Government Resilience Action Plan

Earl Russell Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s resilience action plan. There is much to be welcomed in this plan. In an increasingly unstable period, both domestically and abroad, it is vital that we invest in our defence and security as well as our national resilience.

The looming background to this plan is of course our national experience of the Covid pandemic, which we know the UK was ill prepared for. The pandemic preparations we had made were for influenza and we did not have the structures in place to respond to a coronavirus. Access to the right data was also a particular challenge for decision-makers. Professor Sir Ian Diamond confirmed to the Covid inquiry that

“no formal structures existed for the ONS to … contribute to civil emergency preparedness”,

beyond “ad hoc commissions”.

The Covid inquiry highlighted the difficulties that arose from different datasets being used in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Even within government there are problems, as government departments do not share consistent data freely. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are actively looking at these issues to standardise data across the United Kingdom?

During the pandemic, we also learned where the weaknesses were in our civil contingencies regime. The disparate responsibilities across government were one of the key challenges. We wasted no time learning the lessons from Covid so that they could be applied to pandemic preparedness, as well as in other areas. We established the national Covid inquiry and founded the UK Health Security Agency, and the Government are right to build on this work.

In addition to the weaknesses exposed during Covid, the pandemic demonstrated national strengths. At what was a very difficult time, the British people stepped up as volunteers up and down the country to do their bit, supporting neighbours with emergency supplies, volunteering at vaccine rollout centres, supporting one of the fastest vaccine rollouts in the world and enabling us to come out of lockdown sooner as we kick-started the pandemic recovery in our schools, businesses and hospitals.

The Government are right to include the role of the British people in resilience. We learned from Covid what a force of nature the British people are, and our national resilience is all the stronger if we can harness the voluntary will of our fellow countrymen. In the other place, my honourable friend Alex Burghart asked about proper communication—this will be vital. Can the Minister confirm what practical steps the Government will take in this regard?

We also welcome the focus on flood defence. In recent years we have seen serious weather events that have threatened homes, livelihoods and our food security. We must have the right measures in place to support communities affected by flooding and protect them from future flooding events. Can the Minister confirm what consideration is being given to the risk of flooding in our planning system to protect the homes of the future?

At the most local level, our flood response often relies on our rural communities stepping up to help their neighbours; this often means our farmers. Can the Minister please explain what steps Ministers are taking to rebuild trust with the British farmers after their trust in government was shattered by the cruel family farm tax?

There are a number of issues missing from the resilience plan. One of the major challenges to domestic stability is economic instability. The Government’s fiscal policies have left us with the third-highest borrowing cost of any advanced economy after New Zealand and Iceland, falling employment and higher costs of doing business. Meanwhile, the Government are empowering unions, reversing the constructive reforms of the Trade Union Act 2016 and making it easier for them to take destructive strike action through the Employment Rights Bill.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was unable to say whether the Government are preparing contingency plans for a general strike, or strikes in general, as part of the resilience action plan. Can the Minister now confirm whether preparations for a general strike will form part of the resilience action plan?

The Government have been clear in the resilience action plan that they will continue with the lead government department system for preparedness and that the Cabinet Office will retain a central but supporting role in our resilience planning. There are inherent problems with this approach. We talked about the proliferation of responsibilities, leading to an uneven response and nobody taking charge in times of crisis. This is obviously compounded by the problems of sharing consistent data across government.

I think there is a gap between the Government’s approach and the recommendations of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, in module 1. She said:

“The UK government should … abolish the lead government department model for whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience”,


yet the Government’s plan implies that they will continue with this lead government department model. Will the Minister confirm that this plan does not abolish the lead government department model for whole-system emergencies? Have the Government therefore rejected the recommendation by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, and how can the Minister explain the gap? Finally, can she confirm that somebody will be responsible and accountable to ensure that the lead government department plans are up to date and reflect the latest threats? What opportunity will there be for Parliament to scrutinise the work of both the Cabinet Office and the government departments’ work on preparedness?

I have a few further questions for the Minister. Which types of pandemic will Exercise Pegasus prepare for? We know that pandemic preparedness before Covid was focused on the wrong kind of pandemic. How will Ministers ensure that Exercise Pegasus covers all the scenarios it should, and will a list of the types of the pandemics we have prepared for be made available to Parliament? Finally, what steps are the Government taking to horizon-scan for biosecurity threats that may be developed by hostile foreign state actors? I appreciate that there are a lot of questions there and look forward to the response from the Minister.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we very much welcome the publication of the Government’s resilience action plan. Of course, we recognise that we live in a period marked by heightened instability and insecurity. From the war in Ukraine to issues in the Middle East, climate-related issues and cyberattacks, the world is changing at an ever-greater speed. Obviously, these issues are not party political.

We acknowledge the steps outlined in the plan but call on the Government to go further in several critical areas to make the UK truly resilient. A national awareness campaign is essential to involve and empower our communities in helping to build our national resilience. The current approach of relying primarily on the GOV.UK Prepare website, while useful, may not reach all segments of society. We call for a broader public information campaign, drawing on the lessons from countries such as Sweden and Japan, where these issues are embedded in the education system and throughout the whole of society.

We also welcome the Government’s proposals to test a national alert system on Sunday 7 September, notifying 87 million people by text message. Text messages obviously have their limitations, so we call on the Government to look at a broader approach in this area. I know that everyone in the House will join me in sending our condolences to those in Texas and New Mexico for the terrible loss of life that they have suffered. In that instance, text messages were sent, but it was the middle of the night and people did not hear them. Can the Government consider installing sirens in areas where we know there are specific climate risks, such as floods and wildfires?

The Government have acknowledged the importance of dialogue on public resilience; in many other countries, that is a normal part of life. We welcome the commitment to expand the Prepare website and specific guidance for disproportionately affected individuals and sections of society. The plan must go further by comprehensively addressing the ever-growing impacts of climate change. We are seeing record-breaking wildfires and droughts, and I call on the Government to make better use of our weather-forecasting system to predict, and to inform us about, the risk of wildfires.

We welcome the commitment to flood defences, with £4.2 billion of funding, but we need to go further to make sure that we are climate resilient. We have not built a new reservoir in a long time, and last week Defra estimated that we will be 5 billion litres short of water by 2050. These are therefore urgent actions.

I turn to our critical national infrastructure. We have had recent, highlighted cyberattacks on many of our commercial businesses, but what if cyber attackers turn off the taps on our national water supply? Increased national threats require robust measures. We have discussed Heathrow this week, and we know that there were issues with identifying key CNI interrelationships and communications. The Government must commit to developing a cyber resilience index—we welcome that and the CNI Knowledge Base—to map these vulnerabilities. However, current CNI cyber resilience is not keeping pace with this rapidly evolving threat. We need to accelerate this work and to plug the gaps, to make sure that we are adequately prepared.

We welcome the legislation on countering ransomware and the Government’s proposed ban on the payment of that. That will help make sure that we are not a target.

Finally, the next pandemic obviously remains the number one threat and, again, is accelerated by the impacts of climate change. We welcome that the Government are preparing another exercise. We would like to see the full lessons learned from previous exercises and to make sure that more are learned from this one. We seek assurances that that exercise will test a full range of pandemic scenarios. We welcome the £1 billion investment in the new network of national biosecurity centres and the £15 million for the integrated security fund. Plugging these gaps in our biosecurity is obviously very welcome. We must also continue to support our universities, to make sure that we are preparing for the next pandemic.

The resilience action plan is a positive step. We need to be more proactive, more transparent and fully inclusive in our approach, to make sure that it is fully embedded in our society.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their comments and broad support for the Government’s actions.

Before I continue, I want to pay tribute to the work of many other noble Lords across the House. Specifically, I thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey for his engagement throughout the Government’s review of resilience, as a critical friend and my personal mentor—not that I intend to blame him for anything I get wrong today, but I might give that a go. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and my noble friends Lord Boateng and Lord Browne, who have acted as critical friends throughout this process.

The resilience action plan highlights the fact that we are living through a period of profound change, and our national resilience is being tested in ways that it has not before. In the last decade, we have had to manage the domestic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, the illegal invasion of Ukraine, the Grenfell Tower disaster, heatwaves, increasingly serious flooding and, this year alone, the impact of cybergangs targeting UK businesses. It is more important than ever that we have a clear plan to increase the resilience of the UK. The resilience action plan is this Government’s strategic approach to achieving this goal.

Our action plan has three objectives: to evaluate continuously the UK’s resilience, using data mapping to identify vulnerabilities and target interventions effectively; to enable society-wide action by embedding resilience in daily life in practical ways, such as those touched on by the noble Earl; and to strengthen public sector resilience, by ensuring that front-line workers and public services are well co-ordinated and empowered across all levels, from Government Ministers to first responders. The Government cannot stop every risk from materialising, but it is our first responsibility to keep the public safe. The resilience action plan takes an all-hazards approach, which seeks to improve the general resilience of the nation, similar to the approach adopted in the strategic defence review.

On how the action plan will bring together the range of policies that contribute to realising these objectives, £4.2 billion of funding has been earmarked for new flood defences to keep communities safe across the UK. We are investing £370 million to better secure the UK’s telecommunications networks, through research and investment in technology and infrastructure. We have launched a dedicated UK Resilience Academy, which will train up to 4,000 resilience experts every year across the whole of society. We are co-ordinating the largest ever national pandemic exercise later this year, which will test the UK’s readiness for future pandemics.

We learned from previous tragedies, including Grenfell and Covid, that, while emergencies have an impact on everyone, they all too often hit the most vulnerable in our society the most. Therefore, we have also launched a risk vulnerability tool, which maps the particular challenges that different crises may create for vulnerable people, to enhance the Government’s response both before and during a crisis. We are embracing the data.

I turn to some of the specific questions raised by the Front Benches opposite. We are going even further than just the action plan. Our update to the biological security strategy set out concrete measures, including, as noble Lords have referenced, the second nationwide test of the UK emergency alert system. It will take place on the honourable Alex Burghart’s birthday—it is his birthday present—on Sunday 7 September at 3 pm, with a notification going out to 87 million mobile phones at once. We will work with all stakeholders, including domestic violence charities, in the run-up to the national alert to ensure that the public have as much warning as possible.

It will also give us an opportunity to engage directly with the general public in communicating the importance of resilience. It is one of the tools that we will use to provide broader communications around resilience. Many of us have spent too many hours writing political campaign material, knowing that it typically goes from the front door to the bin in the kitchen, so we have to make sure that we have a variety of tools available when we communicate. While paper is always my back-up, especially where I live, we also need to have the right materials available online—as well as by using radio and television—to make sure that people have access to the right comms. The national alert gives us a wider opportunity to do that, and we will also be able to alert schools. As 87 million people will receive the alert, it is an opportunity to make sure that this approach is working.

Alongside this, we are pushing ahead with activity to promote the Government’s Prepare website to help individuals, households and communities understand how they can be ready for a range of different emergencies. All these actions are about making sure that the foundations are fixed.

Noble Lords have touched on a variety of issues, so I will respond directly to them. I am very aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked me a series of questions, so I may have to read Hansard, in case I did not quite catch them all. She raised an important point about how we are actively seeking to standardise data. The National Situation Centre is now a co-ordination point and ensures best practice for data use. I was there only this week; it is an extraordinary tool and is utilising data. We are about to sign an MoU with the devolved Governments, to make sure that data is used between the National Situation Centre and the devolved Governments in this area, which will help us to standardise data.

The noble Baroness did something that I should have started with, which is to praise the role of people in the delivery of our resilience. We all saw extraordinary actions during Covid, as people came together to look after communities. In my own area, it meant that hundreds of thousands of meals were delivered to children who qualified for free school meals. It is extraordinary what we can do when we come together.

I have already talked about proper communication and practical steps. With regard to flooding—I do have a piece of paper somewhere about flooding: there you go, it is like magic—the Government inherited flood defences in their worst state on record since June 2009-10. We are investing record levels in flood prevention and protection. Over the next 10 years, we are committed to £7.9 billion of capital investment for flood defences. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ floods resilience task force is a new approach, preparing for flooding by bringing together representations from national, regional and local government, devolved Governments, the emergency services, businesses and environmental interest groups. This should help the planning system.

The noble Baroness is definitely focused on agriculture today, and I give her points for it. Obviously, we have a multifaceted relationship with those in the agricultural community and will continue to work with them in this area, as we always have. She also touches on the issue of economic security; the noble Baroness is very aware that this Government’s driving mission is to increase economic growth in a way that the last Government simply failed to do. We will do so, so we have enough money to fulfil the commitments we are making.

I declare that I am a former trade union official. In my experience, I do not believe that the unions need empowering; they are doing all right by themselves. What we are doing is making sure that the general public and workers have appropriate rights in the workforce, and I look forward to discussing that with noble Lords next week, when we have the Employment Rights Bill before your Lordships’ House.

There are many other points, but I am aware of the time. I do want to touch on cyber, because it is so incredibly important. Obviously, we will be bringing forward the cyber resilience Bill in due course, when legislative time allows. We need to make sure we are ahead of the threats that are coming. Everything about the resilience action plan is to strengthen our foundations because, candidly, as noble Lords will be aware, the sheer range of threats we currently face means we do not know what will happen next. I wish we did, but it is about making sure we are prepared for whatever comes.

I will look at all the questions that have been raised and, if I have missed any, I will write.

UK Extreme Heat

Earl Russell Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prepare for, and mitigate, the increasing likelihood of prolonged periods of extreme heat in the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, this Government are taking action to strengthen the UK’s resilience, including against environmental threats such as the recent heatwave. The national risk register details the wide-ranging impacts of extreme heat to ensure that comprehensive contingency plans are in place. In response to the heatwave last week, the Cabinet Office convened the summer resilience network to ensure that departments were alert to the impending weather and were satisfied that the sectors they represent had effective plans in place. While I am here, I want to put on record our thanks to all the professionals working to keep us safe during extreme weather periods, from the LRFs to agencies including the Met Office, the Environment Agency and government departments.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Prolonged extreme heat is now 100 times more likely because of climate change, a new Met Office report has found. Inescapable heat is a silent mass human killer. Our systems and infrastructure are not prepared. The recent adaptation report found that many of our plans could not even be evaluated. Will the Minister initiate better communications with our climate scientists, put heat resilience at the heart of policy with a Cabinet position and offer better climate services and advice to society and industry?

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

My Lords, the Cabinet Office works very closely with experts in the Met Office and the UK Health Security Agency to plan for and respond to extreme heat events well in advance of the summer months. Their advice is central to communicating the risk of extreme heat to the public. We understand how extreme heat affects all of society. This is why our preparedness, as part of the national risk register, focuses on the potential impacts of heat across sectors such as health, transport, water supply and vulnerable groups. To reassure the noble Earl, COBRA speaks to our climate scientists daily. This morning’s 8 am call focused on our immediate challenges related to extreme heat at the end of this week and the beginning of next week. All this work is overseen at the Cabinet Office by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL]

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of this Bill, as I did at Second Reading. I too will oppose the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, because it removes crucial provisions relating to climate adaptation and environmental recovery objectives.

The truth is that, despite having really good environmental legislation, the Government are largely off track to meet their legal obligations, particularly on nature recovery, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The Office for Environmental Protection has concluded that the Government are largely off track to meet their nature goals; the Climate Change Committee has stated that the UK is not on track to meet its 2030 emissions targets; and in the recent report of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Climate Change Committee, not a single delivery plan for adaptation was rated as good. This is an alarming situation, and this Bill will help to resolve some of those problems.

The trouble is that nothing is joined up. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, put it really well at Second Reading when he said that the Government have all the levers, but they are not actually attached to anything. The Government are like a general in a military campaign who fails to tell the troops what the strategy is. Government needs to be interconnected, and these targets and ambitions need to go to the bodies, local authorities and people on the ground who are taking these decisions daily, to help make sure that government policy is joined up from top to bottom and united in its purpose and aims. That is what this Bill seeks to do.

As others have said, we sought to amend the Crown Estate Act, and we succeeded; we also succeeded in amending the Water (Special Measures) Act, but it wastes a lot of parliamentary time having to do this. I will be tabling an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to put such a duty on the Forestry Commission as well. The Government need to do these things.

On Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, I too was a little bit confused by it; there was a disconnect between the wording of the amendment and the speech he gave. It would remove the requirement for public bodies to deliver the adaptation programme. Just yesterday evening, we had a debate in Grand Committee on the impact of wildfires, and the threat is ever-growing. If we do not adapt, people will suffer and we will face increased costs and damages. We need to prepare: the reality of climate change is here, and it is going to be disastrous for people and our economy. We need to do something about it.

Amendment 1 would also remove the nature recovery duty. However, we have to do this. Climate change and biodiversity losses are interconnected and interdependent. Government public bodies own 6% of the land in the UK, so why would we not seek to improve our biodiversity by making use of those bodies and the land under their control?

Councils, as we have heard, also have an important role. I will challenge some of the remarks made because, in Scotland, councils do have a duty to make climate-related improvements. In fact, where they do so, they are making real improvements. Lots of councils want a greater ability to do these things. I therefore reject the amendment because, if passed, it would rip the heart out of the Bill. I will however address some of the points the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has made.

I do not think it appropriate to talk about our climate targets as being arbitrary. They are set by scientists and are reviewed by the Climate Change Committee; they are real targets with real purpose. I agree with the noble Lord about the cost of energy bills. More must absolutely be done to bring down the cost of energy, but we need to remember that it is the cost of gas that sets the electricity price in the UK 98% of the time. I know that the Government are looking at energy market reform, but more needs to be done on that. The green economy grew by 10.3% last year, according to the CBI. In fact, it is one of the very few parts of the UK economy that is showing real growth.

I therefore have to say that I do not think the amendment is useful. I am not able to support it, but we do support the Bill.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his commitment to environmental issues and, as a result, bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill. The noble Lord’s expertise and dedication have long contributed to the strength of debate in your Lordship’s House, and we thank him for his continued leadership on this front.

I turn to Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and acknowledge the concerns that he has raised in putting forward this amendment. While we recognise the intention behind this Bill—to ensure that public bodies play their part in meeting our ambitious environmental targets—we need to offer some words of caution, particularly on the issue of overreach. I am sure that all noble Lords agree that our most cherished landscapes—our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, now called national landscapes—must do everything they can to aid in the recovery of wildlife and biodiversity. That ambition is shared across your Lordships’ House and, indeed, the country as a whole.

Recognising that, Defra has already put in place the Farming in Protected Landscapes programme. This grant scheme allows farmers to receive support where they actively contribute to climate resilience, nature recovery and the protection of the character and cultural heritage of our landscapes. This is a targeted and thoughtful policy, which encourages both practical and local delivery. We therefore caution against laying on additional statutory duties that might potentially cut across these already established aims. The public bodies listed in the Bill are not environmental regulators, nor are they designed to be. Asking them, for example, to assist in meeting targets for particulate matter or broader air quality may stretch them beyond both their remit and their expertise.

Turning to local authorities, I remind your Lordships’ House of the substantial steps already taken through the Environment Act 2021, which amended the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to create a duty not just to conserve but to enhance biodiversity. Public authorities must now actively consider what action they can properly take, consistent with the proper exercise of their functions, to further that aim. This is a significant evolution in environmental governance. The key question, we believe, is whether we should be adding yet more duties on these authorities. We must consider not just what is desirable but what is feasible. Many public bodies, particularly the smaller local authorities, lack the resources and technical know-how to contribute meaningfully to the targets set out in the Bill. There is a risk that we distract those authorities from their essential services and dilute the impact of the environmental work already under way, as was so eloquently illustrated by my noble friend Lord Jamieson.

To take one example, Great British Nuclear, which I will speak to further in group 2, was established to help deliver nuclear energy projects in support of government policy. Its objectives are clear and technical. Of course, it goes without saying that it must adhere to the rules and regulations already set for environmental safety, but expecting it or other bodies to contribute to these environmental targets risks undermining their principal duties and weakening delivery across the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the advisory board of Penultimate Power UK Ltd and as a consultant to Japan Bank for International Cooperation.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on obtaining a Committee stage debate for his Bill. I recognise his consistent efforts in raising environmental and climate issues in this House, although I may not always wholly agree with him and sometimes question whether his approach is proportionate. I regret that the obsessive determination of both the last Government and this one to eliminate fossil fuels too quickly, particularly gas, has ensured that the cost of providing electricity to industrial users is now the highest in the world. For example, household electricity in the UK is 42% more expensive than in France and 169% more expensive than in the United States. As for industrial electricity, UK prices are two and a half times as much as the equivalents in both France and the US.

The comparisons with France are important because French electricity is generated 70% or more from nuclear and the UK grid depends for around 15% of its supply on imports, much of that from France. I did not speak at Second Reading on 18 October but the contribution to that debate by my noble friend Lord Blencathra is relevant to my amendment. My noble friend said:

“Take Great British Nuclear, which was created in 2023, not 100 years ago. It has as its objects ‘to facilitate the design, construction, commissioning and operation of nuclear energy generation projects for the purpose of furthering any policies published by His Majesty’s government’. I do not think you can make a better contribution to net zero than that”.—”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 397.]


My Amendment 2 seeks to exempt Great British Nuclear—weirdly and misleadingly renamed on Tuesday as Great British Energy-Nuclear, or GBE-N—from the duty to adhere to the environmental targets laid out in the Bill. I have argued before that to establish GBE as a separate publicly owned company from what is now GBE-N was a mistake and that it would have been much more sensible to have integrated GBE-N into GBE at the time of GBE’s establishment. I say that the renaming is misleading because it gives the impression that GBE-N is being brought under GBE’s umbrella. Perhaps the Minister can tell your Lordships what corporate or structural changes have taken place in either company as a result of the renaming.

Noble Lords will remember that when we debated the GBE Bill many of us lamented the fact that GBE has been given £8 billion to invest in energy projects, principally wind and solar, whereas GBE-N does not have any committed funding to invest in nuclear projects. I move this amendment not out of disregard for the environment but from a desire to see our environmental goals achieved through pragmatic, economically responsible policy. The Bill sets ambitious and admirable goals but, in its current form, it risks entangling Great British Energy-Nuclear, a vital strategic body, in layers of environmental regulation that could unintentionally undermine our path to both net zero and energy independence.

Nuclear energy is not merely an option; it is an economic and environmental necessity for this country. However, as many noble Lords will appreciate, the economics of nuclear are finely balanced. The upfront capital costs are at present extraordinarily high. Each new gigawatt-scale power station costs billions of pounds. We acknowledge that investors, both domestic and international, will certainly scrutinise every risk and additional burden before making a decision to invest.

I welcome the Government’s decision to invest in Sizewell C, as such huge projects are always going to need public sector support. To subject Great British Energy-Nuclear to further regulatory obligations under the Bill beyond what it already faces from the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Environment Agency and planning authorities would be to risk unnecessary cost inflation. It would create bureaucratic drag and, worse, it would signal to markets that the UK remains a difficult environment for major infrastructure investment.

Let us be clear: nuclear energy is not on a level playing field with other low-carbon technologies. Wind and solar have enjoyed significant subsidy support over the past decade through contracts for difference, feed-in tariffs and other mechanisms. Nuclear, by contrast, is expected to finance itself under far more stringent conditions and is simultaneously capable of delivering baseload power that intermittent renewables cannot. Why is the consumer required to subsidise only intermittent energy sources but not nuclear projects?

The result of that is that UK-developed new nuclear schemes suffer a massive disadvantage compared with UK renewable schemes but also compared with nuclear schemes developed overseas, which, fortified with massive subsidies from foreign Governments, particularly the US, are coming over here and driving out UK-originated nuclear schemes which cannot compete financially.

Furthermore, nuclear is already held to the highest environmental and safety standards. From construction to decommissioning, the nuclear industry is subject to extensive regulation, scrutinised by multiple agencies and underpinned by rigorous science. It is misleading to suggest that this sector operates without accountability; to the contrary, it is perhaps the most tightly governed of all.

I say this not out of a lack of concern for the environment but because we must think strategically. Nuclear energy is, after all, one of the cleanest forms of energy over the long term. Its carbon footprint is negligible and it plays a critical role in achieving a stable low-carbon grid. The Government have rightly committed to ramping up nuclear capacity, both through small modular reactors and new gigawatt-scale stations. But these ambitions must be matched by policy consistency. If Great British Nuclear is to fulfil its remit, it must not be hobbled by duplicative environmental targets that add cost without adding value.

Furthermore, I remind the House that GBN is not a typical public body. It is a strategic delivery vehicle. Its success is measured not in reports or audits but in gigawatts connected to the grid. I propose, therefore, that we either exempt Great British nuclear entirely or create a more tailored framework, recognising the unique challenges and contributions of nuclear infrastructure.

Our duty is to make Britain cleaner, safer and more secure. We must avoid binding the hands of the very institutions we have created to do precisely that. I urge the House to support this measured, targeted amendment and to ensure that economic realism and environmental ambition go hand in hand. I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for bringing his amendment, which seeks to remove Great British Nuclear from the Bill. I just remind noble Lords that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, seeks to install an environmental recovery obligation and adaptation for public bodies to help meet our targets under the Environment Act and the Climate Change Act.

The purpose of this amendment is to remove Great British Nuclear and make an exception for that particular body which does not apply to any of the other 29 listed public bodies that are named in the Bill. For the noble Viscount’s argument to be successful, an argument needs to be put forward that Great British Nuclear is in a particular situation that is separate to all the other bodies named in the Bill, such that it has a specific, cast-iron case to be removed from the provisions in the Private Member’s Bill before us today.

I have not heard that argument, so, in short, I do not support this amendment—rather the opposite. I remind noble Lords that only the other week the Public Accounts Committee published a report on Sellafield talking about the intolerable risks there. There is a £136 billion cost and a projected timeframe of 100 years for dealing with the nuclear waste legacy in this country. This Government have no long-term geological store for nuclear waste and are unlikely to have one before the 2050s at the earliest. That is in sharp contrast with the announcement of a nuclear renaissance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, for his amendment proposing to add the Canal & River Trust to the list of public bodies in Clause 2 of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.

While I have every sympathy for his case, the truth is that the Canal & River Trust is a charity that was set up in 2012. My understanding is that, as a charity, it is not a public body, and it is therefore simply not possible to add it to the list of bodies covered by provisions in the Bill.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, on the inclusion of the Canal & River Trust in the list of public bodies subject to duties under the Bill.

I thank the noble Lord for his scrutiny and diligence in drawing attention to what is undeniably an important point of principle and practice, as was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. The Canal & River Trust, as the noble Lord rightly noted, is responsible for an extensive and significant network of inland waterways. These assets contribute not only to heritage and recreation but to the health of our natural environment.

There is no question but that the trust plays a role in environmental outcomes. Its custodianship of over 2,000 miles of canals and rivers and the biodiversity that supports is of considerable public interest. It is worth emphasising, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has, the persistent and ever-increasing problem of littering in our canals. Litter not only blights these beautiful and historic waterways, diminishing the enjoyment of walkers, boaters and anglers: crucially, it also harms wildlife and contributes to the broader degradation of aquatic ecosystems.