. But nevertheless, can I thank those who have contributed to the debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock on the purpose of the bill? And can I thank Baroness Pinot for her extensive engagement between committee stage and this report stage? The. I know this is indeed an ambitious, ambitious piece of legislation. It's our next step to fix the foundations of the economy, rebuild Britain and make every part of our country better off.

And 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 planned decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. And I would say to the noble Lord fella, when his government had 14 years to fix the sclerotic planning system that has hobbled growth in this country for over a decade, they failed to do so. Our government is working. Yes, and we are working across departments, and I welcome that to deliver what the last government failed to do, that is build the homes we need and the infrastructure that will support those homes and get our economy moving again.

I would say to the noble Baroness, Scott, in terms of the amendments that the government has tabled, and I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. She does accuse me in this chamber of not listening. Well, we did listen at committee stage. Some of the amendments are in response to issues that were raised at committee stage. A number of those amendments relate to the devolved administrations and the rightful consultation we take with the devolved administrations at the in between committee and report stage.

There are some truly pro-growth measures which we feel are rightly pressing and need to be done in order to improve the delivery of infrastructure. And there are a number of technical minor amendments. And these this bill is not the only step towards improving the economy and delivering against our plan for change. The noble Baroness will know that we've reissued the national planning Policy Framework. We've provided funding for planners and training for planners. We've provided a huge package of support for SMEs, and I met with the Appg for SME Home Builders the other day, and they and they were pleased with the package that's being delivered.

There's more to be done in working with them, and I will be happy to do that. And we've carried out a fundamental review of the building safety regulator. All of these things will contribute to the growth we all want to see. Now. I outlined the core objectives that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Second Reading, and we also discussed these at length at committee stage. So I don't suggest that I do it for a third time. I do recognise that planning law can be complex, part of the statute book to negotiate and interpret whether you're a developer, a local authority, the courts or even a member of the public.

And 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 is 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's simply not possible or prudent for all these objectives to apply equally to each provision. My Lords, I believe we're all united by a shared objective today.

Whichever side of the House you sit. We all agree the 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 it's tabled to aid interpretation of the bill. My issue is 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 government to deliver its objectives.

It is for government to set out in debate why it's bringing forward a bill during parliamentary passage. By the time it reaches Royal Assent, the intended changes to the law should speak for itself. The government's objectives are clear. They are also woven into this legislation through reference to a number of different targeted documents, which set out the government's strategic intent in specific areas of policy. It is right that these objectives vary. Excuse me according to the topic, some of these objectives will be more important for one issue than another.

If this wasn't the case, the bill would lose its strategic vision. The government strongly supports a strategic approach to planning. The word strategic is mentioned 106 196 times in the bill as it was amended at committee. There's a chapter 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 government's objectives. For example, this legislation will give regard to other strategic documents like the Clean Power Action Plan.

All of this is done with the intention of making clear how this legislation seeks to deliver government's objectives. Adding a purpose clause to this bill is not the answer to addressing the complexity of the statute book, or even this legislation. In practice, it will do the opposite. It will add additional room for interpretation to a bill intending to accelerate delivery and simplify system. It risks creating additional complexity and interpretation, gumming up the planning system. Further, it will risk reinserting the gold plating behaviour we are seeking to remove.

Developers and local authorities, for example, will feel obligated to show how they have considered priorities which are much more relevant to other parts of the bill for fear of legal action. A purpose clause will 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've been carefully drafted to be interpreted without a purpose clause. The court 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 will create ambiguity rather than clarity. Noble Lords. It doesn't appear to me from the debate. I've heard that the House is confused by why a government is seeking to bring this bill forward. I think we all know we want. We seek to achieve the growth and the homes that this country deserves. We should therefore, move forward to further debate about how best to achieve them. And it's for those reasons that I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And also, I do thank all everyone who has been involved in this, this short, but I would regard as an important debate and thank those who
16:00
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
important debate and thank those who have supported in in word at least, the objective of the of amendment one, which is about setting out strategic purposes for the Bill and from time to time, parliamentary procedures have been considered and purpose clauses proposed. So it is a, I think, a debate that will continue, but whether or not it is right and helpful to have purpose clauses at the outset of a Bill does set out the strategy. And I do understand what the noble Baroness, the Minister, is saying about, you know, the strategies throughout the bill.

But if you have it right at the outset, it provides that clarity of what the bill was supposed to be trying to achieve now. And I, I never expect perhaps I should have expected the debate to move on to everything else that we do don't like about this bill from the noble Baroness Scott, or bits of everything she did like. But in the end, what is important is that we keep throughout this bill. We keep in mind that what we're trying to do is balance democracy, sustainability, infrastructure, being being built and having a proportional approach to it.

And sometimes in this bill that is lost. But I accept that. That this will not make a substantive difference to the bill. And I don't believe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She's going. To look at this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is finally withdrawn in in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment is finally withdrawn in in clause one, amendment two, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. My Lords, I'm grateful to have.
16:02
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

This opportunity to speak to. My amendment to and hopefully extract a. Reassurance from the Minister and a. Reassurance from the Minister and the course of this short debate. nationally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Significant infrastructure. Projects and. How. It is. Expected they. Will operate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will operate. In the planning process as set out in the bill. I'm not satisfied

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the way that the process has been set out. And therefore. The thrust of amendment two. Is to. Call for a potential.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Call for a potential. Review, which, during the. Course of which I ask. That the. Secretary of State should assess

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State should assess the cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects. On the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the. Environment. And in particular. On. Residents living in areas in which such projects are being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

developed. The issue was first. Raised. By. Me in one of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The regulatory. One of the statutory instruments. Giving effect to the Clean. Energy Act.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Energy Act. And I was very grateful to. The. Then minister, Lord hunt, who. Explained to me how cumulative.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Impact was. Meant to operate. So I'm grateful to him in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to him in. That regard. What is very clear on the face of the Bill. That the. Cumulative impact of. All the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposals set out in this. Bill will be deep. And wide and unexpectedly so for all those.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all those. Living in rural areas. And yet there. Are opportunities to. Be involved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In. The process. Are actually going to be. its. Present form.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Present form. So it. Relates a little. Bit to the previous. Debate on the. Purpose of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Purpose of the bill. Because I believe that if. This bill is to. Function well, as. I'm sure the whole House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That spending however many hours we did. At committee would wish it to do. So. That the bill should. Actually ensure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That. It operates effectively. I am proposals. Does relate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does relate. To nationally significant infrastructure projects are to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

infrastructure projects are to. Benefit those living. In the Deep South of England and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

London, and to the particular, specific dis benefit of those rural residents of. The North of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The North of. England across the whole of the North of England. So I hope that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

North of England. So I hope that the House will appreciate noble Earls will appreciate that this amendment. Relates not so much to. The. House building aspects.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House building aspects. Of the bill, but more particularly to the nationally significant infrastructure projects.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

significant infrastructure projects. Under the. Energy sectors. And I'm particularly thinking of solar farms particularly thinking of solar farms and the. Unimaginable scale that are currently being foreseen. This is not unique to this country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I follow developments. In Denmark. Very closely, and for the first time ever.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time ever. A solar farm was going to be created in a deeply. Rural part. Of the northern. Mainland of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mainland of. Denmark. Jutland. And a very effective. Campaign under rules that exist in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in. Denmark, which are very. Favourable to this type of project, has. Been so successful that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Been so successful that. I'm delighted to say that. That particular solar project. Will not. Go. Ahead. And I envisage that there will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I envisage that there will. Be similar concerns in this. Country wants the. Full impact. Of. The bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The bill. Is known. My main concern is. Currently drafted. Is a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a. Question to the Minister, should there not be a requirement that the cumulative impact assessment should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cumulative impact assessment should understanding. Is that currently that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that currently that. Is not the case. If that is the case. Why is there no specific.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no specific. Provision in either the planning applications or specifically in the bill before us this afternoon that. bill before us this afternoon that. Such an assessment should be included in the Local Plan? Surely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

included in the Local Plan? Surely it is incumbent on developers and the planners. And indeed the Planning Inspectorate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To ensure that residents. Will. See that. There is a. Joined up planning application. That we no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That we no. Longer see what we have seen historically, which is an application. For an offshore. Wind farm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wind farm. Over here. So those people living in East Anglia think, well, that's perfectly harmless. It won't.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It won't. Affect me. So that's fine. It can go ahead. of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of. The planning. Application is to foist upon. Them a major. Substation that they had. No

**** Possible New Speaker ****

idea. Was going. To be built on their doorstep. And then the third stage of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And then the third stage of the application is the overhead pylons, which is causing. Such great concern, in particular in East Anglia and other parts of, of Anglia and other parts of, of eastern England. I'm thinking of East Yorkshire as well. Now. There have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have. Been two, if not three. Policy planning.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Policy planning. Planning Inspectorate policy last.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

last. Year, 1st September last year. The government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government. Really is bringing forward their own, if you. Like, those sort of proposals.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I believe that, as. I've said earlier, that the legislation currently is defective in. This regard.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What is most concerning. About. The September 2024 advice is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The September 2024 advice is that it specifically says. I printed it. Off so I could read it correctly. That the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Advice is non-statutory. However. advice. About running the infrastructure. Planning regime and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Planning regime and. Matters of process is drawn from good practice. And applicants and others should follow their.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

follow their. Recommendations. So a further question to the Minister. This afternoon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This afternoon. Is if this. Advice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Published in September last year. Is non-statutory. How do we know that this. Advice and guidance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Advice and guidance. Will be followed? Surely it should be on the face of the bill. be. Spelt out in plain.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spelt out in plain. English for. All to. See and to understand. So when this. Fast track process.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Comes about. Then. understand. That the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the. welcomed. By civil engineers. When it was published at the time, lawyers I understand were split as.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

split as. To how significant these changes developers. And that makes me think whether

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And that makes me think whether actually they'll have any effect whatsoever. So in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moving amendment to, I would just like to conclude by. Asking the Minister what assurance she can give the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assurance she can give the House today, and myself in particular, that there will be. Joined up. Planning applications. In future and what checks there. Will be and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will be and. What. Penalties will be imposed if. The. Planning advice which the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Planning advice which the Planning Inspectorate has brought forward is. Not followed. In. Each particular.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Each particular. For this. Fast track procedure, I'd like to move. Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line 14.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page one, line 14. It's end. Insert the words. Printed on. The. Shortlist.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think. Attach my name to the. Amendment so ably introduced by the noble Lady Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. I'm just going to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pickering. I'm just going to speak very briefly. To express the reasons why I think this is something the government certainly needs to government certainly needs to address and respond to. We know that the government tends to operate in silos and tends to look at one silos and tends to look at one project at a time, without thinking of a comprehensive view of the overall impact on the country. And I think if we look at clause A in this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Focusing on the environment, in the past ten years or so, we've seen real progress in terms of understanding that we need to think
16:10
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
understanding that we need to think about the landscape on a landscape scale rather than just going, oh, we've got this nice little protected bit here or this nice little area there. And so I think this amendment starts to get at that issue of thinking at that landscape scale in terms of the environment, and it's not impossible to imagine. We know also recently we've got very aware of the importance of corridors through which different populations of wildlife can be linked up, and you could actually be having projects that one on their own.

Does it look to have a serious impact? But the two together effectively cut off separate, say, two populations of animals that may already be really lacking in genetic diversity and not be able to afford that separation in terms of the humans, the residents living in areas where the projects are being developed, I opposed says over the recess, I was speaking to a couple of people being very much affected by the 17 customs facility and the impact of light pollution.

Now, this is the sort of thing that we don't think about nearly enough. But again, this is something where we may see effects just build up and build up in terms of their impact on people's lives. And of course, the other obvious area where impacts may be cumulative is, of course, traffic, where if you have projects growing, linking together, the impacts of traffic could be absolutely disastrous on communities lives. So I think this amendment is a modest amendment. Just asking the government to think on a broader scale than I'm afraid.

Very typically, governments generally do.
16:11
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
And my note is I amendment two, we've had introduced but not amendment three. I'm wondering whether. It has that being always being objective function. My mistake. So my Lords are the amendments in the amendment in this group I do believe has has merit. It is important as a noble farmer, Barnett has just said that there is a comprehensive overview of the cumulative impact of national strategic infrastructure projects on a wider area than just just the single project that is being considered now.

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

You know, so. The cumulative effect of road infrastructure, for instance, the cumulative effect of the move and which those of us on these benches totally support of a move to net zero and therefore more. Green infrastructure for energy creation. All that requires an oversight of the totality of those those projects because the it's the overall impact on local communities that will that is important to understand rather than project by project.

As the noble Baroness and explained and the Mackintosh or Pickering explain in terms of for instance wind farms or solar farms, all of which I support. But we need to understand what the cumulative impact of these are on a community and on the landscape and on the environment. So these are important. And I'm glad they've been brought, and I hope that the minister in her response will be able to satisfy those of us who have these concerns that the government is not going to run roughshod over the needs of communities and the environment while making their rush for growth.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, may I declare. My interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire? Can I thank my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank my. Noble friend Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. For tabling this amendment and raising the issue of cumulative
16:15
16:16
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her amendment. To this amendment would require the Secretary of State to assess the cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects, known as CIPs, on both the environment and the communities in which such projects have been developed. When reviewing a national policy statement, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue, and I wholeheartedly agree that cumulative impacts, particularly those affecting the environment and local communities, must be given due consideration within the CIP consenting process.

And therefore, I'm very pleased to be able to reassure the noble Baroness that the existing regime already provides for such considerations. It's 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 includes the process of strategic environmental assessment, 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 likely locations of any CIPs are strategic level documents, which means it's not possible to identify cumulative impacts in detail. However, cumulative impacts are addressed so far as possible at this level. At this stage, to meet the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations, detailed consideration of cumulative effects take place. It's important they take place at the project level by virtue of factors such as their nature, scale, location and CIPs are likely to have significant effects on the environment around them.

Under the Infrastructure Planning Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations of 2017, an environmental impact assessment process must be undertaken and the Secretary of State is prohibited from granting consent until an AA has been carried out. The Environmental Statement must identify and assess the direct and indirect significant effects on specified factors, including environmental factors, population, 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 in the 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, and I would add that the whole process of local plans focuses on cumulative impacts, and that is one of the purposes of it is to start off with individual policies and work through a process to cumulative impacts. And I believe this will be enhanced now by the addition of strategic level plans, giving a direct link from neighbourhood planning to local plans, two strategic plans and meaning that the whole the cumulative impact across that whole picture can be assessed.

In the light of this, I would respectfully

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. On most grateful. For that
16:20
16:21
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Three, Baroness. Coffey, my Lords, I raised this at committee stage and this is an at committee stage and this is an identical amendment to that tabled in the House of Commons by multiple chairs of select committees who were concerned about the reduction of opportunity for at least the government's reply to some of the parliamentary scrutiny, which is rightly undertaken in terms of national policy statements. Now, one of the reasons why I, I listen carefully to what the Minister said at committee stage, and I haven't tabled a whole plethora of amendments.

Again, recognising that I wouldn't want to be unduly considered, to be trying to hold up national policy statements because I think they are a good thing. But the reason why I've re tabled this amendment is that I do believe that when Parliament puts forward recommendations or indeed has a resolution, the least we can expect is that the government will respond rather than in this legislation. Remove that as being a requirement of the law in that regard. So that is in a nutshell, why I think that this matters.

And the reason it matters is we are starting to see a number, an increasing number of national policy statements being tabled. Again, I actually think there's some a lot of merit in that giving, trying to give clear direction to the country, to residents, to developers or whoever in order to try and make sure that they can continue not only their lives, but also the consideration of future development in a measured and structured way. But I am conscious in reading the responses of the Minister and Minister in the Commons that a lot of focus seem to be oh well, when a Select Committee might take a bit of time, or we table a resolution anyway.

Oh, actually, sorry, I shouldn't say that the House has the opportunity to table a resolution, a resolution and vote on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. But actually. The practice has become that actually it's quite hard to table actually it's quite hard to table things in the House of Commons unless you have control of the parliamentary timetable. And I parliamentary timetable. And I noticed that while this House had a debate on nuclear power energy debate on nuclear power energy statements as an example, it didn't happen at the other end. Now, maybe everybody was happy, but it actually everybody was happy, but it actually more likely that certain parties may not have opportunity to look at the timetable.

And I know that the Select Committee, one of the our Lordships Select Committee, has made some recommendations in its report regarding the energy grid. I'm not aware that the government has yet replied or that they may have done recognising that a debate is to be tabled on that particular report as tabled on that particular report as a whole. But overall, I think it does matter that when this House is does matter that when this House is minded to at least give some comments or some thoughts on the national policy statements, that we national policy statements, that we should expect a response from the government.

And that is why I'm minded to test the House's opinion minded to test the House's opinion on this amendment today. Amendment propose.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

propose. Clause two, page three, line 33. Leave out subsection three.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, could I write briefly. To support my noble friend when I
16:25
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

To support my noble friend when I was Chair of the. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers, and under the last government. We published.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We published. A. Report regretting the trend that over the 30 years we'd. Seen more and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Seen more and. More regulations made which bypassed Parliament, not just. The negative. Procedure rather than positive,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Procedure rather than positive, but departments rather than affirmative. The departments issuing guidance after guidance, none. Of which would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of which would. Come before Parliament. And the point I want to make is a simple one of principle we see in legislation. Parliament been bypassed in that case. In far too many cases, Parliament should not be bypassed unnecessarily. So I think my Noble friends amendment simply makes the point that Parliament should, that the government should consider motions by Parliament what select committees say and what they don't have to accept it. But at least we should have a chance to give that input otherwise.

And I also see in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cases otherwise. We will depend on various stakeholders to confirm the number of consultations issued by of consultations issued by departments where there's a huge list of stakeholders, some of them great and ground organisations, great and ground organisations, royal Colleges and organisations of the RSPB with goodness knows how many million members, but often many million members, but often parliamentarians or local MPs not listed parliamentarians are not considered, possibly not even the Select Committee, which might have relevant views on it.

So, my Lords, that's what I've got to say. I believe my noble friend is on the right lines here, and I hope the government would accept an amendment, or at least give us assurances that Parliament will not assurances that Parliament will not be bypassed in the way she has suggested.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suggested. Oh my Lords, the amendment three, in the name of the noble Baroness copy, which I thought was coming in
16:26
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
copy, which I thought was coming in the previous group, we now have in front of us, and there is much to agree with in what the noble Baroness Coffey has said. You know, the national policy statements set the tone and the content for the NPPF and then the further guidance on planning legislation. So they are fundamental to the sort of base, I guess, of all, all the future, further changes to planning law. So these are very, very important.

And for the government to try and take out the opportunity for democratic oversight, democratic scrutiny. I think, is not just regrettable, but is a centralising process which we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should not be supporting. Why? Because planning affects

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because planning affects everybody's life one way or another. Major infrastructure projects or Major infrastructure projects or small housing developments. And so small housing developments. And so planning is affects people. And if it affects people, people's voices should be heard. And therefore the representatives democratically representatives democratically elected and of people ought to be heard. And it is our role in this heard. And it is our role in this House to scrutinise legislation. And House to scrutinise legislation.

And this is what is happening now. We're saying this will. Not do. You know, saying this will. Not do. You know, we can't have more centralising of planning processes and removing planning processes and removing democratic oversight in so doing. So, if the noble Baroness Coffey So, if the noble Baroness Coffey wishes, as she has intimated, to test the opinion of the House on test the opinion of the House on this issue, we on these benches will
16:28
16:30
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment turning to this amendment, amendment three, clause two introduces a new additional streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements. We all know national policy statements are absolutely 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 MPs not being updated for over a decade as the National Infrastructure Commission recognised previously, a lack of updates has created uncertainty for applicants for statutory consultees and the examining authority.

We also believe it has increased the risk of legal challenge and driven the gold plating in the system. We're all trying to avoid a central tenant of this government's reforms of the regime has been to ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date, and clause one of this bill ensures that no national policy statement can be more than five years old without being fully reviewed and updated. To support this, it's vital that the process for updating national policy statements is proportionate to the change being proposed.

Currently, the procedure is the same regardless of whether the government is making a material change to a national policy statement or designating a new national policy statement. This can't continue. Clause two 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 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 time frame, but updating NPSs and undermine the government's commitment to drive quicker decision making in the CIP regime. Updated NPS policy assists applicants and the examining authority, and the Secretary of State can have regard to it as important and relevant considerations in the decision making process for new applications, even if the application is examined against the previous version.

As a result of transitional provisions in the updated NPS recognising the role select committees can play in scrutinising and improving policy, a number of noble Lords have mentioned that during the debate, the government has 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 has also committed to making ministers available to meet committees, so far as practicable.

Should a Select Committee publish a report within the time frames 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 as a way to bypass due parliamentary scrutiny. Rather, we are adjusting the parliamentary scrutiny requirements. Were making certain types of updates to an NPS, so the process is more proportionate and enables national policy statements to be updated more quickly.

At the end of the reflective amendment process, the MPs, 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 all the reasons I have given, I would kindly ask the noble Lady to withdraw her and then. My Lords, I've heard the Minister. I don't think the answer has changed since committee stage, which I since committee stage, which I regret. But I'm concerned that just removing any requirement by the government to either House is not government to either House is not satisfactory when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny, and therefore I will be testing the therefore I will be testing the opinion of the House.

Question is that amendment.
16:34
16:35
16:45
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
amendment for Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move amendment government amendment four and 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 in 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 Streamline Development Consent Order route that will accelerate delivery of essential water infrastructure, help secure future water supplies and unlock housing and economic growth, including the 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 both responding to concerns about water scarcity and supporting the pro growth measures contained within the bill. I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter to ensure it is quicker and easier to consent and build the reservoirs we need so desperately now and into the future.

My Lords, turning now to amendments five, six and seven. The government is content to accept these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. My Lords are 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 that capital killing. 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 the government's amendment. Number four, they ensure that where a third party provider is appointed to deliver a large scale water infrastructure project under the Specified Infrastructure project regulations, that provider must be formally designated as an infrastructure provider under regulation eight. This means 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 of what supervision, the requirement for licensing and consultation, and the ability to challenge decisions through the Competition and Markets Authority altogether provide a robust system to protect both the public and the environment.

My Lords, I should 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 any CIPs 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 offer oversight, competitive tendering and measures to protect customers from cost and delivery risks. DPC is a useful option for less complex CIP 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 bring greater clarity and reassurance that the statutory protections apply fully to third party providers under the CPR framework. This means 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.

And I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for tabling these amendments and for his engagement on this very important matter. My Lords turned to amendment seven. I welcome this amendment, which seeks to require the applicants for dams and reservoir schemes seek separate consent for the heritage impacts of their project outside of the n sip regime. While I recognise there may be concerns about the future impact of these desperately needed water projects on heritage assets, the government believes 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 of 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 the Secretary of State before reporting to the Secretary of State, and they 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.

Taken account of the evidence, the Secretary of State must also comply with a 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 their 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 which 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. And for those reasons, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. Turning to amendment seven. B My Lords, I thank the noble Lady Baroness Scott for tabling this amendment. 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 that those whose homes would be impacted are notified and may make representations to the Secretary of State before the scheme enters the planning route, with a view to perhaps preventing the project from being determined through the end CET regime.

I acknowledge the significant impact that projects have, but in particular dam and reservoir schemes can have, where numerous homes near each other are demolished. It's clear and we all share. We all agree that a thorough process must be followed, which allows all these issues to be understood before a decision is reached. That is why the Planning Act is so important, and we believe there is already sufficient legal requirement which provides adequate opportunity for impacted persons to be heard. I'm afraid the amendment seeks to insert discretion for the Secretary of State in a part of the process that does not exist.

Dams and reservoirs which 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 end sets once they meet the threshold. In section 27, there is no other route to consent than via the Planning Act 2008. I do understand the amendment is driven by desire to ensure that the voice of impacted individuals is heard throughout the process, and before the Secretary of State makes the final decision whether to grant or refuse development consent.

And I would say emphatically, this is already provided for by the Planning Act 2008. All individuals who are impacted or whose land is proposed to be compulsory acquired, are both recognised as affected persons and are 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 their views and specific circumstances can be heard by that examining authority.

These affected persons are also 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 isn't being compulsory acquired can also submit a relevant representation and complete a registration form to be considered as an interested party, too. 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 don't 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 government to make decisions in the national interest and ensure sufficient infrastructure is built, which makes 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. And for all those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness Scot will withdraw her amendment on amendment 56.

The government already take steps to facilitate the building of both small and large reservoirs. A £104 billion of private sector investment has been secured through Ofwat price review, and 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 does ensure that structures are well built and maintained. Reservoirs which store water above ground level pose potential risk to life, property, business, the environment and 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 is 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 haven't got the exact numbers for these, but I believe there are around 3000 of them, 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 that will benefit from the rights created, are taken into account. It also allows for consideration of any potential impacts of the proposal and consideration of how these might be mitigated.

The government will continue to keep permitted development rights under review. It's important that new reservoirs are built in locations where they do not pose flood risk for local communities, and the existing reservoir dams are structurally safe. I thank the noble Lady for tabling this amendment and ask that she withdraw 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their creation. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause two, insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list. Amendment five is an amendment to Amendment five is an amendment to amendment four. Lord Lambton. My Lord, thank you. I rise to move. Lord, thank you. I rise to move. Amendments five, six and seven in my name, which are all designed to
17:00
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
achieve the same purpose, which I will go on to explain, but happily, I don't have to explain at any length because of the admirable way in which the noble Lady the Minister introduced amendment four and explained her approach to five, six and seven. I'm most grateful for the time she gave for the discussion last week on on the amendments and my proposals for amending that. Can I just say, of course, 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 think. I hope we all agree that the purpose is a beneficial one, which is to facilitate the pace at which we want to proceed with water dams and reservoirs as nationally significant infrastructure projects. 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 itself to be designated as a nationally significant infrastructure project.

But of course, the regulations, the 2013 regulations about specified infrastructure projects goes on after regulations six, which is includes the point at which a person is appointed by a water undertaker. To go on to say that there is a process which, governed by Ofwat of designating that person as an infrastructure provider under regulation eight, which then gives rise to requirements on the provision of information and related matters under regulation nine and actually links into section 36 D of the Water Industry Act, which provides specific powers and duties of Ofwat in relation to an infrastructure provider.

So looking at that, I was slightly worried that there would be a gap, 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 wouldn't go on to be designated as an infrastructure provider, and the there would be then serious legal risk associated with their position, since they would not be subject to the powers and duties related to Ofwat.

So I'm very happy that the Minister has agreed. Of course, the worry is that this interpose is a further delay in practice. I don't think so. That need not be the case. For example, the 2013 regulations were brought in essentially to facilitate the Thames Tideway Tunnel and the, the, the, the what happened in practice was that the financial close with Bazalgette Limited and the designation as an infrastructure provider happened on the same day. So there's absolutely no reason why these processes should not be able to be compressed.

For example, the section 35 direction, which has been sought by Anglian Water in order to designate the Fens Reservoir as a nationally significant infrastructure project. The letter to the department went in on the 22nd of April, and the letter from the department agreeing that it was so designated was on the 14th of May. But of course, the point that I noted when I looked to all these things was that the letter from the department says that the that there must then subsequently, whichever is the infrastructure provider must be designated as such under under the 2013 regulations.

So I think it all neatly ties together. I hope there is no risk of delay, but certainly I think my amendments five, six and seven will 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 aren't subject to off of what's duties, and don't themselves have any information and other responsibilities. So I hope when the time comes I will move amendments five, six and seven.

And I'm grateful to the Minister for accepting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. May I intervene very briefly indeed. As Lord Lansley
17:05
17:06
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
covered. But the role of smaller reservoirs. I did say to the minister at that time that while I won't stand against the creation of large reservoirs, I do have some concerns about them. They're not always particularly efficient, particularly given the weather that we've had in successive summers. With the intensive heat, there can be very inefficient as the water can evaporate very quickly, as we've seen in North Yorkshire, where I think we are still seeing a hosepipe ban in, in place.

The I don't know how many will will remember the wonderful David Bellamy, who made his name when he was professor of botany at the University of Durham. And I see a number of alumni around the chamber this afternoon. But he was particularly concerned when a reservoir was due to be constructed at Cal Green in Upper Teesdale, where I grew up in the Pennines, and the significance was that blue junctions only grow in certain parts of the country, and Upper Teesdale was one of them.

Outside the immediate alpine regions of Austria and Switzerland. And we were all particularly grateful to Professor Bellamy at the time, who spoke passionately against the need for the creation of such a reservoir. It was a massive reservoir. It meant that the highest waterfall in England, certainly at the time, now only has one waterfall in most cases, rather than the two that were spectacular to see when the river was in. The River Tees was in state. But perhaps that not not just also was it the tragic loss of a number of farms who were lost and flooded with the construction of the reservoir? But the fact that the water is never actually needed.

So it would be helpful to understand where in the process of these planning applications for national infrastructure, nationally significant infrastructure projects, that the need is felt to be so great at one stage and then when constructed at the water is never actually used. There are alternatives to large reservoirs. We were asked to create a large reservoir for the Slow the Flow project in Pickering to prevent the town of Pickering flooding to the extent it had, I think it was three times in ten years and probably longer and 20 years.

But since it was deemed to be unaffordable, to build the large reservoir that was required, a smaller reservoir was created with other schemes such as planting of trees and the creating of little smaller dams to soak up that water, which has proved extremely effective to date. And since the creation of the smaller reservoir, Pickering has not no longer flooded. Also, Yorkshire Water introduced a multi-million pound project which was to transfer water from the water plenty parts of the region to the water stressed part of the region that I think we now have the technology to do that across water regions, so I hope that that's something also the government may look at, rather than just considering the easy option of building a mega reservoir.

My particular amendment looks at the deregulation of low hazard reservoirs and the case for smaller reservoirs. Not here, with obviously some. It was pleasing to hear what the minister said, and she set that out. I am sure she's also aware that there were recommendations set out in 2019, some six years ago, following the Toddbrook and Whaley Bridge dam safety incident. Now my concern, my Lords, is that there is no sense of urgency that we have not seen anything happen since 2019.

As regards looking at bringing in a revision of the Reservoir Act of 1975 currently, I understand that they're looking at not just amending the Reservoir Act of 1975, which was the particular genesis of amendment 56, but that the government, the previous government. So I think this government is probably pursuing that thinking, but it would be good to have it on the record this afternoon that the government's intention is to replace the Reservoir Act and to bring, in effect to the Bamforth recommendations, which were made, as I say, as far back as 2019.

There are many pressing reasons for smaller reservoirs, both on farm and for sports clubs such as golf clubs, to do this, but in particular in the case of small farms. There was an excellent article in recently and Farmer's Weekly showing that because of the increasing water stress and water shortage owing to climate change, the many competing claims that farmers are are finding, and the fact that water abstraction is going to be curtailed in the future. They are particularly concerned that food is not seen as a public good when it comes to securing water supplies.

So if farmers face losing abstraction licences in April next year, this is a source of great concern to them. So I do hope the Minister will look favourably on applications for smaller. On farm or on golf club reservoirs, for the reasons that I've set out, and for these reasons, I would still like to consider either testing the opinion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the House on amendment 56 today, Reading. I know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know. I failed to pick up after the end of Lord Lansley speech that he had not actually moved his amendment, so not actually moved his amendment, so perhaps I could ask him so to do now, and we can get everything back on the straight and narrow. Men proposed in inserted subsection four of subsection two at end, insert the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of subsection two at end, insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. Now perhaps the debate can continue. But I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I. Have amendment seven A in this group which, like. Noble friend Lord Lansley, amendment five is an
17:13
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
amendment to the government's amendment four. I should say I welcome many of the changes that the government have brought forward to the bill, particularly in relation to clause 41, which we'll touch on later on report. And I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister and her colleagues for their time over the conference recess to discuss the changes that they've made in that area of the bill. But the 67 amendments, which the government tabled last week, cover some significant and new issues.

And it's regrettable in many ways that we haven't had the same opportunity to discuss those, either in committee or with the minister and others in the intervening stages of the bill. And like my Noble friend Lord Lansley, in general terms, I agree with the government's intent with relation to reservoirs to ensure that more can be constructed and more quickly. But just as with the government's original proposals for infrastructure projects carried out under the Transport and General Works Act in Clause 41 of the bill, which they've, I'm glad to say, brought forward amendments to alter.

Now the plans in the proposed new clause under discussion now about projects relating to water do give rise to concerns about the proper safeguards for our shared heritage. Your lordships, and indeed, I'm happy to say the government benefited from being able to discuss their proposals in with regard to clause 41 with a number of heritage groups. And I'm very glad that those discussions fed into the changes that they have tabled later in this bill. But of course, the construction of a reservoir is a major undertaking as well, and a significant and lasting intervention to our heritage, both our natural heritage and built heritage.

I'm 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, the largest artificial reservoir in the United Kingdom by capacity. And like the manmade forest which surrounds it, it's a source of quiet marvel and pride. Across Northumberland, a county which is rich with an impressive array of civil engineering feats. But of course, there was a price to pay in terms of displaced communities and lost heritage for that impressive reservoir.

95 residents lost their homes, along with a number of farms and a school, and indeed, the route of the former Border Counties Railway was partially submerged by the new Kielder Water reservoir. Similarly, when Rutland Water was constructed in the 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 Middleton, Middle Hambleton, built in 1611 and home to the Barker Baronet, now finds itself on the water's edge and a number of other dwellings find themselves underneath it.

The historic church of Saint Matthew's, Normanton, which was rebuilt in the classical style by Thomas Cundy in the late 1820s at the behest of the Earls of Lancaster, but on the foundations of a building dating back to the 14th century, was only saved because of a public outcry. When the plans for Rutland Water were first mooted. When the plans were were first introduced, a trust had to be hastily assembled in order to campaign to save this impressive place of worship.

Thankfully, it was successful and it now stands on a sort of escarpment in Rutland Water, with a an artificial causeway leading to it. But it was only because there was the opportunity and, crucially, the time for those civic minded people to organise, to campaign, to propose an alternative scheme that the church was saved in the way that it is today. Now, we used in another time to do these things by Act of Parliament. That's the third mirror in the Lake District was brought in by the Manchester Corporation Water Works Act of 1879, for instance.

And I don't suggest that we require full Acts of Parliament every time we build a reservoir like the Minister. I'm keen to see that these things can be built more speedily than they have in the past. But I do worry if you know if Lordships will forgive the pun about the watering down of protection for our heritage. Through the government's sweeping new proposals, which were introduced last week by allowing third parties to be contracted out on behalf of water companies, we may, of course, see new applicants that aren't 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 Senator Comrie and about having a company that perhaps wasn't based in Wales, but taking a decision with a significant effect for the community in Wales, and I wonder whether some of these third party companies might indeed be companies not based in the United Kingdom. Maybe the noble leader. The minister will be able to say a bit more about that and therefore less accessible, less easy for people to speak to about their concerns.

I'm grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said in outlining her amendment, for in this regard, but she suggested that requiring consideration of heritage assets would slow the process down. I wonder whether she or her department have an assessment of how long they think we would be adding here. As I say, the significant church of Saint Matthew's, Normanton is only saved because there was a bit of time for the community to rally round to come up with a better scheme.

It is now home to many. It's the location for many civil weddings. It is much loved by the community and adds to the heritage and story of that part of the country, whilst making sure that we have the water that we need for the future. So I'd be grateful if she can say a little bit 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.
17:20
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
So I thought someone else was.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Going to speak. I apologise for being slow, my Lord. I rise to speak on on these amendments, not because on on these amendments, not because of any great authority on them, but because I have some experience of a because I have some experience of a heritage village been destroyed and to create a reservoir. And my experience came from the fact that experience came from the fact that as a Member of Parliament in Penrith and the border, the huge constituency in the north of Cumbria, including the beautiful Cumbria, including the beautiful lake of Ullswater and some of Ullswater, there's a reservoir called Horse Water and the Horse called Horse Water and the Horse Water Reservoir exists in the.

It was created in a horse water valley, was created in a horse water valley, and in 1929 the Manchester Corporation took possession of the Corporation took possession of the village. They moved out all the villagers. They moved out 97 bodies. They exhumed 97 graves, moved them They exhumed 97 graves, moved them to Shap. They demolished the church and the pub and then they flooded and the pub and then they flooded the village and created Horse Water Reservoir. That village was called Reservoir.

That village was called Mardell and it is in the Lake District National Park. Now. We don't have no idea how beautiful Mardell was. We have no photographs of it, but if it's in keeping with all the other villages nearby, we know it is a superb Heritage Lake District village, bang smack in the middle of a national park, I would hope. Of course these days that would not happen. But that's, I think, why we need amendment seven A to guarantee it, Wainwright said. Gone forever are the quiet wooded bays and shingle shores that nature fashion so sweetly in the holes.

Water of all, how aggressively ugly is the tide mark of the new holes? Water? Well, my Lords, when, you know, in the 1980s, I think was the first time in a severe drought, the level of holes, water dropped down to the bottom and we could see what remained. And that was interesting because one reason it destroyed the wonderful myth we had for about 100 years that in quiet coal still nights, you can still hear the church bells clanging out beneath the water level.

When the when the village was revealed, the church tower was only about ten feet high. It had all been removed and there was nothing left. How many houses were destroyed? There's no record of the number of. We know how many graves were moved out or board bodies were exhumed. We have no record of the number of people moved out, but the ruins would suggest a village of more than 2030 houses, including a wonderful church and pub. Now, Wainwright mentioned the ugly tide.

Mark. My constituency at all is water. I think the most beautiful lake of all in the Lake District, if I may say so. And in occasions when there's been a drought in the country, Ullswater gets has the water level lowered by two enormous pipes? I think one is 12ft in diameter, another one eight feet in diameter, which pump all the water down to Manchester. Now I don't 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.

My Lord, you have these wonderful images of the Lake District and the lakes. But when you see the level in Ullswater ten feet below normal, there's an appalling scar round around the whole lake. And the important point about the Lake District National Park is, is the landscape, the visual value of what you see and draining or lowering severely the level of Ullswater with hose water pumping into it. It causes enormous environmental damage. In my opinion, environmental damage is not just oils and gases and pollutants, it is destroying the visual quality of some of our lakes.

On the other hand, of course my noble friend has mentioned Kielder. Kielder is absolutely superb. It's great for tourism, it's great for fish and it really, I think it improves the quality of the landscape. I disagree with my noble friend on the tree planting. They did plant the wrong trees, but though they planted millions of Sitka spruce around the lake, but they put them right down to the water's edge. And so you've got acidic runoff. Now, as the forestry departments are cutting down those trees, they're replanting the ones near the lake with proper mixed English and landscape trees, which do not cause that damage.

The marvellous. There's only one thing wrong with Kielder my Lords. It's in a completely the wrong place. Well, it's in the wrong place, for the water is required. Now, over my time as a constituency member in Cumbria, every few years various schemes come out to build some huge pipes and pump Kielder down south. But the cost of that is astronomical. Not to mention the huge engines will be required to do it. Then there's a number of other wonderful, clever schemes that you just pump some of it into the town, let it flow down the Tyne, you intercept it before it gets to Newcastle, then you pump it to the river weir, then you intercept before it gets to Bishop Auckland and then goodness knows where it goes.

Then our idea is to try and pump it in canals and force the canals to be rivers. All of these schemes my Lord are being viewed, considered and they don't work and they would not work. Even enormous cost. The answer must be to build appropriate reservoirs where they are needed. Now. My Lords are needed down south, and the problem with finding reservoirs down south as we haven't come, they would say, is it will be an areas with wonderful villages, lots of people and very difficult to construct because of the damage it may do to those local environments and maybe places with lovely villages and possibly an arms or, or, maybe in the area of national nature reserve, or even taking in some of those nature reserves.

And possibly I accept that possibly destroying a village may be necessary, but in that case, the villagers must be consulted, they must have a right to be properly compensated, and it cannot be taken for granted that a national infrastructure project can overrule those requirements. And then when it comes to compensation, Lord, I'll be very brief on this because not the amendment. Yes, we can come up with compensation for people living there. How do you compensate for a wonderful Norman church, a thousand year old dormant church being destroyed, or the local post office buildings, which in some ways are not owned by people and have no right to compensation.

So, my Lords, in in in future it is possible that creating a reservoir may have made maybe it may be necessary to destroy villages may be necessary to destroy heritage villages. But in that case, I think we should have a protection which my noble friend has suggested an amendment A and on my noble friend, I think, has suggested an amendment seven be I advice I, I I'm happy to support them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My lords. I and the noble Lord Parkinson
17:26
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I and the noble Lord Parkinson said it was regrettable that these amendments were brought at this late stage. I have a feeling on that. It's 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. So nevertheless, that this is why we're having a long debate on, on, on this, this group of amendments. So the government wishes to find a different route for agreeing the construction of new reservoirs.

Now, one that is, you know, is a laudable aim. The methods proposed within this bill do represent, I think, a huge backward step for environmental protection and democratic accountability. And without considering perhaps more straightforward solutions such as straightforward solutions such as water conservation. So what the proposals from the government seek to do is to shift a decision making process from the local to the national, and by doing so, in with, alongside their other amendments about removing pre-application, which we'll come to in the next group, means that local residents.

Alison noble Baroness, the minister has said, would have to register in order to speak against or make their comments heard. And, you know, that is quite a quite an ask for people to appear before the equivalent of is in planning and an examination of it, the equivalent of a Planning Inspectorate examination. And that can be quite daunting for residents to take part in. And that I think is regrettable. The other issue that I have a problem with is that the government intend that where a, an, a region area has a water shortage and as a consequence, housing is turned down because there's not enough water for to feed the new the new estates.

Now the government is going to have issue holding directions. I quote, to stop councils refusing planning permissions, and will consider call ins to try and overturn those. So how those folk will get watered is yet to be understood. Now what the. In our view on these benches is what the government ought to be trying to do alongside pursuing some new reservoirs, is to put greater emphasis on the solution to water scarcity, which should be about addressing demand and efficiency.

Such as getting water companies to reduce the scale of their links, leaks from their water pipes, from which is approximately 20% of the totality, say, to 10% that would that is a positive that could be achieved. That's achievable. And that would, on its own, solve the immediate issue of water scarcity. The second thing that needs to happen is within new. Developments to address the use of these words. But grey water and black water so not requiring.

All water that is used in this country to be of drinking water quality, which is what happens now. So when you get your car washed at the car wash, they're using drinking water quality to clean your car because all water produced is to that standard. There ought to be changes in that direction as well. And of course, to think about water transfers, which from water company to water company, which already occur from the great Hill, the dam, 44 billion gallons of it is huge volume before it was built for steelworks that then closed, which is why it's so big and there is a huge volume of water there that could, if it was transferred down.

It's by pushing from district, region to region, could supply different areas of the country. Now how that it is possible already, how feasible that would be on a national scale is for the government to resolve. But it should be should be done, in my view. The amendments we have before us, the government is clearly going to accept right in the accept the amendments in the name of the noble Lord Lansley amendment seven a in the name of the noble Lord Parkinson is one which we on these benches will agree to all the heritage issues facing that we've discussed phasing in this plant and this planning bill are ones that we have got to say, we can't put speed and build always ahead of heritage protection.

You know that we got the balance wrong. And when that happens, heritage is important to the pride of place that people feel. And something that we've heard about in the debate and one which we will support. Now, I'm speaking ahead of the lower Baroness Scott of Bybrook, the lower Baroness Scott of Bybrook, Who's amendment seven be refers to. It's a pity, she said more 20 or more houses, because I think any number of houses that are going to be lost to a large reservoir should cause us to stop and think, you know, that is a significant impact on people, on their family histories, on the whole way their community works.

And if the noble Baroness pushes it to a vote, I think we on these benches are inclined to support her.
17:34
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to the government's amendment for the new clause to be inserted after clause.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Three relating. To projects concerning water.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I understand it, this amendment would allow projects carried out by third. Parties appointed by water

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parties appointed by water definition. Of a nationally. Significant infrastructure project under.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Section 14 of. The Planning Act 2008, providing that other. Conditions set out. In.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In. Sections 27, 28 and 28 a of that act are met. My Lords, while. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Appreciate the intention to streamline delivery and facilitate investment in critical water investment in critical water infrastructure, I feel I must raise a number of concerns and questions to the Minister. Firstly, what safeguards will ensure that the safeguards will ensure that the thresholds friendship designation, particularly those relating to scale and national importance, are still meaningfully applied? It is essential that this designation essential that this designation remains reserved for truly national. Significant projects, not simply Significant projects, not simply those that happen to be large or more indeed, my Lords, convenient.

more indeed, my Lords, convenient. Secondly, can the noble Baroness, the Minister, clarify why the existing provisions which limit and SIP status to projects undertaken directly by water undertakers, are now deemed insufficient? What problem, precisely is this amendment intended to solve? Additionally, is the government considering similar extensions of eligibility in other sections of infrastructure? If so, it would be helpful for your Lordships' House to understand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shift. In. Planning policy or an exceptional. Measure just limited. exceptional. Measure just limited. To water infrastructure. Finally, will the government commit to a review of the amendments impact after, say, 3 or 5 years to ensure that it has not led to unintended consequences, particularly in relation to accountability,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relation to accountability, environmental standards or. The integrity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the SIP regime? I also welcome my Noble friend Lord Lance's amendments in this group, and I understand he's had many discussions understand he's had many discussions with the noble Baroness, the Minister and I thank the government for their response on these amendments. Amendment 56, in the name of my Noble friend Baroness name of my Noble friend Baroness McIntosh of Pickering also raises important questions for ministers about the ability of farmers and about the ability of farmers and landowners to develop small reservoirs that pose little potential threat to local potential threat to local communities.

We need, and we know we need more reservoirs. And the government has talked about this a government has talked about this a great deal, and we look forward to ministers to show willing on smaller reservoirs to and in to encourage the noble Baroness and Minister to listen to my noble friend on this important issue. Finally, I'd like to turn to amendment seven. Aye, in the name of my friend Lord Parkinson and my own amendment seven be amendment seven be on introducing due process for communities and heritage threatened by reservoirs that are being delivered through the N sip process.

We tabled these amendments in response to the government's amendment tabled last Monday, and we're keen to work with the government to get a workable amendment onto the bill if it's necessary. I would also like to say at the outset, we are fully supportive of the steps to get on with the delivery of critical national infrastructure. But where the consultation of local communities and heritage protections are supplied through the N sip process, we have to be sure that it is appropriate in those cases, as the government seeks to deliver more reservoirs, we want to ensure that communities and heritage local individuals who have their homes, their gardens and their history invested in those in those areas are protected.

And the Secretary of State takes proper account of their views. My Noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay has spoken about a number of historic examples. If villages are to be flooded in the future with all their heritage, history and their heritage, we must make sure a proper process is followed and I have to take. I have to say that it is not just in the north of England that we have reservoirs. I farmed near Bow Beach in Kent.

I knew Buell Water in Kent. Both of these were where some communities were flooded. And my Lords, decades.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On, generations on. People are still talking about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

People are still talking about that community that is still under that community that is still under that water. So therefore, we will seek to test the opinion in the seek to test the opinion in the House on amendment seven. B and we asked the noble Baroness the asked the noble Baroness the Minister, to seriously consider making sure that these future making sure that these future communities will be protected.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities will be protected. While also, I'll keep my comments relatively brief, because. I did have a. Lot to say at the beginning of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lot to say at the beginning of this group. I would like to start concluding my concluding remarks with pointing out to noble Lords with pointing out to noble Lords that it was the concerns about water provision that encouraged the government to bring forward further amendments in this respect, and I would like to thank all those noble would like to thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in engagement, both in the recess period, which I was very grateful period, which I was very grateful for and subsequent to that.

So can I thank them all now, those who met thank them all now, those who met with me, I would like to thank the noble Lord Lansley for his contribution, and he was very clear
17:41
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
in the way that he set out his concerns and we appreciated that, and that's why we've been able to and that's why we've been able to accept his amendments. In terms of the comments from the noble Lord the comments from the noble Lord Wigley, I think I understand the great concerns that have happened great concerns that have happened and are ongoing from the capital Kelin issue. I'm afraid the powers Kelin issue. I'm afraid the powers that are in this bill are for England, but I will come back to them in writing about what powers them in writing about what powers the Senate have to act in a way that might help with the concerns that he might help with the concerns that he has.

So if that's acceptable to him, I will write to him on those specific issues. The noble Baroness McIntosh talked about the efficiency of reservoirs. I think there have of reservoirs. I think there have been improvements recently in that, but I think there's still room for improvement in that. And I'm sure improvement in that. And I'm sure colleagues in Defra are as exercise to share as they're making sure that's the case. And I was very glad that's the case. And I was very glad that she mentioned Professor Bellamy again, brought back some very happy memories from me.

I'm not going to memories from me. I'm not going to try and impression because I'm not very good at them and I wouldn't want to do that. But he was a real character, and I think his contribution to the to the natural world in this country was enormous and very grateful for that. She the noble Baroness Baroness McIntosh asked about how the need for water is assessed and how, and I think the Baroness noble Baroness Scott referred to this as well.

Water companies, of course, have a statutory duty to provide a secure supply of water for customers. It excuse me efficiently and economically and set out how they plan to continue to supply water through statutory water resources management plans. So they're assessing that and looking at that constantly. And they 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. So there is a constant assessment of that.

And in relation to her points about smaller reservoirs, I think I hope I set out clearly in my comments that these can be undertaken under permitted development. At the moment, we recognise the need to have a look at those permitted development regulations and we will be coming back to those. I think I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going to just yeah, of course, I quite understand. I sort of bounce this into the debate and she wasn't aware, but debate and she wasn't aware, but could she possibly write to me on the state of the proposals to the state of the proposals to dispense with the Reservoirs Act and bring forth recommendations from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bring forth recommendations from the Bamforth from 2019? It does seem incredibly long time. Just what the timescale is going to be. Oh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh. I'm happy to do that. Thank you. The I'm going to respond to the The I'm going to respond to the noble Lord blank out of order if he doesn't mind, because he said himself that some of the issues that himself that some of the issues that he raised couldn't happen now. And the Planning Act 2008 means that many of the issues that that he raised would not be the case now. And I'm, I'm taking that out of And I'm, I'm taking that out of order, because I did want to come back to the noble Lord Parkinson and back to the noble Lord Parkinson and his issue around heritage issues, as the noble Lord said, myself and my the noble Lord said, myself and my colleague from DCMS have now set up a very useful roundtable with heritage organisations or heritage organisations or organisations representing heritage organisations representing heritage issues, and I will specifically raised some of these issues with that roundtable.

I think it's important that we do. So the National Policy Statement for Water Resources has a dedicated section with respect to the historic environment, which sets out what applicants should do within 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, and where development is subject to environmental impact assessment.

The application is also required to take that assessment. As I pointed out in my earlier contribution. So 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's some reassurance that proposed developments must comply with specific obligations related to listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments, and that obligation is placed on the Secretary of State and set out in the Infrastructure Planning Decisions Regulations of 2010.

So I hope that's some reassurance for the noble Lords. Noble Baroness Pinnock talked about some of the other measures that can be taken to conserve water. I don't disagree with her on that, and I know colleagues in Defra are very exercised on ensuring that we do make efficient use of water and that we're not setting up reservoirs unnecessarily. However, coming as I do from one of the areas which is one of the areas of great water scarcity in the country, I know what a huge issue this can be.

And I would say to her that whereas, you know, reservoirs that were built for steel industries and then perhaps not that water not being needed, we are now looking at data centres, which will be a new generation of economic activity. And they do need water. So I know there will be new needs for water going forward. The noble Baroness Scot grateful to her for her contribution and she spoke about the way that these projects can now be delivered.

And I would say to her that they only projects delivered by third party providers, appointed by statutory water undertaker, will be eligible to qualify as n SIPs under our amendment for those providers will have been successful in a competitive tender process run by Water Undertaker. The projects must also still meet, which I think is no question the existing thresholds for classification as an end SIP, 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.

So all projects brought forward under the SIP regime must still go through the full development consent order process, including consultation, environmental assessments and public engagement, and that this amendment does not reduce scrutiny. It simply removes an unnecessary step to apply for a section 35 direction for third party providers who will be carrying out the development. Now, I recognise that any loss of homes, concern about loss of heritage assets will be of great concern. I recognise the sensitivity of those issues.

I hope that the steps I've outlined and the very detailed way in which the Planning Act 2008 applies, will have reassured members and that they will feel able to withdraw their amendments. And I beg to move the government amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to noble Lady. I beg to move amendment five. Question is that amendment five

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that amendment five be agreed to? As many as of that opinion, say 'content' the country not content. The contents have it. not content. The contents have it. Amendment six and seven move formally move formally question is on amendment six and seven be agreed on amendment six and seven be agreed to as many as our of that opinion, say 'content' country not content

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contents have it. Amendment seven a Lord Parkinson. At my Lords. I'm grateful to the noble Lady the Minister for the Further Information Act and to noble Lords and particularly to the noble Lords and particularly to the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock for their support for my amendment. I'm glad to hear that the Minister will
17:48
17:49
None Portrait Division
-

advise the House when voting is bar. Minister. Minister. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A A question A question is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A question is. A question is. That A question is. That the A question is. That the question is the remembered seven a be agreed to as many as are of that opinion say, "content" the country not say, "content" the country not content. The contents will go to the right of the thrown, the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question Question is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is. The. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents 216, not contents 175. So the contents have not. The question is the question is the amendment four, as amended, be agreed to as many as are of that opinion say, "content" the country not content. The contents have it. Amendment seven be earned in Scotland, formerly. No. My Lords, I'm very I'm grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister, for her response. But my Lords, for future response.

But my Lords, for future communities who may be affected by the issues we've been debating, and the issues we've been debating, and in order to ensure not just proper consultation, but proper engagement consultation, but proper engagement in those schemes, I wish to divide the House on my amendment seven be.
18:01
18:01
18:12
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh my Lords, this group of amendments all in in my name and others all relate to the importance others all relate to the importance of pre-application as a formal part of the process in determining and certain applications. They're all much of a motions now. Amendments nine and ten. Are the purpose of them is to retain the current statutory pre-application consultation and amendment 11 and 12 or similar and 11 amendment 12, in my name and that of my Noble friend Russell and of the noble Baroness Willis of Summertown, is seeking to put an emphasis on the importance of pre-application and setting out the purpose of it.

So. The emphasis that we've had from our benches, from Liberal Democrat benches and I've, as I've heard from the Conservative benches today, is all about the importance of hearing the voices of communities and protecting heritage and the environment, the noble Baroness Scott of Bybrook in the last group of amendments talked about the importance of engagement of communities and these very important national infrastructure projects, and that's 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's equally important that a consensus is built, built with the community from the outset.

What you don't achieve if you eliminate upfront engagement and the key to building consensus is by maintaining a statutory pre-application process. I mean giving up the short. But in order to get speedy and speedy decisions, the cost could be a long decisions, the cost could be a long term stability and success. So what amendment 12 seeks to do is to. Have a issues resolved. Early community influence is built into the process. So people have their say at the outset before an application planning application is submitted for examination that ensure that the applications are technically sound and that mitigation is embedded at the beginning and not added in later.

So all those issues are absolutely vital if communities are to be able to feel that they have been, their voice has been heard, even if in the end, a country decision is made. But through the end, that process, through my long experience as a councillor, it's always strikes me that the people have had their had their say. They are more likely to accept the consequences of a view to which to which they are opposed. So the noble Baroness the minister, in response to arguments at committee on this issue, argued that it was a tick box exercise and that other, other, others took a more constructive view and building consensus and did it well.

But to me then 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-approved process. So my Lord, we on these benches feel that reduction of the democratic right of people to have their voice heard is very important. And. Will, in the end, benefit those big projects. If they get people onside. Understanding what what is at stake and have their voice heard at the beginning of the process, not when it becomes much more of a legal test.

So I obviously will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. And in response. But if I am not satisfied, I hope with perhaps with the support of the Conservative

**** Possible New Speaker ****

frontbench, that I will test the opinion in the House and back to me. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. When the proposed clause for page eight, line 22 leave out paragraph

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A. One of the. I don't. Know. Whether this is. Premature, but I wish to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speak to. Amendment 83. The modern. Methodology of. Infrastructure planning is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Infrastructure planning is heavily dependent on the computer and computer aided design. Software has replaced the. Draughtsman Drawing.
18:18
Viscount Hanworth Portrait Viscount Hanworth (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Draughtsman Drawing. Board, and this is. Greatly expedited. The design process. More of a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

process. More of a. CAD technology, enables the designs of houses and other structures to be made public at an early.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stage of its. Development. The building information. Modelling standards.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The BIM standards. Are intended to facilitate the sharing of information which can be sharing of information which can be consigned to the cloud to become accessible to all concerned, which includes the public at large. The transparent information is liable to be shared via a so-called.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Digital twin model. And level. Two of the BIM standards. The BIM. Standards was made.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

BIM. Standards was made. Mandatory for public. three. Was due to be made.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was due to be made. Mandatory this. Year. But there has been a delay. I should say that there has been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more than. A day. There's been some backtracking. On the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the. Response of the minister to the original version of the. Amendment. Was to declare that the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was to declare that the. Requirement for a digital twin. At an early stage of the development. Would impose extra costs.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would impose extra costs. And delays. It seems to me that. This evinces a fundamental

**** Possible New Speaker ****

misunderstanding. If you'll excuse me for a moment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If you'll excuse me for a moment. It seems to me that this evinces a. Fundamental misunderstanding. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fundamental misunderstanding. And it is precisely at the. Earliest. Stages of a project. That that modern. Technology is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That that modern. Technology is most efficacious. The question arises of what could have caused this, this misunderstanding, which. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. I I'm liable to attribute. To the. Civil servants as much as the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Civil servants as much as the minister. I imagine that one of the causes could be the. The experience. Of inappropriate applications of the BIM standards. There have been a minor change to the text of the original amendment, and 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've 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 of the materials involved in its original construction.

The BIM standards were were never intended to be imposed in this way, and with this proviso, I wish to propose the amendment as a serious attempt to promote a methodology of infrastructure planning, of which Britain is a leading exponent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, these amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness Pinnick, were first brought forward at committee stage. And I made that
18:20
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
at committee stage. And I made that point then, which I repeat now, that clause four systematically removes several of the existing pre-application requirements. This amendment seeks quite specifically to retain section 47 of the planning I the statutory duty to consult the local community. As the noble Baroness Pinnick raised. We have said throughout that we think it is only right and appropriate that you should consult with local communities and they should be involved. Removing this requirement for pre-application consultation, risk cutting communities out of the conversation altogether.

It means local people may neither understand or even be aware of the broad outlines, or indeed detailed implications of developments for which, for better or worse, will have a direct impact on their lives and the local environment. As I understood, the Minister at committee stage, 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. But 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 has said, and I quote, I am sure that we all have experiences of the best in consultation with a developer not who 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 focussed on minimising their costs.

We want to encourage the former, not the latter. My Lords, that is an admirable sentiment, but how is that objective served by the removal of the very mechanism that requires such consultation to take place in the first place? These questions matter not merely as points of process, 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. So while we cannot support the noble Baronesses amendment in full, we equally cannot support the government's decision to sweep away the entire framework. A more balanced approach could have addressed the legitimate concerns about delay, while enhancing the opportunities for local people to have their say on developments that shape their communities.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I thank the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock for bringing back these amendments, which we did back these amendments, which we did debate extensively at committee. Amendments nine and ten seek to reinstate the statutory duty for reinstate the statutory duty for applicants to consult during the pre-application stage of a development Consent order
18:24
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
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. And I repeat, government still expects high quality consultation to take place. We've 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 to proposals for fear of triggering further rounds of required statutory consultation. We're confident that developers will continue to consult meaningfully, and communities will still have further opportunities to engage through the examination process. 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 applications remain robust and responsive to local issues. The government is currently consulting on proposals associated with this guidance, and will take into account responses when it's developed. If these amendments were accepted, we risk reverting to the status quo and failing to address the very issues we're trying to fix. Delays, complexity and confusion. And for these reasons, I would respectfully ask that the noble Lady withdraw her amendments. Turning now to amendments 11 and 12. These amendments seek to impose statutory obligations around guidance for pre-application consultation, despite the statutory requirement to consult been removed from the Planning Act 2008.

Through this bill, the decision to remove the statutory requirements for pre-application consultation was not made lightly. It was introduced to tackle the growing delays and procedural burdens that have crept into the unzip regime over time. We are trying to fix a system that has become too slow, too risk averse and too complex, as we've 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. Whatever we propose to do that members objected to. Over the last few months, we have had the opportunity to meet and discuss the removal of pre-application requirements with a wide range of stakeholders, including a number of bodies and individuals with valuable insight and experience of the insight regime. Since its inception back in 2008, we've seen a positive reaction to our proposals from most stakeholders speaking to local authorities and statutory consultees, it's 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, and changes are needed for 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 focussed 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, we feel, would be confusing.

Moreover, the proposed amendment by the noble Lady goes further by attempting to bind the content future guidance to fix set of principles. While I understand these principles are well intentioned, we don't believe it is right to legislate for them. The government has 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 in, 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 Lady will withdraw them. Turning to amendment 80. This was a proposal previously raised during committee stage.

As the House will recall the clause six to require the Secretary of State to consider how community consultation has been carried out when deciding whether a national 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. My Lords, as we discussed at length during committee, the government recognises 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 tests in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. We had a system where applicants focus on defence ability rather than dialogue, and where consultation is treated as a hurdle to clear, not at all to improve proposals.

The reformed acceptance test allows the Secretary of State to make a balanced judgement about the quality of the application, recognising that the inset 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. We introducing a statutory test of consultation at the acceptance stage would risk reinstated the very behaviours we are trying to move away from. I would like to reassure the noble Baroness.

The government's proposals do not diminish the importance of consultation, and with these reassurances I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments. Turning to amendment 83, tabled by my Noble friend Lord Viscount Hanworth, I want to begin by thanking him for his continued interest in this very important area. We absolutely recognise the potential of emerging technologies such as digital twin modelling to support the planning system. In fact, I looked into this in some detail when I had the artificial intelligence brief for the department.

It's moved on to another minister now, sadly. But I did have it and I looked at places where where digital twins are in frequent use, like Singapore and in some parts of Spain. These innovations help make complex infrastructure proposals more accessible and transparent to communities, and we welcome the growing use of those tools across the sector. And as an example, the government is 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 to make the planning system more efficient, providing better access to planning data, improving the data quality and making the data more open.

We're committed to modernising the planning system and to streamlining processes. However, we don't believe it's appropriate to mandate digital twin modelling for every applicant through this bill, and there are three main reasons why I say that. Firstly, we are repealing the statutory duty to consult at pre-application stage makes the amendment itself is unworkable in its current form. Second, it's not necessary to legislate to achieve this policy objective. If an applicant for development consent considers 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 has 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 23. Finally, I understand some industry experts have expressed concerns about the use of this technology relating to commercial sensitivity and security considerations, and further policy development and engagement is needed before taking such approach.

We're 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 then mandates certain approaches. For these reasons why the government agrees that digital twin modelling is an interesting development and has great potential in terms of engagement with the NCA process, we don't believe mandating it at this stage would be appropriate. Instead, I would be interested in meeting with the noble Viscount and Baroness to discuss the matter further so that the government can more appropriately consider how we can encourage digital twin modelling going forward.

In conclusion, while we support the principle behind the amendment, we don't believe it's necessary or appropriate to include it in the bill. And I would therefore respectfully ask the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Viscount to withdraw amendment 83. Lord, to do thank the noble
18:34
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord, to do thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for the careful consideration she gave to my amendments during conference recess, and I've listened again carefully to what she's had to say today. And what it appears to me is that across the House there is an agreement that pre-application engagement with communities affected is vital. Where we disagree is how that is achieved and the current proposals in the government's bill is to remove the statutory requirement for pre-application engagement.

Now, pre-application engagement. Now, where that leads us is that the good constructions will engage effectively. The poor will avoid doing it well. The contention on our bench is that all projects and all construction should be engaging well, and the only way to achieve that is by having a statutory requirement to do so. And then the other point about removing the statutory requirement and having a set of principles by which it should be undertaken, is that the if the amendment is not accepted, what we are left with is that engagement will be designed by the developers and often designed for the developers, and not as it should be for the community.

And because these issues are so important for those of us who care deeply about hearing the voice of people and the and being able to engage early in a big application that. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we must first of all deal with amendment nine, which is the amendment before the House. Does the noble Lady wish to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lady wish to move amendment nine. I beg your pardon? I wish to withdraw amendment nine

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish to withdraw amendment nine and ten and. Move amendment 12 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and ten and. Move amendment 12 and 11. I move amendment 12. We'll take them in order. Amendment nine not moved. Amendment Amendment nine not moved. Amendment ten and 11 not moved. En bloc not moved. We come now to amendment 12 moved formally. The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved formally. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say 'content' the country not content. Not content.
18:37
18:47
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
group beginning amendment 13. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. My Lords, I rise first to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise first to move amendments G 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and amendments G 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 20 tabled in my name. Together they revise clause six of the Bill. These amendments are essential to ensuring the Bill delivers on its core objective to speed up the delivery of infrastructure by removing of infrastructure by removing unnecessary complexity and delay from the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. As infrastructure projects regime. As noble Lords will. No. Clause six was originally introduced to provide originally introduced to provide flexibility at acceptance stage by allowing the Planning Inspectorate pins on behalf of the Secretary of 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 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 pre-application stage.

Clause six 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. Second, by making clear that the acceptance test should focus on whether an application is suitable to be examined or not. But since that time, the government has 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. Now, while clause six 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 risked 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 tests will be too vague and open to interpretation. There are justified concerns 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 are 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's why today I'm moving amendments which 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 the acceptance stage remains focussed on what it should be. Assessing whether an application is complete, clear and ready to move forward in statutory time frames.

Not interrogating whether every issue related to the project has been resolved. While we want applications to be well developed at the acceptance stage, it's not right or realistic to aim for consensus or agreement between all parties at this stage of the process. At acceptance stage, we want application documents to meet 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 doesn't mean pins needed to see all issues have been resolved. I can be very clear today and say we remain absolutely committed to high quality applications being accepted into the end asset regime. However, in the light of feedback, we no longer think these select provisions in clause six support achieving that. Pence will still have tools available to request the applicants address, clear gaps and correct deficiencies, or provide additional information early on in the process, either through 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've heard from noble Lords and the sector, and they align with the broader reforms we've already made, and I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting them. I turn now to speak to government amendments G 17 and G 19, which introduces 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 clarifies the point in the process when a legal challenge against such a decision can be brought, these amendments respond directly to concerns raised during committee stage by noble Lords across the House, including Baroness Scott and the noble Baroness Pinnock, who rightly highlighted the importance of and the need for transparency and accountability in the early stages of the nationally significant project.

Raising 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 dispute what 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 the system is as transparent as possible, my Lords. 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 it decides 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 also 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 concern.

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 system. This is a principle response to concerns raised in committee, and I hope it shows. We are listening carefully to your concerns about how our changes impact the system as a whole. I therefore commend this clause to the House and urge noble Lords to support its inclusion in the Bill. I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause six, page 11, line 14. Leave out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

subsection two. The Lords and I.
18:55
18:55
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
But my Lords, we have before us the government's latest set of amendments to clause six, or should I say what it used to be, clause six, 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 whether an application for a development consent order is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. The government now appears to have decided that their own proposal was in fact unnecessary, perhaps even unworkable.

So we are back to the status quo, the clear, objective test that ensures applications are are only accepted when they meet the proper standards of completeness and adequacy. My Lords, and thank goodness for that, because the test protects everyone, developers, communities and the integrity of the process itself, it ensures clarity at the gateway stage, not confusion. And I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness and Minister for getting that changes to the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to as many as the that many will say content the country many will say content the country not content. The contents have it amendments 14 to 20 moved formally amendments 14 to 20 moved formally on block Baroness Taylor move formally on block. The question is formally on block. The question is that amendments 14 to 20 B be agreed to unblock as many as of that opinion, say 'content' contrary not content the contents have it.

We now
18:57
Lord Ravensdale Portrait Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

come to amendment 20. A Lord Raven's tail. My Lords, I. Start by declaring my interest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Start by declaring my interest. The chief engineer working for Atkins realists. My Lords, I was reassured by what the noble Baroness the Minister stated in response to this amendments at committee stage. But I do have a few additional points of clarification. Hence, bringing this back at reports. And I'm also grateful to the Minister for her time last week in discussing the response to this amendment. Also because, my Lords, I think moving in this direction is really important for a number of reasons.

Firstly, to help speed projects through the system by ensuring that regulators are aligned with the government's goals. And in the case of this amendment relating to electrical generating projects and infrastructure, because it's all about ensuring that regulators are able to take they're not just concerned with the micro view, with the local impacts of the projects on the environment, but they're also looking at the macro view. So the potential benefits that that project will bring for the country, whether that's net zero or environmental benefits.

So in in in effect, assessing the benefits as well as the costs. And that will really help some of the issues we've seen in terms of the logjam of projects related to, for example, offshore wind and nuclear. It will also continue the work that peers have undertaken to apply consistent duty across regulators. We had Ofgem the duty and Ofgem under the last government's offer. What's under this government's other organisations, such as the Crown Estates and My Lords? This also takes inspiration from the Private Member's Bill that it's been taken through by the noble Lord Lords Kreps, in terms of a consistent duty across all regulators, and it's also consistent with the outputs of the Corrie review.

Really to help prevent that, in the words of the Korea Review, regulatory overloads which has emerged over time. So simplifying duties on regulators, which is another key points for helping to speed projects through the system. So my Lords, I went to the House any further. But I'd be grateful if, in summing up the ministers, the Minister can provide answers to the following points. So the committee stage, the Minister stated, as we review and develop guidance on all aspects of the process, we will consider alongside government policy and national policy statements, how we can support the intents of this amendment.

So can the Minister please provide additional detail on how specifically duties on regulators are being brought within that guidance and national policy statements? Now, that's consultations in that area are underway, and there is still the point, my Lords on the statutory duty so far, the government is going down a guidance route. We've had numerous debates on guidance versus statute throughout the course of this bill. But can the Minister say what plans the government has to bring forward statutory duties on regulators to align with the work already done on Ofgem and other regulators? Because, my Lords, I believe that long term strategic sufficiency and drive can only be done via statutes.

And finally, my Lords, on timescales, I'd be grateful if for noble Baroness, the Minister could give an update on this strategic policy statements for all regulators. The commitments that was made by the government's coming out of the Korea Review and what that what that programme looks like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for those policy statements. I beg to move amendment. Proposed after clause nine. Insert the new.
19:01
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Insert the new. Clause as printed on the. Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled list. My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment 20 aim name of the noble Lord, Lord Raven's Dail. We welcome this amendment. It's 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. In essence, this amendment is about coherence, ensuring that the way we plan consents and deliver low carbon infrastructure genuinely aligns with environmental 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 themselves. The Planning Act of 2008, however good it is, pre-dates our key climate primary climate legislation. This amendment would help bring the planning regime for major projects into line with more modern legislative landscape. This creates a new section 35, placing a duty on the relevant authorities, conservation bodies, the environment agencies and others to have specific regard to four key objectives when they make representations on nationally significant projects.

My Lords, basically, I won't do the same in the House too much longer. But we support this amendment. We support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I wanted. To rise in. Support of. This amendment, because it seems to me.
19:03
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

to me. That all the experience we have is that there isn't a coherence where there ought to be a coherence. where there ought to be a coherence. I'd like to thank the Minister for her earlier willingness to react to the House, and. To show that she was able to make the changes which the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House asked for. And I hope she will say to her colleagues how much that. Helps the. Government. If we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If we. Feel that it listens on things which really aren't party political, which really aren't party political, but are about how best to. Organise ourselves. And I have to say, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ourselves. And I have to say, I. Do say that with the. Range of regulators that we have,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Range of regulators that we have, it is crucially important to get a coherence, and I frankly. Believe that we all know we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Believe that we all know we. Haven't got it at the moment. Now, Lord noble Lord, Lord breaking amendment may not be ideal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I don't think. He sees. it. Is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is really to get from the government. A coherent. Programme for coherence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Programme for coherence. We all know, actually, that every

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We all know, actually, that every day the. Urgency that climate change forces upon us. Gets more and more obvious. I've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gets more and more obvious. I've just come back from from. Northern Ireland, where.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Northern Ireland, where. Businesses representing 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, which we have to try to deal with this, but that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

architecture will work very much better. If we. Get a greater coherence across

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Get a greater coherence across the board. And therefore, I do hope that the noble lady, the. Minister, will be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, will be. Kind enough, at least to give us some understanding of the way in which the government hopes to bring which the government hopes to bring about that coherence, and in that understanding, give us. Something understanding, give us. Something about dates and times. Because having been a minister for rather a long time, I know perfectly well

**** Possible New Speaker ****

long time, I know perfectly well that it is very easy to promise in general about the future. Almost any nice thing. But what. Really matters.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Really matters. Is when. And how is it going to
19:05
19:06
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Provincetown. Can I thank him as well for. Meeting with me during recess to discuss this? This amendment seeks to ensure that in relation to any 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 at committee and specifically refers to compliance by the Secretary of State with carbon target and budgeting and adapting to current or predicted climate change impacts.

Under the Climate Change Act 2008. Achievement of biodiversity targets under the Environment Act 2021 and achieving sustainable development. As the government made clear at committee stage, we definitely recognise the importance of this issue, but we do not believe that the amendment in itself is necessary. It's 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 appreciates the important role that these bodies play in the planning system, and that's why we've taken action in response to the Currie review to ensure that these bodies are joined up and aligned with the government's broader priorities. I'll say a bit more about that in a moment. As I did in committee, I want to reassure my noble friends that government is already utilising the tools it has 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 the UK can meet its decarbonisation targets. We're also strengthening national policy statements through this bill by requiring they're updated at least every five years and by making it easier to undertake interim updates for certain types of material amendments. The government has recently concluded consultation on drafts of A and one and three and M5, which will be updated to reflect the Clean Power 2030 action plan.

The second of these relates to guidance. It's critical that public bodies engage fully in examinations, so the examining authority has access to their expertise and can properly scrutinise the application before reporting to the Secretary of State. Through this bill, the government is 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 these bodies engage effectively in the process and can provide the right information in a timely way.

We're currently consulting on reforms across the CIP system to streamline the process, as well as consulting on what pre-application guidance to applicants should contain. We're also 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 process, we will consider how this, alongside government policy in national policy statements, can support the intent of the amendment. As I've made clear today, the guidance the government will issue to statutory bodies about their role in the exit process will play a vital role, I hope, in addressing noble Lords concerns.

The government is 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 Corrie and the Cunliffe reviews, my colleagues would welcome further engagement with you. Noble Lord Ravens. Now as we undertake the important work and others in the House that have a particular interest in this area. Complex projects engage multiple regimes and I understand they find themselves batted backwards and forwards between different regulators.

So we're piloting a lead environmental regulator model to provide a single point of contact for developers on the most complex schemes. And we've already made a start working with the lower Thames Crossing on this. And the noble Lord Ravens deal. Asked a question about timescale in order to release strategic policy statements for Defra regulators in response to the Torry Review. I would say it's one of nine fast track recommendations and I mean fast tracked. We will be communicating very soon and I'm sorry to use that term to Lord, but we will be communicating very, very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

soon on this. And when I say very soon, I'm talking days, not. Weeks. Or months. So I hope that's a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or months. So I hope that's a guidance for him. As the noble Lord knows, the Secretary of State must have regards to matters that are relevant, important to decisions. For all those reasons, I hope the noble Lord is reassured and will
19:11
19:12
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

said. Potentially her favourite words. She spent a lot of this bill. In committee stage saying in due.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

phrase. So it was delightful. For her. To. Be. Able to at least.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Able to at least. Say very soon. And I wonder. If the might the same might apply to my amendment. Sadly, I expect to my amendment. Sadly, I expect not. I did mention at committee stage that I wasn't satisfied with the response of the minister, and that I would be minded to bring this back at report stage. But even now, at this stage in the bill, it's somewhat clunky, but it's just the nature of the bill that we're discussing in SIPs.

And as a consequence, I have to speak to my amendment at this at this point. So what's my moment be saying? In essence, we're going to have environmental development delivery plans. What I am asking is that alongside other matters that the Secretary has to consider is that the Secretary of State should consider the environmental delivery plan when it comes to an end. Inset. And for me, this seems very logical. I'm conscious other parts of section 104 of the Planning Act refers to needs to consider any national policy statement which has effect in relation to development of the description to which the application relates.

It also requires the appropriate marine policy documents, determined in accordance with section 59 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009. It also considers any Local impact report and indeed as unconscious. The Minister may say any other matters which the Secretary of State thinks are both important and relevant to the decision. So, my Lords, the reason why I believe this merits being included on the face of the Bill and put into legislation, is that there are other parts of legislation which is the primary duty of the Secretary of State for the for Defra to achieve variety of targets about nature and recovery.

But as we discussed earlier, debated in committee stage, in reality, what we're considering here now are actually what the Secretary of State for Department of Housing, community, Local Government will consider. And let's be candid, this has not always been the happy exchange between the two departments in previous history, especially with the new Secretary of State having just been the Secretary. State at Defra is now talking about build, baby, Build and rolled out a whole series of reasons on why infrastructure are being held up and really could not necessarily, I believe, stand that up properly.

However, coming back to this particular amendment and by the way, I have tabled a similar amendment when it comes to councillors consideration for those matters which are not in CIPs, I think we're trying to get to the bottom of what will the EDP really do? And that is still unclear to me. And the whole purpose of this is it's quite possible an environmental delivery possible an environmental delivery plan may cover land being used by an Ansip, but according to the answer from the minister in the committee stage, literally, I appreciate she did not use this phrase.

The sorry the no ball Baroness did not use this phrase, but it is the quintessential of cash for trash that that will have already been considered and we don't need to think about ever again. And there should be no reason for it to be even considered by the Secretary of State when they're coming to make their determination. However, I do believe it matters so much that they should be so. One of the things that I'm hoping to hear from the government today is a little bit more detail before before we get into part three about how, in reality, decisions are going to be made on significant areas of the.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Country where. They've already done some compulsory purchase. So according to the powers, according to this bill,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the powers, according to this bill, and yet, will that really not be. Taken. Into account? Should we not be trying to make sure that we achieve the primary aim of the 2021 Environment Act in as also our Environment Act in as also our international treaties, which, quite rightly, the government is very fond of and I'm thinking in particular of the Gbf framework negotiated three years ago, those are the sorts of issues which I would have thought issues which I would have thought the government would welcome to be on the face of the bill.

It doesn't mean that it stops a variety of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mean that it stops a variety of activity, but at least the government or the minister. Will need to show that they've.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will need to show that they've. Considered the environmental delivery plan against what may or delivery plan against what may or may not be detrimental, more likely to be detrimental, because that's the whole reason for having the whole reason for having established EDPs in regard to how infrastructure is processed. But I do believe that this is sufficiently important that we should be considering it as routine, rather than on the whim of whoever holds office at the time. As a office at the time.

As a consequence, I'm conscious that the we will get properly into EDPs in part three, and I'm not anticipating we will do that till sometime on Wednesday or next week, so the timing may not be right. But if I'm not satisfied, while 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.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, page 17 928 bit and insert the words as printed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the marshalled list. Lords the noble Baroness coffee
19:18
19:19
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank my Noble friend Baroness coffee for bringing forward amendment 21, ensuring that planning consent adequately considers environmental protections is, of course, vital and must not be overlooked. My Lords, 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 Robert will speak in more detail on this topic and develop our position further from committee in the coming days. I Noble friend Lady Coffee is of course, right to highlight how a local environmental delivery plant will interact with a National National 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of these projects. My Lord, sir, the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, sir, the noble Baroness Lady Coffee is amendment 21, which seeks to ensure that any applicable environmental delivery plan or a De pays is already taken into account by the Secretary of State when by the Secretary of State when making a decision whether to grant permission to a nationally
19:20
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
significant infrastructure project, I can assure noble Lords that the way in which aid pays will work in practice mean that this amendment is not necessary. Meeting the relevant environmental obligations with the EDP, just as when satisfying them under the current system is a separate part of the process to the granting of permission, we are to promote a commitment to pay the levy in relation to an aid pay. The making of that commitment discharges the relevant environmental obligation. I should emphasise again that it will assign from exceptional circumstances be a voluntary decision for the promoter of a national, nationally significant infrastructure project to decide whether they appear.

The levy to rely on the EDP. This means that whilst 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 consequence, 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 and 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 will feel able to withdraw their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Oh my. Lords. I was clearly. Hoping for a little bit more on
19:22
19:23
19:23
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Anderson. Of Stoke on Trent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Mine Lords. I will now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Repeat the statement made. By my. Colleague, the. Secretary of State. other.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other. Place, with permission. Madam Deputy. Speaker, I would like to make. A statement. On the legacy of the troubles, which.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which. Still hangs heavily over. The lives of. So. Many people in Northern Ireland. And indeed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And indeed. Across the United Kingdom. The extraordinary. Act of political courage. Brought peace. But although its architects knew

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But 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.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unfinished business. Of that agreement. And why. So many. Too many victims and survivors. Are still waiting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are still waiting. For answers about what exactly. Happened. To those they loved so much. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To those they loved so much. The previous government's Legacy Act failed to win support. In Northern. Ireland. Failed to. Comply with. Our.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

International human rights. Obligations and was undeliverable. Whatever its. Intentions. It was no basis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was no basis. For trying to move forward. And that is why. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government is. Today introducing new primary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Today introducing new primary. Legislation and laying a. Draft remedial order under the Human. Rights Act as. We seek to fulfil our.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We seek to fulfil our. King's Speech commitment to. Repeal and replace the Legacy Act. Madam Deputy. Speaker, this legislation. Will give effect.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will give effect. To the framework that I. Announced with. The Irish Government on. The 19th. Of. principles.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the Stormont House. Agreement and contains. Sovereign commitments by both the UK and Irish governments. The new.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The new. Travel Troubles Bill will reform. be. Renamed the Legacy. Commission.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With. Statutory oversight. To provide accountability and confidence and learning. From Operation Canova.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From Operation Canova. As statutory Victims. And Survivors. Advisory Group.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

governance. Of. The Commission, with two. Co-directors for. conflict.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of interest duties and appointments made only following independence advice. Enhance the investigative powers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Enhance the investigative powers of the Commission and put. In place a. Fairer disclosure regime, ensuring that the Commission has the ensuring that the Commission has the powers 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 also fulfil the commitment we have also fulfil the commitment we have made to restore the small number of troubles related inquests, which were stopped in their tracks by the were stopped in their tracks by the Legacy Act, and refer the other and refer the other inquests that had not yet commenced, to the Solicitor not yet commenced, to the Solicitor General to independently consider whether, in each case they are most appropriately dealt with by the appropriately dealt with by the Reform Legacy Commission or via the coronial system, enabled Reform Commission to hold new proceedings in cases that transfer to it from the coronial system, consistent with the provisions in the Inquiries Act.

This 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 and the Adams Interim Custody Orders case. Regarding the application of the cold chain of principle, we must put beyond doubt Parliament's intention by clarifying that the relevant Minister, the relevant legislation allowed such orders to be made by junior ministers, as well as by the Secretary of State.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we owe 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 is introducing strong safeguards for veterans that respond directly to concerns that have been expressed to us. These safeguards will also apply to other people, such as former police officers.

They will mean that no witness will need to travel to an all nighter to engage with legacy mechanisms. They will have the right to do so remotely, because coroners and judges in the commission will be legally required to allow this. And support for veterans will be available to assist them in doing so. The Commission will be under a duty not to duplicate the work of 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.

This will include the right for veterans to seek anonymity when doing so, and our protections will not be limited to legislation. Any contact with veterans will be facilitated through the M&G. Sorry. The Ministry of Defence providing veterans from protecting veterans from cold calling and veterans will not be required to rehearse the historical context surrounding incidents where such information can be obtained from other sources, including the Ministry of Defence. These measures will provide what the three the three UK Veterans Commissioners have called for, not immunity from the law, but fairness under it.

Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 committed the most appalling terrorist crimes to be granted immunity from prosecution. The principal reason why this act was so strongly opposed in Northern Ireland. It will also lift that the current prohibition on troubles related to civil proceedings. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the Minister, Simon Harris, and his team for their open and constructive approach in reaching the Framework Agreement, which recognises that helping families affected by these troubles is a shared responsibility.

And that is why the joint framework contains specific and unprecedented commitments by the Irish Government to facilitate the fullest possible cooperation of the Irish authorities with a Reformed Legacy Commission, establish a dedicated unit within an Garda within the Garda to deal with troubles related cases, including all the outstanding cases in Ireland, and make a contribution of 25 million to help legacy mechanisms. This is, of course, in addition to the £250 million already committed by the UK government and where required, legislation will be introduced by the Irish government to implement these commitments.

We are also establishing, with the Irish government, an independent Commission on information Retrieval, initially on a pilot basis, to provide families with an additional means of getting information. Mr. Speaker, 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 everybody everything they want.

There will be elements of our approach that some people will welcome and others will not. I also recognise because of what has gone before, there is a great lack of trust in all of us in this House on the part of victims and survivors. That is unfortunately the reality. But it is not. And it has never been an argument for not trying to find.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A way forward. And I hope that those who want to see a fair and effective approach to see a fair and effective approach to legacy, which can command greater support in Northern Ireland, will recognise that these measures recognise that these measures represent fundamental reform and will therefore be given a chance to succeed. Time waits for no one. 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 ultimately will be the judge of whether these new arrangements can give them the answers that they have sought for so long.

And I hope that sought for so long. And I hope that we will together be able to grasp this opportunity and so help the people of Northern Ireland to look people of Northern Ireland to look to a future free of the burden of the past. I commend this statement
19:31
Lord Caine Portrait Lord Caine (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the House. That, my Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Baroness, the Minister, for repeating the. Secretary of State's statement. At the outset. It is right that in approaching this issue, first.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in approaching this issue, first. And foremost, and our thoughts are the. Victims and. Survivors of. The troubles.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The troubles. Over 3500 lives lost. Tens of thousands more maimed. And injured families, broken communities.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities. And livelihoods. Destroyed overwhelmingly at the hands of. Terrorists right here in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the statement acknowledges. And I welcome this. Of the more than. 250,000 people who served during

**** Possible New Speaker ****

250,000 people who served during Operation Banner. The vast majority did so with the utmost courage, total professionalism, even handedness and restraint in the face of often the most fierce

**** Possible New Speaker ****

provocation. Without their efforts, there. Would have been no peace process and no Belfast Agreement, and all of and no Belfast Agreement, and all of us 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. My that debt, they sadly fall short. My Lords, I do not need reminding at all how difficult, sensitive and all how difficult, sensitive and emotional these matters are.

Finding consensus. Often even within 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 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 providing protections to those who served. While acknowledging the legal challenges the current government could have pursued the appeals that we had lodged.

Instead, it took the political decision to abandon them. And today, however much they seek to address 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, the statement omits to mention whether they apply to former paramilitaries, presumably a drafting oversight by the Northern Ireland Office. In September, when asked to clarify if the protections were for everybody who came forward, including paramilitaries. The Prime Minister said, quote, no, it's for veterans, unquote.

But we know that this is not the case. So will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister was wrong and that five out 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, and will the resumed inquests include Loch Gall, where the SAS prevented a murderous IRA attack on a police station in 1987, and of those referred to the Solicitor General, the 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 on Civil Cases at the point at which they were stopped. There were over 700 that had been lodged with the with the courts in Belfast. Can the Minister, therefore tell us what additional resource will be provided to the Court service to deal with this backlog and the inevitable new wave of cases, presumably mostly directed against the states, that their proposals will unleash? And do they intend to provide extra support to the PSNI for the additional burdens placed upon them by reopening inquests 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 that 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 cooperation means in practice, when the same words exactly 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 isn't it a fact that the only consensus they have achieved is with an Irish government that holds a threat over them, that it will not drop this case until it is satisfied by legislation passed in this United Kingdom Parliament relating to a part of our own country.

I look forward to the noble Baronesses, the Minister's detailed replies, and if she is unable to give us the detail needed at the despatch box today, I appreciate she has quite a long day. Will she commit to write to me?
19:37
Baroness Suttie Portrait Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House of. Commons last week. Dealing with the past by Lords is a highly complex subject, which inevitably provokes strong emotions. When the Good Friday Belfast Agreement was Good Friday Belfast Agreement was signed 27. Years ago. It was not surprising, but is, I believe, highly regrettable, that legacy issues were left for the most part unresolved at that time. Time may unresolved at that time. Time may have passed, but the pain and anger felt by so many victims.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Survivors and their families. Remain so very real and deeply painful. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. In the. Nearly ten years I have been covering Northern Ireland from these. Benches. I would observe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would observe. That it is. Relatively easy. To criticise the government of the. with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with. Legacy issues, but it is rather harder to come up with concrete harder to come up with concrete proposals once in government. It is extremely difficult to have extremely difficult to have proposals, as the. Statement says, that are acceptable to all. But it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that are acceptable to all. But it has to be a question of fairness, balance and proportionality. But most of all, we need an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But most of all, we need an approach which helps to rebuild. Trust in the process.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Through transparent institutions capable of delivering reconciliation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

capable of delivering reconciliation based on truth. Justice and closure. I do not doubt. My Lords. The. Sincerity with which Lord Kane,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sincerity with which Lord Kane, with all his experience, is criticising many of the government's revised legacy proposals and has revised legacy proposals and has asked so many questions. But we should nonetheless. My Lords, recall

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should nonetheless. My Lords, recall that the previous Legacy Act from the previous Conservative. Government was almost. Unique.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unique. In recent times in its achievement of uniting all Northern Ireland political parties as well as Ireland political parties as well as the victims. Groups against it. It was also challenged in the courts, was also challenged in the courts, who proved not to be compliant with our international human rights

**** Possible New Speaker ****

obligations and was unworkable in practice. And so it is. And so the current government was. Duty bound.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Duty bound. To. Reverse many of the elements in that act, and. Notably. The section.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The section. On immunity. So I welcome. The government is once again attempting to square the circle. And move us forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And move us forward. On dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. In particular, I welcome the commitment. To.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. Ensuring that the. Legislation is Echr compliant. In that regard.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can the Minister confirm. That she now expects the inter-state case against the UK by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inter-state case against the UK by the Republic of Ireland to be dropped once. This legislation has been passed,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I sincerely hope even sooner. We will have lots of time to examine this bill in great detail.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

examine this bill in great detail. During its passage through your government. On how many of. Its proposals will work in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Its proposals will work in practice. But since the bill's publication last week, it is clear that the greatest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Area of concern. Has been that regarding the rights of veterans. As my colleague Al Pinkerton MP.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has. So rightly put it, veterans need to feel that the process of prosecution does not become Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady. Of. The Minister is an honorary. Captain in the Royal Navy. And she cares very. Deeply about these issues.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deeply about these issues. But can she confirm that she personally has been consulting with veterans groups? And will she say a veterans groups? And will she say a little more about how veterans will be protected from vexatious cases be protected from vexatious cases following this legislation? I understand from the discussions in the House of Commons last week that 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, my Lords, from these benches, we look forward to engaging constructively with the government on this Bill and to finding ways to ensure that the Bill keeps victims right at the heart of this process while ensuring fairness and proportionality for veterans.
19:41
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm going to have a lots of bits of paper in front of me, so bear with me, please. I need me, so bear with me, please. I need to start by putting on record my genuine thanks both to the noble Lord O'Kane for everything he did, Lord O'Kane for everything he did, and his previous government attempted to do, some of which I agreed with, some of which I do not, agreed with, some of which I do not, all of which we are using as either a basis to try and fix the things that simply aren't working.

And so that simply aren't working. And so to make sure that cross-community and cross-community faith is hard in and cross-community faith is hard in the Legacy Commission, and also 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 his commitment to peace in Northern Ireland, nor that of his frontbench within your Lordships' frontbench within your Lordships' House. And the same goes for the noble Baroness of Lady Casey.

I am noble Baroness of Lady Casey. I am beyond grateful for the time that they give me both out, both in this chamber, but outside this chamber, to try and make sure that we can actually deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, both the people of Northern Ireland, but also the Northern Ireland, but also the people who were touched by the troubles and still don't have answers. And I'm noble Lords. There answers. And I'm noble Lords. There is a reason why we are bringing forward this legislation.

We are bringing forward this legislation not because noble Lords will be aware. We will be sitting here till quite late again this evening, not because there is nothing for your lordships to discuss or to do at the moment, 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.

My Lords, there are victims waiting for answers. Those victims include the families of veterans who lost their lives and paid the ultimate sacrifice during or banner when they ran towards, when they ran to put themselves between terrorists and the general public. And they are also the people who suffered hands of horror at 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.

My Lords, there are many questions that were asked,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

especially by noble Lord O'Kane. If I have if I miss any, which is inevitable, I will write to. The noble Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord. But I think it's fair to say we will be discussing these issues for many hours in your Lordships' House. So inevitably I will cover all of them, whether it's today or not, but I will. I do commit to write to all I will. I do commit to write to all members present. If there is anything I have missed. My Lords, before I touch on the issue of before I touch on the issue of veterans, of which I have a significant amount to say.

Unsurprisingly, I do have to put on Unsurprisingly, I do have to put on record my personal, my personal. Role as a honorary captain in the Role as a 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 these issues. The noble Lady is absolutely right is something I take very, very is something I take very, very seriously. And I've engaged very personally with veterans both at home and in Northern Ireland on my home and in Northern Ireland on my visits, including when I visited Omagh in August to mark the anniversary of the bombing, and met anniversary of the bombing, and met with an extraordinary group of men.

And I subsequently have met some of And I subsequently have met some of the women who also were present on that day, who every day have to deal with the consequences of what they with the consequences of what they saw and of dealing with. I think 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, and I lose. There are people who are still suffering every day because of their experiences in Northern Ireland.

With regards to the protections available to veterans, I want to be really clear to noble Lords, as I will throughout this process. My Lords, we have listened to the veterans community. The reality is immune that he was a false promise and did not deliver for them. It has never been enacted and we have to make sure that actually they receive the prompt, they receive not false promises. They deserve so much better. They actually have protections in place, and there will be, without doubt, a huge amount of contention about this.

I think it is very important to reference the fact that that is the reality of where we currently stand in terms of the projections. Noble Lords absolutely right that some of the protections we are announcing apply to more than just veterans, because they have to they also have to imply to other people, other groups that serve, 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.

So the protections, while they may apply to others, were designed specifically to help veterans. Those protections are protection from repeated investigations. The Legacy Commission will not needlessly duplicate previous investigative work. Veterans may have already participated in, unless it is necessary, and 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, that they may well have been under 20, and they were having to give an overview at that 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. My Lords, at the weekend I listened once again to the podcast of 50 years on from Bloody Sunday.

My Lords, it's 50 years on. In fact, now it is 53. We are talking about people who need protection in old age. The 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. Protections from cold calling or unexpected letters veterans will only be contacted through official channels with Ministry of Defence support. I think this is an incredibly important thing because it will also ensure that no veterans will slip through the net and end up getting contacted by accident.

But the message in terms of the specific name raised by the noble Lady, the Mod will also make an independent expert advisor available to remove the need for veterans to give testimony or historical context in the operations. But in addition to that, every time they contacted, we can make sure that the bespoke support that is needed for that veteran can be provided by the Mod. And my noble friend, the Minister for and the Minister for the Mod has been clear in making sure that that is in place and I thank him for it.

The other thing that I think it is incredibly important is that 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 one from a service background. My Lords, it's incredibly important that including through the operation of the Legacy Commission, those voices are heard. Moving on to some of the other issues that were raised, there are nine inquests that will restart the additional.

Time. There's a bit, there's nine that I will immediately restart. The others will be assessed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by the Solicitor General as one of the law officers. And yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And yeah. And that there will be up to 24 and she will be analysing that each case based on the. Relevant sensitive issue. And then there will always be a presumption in favour of referring that case to the Commission. She will also be Commission. She will also be undertaken the assessment of the capacity to undertake the reinstatement of the inquest. So reinstatement of the inquest. So she'll provide, within 18 months of the act gaining Royal Assent. What will happen to the additional cases will happen to the additional cases that are outstanding in terms of funding for the PSNI? A very topical funding for the PSNI? A very topical question today.

My Lords, we have committed to £250 million. I will committed to £250 million. I will revert in in due course to additional funding if required. Obviously there will always be Obviously there will always be ongoing conversations on the capacity of the Moj. I will be in capacity of the Moj. I will be in contact. I will write to the noble Lord on that question. In terms of the court service and what protections they will, what additional support are we putting in place for law? I, I don't recognise place for law? I, I don't recognise the number.

And with regards to Gerry Adams, which obviously is at heart of some of is at the heart of some of this conversation. My Lords, there are several outstanding cases about the issues that this is about. What we are bringing forward in the legislation is a reinstatement of the Cole Turner principle in the context of the interim custody orders. The previous government's attempt to address this following the 2020 Supreme Court judgement in Adams, has been found by the Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our international obligations, and 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 Court and Northern Ireland courts to be incompatible with our international obligations. That is why we are including it in primary legislation, and I look forward to debating that in due course, with or unable Lords, I realise that I am speaking over, but just in terms of AML, which I know. And so two points, my Lords, if you'll indulge me slightly with regards to the inter-state case, and I thank the noble Lord and pain and the noble Baroness for raising it and the reality is, we would expect, I would expect that as soon as this legislation pass gains Royal Assent, there is absolutely zero grounds for the continuation of the in state case, and I look forward to it disappearing at that point, if not before.

And in terms of ehm, my daughter, I've been twice to Omagh this year. I've met with the people giving evidence to the public inquiry and I've met with others. We are quite clear on the issue of Omagh. I welcome the MoU that has been signed by the Irish Government to the inquiry to give to bring forward more evidence. I hope that we will see.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Genuine. Efforts, but I want to be really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Efforts, but I want to be really clear, there is currently a public inquiry underway and I think it would do anything to undermine that public inquiry while they are still trying to get to the facts of the case, does not help us. I welcome case, does not help us. I welcome the work. I am thankful to Lord Turnbull for the work he is doing, and I am sure that as the Irish and I am sure that as the Irish Government have committed through the MOU to working forward, I'm really pleased with that step and I really pleased with that step and I look forward to seeing the outcomes of it.

I realise I may not have touched on all points, but I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

touched on all points, but I will write to noble Lords about the issues I've missed. My Lord and. I. Thank the Minister for making

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this statement on I to join. Paid tribute to all the victims and survivors and their families. Who have suffered so much over many, many.
19:53
Lord Dodds of Duncairn Portrait Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

many, many. Decades of the troubles and it. Will Minister. Will be aware that there was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will be aware that there was great annoyance at the fact that this original statement was made and the other place was in recess. It the other place was in recess. It was made on the very final day of this House setting, and in contrary to promises and pledges that were made to all the parties. And I think that's something that the government should apologise for to parliamentarians in both houses. But I also make the point to your lordships that it's important in this process that we take this legislation through, that there can be no conflation with innocent victims as opposed to the perpetrators of violence, with no conflation with the security forces of Northern Ireland, including the army, the UDR and the police and terrorists on, on, on whatever hue they come from.

And there can be no conflation of those of us who advocate on behalf of the victims of terrorism and violence, and those like Sinn Fein, who are advocating on behalf of terrorists against the security forces. And these basic principles must be re-emphasised if we're going to give confidence to those who have suffered so much at the hands of criminals and gangsters, will the noble Baroness commit the government here and in the other place to talk to the victims throughout this process, to the to the veterans, to hear from them, what they think of this legislation, because so far it appears that the only agreement that there's been, the only consultation there's been has been with the Dublin government.
19:54
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord not just for his comments, but also for all the work that he has done both as a leader in his community, a genuine leader in his community. There are still times when I call the noble Lord and I cannot believe that his name is in my phone. I am grateful for everything, both that he has given me. And you're absolutely right. I need to apologise for the fact that we could not do this because of the timings of the international agreement, and that's what the framework was.

It was an international agreement. The timing noble Lords is very aware the timing was not of my choice and I apologise to him and I apologise to your Lordships' House that has taken us this amount of time to get here. And I also want to make it clear the reason why we're here today is because also Northern Ireland business should never happen on a Thursday. So that normal so that noble Lords can actively participate. My Lords, there are noble Lord touches on a very, very important point about the victims of terrorism.

There have been many people that have made it clear, including Ben Wallace, whose quote I debated using, but my Lord Ben Wallace, when he was Defence Secretary, 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 is why we are better than the terrorists. My Lords, I will. I am very clear on our responsibilities, both 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.

We stand here today. There is not a day in the calendar where someone was not murdered in the troubles. And we stand here today when there are people who will be grieving and remembering what happened to their loved ones. And the one thing I would like to offer to all noble Earls Lord Turner in Northern Ireland my Lords we talk to victims groups all the time, we talk to the NIO, but all of us talk to victims groups on a regular basis. My Lords, I will be in Northern Ireland on a number of occasions before this legislation comes forward, but definitely between now and Christmas.

And if there are people that the noble Lord would like to sit down with, and that offer goes to all members of your Lordships' House who live in Northern Ireland, there are people you want me to meet, so I can talk

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to them about both their experiences and what they need from this legislation. Then my time is yours. My Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. I welcome. The statement that my. Noble friends just made, and
19:57
Lord Hain Portrait Lord Hain (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble friends just made, and indeed that made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and also the primary legislation that is being introduced by the government. The previous Legacy Act was never going to be sustainable, and I never thought that the noble Lord Kane, who was very open to discussion and I thank him for that on that act, I never thought he was a 300% advocate for it, if I could put it that way. And the immunity provisions in it were opposed by every victims group and every political party.

So it's good that that's being repealed. Can I ask you two specific points? One, on the Legacy Commission, there's a welcome reference in the statement to learning from Operation Clover. And I'd just like some clarification about that, because that operates into criminal justice standards, which meant that you could in principle refer the cases, although it's very difficult given the longevity involved with many, many decades and the difficulty in finding sustainable evidence, you could refer them for prosecution. Can I just check that that what that means that learning from Operation Clover and specifically also on the commission, the Commission didn't has not enjoyed support on a cross-community basis from the different victims groups or indeed the power seats.

What does the code directors, the appointment of co-directors for investigations mean? Is that designed to give it some kind of independent authority and oversight? I would welcome it if that were the case, because I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that would enhance its credibility. So I thank my Noble friends for these questions. On today's work. these questions. On today's work. When he was Northern Ireland Secretary and his role in working with victims groups including wave, with victims groups including wave, which he has a long standing relationship with, he's absolutely right about immunity, which was right about immunity, which was opposed by everyone, which is one of the reasons and which is one of the reasons why it was in our manifesto reasons why it was in our manifesto and we are delivering on our manifesto commitment with regard to the Legacy Commission, my Lords, criminal investigation standard is criminal investigation standard is what we expect from the Legacy Commission building on Operation Clover.

The other learning that we Clover. The other learning that we take from Operation Clover is also take from Operation Clover is also that voices will be heard within the commission that doesn't currently exist. So there will be victims exist. So there will be victims voices. I talked about veterans voices being heard. There will be also other people affected by the also other people affected by the veterans, who we will hope will guide the work of the Legacy Commission going forward. And with Commission going forward.

And with regards to the co-directors for investigation, we're also bringing forward a new governance structure to make sure that there are clear to make sure that there are clear reporting lines, that there is clear accountability of the Legacy Commission and the co-directors. Commission and the co-directors. There will be two roles. One is someone who has expertise and a history of investigations in Northern Ireland, and another co-director who does not have experience of investigations in Northern Ireland, but does have experience of investigations so that we can make sure that if there is a perceived conflict of interest that that is answered.

And I hope that that will go some way in giving reassurance to people who should really be accessing the legacy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commission for help. Lord Black of Brentwood may I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Black of Brentwood may I. Ask just. One specific question in relation to the proposal in paragraph. Six of. The joint.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paragraph. Six of. The joint. Framework to. Replace the. Existing Commissioner. For investigations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For investigations. By two co-directors for investigations, one of whom must have. Experience outside.
20:01
20:01
20:01
20:02
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
My Lord. I think one of the things that is most important about the additional powers we're 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. Obviously, we are talking about some issues which relate to national security, and there will be other and there will be some responsibilities for the Secretary of State, all of which are outlined in the legislation.

But we are putting in an independent governance structure where we can make it very clear about who is responsible for what, when, and that people have confidence that this is independent of the British state where necessary. In terms of a victim centres process. My Lords, let's remember why we are doing this. This is about victims. This is about their families. This is about people. Candidly, this is not about most of us in this in your Lordships' House. There are notable exceptions to that.

But this is about making sure that everyone has the answers that they need. And many every family I've talked to needs a different set of answers about and is looking for different things from the commission. We need to make sure that what they need and what they want is at the heart of it. In terms of ongoing engagement, of course we will. Legislation has now started in the other place and will come to us, for all political parties will be engaged both inside and outside your lordship, outside the chamber.

But and we will continue to engage

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actively with all victims groups. My Lord, the Lord said I, could. I speak. As a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As a. Victim of IRA terrorism, and as I stand again, yet again, to speak on legacy matters, I feel that trauma
20:04
Baroness O'Loan Portrait Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

legacy matters, I feel that trauma rising in me. I feel my heart beating and the distress. And I. Think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think. For those who are outside this House and those indeed inside the House, we've. Suffered. It's always traumatic when we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's always traumatic when we have to get to these things. But I do. Welcome the government's proposed legislation. I haven't had proposed legislation. I haven't had time to consider it in detail. I want to make just two points. One is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That whilst I have having had. Members of my family who served in the military in Northern Ireland, I understand the position with regard to veterans, but it will be profoundly important and I hope the Minister can assure me that veterans, former members of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

veterans, former members of the PSNI, for example, in serving members. Indeed of the PSNI, if. There. Are. Any, from that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Any, from that. Era, and. Ordinary people in Northern Ireland will all receive the same treatment under the rule of law, and that there will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

law, and that there will. Be no special. Treatment for veterans. For example, many people. Who suffered. In the trauma.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the trauma. Of the troubles left Northern Ireland. They presumably.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ireland. They presumably. Will be afforded the same right to give evidence, to be interviewed at a distance as those. Veterans who.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Veterans who. Are not in Northern Ireland. I think it. Is profoundly important that happens because, my Lords, there was happens because, my Lords, there was no trust in the legacy, no no troubles Act, and it is vital that troubles Act, and it is vital that we get this right and that we do allow people to have trust in it. And the second thing I have to say And the second thing I have to say to the minister is, despite 250 million being allocated, it is going to be vital that not just that the to be vital that not just that the support for the PSNI and this, our Public Prosecution Service and our Court Service are both broken.

Cases take far too long to get to court. They don't seem to be the lawyers to operate, to move things on smoothly. So there needs to be a real thought about how we underpin the processes that we are going to set underway. And I ask the Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assurances that there will be wider consideration that. You hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You hear. I thank the noble Baroness for her comments, and she reminds all of her comments, and she reminds all of us about the personal cost that many people in your Lordships' House have paid. And across Parliament she will paid. And across Parliament she will say, and this is the reason why I am so passionate about what we're trying to achieve, making sure that 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 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. My themselves the Peace Babies. My Lords, it's incredibly important we hold on to the Peace Babies, and they don't have to carry the burden they don't have to carry the burden of this trauma. With regards to the specifics, noble Ladies is specifics, noble Ladies is absolutely right. The Veterans Commissioners of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales said in July that this is not a call from immunity this is not a call from immunity from the law, but for fairness under it.

My Lords, that should apply to everybody. Everyone should receive the same treatment under the rule of the same treatment under the rule of law, and protections will apply to all victims. But I want to be very clear to noble Lords that this legislation was drafted with a view to what was specifically impacting to what was specifically impacting veterans, too. And while other people will benefit from them, we did start with that process. In terms of the court system, she makes a very, very valid point, which was also raised by the noble Lord Lord Kane.

My hope and expectation is that most people would seek to use the Legacy Commission. That is why we are reviewing it. That's why we're strengthening the commission, its governance, and also hopefully giving more people confidence in it so that it won't overburden the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

courts, but will revert on the other points that she made. And then they were. All made. So, my Lords. I think, may I compliment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think, may I compliment. The minister, the new minister, on her, her. Feeling, her deep feeling about.
20:08
Lord Robathan Portrait Lord Robathan (Conservative)
-
-
I said, I just want to comment a few comments on the on the on the 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 to prison. But mostly people were doing their duty, and we need to remember that the whole time. On the other hand, we have IRA terrorists such as Gerry Malone, Gerry Malone on the IRA Council, not chairman and Gerry Adams on the IRA Council, who almost certainly was responsible for the murder of Jean McConville.

I can't mention any other cases. My Lords, the minister I know would expect with me to remember people like Andrew French, a friend of mine, Simon, were friends of mine, murdered by terrorists. I don't think anybody's ever been caught for their detail. So I'd say to them, noble Lady, please remember that soldiers went there to do their duty. They may not always got it right, but that's why they were there, sent by people sitting on these benches. Second, please make sure that no murdering terrorists like Gerry Adams get money from the state having murdered many members of the state and indeed the people in Northern Ireland.

And third, could I say if there's a problem

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the law, change the law. My Lords, I'd. Start with the final points. We are changing the law, and that's are changing the law, and that's what we'll be spending a lot of time in. Your which includes for the re-establishment of the town principle to make sure that the principle which many members of your principle which many members of your Lordships House used, several of you were you were Northern Ireland ministers use while Northern Ireland ministers use while Northern Ireland ministers and believed that you were acting in good faith.

We are making sure that that principle exists in sure that that principle exists in law and is retrospectively applied. I want to thank the noble Lord for I want to thank the noble Lord for his service and for everyone that served. We sent many, many young men to Northern Ireland. Many had many things to keep us safe. That was extraordinary and I thank them for extraordinary and I thank them for doing their duty. And one of the things that I want to make clear is that veterans families, including that veterans families, including the families of the veterans that he named, they need answers to, and I hope that they will seek to go to the Legacy Commission to make sure that they get answers.

It's why we will want to make sure that veterans voices and the family are the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

voices and the family are the victims. Families are heard, and our centre of the commission. Lord, I know. I have to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have to. Say the Belfast Agreement has been held up and really high esteem here, but I do ask the question, why is 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 you need agreement from them now to take this forward? It is nonsensical. They have done nothing nonsensical. They have done nothing during the years to support a the people of Northern Ireland.

Against terrorism. In fact, on some terrorism. In fact, on some occasions they have facilitated facilitated terrorism in Northern Ireland, which is an absolute shame. Ireland, which is an absolute shame. I quote your own words and noble Baroness Minister, we are better Baroness Minister, we are better than the terrorists. It doesn't appear that way. If you're going to give new inquests to the terrorists of Loughgall who tried to murder and maim everybody and not and not maim everybody and not and not station absolutely terrible and ridiculous, we're not starting off from the same basis at all.

There is from the same basis at all. There is not fair treatment simply because security forces hold all the information. Terrorists don't. information. Terrorists don't.
20:11
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Portrait Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
So finally, a minister would just ask.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Belfast Agreement? Have you set the Belfast Agreement aside. Just in the interests of trying

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to get some deal with the Irish Government? My Lords, the noble Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the noble Lords. Served with distinction for many years and I'm grateful for both the time he gives me, but also the work that he has done in Northern Ireland to deliver peace. My interpretation to deliver peace. My interpretation of and I say this as someone who's born in 1979. So for me, the Belfast Good Friday Agreement was something Good Friday Agreement was something I celebrate and welcomed and consider one of the most successful achievements of the last Labour achievements of the last Labour government.

My Lords, the reality is the Republic of Ireland are a co the Republic of Ireland are a co guarantor of the Belfast Agreement. They are sorry, but they are co They are sorry, but they are co guarantors of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. And that is one of the reasons why it's so incredibly important that we're working with them. The Irish. This is an unprecedented level of commitment from the Irish government about the from the Irish government about the troubles, and I am truly grateful that they have moved forward.

They have been clear that they will have been clear that they will facilitate the fullest possible cooperation of the relevant authorities with the Commission. 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 and my Lord. The two governments will, consistent with the stormy storm of the House agreement, which I know the noble Lords party was was not supportive of.

But it does show that the that. The Irish government has been party to this for many, many years. We will establish the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval in order to make sure that people get the evidence when they need it. I know that there are concerns and the proof will be in the pudding, but my Lords, working with the Irish to deliver answers for the people of Northern Ireland is incredibly important because, as I said consistently through this, this is all about answers for the people who are still waiting for information

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about what happened to their families. And it is they that are efforts. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords, we will have a very brief pause before next business to enable those members who wish to
20:14
20:15
None Portrait Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill – report stage (day 1) - part two
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

A. A report. On the Planning and infrastructure. Bill Bannon's Tailor of Stevenage.
20:15
20:15
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I recognise there's a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lot of business to get through tonight, so I will be brief. When whistle blowing was discussed at committee speakers around the House, except, sadly, the government. Seem to recognise that the current whistleblowing framework is unfit for purpose. It is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Framework that left whistleblowers on HS2 and Crossrail whistleblowers on HS2 and Crossrail at best sidelined and at worst silenced and persecuted. The cost to silenced and persecuted. The cost to the taxpayer because trouble was covered up and not nipped in the bud 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 transport and power projects, where problems are covered up and exposed. Too late.

Now at committee, as I've Too late. Now at committee, as I've done before, I propose a new whistleblowing framework, including whistleblowing framework, including an office of the whistleblower, Lord Grayling. That's in that debate, constructively suggested.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constructively suggested. That instead of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A separate office, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority minister. Could be. An effective body in which to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An effective body in which to place whistleblowing powers under the whistleblowing channel related to infrastructure. A Redraughted amendment, amendment 22, now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reflects that proposal. Of course, I still have a preference for a. Single. Office of the whistleblower under

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Office of the whistleblower under the Cabinet Office, but I am also a realist. Change on that scale will not be achieved any time soon. If, however, we launch a new drive infrastructure and all of us infrastructure and all of us recognise it's essential for growth if we launch that drive without fixing the whistleblowing framework, fixing the whistleblowing framework, then we are literally fooling ourselves when we expect not to repeat the scandals that we have seen historically. Cover ups will continue and seriously damage the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue and seriously damage the growth agenda. I hope the government now, with this. Revision.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Revision. Will respond much more constructively to the issue of whistleblowing and to the approach whistleblowing and to the approach that places the framework inside. Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Amendment proposed. After clause 12, insert the following new clauses

**** Possible New Speaker ****

12, insert the following new clauses printed on the marshalled list. Oh, it's. I rise very briefly with great pleasure to follow the
20:18
20:19
20:20
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
By my Lords Amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Infrastructure. And Service Transformation Authority, also known.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As Nesta, be given a new responsibility to. Receive. Assess, investigate, where appropriate and oversee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appropriate and oversee whistleblowing disclosures related to nationally significant infrastructure projects. This amendment also.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This amendment also. Seeks to ensure appropriate protection for whistleblowers and protection for whistleblowers and coordination and coordination with relevant regulators and planning authorities, and I'm grateful to the noble Lady for raising this very important issue. And I've listened carefully to her remarks. And while carefully to her remarks. And 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 current widespread concern within within this regime, as the noble Lady will note, there is already a well-established framework of prescribed persons and bodies to whom whistleblowers may turn independent of their employer, as independent of their employer, as provided for under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

These include Rights Act 1996. These include organisations covering areas such as environmental protection, health and safety, transport, utilities and safety, transport, utilities and local government, which are of direct relevance to Mrs. Harding. Mr. To this list also also duplicating existing functions already carried out by regulators such as the Environment Agency. Aware of the appropriate expertise and statutory powers. Given this existing framework, we believe that adding another body to the list would create a duplication of rules and in any event, would not require primary legislation to achieve as new persons or bodies can already be prescribed through section 43 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

In light of this, I respectfully invite the noble Lady to withdraw amendment. the.
20:22
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Government's response. major project and there is a major scandal, they will really have to take ownership of it and basically say that they looked at the framework which delivered us the problems on HS2 shall be very I mean, the names are now public. Doug Thornton and others who reported

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that financials had been. Distorted, that misrepresented and covered up that so, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and covered up that so, which delayed a whole series of appropriate decisions. On HS2 and in. The end were fundamental in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The end were fundamental in requiring. The truncation of what had been a much larger scheme, had been a much larger scheme, Crossrail, a very similar example, until something like eight weeks before it was due to open. Nobody in political decision making knew that the project had fallen into very deep trouble, that it ended up being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deep trouble, that it ended up being delayed by, I think, what, four. Years and. By a £4 billion, £4 billion over budget. And this. Is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is. Repeated again and again. We've had similar problems in Hinkley Point and in many other projects. And that is what the current And that is what the current framework that the minister defends actually delivers. Now, that network

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually delivers. Now, that network experience. If even if it's only.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If even if it's only. In 10% of the projects that are anticipated that for future, for the anticipated that for future, for the future and which will be relevant to the sort of growth agenda that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the sort of growth agenda that the consequences will be significant. The whole point. Is the existing. Framework, no matter what it says

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Framework, no matter what it says on paper, has demonstrated it is unfit. Look at. The post. Office scandal. Contaminated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Blood, the. Issues in the NHS, the PPI. Scandal, a. Whole.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whole. Series of financial scandals. It doesn't work. And I do ask the minister to take that issue away, to minister to take that issue away, to talk with some of his colleagues and see what can be done to make sure that, at least within the context.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of. Infrastructure. There is. An effective channel that actually works and provides both.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Protection for. Whistleblowers in a. Real way, not just on paper, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

also leads to the necessary. Investigations. But given that I will withdraw. My amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My amendment. As we go. Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is
20:24
Viscount Hanworth Portrait Viscount Hanworth (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 23 Viscount Hanworth. My Lords, I'm pleased to rise to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm pleased to rise to move amendment 23 in my name, which I believe to be one of fundamental I believe to be one of fundamental importance. A similar amendment, which was number 52, was moved on day one of the committee stage on the 17th of July by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I spoke in support of it. The amendment was not supported universally in the House, and has since been modified to take account of the advice of officials to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and indeed of Lord banner.

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 a 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 projects.

The effects 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 is delayed by over four years, by two sets of judicial reviews relating to two separate development orders or AES. A similar delay was caused to Manston Airport, which has reopened recently. There were two sets of judicial reviews, necessitating two development consent orders. There was a delay of almost four years in 2020, a judicial review affecting the airport's national security policy 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 this bill are very modest, and they will make little difference because they only relate to the prior permission state stage for judicial reviews and 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 forms to address the problem are under consideration.

Meanwhile, judicial reviews continue to arrive. Last week, ten 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 the judicial review will be initiated soon. The present amendment provides an acceptable alternative to judicial reviews of national 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 two 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 three A, which declares how this system of parliamentary confirmation of these national important ECAs would operate. In practice, the schedule provides for a process of petitioning petitioning against the bill largely in relation to matters not already considered by the examination process for VCO and by the subsequent 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 require a little modification of the ratio, for example, because of project design changes, then the amendment allows for the DCO to be changed in accordance with the procedures set out in schedule six of the Planning Act of 2008.

As proposed to be amended by clause 11 of this bill. My Lords, the revised amendment carefully reflects the points that were made in committee. Lord Barna 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. The start of the amendment. There is now an explicit link to the relevant National Policy statement. The parliamentary procedure would only be open to those who set out in a in the National open to those projects set out in the National Policy Statement as being of critical national priority.

The revised amendment accepts that that the parliamentary procedure should be resorted to only if the application for the DCO or the applicant, rather 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. Lord Warner was also concerned that the objections of those facing compulsory acquisition through the Development of Consent order should have an explicit right to be heard by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, and such a right is now accorded in the revised wording of schedule three a there was a concern that the amendment raised complex constitutional questions about the balance between Parliament and the judiciary, and this procedure might 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, the Scotland R act of 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 4 and 8 months.

Other 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, and, as has been observed, such such processes can take several years. The parliamentary process proposed by the amendment includes a petitioning mechanism and a joint committee scrutiny, ensuring that the 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 of these provisions are included in the length of the schedule. This might still require some fine tuning, which could incorporate the advice of various parties, parliamentary draughtsmen and so on, and I observe ministers and their efficiency officials to consider this amendment in 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 one of the Bill. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore commend my amendment to the House. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 12 insert, the following new clause
20:32
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

was printed on the marshalled list. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. This is a significant clause which the noble Lord Viscount Hanworth spoke to in committee, Hanworth spoke to in committee, where he made broader remarks on the functionality of our planning system, and he has repeated them today. I recall the comments about the length of time it was taking to get a bypass around Stonehenge, and I recall my comment that it's going to take longer to build that bypass than Stone man took to build Stonehenge. So we.

Agree with the issue that he 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 that has taken. Now. The noble law proposes that each order determine an application to be a critical national priority, must be presented to Parliament as a full public bill.

Paragraph three 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. My Lords, 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we do understand the issues. Thank the noble Viscount for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the noble Viscount for his amendment. And amendment 23 builds on a previous amendment tabled at
20:34
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
on a previous amendment tabled at committee stage. This amendment proposes a process for projects designated by the Secretary of State as critical national priorities, where development consent orders would only come into force once approved through an Act of Parliament. This amendment seeks to bypass judicial review and insulate these projects from challenge and thereby speed of the building of infrastructure. Although the provision does not directly alter the judicial review process itself, it does use 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. I believe it is important to remind the House that this state is 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 can't support this amendment for a number of key reasons.

First, the proposed Ulster in New section 1181 ER would shield decisions from judicial review even where there are unlawful. For this reason, it is an approach which the courts have historically resisted, given this would be applied to some of the biggest and most controversial schemes, it is likely that challenges would be launched in respect of the confirmed DCO, thereby undermining the time savings sought in the first place. Secondly, it 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. And finally, there are serious practical impediments to this amendment. It would introduce a new truncated parliamentary procedure for applicants to undertake, after having complement 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. Besides more work and uncertainty for applicants, particularly detrimental for our largest projects at a time when clarity and efficiency are essential, we recognise that this amendment is driven by valid concerns, but lengthy legal challenges do delay projects and not costs.

We, however, believe the right approach to tackling this problem is still enabling legal challenge, but supporting the courts to handle them efficiently. Further trial commitment to implement the boundary view and limit the ability for meritless cases to return to the courts. The government has recently decided to go further. On the 15th of October, the government announced its intention to work with the judiciary to implement further procedural changes to ensure no cases are dealt with more quickly and consistently. The changes include introducing clear target timescales for any cases in the High Courts, aiming for a substantive hearing within four months of the application.

We are also making clear that that the uncapped 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 these major projects quicker, clearer and more predictable. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment and the tabling this amendment and the thoughtful debate it has prompted.
20:38
20:39
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
this bill and overall, is very much talking about giant scale projects, but very often we're going to find local solutions to local problems using local resources. And that's something in which you can be sure to have local consent after local democratic engagement. And having a local area energy plan is a way of ensuring we're not chasing after these enormous scale, large scale projects that so often go wrong, at least solely, but also having local alternatives, working at small scale that can be quite nimble and quite fast.

And I think that's what 46 does. But why amendment 24 is rather more limited, which is a very specific technical kind of amendment. Talking about how both the independent system operator and the planner should have regard to projects, renewable energy projects below ten megawatts in dealing to help them in dealing with the requirements for the application process of establishing a connection to the grid. Now, anyone who's who's spoken to, I think back over the years to small scale Hydro in Wales projects, I visited, I think, two solar farms in the south east of England.

Connections to the grid is what people just kept tearing their hair out about all of the time. And this is something that's a huge barrier that this aims to aims to provide a modest solution towards, to ensure that we're prioritising those small scale projects that have local consent, very often a community energy project, so they can go ahead. And I notes that your Lordships' House has actually collectively been a long term champion of community energy projects, wrestling with both the former government and this one eventually successfully, to get acknowledgement of the importance of community energy projects.

And it's something that we really, really have to make sure is on the face of this bill. So I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 17, page 23, line six. Insert the words as printed on the marshalled list.
20:41
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to move my amendment 46. In this group on local area energy plans. And I thank the noble Lord, Lord Raven's Dail for his support for it at Committee Lord Ravens, they 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've done here today, although we've done more than that, I have we have taken the time to reflect on the debate that happened, that committee.

And I realised that the amendment I moved them was too prescriptive. So I do 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, and it is aim to try and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move forward. Some progress on this, which is a really important issue and an really important issue and an important part of our energy transition. I want to also acknowledge all the things that this government is doing in this space, government is doing in this space, and I recognise that it is actually quite a crowded environment. We have quite a crowded environment. We have local plans, we have the regional energy strategic plans, we have to energy strategic plans, we have to warm home plans, we have heat networks own and we have local work networks own and we have local work also being undertaken by the newly established Great British Energy.

So established Great British Energy. So we recognise that this is a complex landscape and we recognise that. I guess one of the arguments from the government is that there's so much going on at the minute that this would only further complicate this would only further complicate this landscape and would not necessarily help. I want to push back against that just a little bit. I think this is a vital bottom line, and this is the missing piece in the jigsaw. And the missing piece in the jigsaw.

And I think that really to have a full systems view for our energy and for the energy transition is important the energy transition is important that we don't ignore or don't look specifically at this bottom tier. I look at it a bit like the parcel delivery problem. You know, it, it it is really important that we get energy to every door and we get the energy transition delivered to every single property. And my Lord, our local authorities know better. They best understand their areas.

They best know how to join things up locally. And it is really important that they're involved. And we develop these local area energy plans. So the government was also concerned about burdens on local authorities, and we're concerned about the descriptive nature of this amendment. So to be clear, what I've done is I've gone away. And this this amendment is, is very, very different. It calls on the government to conduct research. It gives a time frame for that to happen. And then based on those research findings that come back, the amendment simply calls on the government to use that research to formulate a policy and then to publicly speak whatever that policy happens to be based on that research.

So I'm not saying they have to implement local area energy plans. What I'm saying is that they should go away and do this research in 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. So I think this is really important. I think that by adopting this, we get as closer to the energy transition. I think. We get rid of energy and efficiency, I think will make the energy system more stable.

It's also important for local, for community energy, for tapping that in and making sure that we bring people with us and that they can benefit from the energy transition as well, and inherently makes our grids and our energy systems much more stable and robust to the challenges that they will face. So that is out of my amendment. I want to thank the minister and her officials, because we have had meetings since the holidays, and I am very, very appreciative of the time that we've had.

I think there's still a little bit of confusion from the government on what my amendment does. I want, I want to push for today. As for the government at least to pick up some of the research aspects of this amendment, and I would push that with with the Minister. And I hope that the government, I think the government is amenable and receptive to that. And I will leave that there. Just turning briefly, I want to speak to amendment 24. In the name of the noble Baroness Baroness Bennett of Miller Castle.

I absolutely support this amendment. It's a clever and it's a worthwhile idea. As the noble Baroness alluded to this, this House has a long tradition in supporting community and community energy. And community energy projects do really struggle to get the funding to compete against the large players to get their systems up and running. So this amendment about helping with the energy system operator is a clever and worthwhile one. And we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supported. It by 24 amendment. My Lords.
20:46
Lord Ravensdale Portrait Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I have just a few brief points to add to what the noble Earl Lord Lord add to what the noble Earl Lord Lord Russell stated. Well, not for me. This is all about just going back to the governance system. And of course, we've had progress in recent years and we've got the spatial Strategic Energy plan, which is being managed by Nisso. But we are hearing some feedback on that plan that effectively it's trying to my map out in minute detail what energy projects should be located where, right across the country, and there are a number of problems with that that have been highlighted by industry and trying to do this at that scale.

And it really highlights, I think we need that local knowledge flowing up into these, into these plans as well as the top down. We need the bottom up. We need to capture all of that great knowledge that local areas that local authorities have, because it just to take heat as an example, one area may be better suited to heat pumps, another maybe better suited to heat networks. One area may have relatively well insulated housing stock and other poorly insulated housing stock. We need to capture all of that and bring that into the energy transition.

It's a really important piece of the puzzle. If we are going to make this energy transition work and make it cost effective as well. Study by Ukri recently highlighted tens of billions of pounds in savings. If a place based approach is taken over a place agnostic approach. So it's really important that the government makes some progress on this. And, and, and I think we have had we just haven't seen the progress needed. We've had some really good pilots using this approach in various areas across the country.

But we do, I think, now need the government to get behind this as an approach and feed all of the benefits of that local knowledge to the energy transition. So I would welcome some reassurance from the minister, at least on some timescales, and how they see this programme developing in terms of reaching a decision on the role that local area energy plans are going to play in in the energy transition.
20:48
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Model.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Newcastle seeks to ensure small scale. Renewable energy. Projects are prioritised. By the. Independent systems.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Independent systems. Operator and. Planner. And as the noble Baroness knows, we on these benches Baroness knows, we on these benches are very concerned about energy prices and we want to see ministers taking a pragmatic approach to taking a pragmatic approach to delivering the energy. Infrastructure that we need. I know there is a particular interest in there is a particular interest in renewables, but we need to take a whole system approach, tackling.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Policy costs as well as the marginal costs of electricity. I would be interested, though, to. Hear from the noble Baroness. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Minister, what. Assessment the government. Has. Made of the current support for renewables at a smaller scale, and renewables at a smaller scale, and it would be helpful to the House to know what plans the government have know what plans the government have on smaller renewables. Turning to amendment 46, in the name of the noble Earl Lord Russell, while we noble Earl Lord Russell, while we feel this amendment is too prescriptive, it does. Raise an important question about planning important question about planning for our energy supply for the future.

Clearly, local needs should be taken into Kent into account, and be taken into Kent into account, and I do look forward to the noble
20:50
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness. The Minister's response. To me again. Can I first of all turn to amendment 24, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Bennett, which though are well intentioned, is not necessary to achieve the desired outcome of grid support with the grid connection process. A smaller renewable energy projects. This amendment seeks to require the independent system operator and planner to prioritise support for smaller renewable energy projects. When applying for a grid connection. I recognise the helpful attempt by the noble Baroness to support smaller renewable energy projects.

The government appreciates 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 and renewable energy. Along with the independent energy regulator Ofgem, government also recognises that more needs to be done to support small 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 services, following a consultation earlier this year, it expects to publish further details on next steps in the coming weeks.

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

My Lords, Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord Earl Russell and the noble Lord Lord Riversdale, 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, publish a report on its 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 this amendment moves the debate on from committee, from the committee stage, so that there is not an immediate burden placed on local authorities to produce a local area energy plan, nor is government required to immediately produce national guidance for local authorities on local area energy plans.

And this 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 underway, and the approach may constrain the way that the government continues 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 going forward with this group, who need to reflect on the role of local government on energy planning and net zero in the context of the Warm Homes Plan and the Great British Energy Local Power Plant, both due shortly.

The kind of research envisaged by this amendment is already underway. These have been commissioned by dozens 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. Plans that Ofgem and the national energy system operator, Nestle are producing. Ofgem and Miso are looking to consult on the approach and methodology later this year. They are also developing guidance and tools for local government to help them specify and procure high quality data to support energy planning, with output due by January 2026.

In conclusion, we do not believe the 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 we agree with the point made at the committee stage about the importance of including local understanding and delivering the bigger picture on energy planning. I hope I have been able to give some assurances that the government agrees that local involvement in energy planning is important, and that the kind of work this amendment envisages is already underway.

I must stress the need to review local area energy planning in the context of ongoing work and other policies and strategies as, as and when they are published, rather than to the timetable and in the way set out in the amendment. And preferably this should be in partnership with local government, reflecting the needs and approaches. I hope that the noble Lord Earl Russell on the noble Lord, Lord Riversdale, are satisfied with our response and will consider

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawing their amendment. My Lords, I thank the local Lord, the Minister, for his response and
20:55
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
the Minister, for his response and everyone who has taken part in this short but I think, terribly important debate. I was sitting here thinking of the volunteers who are undoubtedly at the moment are 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. And hopefully at least they are feeling a sense of a warm glow, that there has been strong expressions of support for the principle of what they're doing, which has been from around the House, including from the government benches.

Now, I know the minister said, essentially the drafting of my amendment is faulty and not quite correct. I'm, of course, very, very seldom, if ever, attached to the detail of the drafting. But the point I would make in response to what the noble Lord, the Minister says is said is that putting something on the face of the bill provides some sort of long term certainty and security. The noble Lord said, well, that there are regulations and the regulator is doing this.

But of course, we all know that what we need is long term security of planning in our energy system, and that's simply not being delivered. I'm just going to make one other comment, because there was a phrase used by the Woodlands Ravens Dale that I think was really important and deserves to be highlighted place based solutions. And so we need the right. We often talk about the right tree in the right place. We also need the right energy provision in the right place. And that's what I think particularly amendment 46 was seeking to achieve.

But I think we are where we are. The debate has been had. I still hope we might see some movement from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government somewhere down the track, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it Your Lordship? Supposedly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it Your Lordship? Supposedly the men would be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn.
20:58
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 25. Lord Fuller, it's my lords, I. When I made. This. 25. At the committee. Stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stage. The lamented. Lord calm. Went as far as. He could. At that point to open. The door to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The door to. Accepting the principle the elect Storage systems. Are planned. It is with the. Full knowledge.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is with the. Full knowledge. local. Fire authority. To. and. Mitigations are fully understood.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mitigations are fully understood. So I'm. Disappointed that the meeting to. Discuss this is scheduled. But after.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Completion of this. Report stage. So rather than agreeing my sensible, proportionate and that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. litigating. It on the floor of your lordships

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House and wholly avoidable. With additional. Time spent in. The. Division lobbies and my Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the grid. Is. Reinforced and the ability to stabilise and isolate the electricity supply from surges and electricity supply from surges and shocks is essential, and the number of long term and short term technologies exist to smooth the path of electricity from the generator to the consumer, and LDS facilities are part of that mix. These solid state devices are needed alongside rotational energy sources in the energy balance. Now, the people in the Iberian Peninsula to where I'm travelling when the House rises this evening, will attest to the consequences of failing to have network stabilisation in place.

A tiny 0.2Hz perturbation in the grid set in train, a chain reaction that brought down their entire grid, which required an unprecedented black start. That's what's at stake here. Now, some of these long term storage technologies contain highly flammable materials like lithium, but hydrogen storage could be another possibility. But I'm going to restrict my remarks to lithium for the purposes of proving the point. Now. Not a day. Excuse me now. Not a day goes by when a fire isn't caused by a lithium battery in a car, a refuse freighter when a block of flats.

But a scooter overheats. The issue is clear when a lithium battery catches fire, huge quantities of water are required to extinguish it. I won't remind you 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 unforgettable for longer, more so than had petrol and diesel been involved alone now. Lord Berkeley reminded us in committee about the ship the Felicity Ace, whose cargo contained 4000 electric vehicles, including Porsches, Audi, Lamborghinis and Bentleys, and which caught fire and sank off the Azores.

Lithium batteries in the electric vehicles on board kept that fire burning until the ship was consumed by the Atlantic Ocean. Now I can see some faces on the government benches who aren't really shedding a tear, but the prospect of the Lamborghini, some Bentley's ending up in Davy Jones's Locker. But the issue of fire does need to be taken seriously. This bill, as drafted, fails to do so. It glosses over the consequences of failures in the long and term short term energy storage, including large scale battery storage systems and their risks.

You don't need to be a bright spark to realise that an electrical spark can be dangerous when mixed with huge electric capacity. Flammable and oil rich transformers. Now, many of the proposed LDS and Bess schemes, battery electric storage system best schemes, in particular in the countryside where the exist existence of hydrogen hydrants is few and far between. Rivers and ponds may be far away across the fields or long 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 the towns proximity of other businesses, schools, homes and buildings adds a dimension of public safety to the mis mix. So when there's a fire, local residents are told by the fire brigade to keep inside close windows and doors, noting that when these fires occur, they can last for hours or days and produce toxic emissions. So there must also be consideration of a leakage of lithium, in particular to the underlying aquifer from the firefighters runoff. Now at committee it was said.

So this is a serious matter. But a committee it was said that don't worry, there's a national organisation, the HSC, which is the competent body to assess the risks of an installation catching fire. And that may well be the case and it may continue to be so, but that's only part of the story. Once an installation is burning, then all the warm words and soft soap from the HSC headquarters in Bootle, miles away, count for nothing. When you dial 999, it's not the HSC that turns up mob handed, it's the local fire brigade and the local planning authority, with possibly emergency tents.

And residents refuges. National bodies such as the HSC just don't have the staffing, the powers, the equipment or the local knowledge to pick up the pieces appropriately. When the deep seat fire gets out of control, or indeed to anticipate the local consequences. So that's 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's what my amendment seeks to achieve. And again, a committee and it was suggested that my amendment would place a new and unwelcome burden on the fire authority. My Lords, that suggestion was straw clutching from the minister, because it's those organisations that have pressed me to act then. This amendment provides the safeguards they need in the fulfilment of their statutory duty. So this amendment would enforce the duty for an applicant for an energy storage facility and the local fire authority to fully assess the risks, including for fire and public safety, and pay a reasonable fee to do so.

And everyone can be forewarned and forearmed. Why would any government wish to resist this? So if the government does.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposals, I beg to move. Amendment proposed. Clause 25, page 34, line 33.
21:04
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 34, line 33. At the end, insert the words as.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Printed on the marshal list. My Lords, I rise to respond to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to respond to this amendment in the name of for Lord the amendment 82. To my Lords, this amendment is very similar, as the noble Lord has noted to the one that he tabled at committee. At Committee, we welcome the debate on these topics. These are important topics. We take fire safety and the safety of large scale energy storage systems extremely seriously. And I know that the government does as well. However, we are not able to support this amendment because we feel that the systems in place presently are adequate and coherent.

And we do worry about the additional burden and problems associated with the amendment as it is proposed at the minute at committee, the government minister, de noble Lord Khan, says, and I quote, this government take fire safety extremely seriously, but we do not feel this amendment is necessary or proportionate, and it risks unintended consequences on those bent 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 for local authorities for risk assessment prior to installation.

So, as I said, when we absolutely share this, this, this general intent, the question is really are the question to this amendment is are these proposals necessary, proportionate, effective and overall do they do they do they bring about benefits or do they disproportionately create new unintended consequences for the roll out of our net zero energy infrastructure? So I want to be clear that these facilities are an emerging technology, but they are one with a very high safety standard.

Indeed, the noble Lord, as in committee, has put forward a number of examples about batteries catching fire. And I want to be clear that all the examples given relate to individual batteries. And in most cases, those kinds of fires relate to counterfeit or illegal imports. And actually those issues are subject to a Private Member's Bill by Lords resale, which hopefully he will be able to support. But as far as I'm aware, there's only ever been two fires of LDES large scale battery storage facilities in the UK ever.

So they have an extremely strong safety record. The least. They gave a coherent answer at committee,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

setting out that the robust safety systems in place already, and these include the Health and Safety. Executive.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Executive. Already regulates of battery energy storage systems sites with a energy storage systems sites with a comprehensive framework mandating design installers and operators to uphold the highest safety standards. Existing planning guidance also encourages developers to engage with encourages developers to engage with local fire and rescue services prior to submission of their planning applications, and to consider applications, and to consider guidance issued by the National Fire Chiefs Council. So engagement is already taking place. We already already taking place.

We already have other avenues as well. We have the health and safety at work to act. The general fire safety regulations, and we must ask whether these additional burdens are these additional burdens are bringing benefits. The Minister also noted in committee that this this noted in committee that this this would have an impact on the cap and floor system, making it far more floor system, making it far more complicated to implement. My Lords, there's also some issues with the definition of LDES.

So the amendment definition of LDES. So the amendment itself speaks about LDES operators. Now, not all LDS is equal, and not all of it needs to come under the scope of this amendment. If I'm running a large scale height hydro facility, these these requirements would not be necessary, helpful, and they would not bring about benefit. There's also a small drafting mistake in in the amendment, my Lords, based on this, we really feel that the systems in place now are adequate and sufficient.

And we feel that this amendment, on balance, would create more burdens than it would bring about benefits. But we mustn't be complacent on these matters. These these are really important. And I do want to ask the government frontbench one question, if I might, in relation to the comments of the noble Lord Carr and the then Minister in committee, and at the end of committee, in summing up, he said the government are considering additional measures to enhance the regulation of the environmental and safety risks of Beis.

Defra recently published a consultation on the proposed reforms to environmental permitting for industry, including the principles of including Beis in scope of the Environmental permitting regulations. This would give further safeguards for both people and the environment. So can I just take the opportunity that this amendment does present to kindly ask the Minister to reconfirm this commitment from the despatch box and to give further assurances in these matters, and perhaps using the word to go beyond considering and possibly some time frames for windows, further safety measures might possibly come forward.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK.
21:10
21:11
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lord. amendment and can I just start by apologising to him for the meeting date, which I understand is the 30th of October? He'll know from comments that have been made earlier. I've had a great number of meetings before report stage, so I can only assume that was a misunderstanding and apologise to him that wasn't held before we got to this report stage. I also just wanted to mention that he said over this side, we won't be shedding any tears about Lamborghinis going up.

He obviously does not understand my guilty pleasure for fast cars, but then I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do come from the same town as Lewis Hamilton, so I've got an excuse. For that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For that. So the noble Lords amendment seeks to require long duration electricity storage, elders, electricity storage, elders, operators to consult the local fire authorities to assess the project's fire risk before installation at fire risk before installation at committee stage, the noble Lord commented on the frequency and danger of lithium battery fires. As danger of lithium battery fires. As I mentioned in previous debates, and I thank the noble Earl Russell for the distinction that he made between individual battery fires and these large scale ones.

I do want to reassure the noble Lord the government takes issues relating to fire safety extremely seriously, however, and I know my Noble friend Lord Khan said the same, made the same reassurance that we do still same reassurance that we do still not feel that this amendment is proportionate or necessary, and indeed it could create unintended indeed it could create unintended risks for fire services. I understand the concerns are largely in relation to lithium ion in relation to lithium ion batteries.

Analysis from Denis suggests that fires at battery energy storage sites are rare. The latest available five year annual average fire incident rate for GP average fire incident rate for GP 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 elders developers to ensure their sites are safe regardless of what technology is 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 play in regulating storage assets. Developers and operators of these sites have the legal duty to manage risks, and government expects them to engage with local fire services when drawing up their emergency response plans. Defra will shortly conclude its industry consultation on the modernisation of environmental permitting for industry, which includes proposals to bring bears within the scope of the 2016 permitting regulations. If introduced, the 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. I would also comment that Des Nevers does not is actively engaging fire authorities and the battery storage industry on the whole issue of battery fire safety. In fact, Minister Shanks hosted a roundtable on battery safety today 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, and I hope that provides some reassurance to the noble Lord fellow and the noble Earl Russell. I hope the noble or fuller is satisfied with those reassurances

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and will agree to withdraw his amendment. My Lords, I came to this debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I came to this debate very keen to divide the House on this important matter. But during this important matter. But during the debate a number of issues have come to mind, not least the meeting come to mind, not least the meeting held today by the Minister, Minister
21:15
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
held today by the Minister, Minister Shanks and also the acceptance that we're still owed that meeting where we can do this. So I think Ron detained the House at this point with with a division. It would be I wonder whether the Minister and I might have an understanding that we keep the date in the diary and if not satisfied with the opportunity, comes to bring this back. Third Reading. But I do, before concluding, just want to explain that, you know, complacency can be easily mis held.

You know, it was we were complacent about the oil transfer field 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 just had to let it burn out. And these are really important issues. And just because, well, we've got down to 0.7% or whatever, I'm afraid isn't good enough because these things are multiplying. They're growing like topsy. And from the occasional installation, we now have them in urban areas, countryside areas, whatever they should be regulated and I do.

I am reassured that the Minister is going to consider this, and I just wonder if between now and the 30th, we might still distil some of that knowledge, and in so bring back a more important amendment, possibly divisible on when we get to Third Reading on this stage. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it. Your. Lordship's pleasure. This amendment be withdrawn? It is.
21:17
21:18
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
to the Halifax clause since I don't live in Halifax. Anyway. My Lords, I welcomed the move to the affirmative procedure, but I would remind the noble Baroness, the Minister Minister, that there are already. A 22,000 high voltage carrying pylons in this country, and over 250 of them are in Doncaster and over 700 in North Yorkshire, including in the North York National Park. Which leads me to the argument that I made at committee, which is if, as the government is minded, to provide compensation for those customers or residents and customers who live adjacent to new electrical, either transmitting or creating.

Energy, electrical energy, that that would be as the noble Baroness. The Minister confirmed at committee. And in a conversation we had during recess that that that payment, that compensation would be add burden added to every electrical electricity customer. And that doesn't seem right to me. Now, if those folk who are going to have new imposition of electrical infrastructure are to have compensation, surely it should be funded by that region, that electricity region, and not by those who have had, for instance, pylons for many decades and have had them because they knew it was in the national interest to do so.

So, I mean, I, I'm pleased that we going to the affirmative measure to in consideration of compensation because it will enable me to make arguments again in favour of not the Halifax amendment, let's call it the Huddersfield amendment. That's a bit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nearer home. I. I know I've made it is important.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know I've made it is important. It's a bit of fairness to me that those of us in the North and the Midlands should have a fair treatment, very north and should treatment, very north and should have a have a fair treatment as compared to those who are going to compared to those who are going to have the infrastructure for, for them now. And I'm sure that the them now. And I'm sure that the Minister will enjoy having that debate with me when we get to doing some sees.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

some sees. My Lords, I'm I rise to speak to Group 14, which concerns a matter of principle that cuts across this bill
21:21
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
principle that cuts across this bill the appropriate level of parliamentary oversight for far reaching executive powers. Section

**** Possible New Speaker ****

38 of the. Bill introduces a consumer benefit scheme to provide financial benefit scheme to provide financial compensation to those living near new or upgraded electricity new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. The principle. Behind this is entirely sound. It is right that communities sound. It is right that communities who host nationally significant infrastructure should share it in its benefits. My Lords, we support amendment 26 and 27. In the name of the noble Baroness, the Minister. the noble Baroness, the Minister.

Amendment 26 would ensure that all regulations under this section are regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure, not just those relating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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 suppliers. These are substantive decisions that should not be made without oversight of Parliament. without oversight of Parliament. Amendment 27 is a necessary. Consequential amendment to reflect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Consequential amendment to reflect reflect this change. Given the wide scope of delegated powers. In this clause.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is entirely appropriate that Parliament has a say in how much a significant scheme is developed and applied. Affirmative procedures. 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deliver the scheme and ensuring that Parliament plays its. Proper. Role, and we are pleased to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support them. And can I thank the noble
21:23
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Baronesses for speaking? Can I apologise to Baroness Pinnock for getting Halifax and Huddersfield mixed up? But Halifax or Huddersfield won't be getting their own clause in the bill either. But I move the amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question. Is. That. Amendments 26 and 27. Stand part of the bill, as many of that. Opinion say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Opinion say. Content the contrary. Not content. The contents. Have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. Clause 28, amendment 28. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name, which seeks to create powers to ensure that seismic ray systems are that seismic ray systems are protected in areas where windfarms are proposed to be built. Sorry, I'm are proposed to be built. Sorry, I'm on the wrong group. I've got ahead of myself. Who thought you would do of myself. Who thought you would do that at 9:30 at night? My apologies. Turned over too many pages there Turned over too many pages there with me.

In fact, I'm amending with me. In fact, I'm amending clause 28, which amends the Forestry Act 1967 to enable the development of renewable electricity projects in of renewable electricity projects in the public forest estate. The clause is currently drafted applies to both England and Wales. The government England and Wales. The government has tabled these amendments to remove references to the National Resources Body for Wales and Welsh Resources Body for Wales and Welsh ministers from the clause, and I did refer at the start of today's proceedings to some amendments which were there to respond to 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 only apply to the Forestry Commission. I will turn now to 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 to first obtain her consent.

The purpose of the Secretary of State's power is to ensure ministers are sited on projects above a certain size, and can assess the use of the land appropriately. In their 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 is therefore proposing amendments 36, 37 and 40, which will amend the clause to clarify that consent may only be required for projects exceeding specific capacity thresholds.

The capacity thresholds are set at five megawatts for wind and 50MW for other sources, and are now laid out explicitly in new section three B of the bill. Section three B 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 electricity technology. Sorry, that should be 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'll turn to amendment 44, tabled by the noble Lord Earl Russell and signed by the noble Lord Lord Cribbs and the noble Baroness Lady Young of Old School. This amendment 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 2008.

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. My Lords, 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 their contributions to government targets set under the Climate Change Act. The Forestry Commission already have legal duties regarding afforestation and conservation and by their very nature they are of course, already providing significant benefits to help tackle biodiversity loss and climate change.

It is therefore my review 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. They have clear responsibilities to consider and act to improve the environment by their 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, they 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 you that the Forestry Commission will consider the importance of the climate in their in their use of these new powers. The Forestry Commission has existing ambitious net zero targets, which they are working to me by several. Several significant projects for woodland creation and peatland restoration currently underway across the public forest estate.

In the context of climate adaptation planning under the Climate Change Act, the Forestry Commission already provide reports on how they are adapting to or proposed to adapt to climate change, and they 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's my belief that these wider considerations of the Forestry Commission's duties will 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 Lord is reassured and will be competent to withdraw his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 28, page 39. Line 11. Leave out page 39. Line 11. Leave out appropriate. Forestry authority and insert commissioners.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert commissioners. I want to start by thanking the Minister, the noble Baroness Hayman,
21:30
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, the noble Baroness Hayman, for meetings around this clause 28. In the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill still there was there is a concern about industrial scale concern about industrial scale biomass. Now, I've been assured that by the Minister that the 1967 Forestry Act that she refers to stops that from happening. I've read the act and I'm 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 five megawatts on on wind turbines, which is sort of understandable.

They have a low footprint, and I can see how that might well work in terms as being a limit on winter wind power. But a 50MW on all others, which would include solar. I mean, very much in favour of solar, but to put so 50MW of solar, which seems to be potentially envisaged in this amendment on Forestry Commission land. Seems to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Me, even. Me, a renewable energy advocate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Me, a renewable energy advocate. To be completely. Excessive at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To be completely. Excessive at the moment, 50 megawatt solar farms are some of the most popular sizes. Why? Because they just come in below the nationally significant infrastructure projects level. Now. infrastructure projects level. Now. I think that's being I seem to remember on such retrenchment we went through on the Moses room some went through on the Moses room some months ago that is now changing, but a 50MW solar farm covers a huge a 50MW solar farm covers a huge acreage, and when we are behind in terms of our national targets, in terms of our national targets, in terms of tree planting, I cannot see why the Forestry Commission without why the Forestry Commission without a having approval of the Secretary a having approval of the Secretary of State, should be able to cover that amount of their own land with that amount of their own land with solar panels when we are so desperate to increase.

Our woodland desperate to increase. Our woodland planting. So I just ask the minister, where on earth did these figures come from? They don't seem consistent to me anyway, because if they were the other way around it, they might make sense by megawatts on solar and 50MW on on wind power, because there's a much smaller footprint in terms of wind. So I'm very keen to hear from the Minister how this is justified. how this is justified.
21:33
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I stand to move my amendment 44. As I begin, I want to just start by thanking the minister and actually apologising because strangely, the minister's answer to my amendment before I've moved it. But that's just the way that this group has operated. So my speech is slightly back to front. So I will, I will, I will start by thanking her, but I'm just going to go through my speech and then come to the end of it. So my amendment is in my name.

It's also signed by noble Lord Lord Krebs, the noble Baroness Lady Young of Old School. In her place, the Baroness Lady Bennett of Manor Castle is also in her place. My Lords, this is an important and timely amendment and I am delighted that it has the firm support of the Wildlife Trusts and the Wildlife and Countryside Link. Amendment 44 would require the Forestry Commission in exercising its functions, to contribute actively to the achievement of our legally binding climate and biodiversity targets.

The Forestry Commission, my Lord, was founded in 1919 and today manages some 5% of all publicly owned land in in the United Kingdom, as a noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old School reminded us in committee, it is now nearly 60 years since we last legislated comprehensively on forestry. The Commission's core duties remained, unfortunately, deeply rooted in a 20th century focus on timber production, despite it having its remit having long been broadened. We know 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 the Commission's huge influence over the land use supports the delivery of statutory targets, rather than merely leaving them to chance, or to good faith and good management. Without these changes, the governments 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. It is. I've said this before, but it's a little like a general knowing the strategy but neglecting to tell their own troops we cannot expect effective delivery in Forestry Commission if it is left without a clear duty to act.

My Lords, 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 of this bill already extend the Commission's remit to allow greater renewable energy activity on public land, and it is that duty that makes it more vital that the nature aspects of the estate are given equal statutory weight to ensure that they drive the renewable proceeds hand in hand with the protection and the 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 achievement of the climate and nature recovery targets, to avoid harm, to designate conservation sites and ancient woodland, and to balance energy and timber production with the 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 the decision making about land acquisition, leasing and woodland creation.

My Lords, as we know already now between committee and report, there have been substantial progress on this matter and I am very grateful not only to the ministers but also to their officials for the time that they have given to us in discussing this amendment. And indeed, I see for the movement that the government has made on this important issue. I know that the government now intends to address this issue as part of a wider and broader package of measures, and we are not against that as a system and a means of addressing this problem.

In fact, it's a welcome strategy. We are buoyed by the progress that we have made on the Crown Estate spill and the Great British Energy Bill, where collaborative work with ministers and across the House, across all parties, achieved provisions. And we look forward to the outcomes here. Now, the Minister has spoken, has already given their comments. I want to start by paying tribute to the words of the work of the noble Lord Krebs, who's been pushing on these issues. And of course, he's got his important Private Member's Bill.

And I hope as part of this package of measures that some of the broader aspects in his bill can also be taken up. And I also want to pay tribute to the lady young of old school and as well for her her work in these matters. The words that the government have spoken are very, very welcome indeed. I am thankful for them. We push the government to go slightly further in terms of the Forestry Commission's duties. We push for a little bit more clarity on when this legislation might come forward.

However, we've 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. But with that, I thank the Minister, I thank those involved. And I think this is this is a sign of real progress to come. Thank you.
21:39
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
Can I very briefly support the new Lord Earl Russell on his amendment number 44, which I put my name to? The Forestry Commission is a really important organisation. It's the largest landowner in England. And what they do not only can really influence the government's climate and biodiversity targets, but can also inspire other people to do stuff that will deliver the climate and biodiversity targets. And so it's really sad that we've got to the point where by a process of kind of accretion, the legislation surrounding the Forestry Commission's duties is so complicated.

When the minister responded at committee stage, and we thank her for that, it did reveal just what a piecemeal patchwork of responsibilities is laid on the Forestry Commission, not just by the aged Forestry Act dating back 50 years, 60 years, but also to extensions to its duties from the Countryside Act in 68, the Wildlife and Countryside Act in 1985, then the NEC act in 2006 as strengthened by the Environment Act in 2021. And also the Minister's account, both at committee stage of today, has brought in requirements laid upon the Secretary of State.

For example, in an Action National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy and his influence over the Forestry Commission. So it's a bit of a quagmire, really, of legislation. And it's not clear to the Forestry Commission, and it's certainly not clear how it will help them do that important job of meeting the government targets in any systematic way, as opposed to just simply by an accretion of decisions made reflecting various bits of legislation. I do want to thank ministers and their staff for the discussion behind the scenes, but I think we've got to press to move forward from saying that the Forestry Commission will use its best endeavours, or have regard to the various pieces of policy, and really 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, which will allow the Forestry Commission to operate in a systematic way within a modern and comprehensive and effective framework, to make sure that the important work it's doing will be carried forward systematically.

The alternative way of doing this, of course, is to simply adopt the proposition of Lord Krebs, who last is not in his place when he put his Private Member's Bill through, which was just to give any public body that had the ability to deliver in a substantial way on the climate and environment targets and the biodiversity targets to have these duties, which would be the simple way of doing it. But if we are going to have to do it piecemeal. But I'd really like to ask the government tonight is how soon and in what way can I also agree very briefly with liberal Lord, Lord Tennyson on Amendment 40? He's absolutely right.

We've got the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

limits the wrong way round. My Lords, it's a great pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl Russell and the noble Lady Baroness Young of Old Scone who, like me, well, they are
21:42
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Scone who, like me, well, they are leading and I'm following on amendment 44 about the Duties and Forestry Commission. Given the hour, I'll be very brief, but I do just want to bring out two points. Really. The noble Earl Russell rightly said that both Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Wildlife Trust to are absolutely key. Organisations are totally backing the approach here, which is saying that the Forestry Commission needs a clear mandate on climate and nature. And as the noble Lady Baroness Young just set out, it's just being nibbled at and changed at and fiddle with over many, many decades.

And that's not given at the clear remit that it needs. And the point I want to make that hasn't yet been made is how incredibly precious are our forests and woodlands, because we have so little of them. Having just been in Ukraine and Poland. Poland, of course, is nearly 30% forest, and it's just so striking of just forest is just part of everywhere you look just about. And even Ukraine, with its huge reliance on agriculture and arable agriculture. And of course, it's the destruction it's been enduring here, still has a higher percentage of forest than we do.

And so we are talking about a terribly rare resource for Britain in terms of looking after our climate provision and looking after our nature. And we really cannot afford to have the Forestry Commission, such a major landowner, without the clear direction from the legislation. To say your job is to look after climate and nature.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm grateful to noble Baroness, the Minister, for bringing forward the amendments in this group, and I would first like to
21:45
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

group, and I would first like to draw the House's attention to my. Register of interests as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

renewable energy developer and as a forester and forest planter. Firstly. The removal. Of the application of clause.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the application of clause. 28 to. Wales is interesting. And I'm most grateful to the noble Baroness. To the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the Minister. For her explanation. For why that should be. And secondly, limiting. The. Powers granted under clause 28 is a welcome change in response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

28 is a welcome change in response. To the concerns. Raised by the Delegated. Powers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and Regulatory Reform Committee, the PRC recommended that the government constrain the power to make regulations. So that. The Secretary of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Secretary of. State's consents can only be required in relation to generating stations that exceed certain stations that exceed certain capacity thresholds. As they pointed out in their 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 only required for significant renewable energy electricity projects. We welcome this change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'd also. Agree with the noble Lord Lord Trevethin in his comments on 50MW. Solar farms.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Solar farms. It does seem strange that that we should be allowing developments of that size in general. You know, that size in general. You know, areas that are most suitable for forestry tend to be also suitable for wind, but less suitable for solar. And I'd be most grateful to solar. And I'd be most grateful to the noble Baroness for the Minister for any clarification she can give about the intention of this amendment, and of course, the amendment, and of course, the competing uses of land between renewable energy and traditional rural interests will return to in a later group.

Turning to amendment 44, in the name of the noble Lord 44, in the name of the noble Lord Russell, we do agree that the Forestry Act 1967 has now been on the statute book for some time, and the statute book for some time, and is in need of review. We cannot support the direction of travel proposed by amendment 44. We certainly do feel this is a policy area the government should look at again, though, and I know grateful again, though, and I know grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her earlier commitments in regards to this amendment.

We are regards to this amendment. We are concerned that imposing multiple duties on arm's length bodies can bring confusion and conflicts, as bring confusion and conflicts, as well as grace of bureaucratic process, cost and time. And in fact, the comments of the noble Earl highlighted the confusion that is possible under this. In the case of the Forestry Commission, they already take their environmental and climate responsibilities seriously. As the noble Baroness the Minister has highlighted. And in fact, these are actually intrinsic to their existing functions.

However, if there is to be a review, we would welcome the consideration of the potential for conflicts within the Forestry Commission's existing Forestry Commission's existing structure, in particular as their role as a competitor to private forests, also is the regulator and forests, also is the regulator and the grant of water. That role occasionally brings the potential for conflicts, and I think would be worth some further attention. And I do look forward to working with the noble Earl and all noble Lords to have signed this amendment in order to seek consensus on how the proposal to review the 1967 act proposal to review the 1967 act should go forward.
21:47
21:47
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
during the course of the debate. First of all, on the 1967 Forestry Act. I agree with what's been said. It was a long time ago now, but I do believe firmly that that act needs reviewing in the round, not in bits and pieces. Otherwise, we're just exacerbating the problem that we've currently got on in relation to the thresholds. The thresholds of five megawatts for wind and 50MW 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, Defra Secretary of State will be able to amend the capacity thresholds in future through secondary legislation. All renewable energy electricity projects that export electricity to the grid on the public forest estate will be reported to Defra each quarter, and I would also comment that the Secretary of State, as the landowner and other Defra ministers, have decided they would like to have 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 they want to assess, at the pre-planning stage, all projects above an agreed size on the public forest estate, and that means all significant projects. And as above, the thresholds have been set out at five and five megawatts for wind and 50MW for all other technology. Other technology types. So I hope that's helped clarify the situation in relation to the role of the Secretary of State and the 1967 Forestry Act.

With that, I move the government members.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is. That amendment 28 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion the bill, as many of that opinion say, content the contrary, not content, the contents habit. The question is that amendments 29 to 40 on block stand part of the bill, as many that opinions say content the many that opinions say content the contrary not content. The contents contrary not content. The contents habit. After clause 28, amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

41. Baroness. Tail of Stevenage. My Lords. I was obviously keen to get on to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was obviously keen to get on to this one, so I came to it before the last one. I rise to move the amendment standing in my name, which seeks to create powers to ensure that seismic array systems are protected in areas where wind farms are proposed to be built, thus are proposed to be built, thus enabling the development of onshore wind where it will not have an adverse effect on seismic array adverse effect on seismic array systems. Can I start by thanking the noble Earl 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 with me even this morning on the topic.

So I'm 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 Estelle Muir 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 Estelle Muir area will be a positive step towards the Clean Power 2030 mission and net zero targets, with up to 33GW of onshore wind that could deliver by 2030. This three gigawatts could bring with it up to £2 billion worth of investment into UK based onshore wind services.

It could deliver up to £15 million a year to communities in the Estelle Muir 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 solution that effectively safeguards the array and enables onshore wind. Within the Estelle Muir Working Group, the 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. This bill represents the last available opportunity to secure the three 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.

With that being the case, I hope the House will support this amendment. I now turn to 42, tabled by the noble Lord Earl Russell. The amendment 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, risk pre-empting the government decision making. Prior to the launch of a public consultation, which the government committed to in the Onshore Wind Task Force strategy in July 2025.

To do so could result in the most appropriate options for safeguarding seismic arrays and enabling onshore wind to be 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. Government is 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've taken, and that the noble Lord will agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw his amendment. I move the government amendments. After clause. 28, insert the following new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

28, insert the following new clause. The words is printed on the marshalled list. Amendment 42 is an
21:54
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. Amendment 42 is an amendment to as an amendment to amendment 41. Earl Russell. My Lord Owen, stand very briefly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord Owen, stand very briefly to speak to my amendment 42, which seeks to amend the Government seeks to amend the Government Amendment, amendment 41. My Lords, I've written the speech, but I might just speak this out off the top of my head. Basically, the government's amendment came at report, and when it came out, it's fair to say that in relation to scale, more particularly to see WP energy, there were worries about the government amendment and the possible impacts of it.

And as the Minister has said this, this is scale more is a very big proposal for a wind development of three gigawatts of energy. Now these matters are complicated. So they do relate to the interplay between the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, ground based sensors and a monitoring system which has second tier arrays, which are part of a global system. As part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, providing a global monitoring system for aboveground and underground nuclear tests. And as the Minister alluded at one point in my life, I did research on nuclear arms control and did my masters in it, which is how I know a tiny bit about some of the policy side, not the technical side.

I'll be clear. So when the government when the government amendment came out, 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, and one that's actually important for the UK. It's important for us reaching our clean power targets. It's also really important for the Scottish Borders area and more than just that area in this wind site, the if that wind site doesn't go ahead, then this, this whole corridor of development where the plan is really because it's got good fibre optic cables, to develop data centres and to link that to the, the, the cables and the, the networks stuff that's happening there.

So there's a whole bunch of economic development here that could be impacted by it. So the industry was worried that fundamentally what was meant by the government amendment was that this wind project would effectively be stymied. And the people have been developing this this wind project have have really been trying to find mitigations and solutions away that we can have both for onshore wind energy generation and keep our ability to meet our comprehensive test, ban treaty monitoring obligations.

And as part of that process, they've invested over 200 million. They've they've come up with plans to instead of having sensors on the surface to bore down 60 to 200m. And then the sensors they have and the people that I've worked with, they've worked with one of the very founders of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, in a sense, as they'd like to put in place. I recognise, as I understand it, by the KT TO, and when they're in place then because they're not on the surface, they will no longer be subject to other vibrations.

And it's not just wind. It could be quarrying or forestry or all sorts of other activities that could interplay. So the hope is that they could get to a place where they could not only fund the research, the development, the placing of these sensors, but also the ongoing upkeep of the sensors as well. And what needs to happen here is there needs to be some technical conversations that need to take place. Between our people in the Mod and iwi to make sure that they can they can do this stuff.

And actually the governments and so that we can have both these things together so we don't have an either or. To cut my speech short, following the conversations I've had with the minister, I am, I withdraw my amendments. I'm satisfied that the government will work to find a way forward, and that these things to the fullness of time, that the experts can get together. And hopefully, because we've already got solutions for offshore wind for exactly these kind of problems, I'm hopeful that these can be resolved.

But with that, I withdraw my amendment and I appreciate the government and the minister's time. Thank you.
21:58
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak slightly in awe. I'm not the world's expert on seismic arrays, so I will keep my seismic arrays, so I will keep my comments fairly brief, which is the practical bit. We recognise that the government is trying to create a balancing act between the safe and critical operation of seismic critical operation of seismic arrays, and the opportunity for wind farms from this side of the House, without the technical knowledge of without the technical knowledge of the noble Earl Russell, can we receive an assurance from government that it has got that balance right that it has got that balance right and that we will not compromise those seismic arrays and the potential national security and potential national security and treaty obligations that we may have.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

treaty obligations that we may have. Lord. That we're working very closely with our colleagues in the Mod on with our colleagues in the Mod on this issue, and we will we will endeavour to make sure that balance is absolutely right on both cases. With the Minister would like to move her. Amendment left to move the amendments process. At the moment,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments process. At the moment, force one be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion say, "content" contents. Have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have it. Amendment 42. Oh Russell not moved. And now we come to amendment 43.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Fuller. My Lords. I rise. To speak to my amendment 43, co-signed by my frontbench colleagues. And it's simple and straightforward, rather like that of
22:00
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
straightforward, rather like that of my noble friend Lady Hodgson, who sadly not in her place on amendment 45. Now, amendments are similar, but I prefer my own because my proposal isn't the complete ban on solar developments, on the best and most versatile land contemplated by my noble friend, what mine seeks to achieve is where such proposals do come forward. They are only successful with the consent and agreement of local people, so 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 inset process cannot and will not be engaged. So it isn't the absolute ban on solar on the best land, but it does put a hurdle over 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.

Now, before I get stuck into the meat of what I wish to say, I think it's important to explain what I mean by the best and most versatile land. Now, as somebody with a degree in agriculture, it's 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 the committee stage, I spoke with the noble Baroness on the government benches, who had no idea that the productive capacity in cropping of a grade one silt field in Lincolnshire was any difficult to the 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. Now, how much of this best and most versatile land is there? The library tells me that grades one, two and three the best of grades one, two and three a rather 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 three, three, B, four and five.

Now this would still be available for large scale solar under my proposal, and 58% is still plenty to go at. It's over 12 Norfolk's or two and a half Wales less so. To repeat my amendment isn't a ban on sole Solar, but it would focus it on the less productive land, of which there is plenty. So the amendment seeks to strike the appropriate balance between food and energy security. And this week it's been reported that British farmers have suffered the second worst harvest ever.

Many areas, including on land I farm near Great Yarmouth, has had a 40% yield reduction on account of the spring and summer drought. There are no guarantees about the weather, so that's why we need the land buffer to secure our food supply. And last week I attended Prime Minister's Questions in the other place and heard the Prime Minister say that food security is national security. Is it too much to hope for that? Ministers belatedly realise that the risks of 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, where food security and the Prime Minister and the British people are being gaslit by the Energy Secretary in some of this regard, which is quite an appropriate term, I think, for the energy minister.

The Prime Minister boasts about his commitment to food security in the other place, 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 can't eat a solar panel. Whilst you may be happy with imported quinoa, the rest of us outside the 25 without bread, biscuits and beer, fruit and veg grown on the best land for the most part, harnessing the best our nation can produce. Now my Lords, moving on.

We know there is not just the grid capacity to accept all the solar that's been promoted. When the sun suddenly and intensively comes out from behind the clouds. So if grid. Capacity is limited and there's only so much solar surge the grid contained, only a fool would disagree with limiting the proposals to the poorest land first. Now, I've I've heard it said we don't need to really worry about this. Only the amount of land currently used for golf courses and the like is being used for solar, something like half a percent of all land.

And that, of course, is simply not true. It's a 19th hole story that's growing with the telling. The government's land use framework contemplates fully 9% of all that are to be used for non-agricultural environmental and energy schemes. So the principle of controlling solar development aside, this amendment is also important in that it seeks to remove the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

loopholes and abuses that we have seen from the misuse of the. N.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sip regime for solar applications, including artificially stringing together a series of small schemes into a big.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One. To make to get over that 100 megawatt hurdle value. Now, where I megawatt hurdle value. Now, where I live, a local proposal comprises a dozen different blocks of land spread out over a campus of 15 miles spread out over a campus of 15 miles by eight as a device to get over that end threshold. That is an that end threshold. That is an abuse, and even more so because once designated as an NSF, the private designated as an NSF, the private promoter in my local case, an Australian merchant bank is awarded Australian merchant bank is awarded CPO powers to confiscate British farmland by those whose only purpose farmland by those whose only purpose is to collateralise the countryside.

And I can see it may be in the landowner's private interest to sign 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 earn £200 an acre from the fruits of his labours, having invested millions in plants and equipment and subjecting himself to the weather, subjecting himself to the weather, so converting it to a guaranteed payment does sound like good business, even if they get to sit on the beach.

Index linked for 40 years. But what this is seeing is that landowners are really quite small holdings, which have been aggregated together as part of an inset, have given their tenants notice to quit so 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 and that's what's at stake here. So I attended the public consultation locally for the East Pond proposal close to me, where I uncovered the surprising statistic hidden away at the back of the binder ten out of 13.

But 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 B, and only a negligible 3% on the poorest categories. I drew attention to that calculation, while also the developer's representative was surly and dismissive. It was only when I had declared my interest as a member of your lordships has that a change of tone was divined, and now we get to the heart of the matter. I've seen with my own eyes there's little incentive for these developers to tell the truth.

On large scale solar over the heads of the little people. If they think that Mr. Mallaby, Mr. Miliband, will simply rubberstamp their proposals regardless, without the appropriate level of scrutiny, honesty or integrity, the normal balance of power must be restored. So my amendment will stop these bad behaviours who think that stringing together the smaller schemes into big ones will give them a free pass, and it will stamp out the threats of menaces over CPO. The amendment will prevent local people from being airbrushed from key decisions affecting their most productive landscapes, and it will ensure there is accountability for the faceless investors who are driving this gold rush and don't give a just around the countryside, still less our ability to feed ourselves.

So in summary, it's not a ban on solar. Well over half the land in this country would still be available for it under NZ, just not the 42% that most reliably feeds us. So what I'm trying to do here is strike the right balance between food security and energy security, and as well as the security of the democratic process. That's why my amendment is important. We'll listen very carefully to the debate, but I'm not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

satisfied. I announce my intention to divide the House. And does the Lord wish to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And does the Lord wish to move his amendment? Oh, good. OK. Amendment proposed after. Clause 28, insert the new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 28, insert the new clause as printed on the list. I might say a word about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 45, which has been tabled. By my. Noble kinswoman. Baroness Hodgson of Abinger.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger. A Baroness Hogg cannot be here. She's part of an IPU delegation in
22:09
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Portrait Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

She's part of an IPU delegation in Geneva, and she asked if I would come tonight and. Apologise to the House for her absence. And also.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Make. A. Few remarks on her behalf about this amendment. And I'm very happy to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'm very happy to. Do this. My Lords not. Just for reasons of domestic harmony.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Domestic harmony is obviously very desirable. But because. Actually this amendment runs very parallel to one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

parallel to one. That I. Moved in committee stage about food security. My issues then were food security. My issues then were looking top down about the wall position and how that was going to security.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This amendment is. Looking bottom up. What we need to do to make sure that we do not unnecessarily and that we do not unnecessarily and unduly avoid, impede our ability to feed ourselves, which must surely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be. A key. Responsibility of any government. Now. My Noble friend has.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. My Noble friend has. Asked me to make a number of points. Before I do that, just remind your Lordships that my entry

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the register that. does. A few. It does own a few acres. Of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of. Agricultural land. The first point is that. Solar power. Development should not take place

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Development should not take place on high quality agricultural land. The point that my noble friend on Fuller is made. We need to keep this Fuller is made. We need to keep this productive land for to feed ourselves, and we need to remember that if we once lose it to solar panels, solar farms, we have probably lost it forever.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

probably lost it forever. The noble Baroness. The minister. May refer to the forthcoming land use framework.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As provided the answer to this. But that will. Not come out. Until this. Bill is an act. And one has the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill is an act. And one has the awful feeling or the awful. Sound of a door. Slamming behind the. Bolting horse. The second issue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bolting horse. The second issue is really another point made by my new friend, Lord. Fuller. About the continuing and rising tensions geopolitically, and how we need to keep those always in mind when we consider the position of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this country and our ability to treat ourselves by bringing in food from overseas, of which over half. We.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We. Only grow just over. Half our food ourselves. the thir

**** Possible New Speaker ****

too often. Agricultural land. Using it for. touch.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

touch. The easy option it is, as has been said, also, farming is not a particularly profitable and it is cyclical and therefore how much easier it is for a farmer to sign a easier it is for a farmer to sign a long term contract which provides security for a generation, for himself and for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

himself and for. route. The other route.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The other route. Of course, much more. Difficult is. To. Get it. On the commercial channel and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the commercial channel and there you, the government is 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 built? Why are we not insisting that panels support a longer EU factory and every commercial building that's constructed? And why are we not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thinking about. Retrofitting solar panels. To existing buildings. Where suitable?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Where suitable? All of that would improve the situation without us having to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reduce the land available. For production. Of food. My fourth point rally is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of food. My fourth point rally is taking the Minister to one of the points she made. Not actually, to be honest, able to give an entirely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honest, able to give an entirely satisfactory response at committee. And that is what. Plans the government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Plans the government. Has to monitor the continuing ownership of these solar farms, not just. The person. Who. Builds them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Builds them. And owns them initially, but who what happens when they are sold? If

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what happens when they are sold? If the government argue that solar power is critical. To. This country, then obviously some monitoring who owns that critical. Facility is important. The noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Facility is important. The noble little. Friend. And she's grateful. For. government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. Are thinking. Of. Some form of monitoring, but it is not clear what. The form.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The form. The statutory basis for the monitoring is. Is it going to be in statute or is it going to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

guidance is advisory, and who is going to enforce it? My Noble friend Lord Wei Catherine. And I have. Spent enough time dealing with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spent enough time dealing with second legislation to know that. There are all sorts. effective. Or.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or. Not very effective. And. I think it'll be very helpful for us, for the House to know what the government has in mind for this very critical part of our future national life. And finally, my Lords, that no proper account has really been taken to assess the permanent damage to our countryside. This is not just the short term implications. Of roads and. Tonnes of material being brought in to establish a solar farm. It's the long term visual impact on our country.

In an age when mental stress, mental illness is rising, we should not underestimate the value of open country. Not for nothing did Octavia Hill, well, the co-founder of the National Trust, writing I quote, we all want quiet. We all want beauty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We all need space. Unless we have. It. We cannot reach that sense of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We cannot reach that sense of quiet in which whispers of better things come to us gently. Now the no. Barriers will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Barriers will. Say, the government. Has clocked us. And is working hard to make sure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And is working hard to make sure we're collecting all the appropriate statistics to make sure that the these risks are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Being examined. Indeed, called 1963. In the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee stage on the 60 or 50th September, she concluded a long paragraph on. This by saying. The government therefore already

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government therefore already have legal requirements to report regularly on matters relevant to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

food security in the United Kingdom. Now, my Lords, I do not for a. Moment suggest. That the government is collecting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the government is collecting lots and lots and lots of statistics. The critical question is what is it then doing with them? Who what is it then doing with them? Who is responsible? Which government department? Which Secretary of State is responsible for taking this information, which we all agree? Is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

information, which we all agree? Is it very important and has really impact on our future as a. Country and. Is assessing. It.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It. And is working with it and interpreting it and. Using it to. Guide future policy using this,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Guide future policy using this, all this information, which we are told is now. Being collected. And I think the House. Is entitled. To know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From the. Government how it is going to be used and how we can be reassured that our future is being properly that our future is being properly assessed. And there is not. It is not falling between the stools of different departments. There is a Secretary of State responsible who is going to be able to keep us, Parliament and the country informed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that our future is safe. Lords in rising to support these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords in rising to support these amendments, I must first declare my. Family farming. purposes. Of the report.
22:16
Lord Cameron of Dillington Portrait Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the report. Stage of this bill. I should say in this context that we've got both food production and indeed some land food production and indeed some land less a good land. I may say producing with with a solar array on it. Now, normally in the past I have stood up and said to these sort of. Land use decisions that we should wait until we get the land use framework, which we're told is imminent any minute now. But I've had a conversion, my Lords.

Firstly, I'm 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.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So and, and I've also. Had a slight glimpse as having been chairman of the Land Use been chairman of the Land Use Committee, and I had a glimpse as to what the government's likely response to the consultation is response to the consultation is going to be. Are not disclosing any secrets here, my Lords, but it's it secrets here, my Lords, but it's it seems to be saying that when it comes to solar arrays, merely I comes to solar arrays, merely I underline that word merely that lower quality agricultural land is preferable to higher quality preferable to higher quality agricultural land.

And I Lords, that is seriously not good enough. And I think that we should take this think that we should take this opportunity to ensure that our best food producing farmland is actually food producing farmland is actually legally protected for the long term. I firmly believe that food I firmly believe that food production should be sacrosanct. Good food production and whatever Good food production and whatever the land use framework comes up with now or any in in any future now or any in in any future iterations of it, because there's no doubt it's going to change as the sort of demands change over, over, sort of demands change over, over, over the decades.

But there's no doubt to my mind that the long term doubt to my mind that the long term defence of our realm depends crucially on our ability to feed ourselves, more so than the number of regiments we've got, frankly. And indeed, so does the peace of our realm. I think it was over ten years ago now, but 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, but nowadays I think people take it as read and know exactly what I mean by that phrase.

Therefore, my Lords, whatever the passing needs of our energy requirements, our best food producing land should remain constantly sacrosanct and that the flexibility of our land use should never, ever include or usurp our best food producing land. There is, after all, as the noble Lord Fuller said, lots of other lands all over the country, often south sloping hillsides. These are less than optimum for producing our food and which therefore can be used for solar panels. And there's no doubt about it in my mind that every local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

planning authority, every county, maybe every year, every solar panel produces, there's. Going to be lots.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Going to be lots. Of people trying to produce solar panels. And it's. What Lord. Hodgson has just said, who is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hodgson has just said, who is going to be monitoring this? And we need to monitor what is going on, because every year we're going to be because every year we're going to be whittling away at our at our capacity to feed ourselves. And I don't believe we should allow that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

don't believe we should allow that to happen. So I strongly support amendments 43 and 45. Yeah. I just want to speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to speak. Very briefly, if I may, because I can't match the eloquence of other speakers or the length of their speakers or the length of their speeches, for that matter. But I want to support very much the noble
22:19
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Portrait Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Conservative)
-
-
want to support very much the noble Baroness Hodgson's Amendment 45. And the reason I want to support it is because I really want, as has just been said, some clarification as to the government's position regarding the use of agricultural land for solar panels and I suppose. Also for battery storage plants, which are equally a concern to an awful lot of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the public at the present time. I in Yorkshire. We have. A plethora at the moment of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A plethora at the moment of applications, all speculative, without apparently much resource behind them all hoping to get permission from local planning authorities. Being just below the 50 authorities. Being just below the 50 megawatt limit that would require them to have more strategic consideration. There are so many of consideration. There are so many of them at present that the planning officers themselves are quite officers themselves are quite undermined in their work and unable to deal with them, but they will do.

to deal with them, but they will do. And the problem we have, my Lords, is the fact that unless the government is a little more clear government is a little more clear about its view about the use of very good agricultural land or the misuse

**** Possible New Speaker ****

good agricultural land or the misuse of it, lots of these matters will proceed, much. Against the wish. Of agricultural experts, of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of agricultural experts, of farmers, and of local rural communities in particular. I communities in particular. I therefore urge the Minister to make it quite clear not just that the government prefers that we do not utilise grades one, two, three and three, a. Agricultural land for three, a. Agricultural land for solar panels, and that they should be used for agricultural purposes, preferably the production of food, but that they are actually clear that this will not be allowed and that they tell planning officials that that is the view of the government, because otherwise, simply preferring something is absolutely pointless.

And the only other point I wish to add is that every single one of these speculative operators who seem to have come on the scene, certainly in Yorkshire and I believe elsewhere, try to placate local communities by saying that this will only be for 40

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years. That in 40 years time everything will be put back. To. Its state at the present time, or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

improved for that matter. I want to know. I don't think I shall be here in 40 years time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

40 years time. I don't. Think most of the speculative companies will be there in 40 years

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time, and without a proper. Bond in. Place, showing that they are worth the resources that. They claim worth the resources that. They claim they are. This is a totally useless and pointless statement, and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government should point that out at all. Opportunities. Here is a very good point. I Lords, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I Lords, I. Rise to support my noble friend, Baroness Hodgson of Abinger and her amendment 45, to which I added my amendment 45, to which I added my name but too late. It was persuasively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, and I'll try to be brief. The essence of responsible political
22:22
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
essence of responsible political choice is to look to the long term. Good agricultural land is one resource that should be with us forever. Development should not be allowed to prejudiced the long term interests of our nation. So whilst I support amendment 43, in the noble friend of mine, in the name of my new friend Lord Fuller, well supported by his local knowledge, I prefer amendment 45 because it guarantees the protection of grade one, grade two and grade three, a land against the very substantial commercial pull of solar at prevailing returns in the energy sector and the agriculture sector.

Such protection would help to reverse the shortsighted change to planning guidance based on short sighted thinking. To my view by the Blair government and my Lords, Labour have never been the real friends of the farming community, despite its national importance, articulated so well, I think by the noble Lord Doug Cameron Cameron of Darlington. You know, the need to grow our own food. I think it would be wonderful to see a change of heart in the changed circumstances we see today, where food security is so important.

My own 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 like Hungary and Thailand, where the sun is hot and shines more brightly. And I should perhaps end by saying that I have an interest as a part owner of two small fields, the remnants of a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

family farm long since sold. easily. Available in the North Sea.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Available in the North Sea. An independent study by Westwood Global Energy for Offshore Energies
22:24
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
suggests up to 7.5 billion barrels could still be produced. Well, the government's own figures suggest about 3.2 billion barrels. The North Sea Transition Authority estimates there are 6.1 billion barrels of oil of contingent resources, and they also estimate 4 billion barrels of oil in mapped leads and prospects, whatever those are, plus an additional 11.2 billion barrels in plays outside of these mapped areas. So, my Lords, there are billions and billions of gallons of oil we could use and we need.

But with fanatical Energy Secretary of State who is obsessed with the last bit of his title, the Minister for net zero, and he is destroying the UK's energy needs on our doorstep or under our seabed. Be more precise, energy should be our priority Minister. 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. Now, even with the goal of net zero by 2050, the UK will still need between 13 and 15 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent to meet its energy needs.

Now, whilst 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. My Lords. That is, a quarter of our energy needs will still come from oil and gas. So, my Lords, I say we are sitting on billions of gallons of oil we will not extract from our own country and will then import billions from abroad.

How barking mad is that so? This fanatical energy department is not only destroying our oil and gas production systems, but put in whole swathes of British industry out of out of action, making them uncompetitive by removing a cheap commodity all our competitors use. There will never be Labour's dream of growth whilst we, whilst he is still in post. No wonder most of the Cabinet want him sacked now. His obsession with net zero is also leading to the destruction of some of our finest countryside and the imposition of massive.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Storms. Quote. This has to do with the amendment at hand. It's in the sentence I'm just about to say. His obsession with net about to say. His obsession with net zero is now leading to the destruction of some of our finest British countryside, with the imposition of massive solar farms for some on some of our finest productive land, we do not need all these solar farms. If we actually these solar farms. If we actually dig out the oil sitting our own North Sea, which he has now put a stop to.

That's the point of my introduction, is now no doubt, as the MP for Doncaster North, you'll still get us avocados and soya milk and pomegranate seeds of overseas, plus our UK farmers producing the plus our UK farmers producing the food most Britons eat are beef or lamb are wonderful vegetables. What broccoli, cabbages, Brussels sprouts broccoli, cabbages, Brussels sprouts etc. Will be covered over by solar panels. My lords, my noble friend panels. My lords, my noble friend have made that point and I want to raise a different but related one.

Tonight, my friend, the noble Lord, Tonight, my friend, the noble Lord, the Lord Alton is not with us tonight. Lords may have heard of a report about a month ago that that a report about a month ago that that a bus had lost control in Victoria Street and crashed into a bus stop, including pedestrians. Lord Alton including pedestrians. Lord Alton was one of those injured and rushed to hospital. The photographs of his injuries are quite horrific, but he says that he believes he is not suffered catastrophic injuries despite the bus fracturing his spine and is a brief recovery.

We wish him a speedy recovery and back here as soon as possible. Crucially, of course, he's as mentally sharp as ever. With lots of posts going out weekly defending victims of human rights abuses in all those countries which kill, torture, enslave and abuse our citizens. One of those countries, my Lords, is China. The threat to us? They are a threat to us militarily as they build a massive military complex superior to the United States. They're a threat to us commercially as they steal every commercial secret we have, and they're a threat to us politically and culturally as the infiltrate our universities, institutions, and even this Parliament.

I want to say my, my, my, the point, important point I want to make in this debate tonight is to say what I think, Lord, the noble Lord would often would have said in my inadequate way, if you're with us tonight. So my concern is, my Lords, that we will be filling England with some of the products from that oppressive and hostile regime. China manufactured 80% of the solar panels in the world, 68% of all the solar panels you sold and used in the United Kingdom come from China, many made by the slave Labour of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province, and even those which are not made in that province by made elsewhere are still made in the hostile Chinese regime, with their appalling human rights record.

Now, what's happened to the Labour Party that the permit of Secretary of State to cover our countryside with products made by such a deplorable regime are any. Well, some of the members opposite will be old enough to remember the late Robin Cook, Labour Foreign Secretary, and his ethical foreign policy. Well, 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.

Now, I know that's not easy, and I appreciate how government faced difficult problems and have to get into bed with some awful resumes regimes in order to keep out even more awful regimes. But my Lords, 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. Bear in mind that 32% of the solar panels in this country are not Chinese, so there are alternatives.

I understand there's a company based in South Wales called GB Sol. That meant that a company that manufactures a wide range of solar panel modules for domestic, commercial and specialist applications, there is a company called UK solar, British Solar Solar Modules brand that produces high efficiency PV modules. There's another company called rogue that's a large one established manufacturer. Also, it produces British solar panels. And finally one I found called Anglo Angle Solar, another UK company. So my plea to the government is this, my Lords, if the government persists in covering our precious countryside with solar panels, for goodness sake, let us use British produced ones and not slave Labour ones.

My Lords, there are some ludicrous calls from some people and organisations that we should make reparations for the slave trade of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

over 250 years ago, even though we. Took the. Lead to stop it. Now. This bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lead to stop it. Now. This bill is some amendments down to protect protecting our our cultural heritage in the countryside. Would it not be appalling my Lords to look out over England and see ten years time and England and see ten years time and see millions of solar panels, and knowing that two out of three of them on our once green and pleasant them on our once green and pleasant land, now under these things were made by slave Labour. I don't want made by slave Labour.

I don't want 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. So once again, I call on the Minister for an assurance that 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 swap others with private individuals, but the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with private individuals, but the government has has the power to do the right thing. I call on them to do so. Yeah, my.
22:32
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Portrait Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, my. I just like to say a few words because I actually believe it. So because I actually believe it. So that is a very good thing. We have installed it and I must declare my interests, my family, bulb growing and farming industry business in South Lincolnshire is obviously grade one land. All our land is great. One we don't want solar panels on our land, our neighbours don't want any solar panels on their land. But we've installed solar panels on all our warehouses that we use for our business.

There are ways in which the farming community can indeed cooperate with the general wish to see. Regenerative energy available to the well-being of the country. But if you live in South Yorkshire, you live on a corner of the coastline where so many power lines go through, and there is a risk that it's so convenient, so, so many substations, so many points of contact with the national grid that go across this particular area of the wash, that it's a temptation.

All I say to noble Lords that whilst solar energy is good, so is food production. And whilst bulbs, which most people will know I produce and they're not edible, they're just for the delight of people in their recreation. But we actually spend. Most of our land is agricultural land producing vegetables, producing all the sorts of things that people need to have a healthy diet in this country. And I just say that we would be wrong to do other than support the amendments proposed by, by first, by Noble friends, by Lady Hodgson, of the abbots, and indeed my Noble friend Lord Fuller, I hope that the there's been a lot of rhetoric, and I think some of that has been counterproductive.

The Secretary of State for energy is doing what he feels is his mission. But I think we should, as this House, send amendments to this bill, which actually reminds him that there are other priorities other than rigid renewable energy that we can indeed, by passing these members, provides a contribution to the debate, which actually makes it sensible, sensible for governments, whatever colour, whatever party you are, to actually realise that food security is equally as important as having energy security.

And I just hope that noble Lords will see this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question in the round, and not from a partisan point of view and support these amendments. Little time. My Lords, otherwise very, very
22:36
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, otherwise very, very briefly to speak to both of these amendments, considering the our my amendments, considering the our my Lords, we cannot support either of these amendments. Both of them are too prescriptive and too absolutist. And 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, framing a regime that already provides national oversight and rigorous assessment and opportunities for local consultancy.

Amendment 45 would go even further, imposing an outright ban on ground mounted solar on land grades one 2 or 3 eight. Together, these amendments would send a chilling signal to investors, delaying deployment and weakening our ability to decarbonise our power system. My Lords, the Tory policy on climate change seems to change more often than the wind changes direction. I cannot accept these amendments, and I don't actually like this, this whole narrative, but it's either we have food security or we have 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 ten years. It's either too wet, it's too dry. We have to do something about climate change. And actually solar panels, agro vortex. They can fit together with agricultural land. And actually, when we face a warming climate, actually deploying agro voltaic might be a way of actually safeguarding our food security as opposed to a challenge to it.

A quarter of our farmers in the UK already have some form of solar actually deployed, either on their roofs or in their fields, and it's an important way of actually supporting our farmers in the face of a changing climate that is weakening their abilities to make a profit from what they do, and to continue to survive so that they can provide food to put on our tables. My Lords, this, this, this whole narrative that it is one or other is absolutist.

It is not hopeful. And it doesn't get us further forward on this debate. Now, if there were amendments coming forward saying more must be done to make sure that the last resort we use is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agricultural land, I would. Listen to it. We do need to do more to get solar panels on rooftop. We do need solar panels on rooftop. We do need more to have them on warehouses. We do need more to have balcony solar, do need more to have balcony solar, but the government is taking action on this. They have got policies for rooftop solar. We will be getting the warm home plans, and we will be getting other plans so that we have getting other plans so that we have rooftop solar on, on on all new builds.

We need to go further on that. But but these amendments are not helpful. The idea that you can't take a single millimetre of grade take a single millimetre of grade one agricultural land is not helpful. No, nobody on these benches helpful. No, nobody on these benches ever asked how much I how much high grade farming land to be used for golf courses, for driveways, for any golf courses, for driveways, for any other need at all. Somehow it's only ever solar panels. That is a threat ever solar panels.

That is a threat to our food security. It's a very simplistic, unhelpful narrative that's designed on propaganda. It's that's designed on propaganda. It's not about food security or protecting our country in any way. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The star where's his amendment? Where's his amendment to improve this bill in the in the terms of this bill in the in the terms of which is why has he not presented something to this House? I think it's I think it's insults the House that you condemn a positive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constructions from the House in general by not presenting anything of your. I mean, it's a very fair

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, it's a very fair question. Overlord is entitled to ask me any question he wants. I welcome his intervention. I've had loads of amendments to committee loads of amendments to committee stage on this bill. This this is not a bill about, you know, solar. This a bill about, you know, solar. This is a bill about the wider planning system. I am happy with the system. It is therefore, I have not put an amendment in.
22:40
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well sir. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. My Lords, I'm grateful to my Noble friend Lord Fuller for amendment 43 and to my noble friends, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, for his loyal and able introduction of amendment 45. In the name of my Noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. And I would just first like to declare my interest as a farmer, although not as much best and most versatile land as I would like, and I would say illustrate the point made by my Noble friend Lord Fuller.

I would just like to point out that solar currently offers risk free returns roughly five times as great as farming land. So from a farmer's point of view, the incentives for doing this are very strong, and it's up to the government to regulate and protect the best and most versatile land. I will not repeat the arguments that we've heard in this debate. They've been very well made and have been made at earlier stages of this bill, as well as in previous bills, debates and questions.

But I will briefly outline opposition of 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 our consumers. When the most productive agricultural land is lost to solar developments, it means 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 farm lands.

And again, to illustrate the point made by Noble friend all fully, he indicated that 42% of UK agricultural lands is best and most versatile, but in fact there's also a great deal of unclassified land. So of our land mass, it's far less than 42%. Why are we building these large scale solar farms on it? And the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested there wasn't a problem here. But since the last election, we've seen a number of n brought forward, which include a significant amount of best and most versatile lands that it's not necessary to use this best and most versatile lands.

There is plenty of land available that is weaker, which can support the incomes of the farming community and also provide the energy that we're looking for. So should my Noble friend Lord Fuller wish to test the House's opinion? We will be supporting him. And I do look to noble Lords on the benches to my left to join us in standing up for farmers and underpinning our commitments for food security. It will be very disappointing if they are unwilling to support this important amendment.
22:42
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Well, thank. I thank all noble Lords have taken part in this debate. Before I respond to the debate, can I send our best wishes to the noble Lord autumn for a very speedy recovery? As the noble Lord blend? Cathro said his amazing contributions to our debates, particularly on human rights issues, is greatly missed and I hope he'll be back with us as soon as possible. And my Lord C noble Lord, Lord Fuller and the noble Baroness Lady Hodgson ably stood in for by the noble Lord Hodgson have tabled their amendments relating to solar generation on agricultural land, and this was debated at great length during committee stage.

While I appreciate the very strong feelings on this issue, the government's approach to the propositions hasn't changed. Addressing first the noble Lord, Lord Fullers amendment, we believe it's important that every project has submitted to the planning process, which befits its impact, scale and complexity. The government believes that large solar farms, even when they propose to use higher quality agricultural land, are best dealt with under the end SIP regime. The inset regime is a rigorous one. Local engagement remains at the heart of the process.

Developers take in projects through the NS and SIP 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. At committee stage. The noble Lord appeared to suggest that the involvement of ministers in the regime undermines public confidence in its ability to assess the costs and benefits of solar projects. Allow me to reassure him and your Lordships' House that all ministerial planning decisions must be taken in strict accordance with planning policy and with 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 we debated this, we would not expect the planning outcomes to change. As I argued previously, the government is fully aware of the benefits of returning control where suitable to local authorities. At the end of the year, we should double the CIP threshold for solar enabling projects up to 100MW to be decided locally. And I would add, there is only one solar farm above 100MW at the moment, and that was decided through an end sit process.

But by your government. Yeah, but any marginal gain in public confidence from returning control to local authorities must be weighed against the likely costs of this proposal. Firstly, given responsibility for the complex and lengthy examination of own CIP scale projects to local planning departments will increase the burden on resources which are already under pressure. Secondly, for proposals which 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 pivotal moment.

Lastly, accepting this amendment would imply that the NCT regime is either not competent or not qualified to adjudicate on some issues. It may reduce confidence in CIP decisions which have already been taken, and in those which will be taken in the future. Turning to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Hodgson and moved by the noble Lord Hodgson, the government sympathises with her objective to protect fertile farmland from overdevelopment. At committee stage, she mentioned how the war in Ukraine has brought into sharp relief the need to protect food security.

This indeed 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 fuel fuels for our energy supply. So we must find the right balance between food security and energy security. And that is why food security and energy security are currently balanced in the planning system, which considers both of these factors. It is because this amendment tilts the balance too far in one direction that we must oppose it.

This amendment would prevent a significant portion of the solar development required to deliver energy security. Many fields contain land which 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 Hodgson mentioned the monitoring of solar farms going forward. The Renewable Energy Planning Database lists all projects larger than 150kW, 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 Cameron referred to the land use framework on and whether it's a material consideration in terms of the planning process. Now, by law, planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and what constitutes a material consideration is for the local planning authority to determine what is a relevant consideration 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, and I would just like to make a few brief comments on the noble Lord blank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hathras comments about China. Sorry. Wait just a second. She she talked about the monitoring talked about the monitoring procedures that her remarks indicated there were going to be only be when the projects were in only be when the projects were in their early stages. I think the worry is what happens later on, you know, maybe three or 4 or 5 years know, maybe three or 4 or 5 years later when the people. Start having it passed on to somebody who we may be maybe less attractive to the be maybe less attractive to the future of this country.

Could she clarify that the monitoring will be the continuous process throughout

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the life of the of each project? I believe I said, I hope I did

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I believe I said, I hope I did that all stages from application to operations, so I hope that's reassuring to the noble Lord in reassuring to the noble Lord in relation to the noble blank, Hathras comments on China. And I think it's important to pick up those comments. important to pick up those comments. The government is committed to tackling the issue of Uyghur forced Labour in supply chains, including 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 the 24th of which came into force on the 24th of February, enables public sector contracts and authorities to reject bids and terminate contracts with suppliers which are known to use forced Labour themselves or anywhere in their supply chain. The government is also considering how to strengthen section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which places a requirement on businesses with a turnover of 3 to £6 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. So I hope that gives him some reassurance that we are taking this very seriously indeed. I will also comment from my time as the Minister and MHRA LJ, with responsibility for net zero, 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, and we're pursuing various measures in this connection.

As mentioned by the noble Earl Russell from solar on schools and hospitals and our new building standards to tax breaks and our new £13.2 billion Warm Homes plan. Indeed, we've also recently conducted a call for evidence about solar car parks, which the noble Baroness praised in committee. I think it's important we don't overstate the amount of agricultural land which might be occupied by solar infrastructure. I know the noble or fuller question the government's figures on land use. Without being drawn into that discussion, it's 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 sector of British agriculture comes from the damaging effects of climate change, and the noble Fuller already mentioned the impact on harvest this year. We have to take that into account as well, and I, for one, think Britain should do its part in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My Lords, 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 has 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they might consider withdrawing their amendments. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. But my Lords, and I thank the noble lady for her winding down. I don't intend to relitigate the
22:52
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
don't intend to relitigate the debate we just had. It's very late, and it's almost as if the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

timetabled to have this debate after hours, so the viewers couldn't see. It.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It. At home. But, but I think but I think that was. But I think it's a shame because the viewers would have shame because the viewers would have seen for the first time the Lib Dems touching concern for the chilling effect on the investment prospects effect on the investment prospects of the international investors for whom they are now wearing their whom they are now wearing their hearts on their sleeves. But we've reached a turning point in our nation's story. We've got a choice nation's story.

We've got a choice where we stand up for those, for the food in our belly and those who feed us. Or is the noble Baroness stuck in the middle of a fight between the Prime Minister, who on one hand says Prime Minister, who on one hand says he believes in food security, being national security, and an energy minister who's impoverishing our minister who's impoverishing our nation, sacrificing thousands of British jobs on the altar of net zero whilst importing the jobs we zero whilst importing the jobs we used to make, but this time for more polluting factories overseas, which does nothing but achieve it does.

It does nothing but achieve it does. It achieves nothing but to make us poorer. So we've got a choice before us, and it isn't the binary choice suggested by the noble Lord. Lord Russell isn't one or the other. In Russell isn't one or the other. In our proposal, 58% of the national land would continue to be available. That isn't binary, that is proportionate. And here's 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. Now, to govern is to choose will this government continue its war in the countryside, or will it, even at this late hour, support our landscapes, the food producers and the rural economy? We should know. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would like to test the opinion of the House. The question is and amendment. Forty.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Three be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion say, "content". Test. The country not. Content.
22:54
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not the date. The question. Will be decided. By our division. I will. Advise the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Advise the House. When voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the bar. now open. Clear the bar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be sure. Yes, Otherwise. Otherwise. I. Otherwise. I. Will. Five minutes Five minutes to Five minutes to give Five minutes to give up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords. The question. Is that amendment. For. Three be agreed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Three be agreed. To as many as are of that opinion say, "content". Protect the country, not. Content. Not content. The content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The content. Will go to the right by the throne and the not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is Is this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is this. Amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

More More my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

More my laws. I have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Voted content 32 not content 57.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the not content habit. Right amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right amendment. 44 oh. Russell not moved. Amendment 45 Lord Watson not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 45 Lord Watson not moved. Amendment 46 our Russell not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. Yes. My Lord, to back to move a further consideration on report. Do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. That further consideration on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That further consideration on report. We now adjourn As many as are of that opinion say, "content" thanks to the country not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to me. Boston. Our general.
23:21
None Portrait Oral questions: Actions to increase HIV testing rates, and re-engagement with the estimated 12,000 people living with HIV who are currently lost to care Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 20 House of Lords - 20 October House of Lords - 20 October 2025.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page