Great British Energy Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in her Amendment 13. It is said that when you are in a hole, stop digging—especially when it is a bloody great big one. It seems to me that it was the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who dug himself into the mire by talking about CCC accounting principles, just delegating it to the regulators, so it is all right then, greenwashing away the IMO shipping carbon costs. He undermined his case, and it demonstrates how biomass burners such as Drax use smoke and mirrors to obfuscate. If the noble Baroness had tested the opinion of the House, she might have had much more support than she might have imagined. It is time to stop the classification of biomass as clean energy and I welcome her intervention.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly include a consideration of the second group of amendments, talking about the definition of clean energy, and I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Trenchard. These amendments address a matter that many in this House have questioned during our debate: Great British Energy’s role and involvement in the production of nuclear. There is no doubt that nuclear energy in some shape or form will have a critical role to play in achieving the Government’s net zero targets. If the Government, via GB Energy, are to recognise the importance of nuclear, it is only right that they consult Great British Nuclear before investing in nuclear technology. That is where Amendment 36, proposed by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, becomes so crucial.

I also support Amendment 10, also proposed by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. This explicitly includes nuclear energy in the definition of clean energy. We know that it offers a reliable, low-carbon source of energy. In addition, Amendment 7, tabled in my name, includes

“the production of nuclear energy”

as part of GBE’s objectives, which complements Amendment 10 and further solidifies nuclear energy’s central role in being part of our long-term solution for energy security and decarbonisation.

Finally, turning to Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, which would expand the definition of clean energy, we support the intention behind them to ensure that we remain inclusive of all potential technologies.

To conclude, I urge the Minister to consider the amendments in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Trenchard carefully, as they would help to ensure a clean, secure, sustainable energy future for the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 22, in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward their Amendment 8. I imagine that it will find favour with the House rather than Amendment 22, but I will take the opportunity to press the Minister on a couple of aspects, just to give me reassurance that he means more than the warm words that we see expressed in his amendment.

In particular, how do the Government intend to deal with the current uncertainty over the community energy fund’s future? Is the Minister able to give us a guarantee of how that will pan out? Also, does he intend to take, or encourage GB Energy to take, early action to ensure that the fund will be matched by other funds, as I understand needs to be done, and that clear instructions on the above will indeed be set out in the strategic priorities for Great British Energy, as required by Clause 5?

I am not that familiar with community energy schemes, but I have seen how they operate in Denmark—I declare my interest, being half Danish and taking a great interest in Danish matters. I understand that they are so successful in Denmark because there is a system where local citizens, often organised in co-operatives, which again is very Danish—Arla is a co-operative in the milk industry that many here are familiar with—own a significant portion of renewable energy sources, such as wind farms and heat networks. Does the Minister agree that community ownership is part of the success of these schemes and that that is a path down which he would seek to go?

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 53, which seeks to ensure that the voices of local people are heard when proposals are made or encouraged by GB Energy for renewable energy projects that impact on local areas. This is a group about community involvement and consultation, and how people might have their say. I regret to say that, in so many cases, local people have been airbrushed from the debate, which has been conducted above their heads. We build resentment, scepticism and resistance when local people are denied their say. I speak with authority when I say that the NSIP system is being systematically abused by developers of solar farms, who string together otherwise stand-alone and discrete proposals for small-scale solar and aggregate them together as a device to somehow creep over the threshold. The voices of the local planning authority, locally elected representatives, local people and business are excised from the record.

The NSIP system was designed to allow truly exceptional and impactful infrastructure projects to be considered in the national context. I completely support that principle, but I see in my own area, for example, that one proposal, extending to 1,100 hectares but covering 40 square kilometres and at least a dozen separate landowners some 15 miles apart, has been cobbled together in the crudest and most cynical manner to creep over that 100-megawatt capacity line. It undermines public confidence in our planning system and acts as a recruiting sergeant for conspiracy theorists and their superficial, fundamentalist views. We will all become tainted and tarred by their brush while we deny the public due process and a proper say on these schemes, which should be decided locally but are not.

Later, on Amendments 50 and 52, I will say that solar should not be permitted on the best and most versatile land—grades 1 to 3A. I recognise that other land could be used for large-scale renewables, but we need to exercise care and caution. Even grade 4 or grade 5 land has a value, but that is more likely to include amenity value, outstanding landscape contribution or wider social benefit, perhaps in areas of outstanding natural beauty or other designations. It is for that reason that, for all land—even in cases where land may be at the poorer end of agricultural quality—changes in use to renewables more widely should be consulted on for residents within a 20-mile buffer of the widest proposed land extent. My amendment provides for this stipulation.

It is because the NSIP system is being abused and has fallen into disrepute that I have brought this amendment to repair the damage and indignation that local people rightly feel. We are storing up some terrible problems if the political class structurally sidelines views in an unthinking dash for renewables and fails to consider those wider impacts.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly too to speak to my Amendment 22. I am very grateful for all the support of so many noble Lords, and I am thrilled to be standing here after so many attempts to get community energy into the statute books. I note the work of Power for People, which has done a fantastic job over the years to make this happen.

Following on from the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, my sister has lived in Denmark for over 50 years now and she has had a financial stake in a wind farm for a very long time. She gets good, reliable, cheap energy. They really like it; it makes you feel like part of something.

I do not support the Liberal Democrats’ amendment that GB Energy should have to pay for all the home insulation, but I am extremely worried about where this money is going to come from. I do not see a place. We all understand that we have to do something about homes, for all the many reasons that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, set out, yet there seems to be a bit of a black hole, as we call it, in this department. You cannot get everything out of the GB Energy fund, and it is right that it should be ring-fenced around the actual production of the new green fuels that we all need, but there needs to be a be a really tough plan. I would be very interested to know what the Government have in store.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

Strangely enough, I find myself agreeing with the noble Baroness’s sentiments on this amendment. We should thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the Minister for reaching an agreement so that we can get something in the Bill. Amendment 40 would have been a lot stronger, but at least we have got something. We now need to ride heavy shotgun on what is contained in the framework to make sure that that happens.

I cannot take a lecture from the noble Baroness, because I know for a fact that Defra was severely prejudiced in its ability to do any of this work by the way that she operated when she was in that department.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 51. Before I get into the substance of what I want to say, I want to say how proud I am that the Conservative Government passed the Environment Act that resulted in cleaner water, purer air, less waste and lower emissions. Only the Conservatives could have done that, and I know my noble friend Lady Coffey had a hand in that.

At an earlier stage of this Bill, I probed the Minister on the environment protections for tidal energy. Upon reflection, the amendment was too tightly drawn around tidal and insufficiently drawn for protections for other types, such as wave and barrage energy. Further, I do not think that sufficient attention was paid in my earlier remarks to coastal and estuarine environments, which are all part of the offshore scene. I have altered my approach to ensure that all marine proposals must consider the environmental impacts of their introduction. I welcome the Government’s late acceptance of some of these principles and their belated tabling of Amendment 38. On this side, we are grateful for it, but, as my noble friends have said, it does not go quite far enough.

My amendment would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of tidal, barrage and wave energy, together with its associated cabling. Amendment 38 talks generally about sustainability in its widest sense. My amendment seeks to define what sustainability means. It is not just carbon; it is about the wider impacts on flora and fauna. I noted and listened carefully to what the Minister said about the framework documents that have come forward, but they are in the future and we are in the now. It is certainty that we crave.

I will not detain your Lordships, because it is late, with my tale of my visit in November to the Saint-Malo tidal barrage—the world’s first, opened nearly 60 years ago. However, I want for a moment to consider the environmental costs of that valuable piece of infrastructure in France. There are lessons from history to be learned as we look forward to a post-carbon world. While saving the environment by reducing carbon emissions on the one hand, the French have damaged it on the other. My amendment seeks to direct Great British Energy to strike the appropriate balance between the desirability of reducing emissions and the essentiality of protecting flora and fauna in these places.

In commenting on the Saint-Malo barrage, Thomas Adcock, an associate professor in the department of engineering science at Oxford University, said there has been a “major environmental impact” on La Rance estuary as a result of that tidal barrage, and that

“this would make it very difficult to get permission to do such a barrage again”.

Researchers point to the adverse impacts on marine life due to the altering of sedimentation patterns, as well as the impact on oxygen and nutrient levels in the water. Sand-eels and plaice have disappeared, while silting has reduced the number and variation of other fauna. It is in the public interest that this is considered, so that mitigations can be put in place. My amendment seeks to ensure that, when the Government’s tilted sustainability balance is engaged, it must give sufficient weight to flora and fauna under the environmental pillar, not just pull the decarbonisation trump card out of the top pocket. This is why my amendment is needed and why it goes beyond Amendment 38.

I am not starry-eyed about the practicality of building big machines that can survive in the most hostile environments, pounded by seas and eaten by saltwater corrosion. I am involved in the liquid fertiliser business, so I know more than most how hard it is to engineer these things in tough, salt-aggressive places, but that does not mean that we should not try. It is hard to engineer reliability in some of these unforgiving places, so the installations will be larger and more environmentally intrusive, and require more maintenance than is needed on land.

That is why this amendment is serious. It will require GB Energy to take into account a number of factors and to continuously monitor these when assessing offshore energy proposals—for example, the cumulative impact of installations when considered alongside nearby projects; the transboundary impacts, when activities in other countries may be impacted, such as commercial fishing; any interrelationships where one receptor, such as noise, can have a knock-on impact on others to disturb species, and in particular subsea noise, which impacts on marine mammals; physical processes, which include changes to the sedimentary flow; and navigational risk assessments, because sometimes vessels can be deflected into the path of others.

Taken together, consideration of these factors would ensure that some of the most delicate marine and coastal habitats, such as that introduced by my noble friend Lady Coffey—the 321 square kilometre Cromer Shoal Chalk Beds marine conservation zone, one of 91 such zones established by the last Government—would be protected.

I am not against harnessing this most inexhaustible supply of offshore energy, including tidal. The energy is there, it is year-round, it is predictable and reliable, and it deserves to be won and should be won. It is just remarkable that the Secretary of State is not required to give the appropriate directions to GB Energy to balance not just the carbon environmental benefits but environmental safeguards in the widest sense.

This evening, we sat on the water Bill. That Bill is the consequence of not thinking ahead about what might happen when a public utility gets carried away. Let us put the protections in the Bill now to constrain Great British Energy, and require the Secretary of State to ensure that a private body established for a public purpose acts in the wider public interest, not its private self-interest, and sets an example to others.

In summary, I agree with the sentiment of Amendment 38, but it does not go far enough. We must not allow carbon alone to trump all other environmental considerations. I will listen carefully to the debate, but I feel that, because of the inadequacy of government Amendment 38, if adjustments are not made then I may seek to divide the House accordingly.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 47 and 48 in my name and in support of Amendment 51 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller.

The threat posed to the environment by the rapid installation of renewable energy technologies is familiar to this House, as it was discussed extensively in Committee and during debates on the Crown Estate Bill. We know that the UK is the second-largest offshore wind market in the world, and that allocation round 6 under this Government has awarded 5.4 gigawatts of offshore energy contracts across fixed and floating offshore wind and tidal stream. Indeed, the Government have committed to quadruple offshore wind by 2030 as part of their wind revolution.

The speed and scale of the Government’s offshore wind developments raise significant concerns about the impact on our ecosystem. While offshore wind farms may have the potential to have positive impacts on natural habitats, we must not neglect the potential harm that wind or tidal technologies may have on our natural environment. On that note, I support Amendment 51 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, which follows a similar line to Amendments 47 and 48 in my name.

Through their so-called unprecedented relationship, the Crown Estate and GB Energy have a duty to assess and mitigate the impact of their activities on the environment. By law, GB Energy must assess, report on and minimise the impact of its activities on our environment in seeking to ramp up renewables and phase out fossil fuels.

I welcome Amendment 38 in the name of the Minister. We stand by to support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, if she pushes her Amendment 40 to a Division. Meanwhile, I remain to be satisfied by the Minister’s response to my Amendments 47 and 48, and will consider testing the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fuller]

50: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to meet national food security criteriaGreat British Energy must, in the exercise of its functions and when delivering the objects in section 3 and statement of strategic priorities in section 5 of this Act, take all reasonable steps to prevent the use of agricultural land classified as grade 1, 2 or 3a for solar energy production.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require Great British Energy to take all reasonable steps to prevent the use of agricultural land classified as grade 1, 2 or 3a for solar energy production.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of my Amendments 50 and 52.

They say that a nation is never more than three meals away from revolution. In the 80 years since we had to dig for victory, we have developed ever more exotic tastes, which in turn have spawned new crises from which only a first-world nation could suffer. Who can forget the filo pastry incident? While memories of hunger have faded, the need to put bread on the table has not gone away. Our nation sustains itself on the kindness of strangers, and the proportion of food that we grow ourselves has diminished and is now barely over 60%.

Last year, we had a nasty shock: the weather was bad, and a record number of farmers put land into environmental schemes. Only at the very last moment did Defra realise the jeopardy that we were placing ourselves in. Those schemes were suspended and limited plantings resumed, but it was too late to stop a 25% reduction in wheat production last harvest.

This year, it looks as though plantings have bounced back. However, that 25% fall in food production was a salutary warning about the fragility of our food supplies and a warning that we should not recklessly discard our farmland. It was a wake-up call because when land is converted to solar production, it is locked away for a generation—

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I think the reduction in last year’s harvest was due to the persistent wet weather and not anything to do with solar power.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, if I may correct the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I said that bad weather played a part but that a major contributory factor was the volume of land that was placed into environmental schemes, not solar. I am going to go on to solar in a moment, because we will then be talking about the future and not the past.

When land is converted to solar production, it is locked away for a generation—at least 30 years—and the ability for farming to bounce back and repair the shortage that we saw last year falls away. That Rubicon is crossed. Food in your belly ranks as the most basic human need. When the chips are down, you cannot eat a solar panel, to mix metaphors. Quite simply, these amendments make it clear that GB Energy should not entice, invest, promote or encourage land-hungry solar farms to be built on our best and most versatile land.

When I tabled similar amendments in Committee, I contemplated that GB Energy should be prevented from buying grade 1, 2 or 3 land for the purposes of renewable energy production more generally. I invited the Minister to meet me to discuss the issues that I raised. I am grateful to him for having done so. In the meantime, I have taken standings from other quarters. As a result, I have adjusted my approach this time to limit the scope of my amendments to grade 1, 2 and 3a land only and to restrict it to the promotion of solar panels alone, rather than renewable sources that are less hungry for land. I hope that, by modifying my approach, the Government might do likewise.

Your Lordships’ Library tells me that grade 1, 2 and 3a land comprises 42% of the cultivated area of Great Britain. By difference, therefore, 58% of agricultural land would still be available for solar energy under my proposal. It is not the best and most versatile land that feeds us. For solar, 58% is plenty to go at; it is about 12 times the size of Norfolk or over two and a half times the size of Wales.

Last time, the Minister rejected my proposal on the basis that there really was nothing to worry about. It was not expected, he said, that any more than 1% of the land—much less than is currently devoted to golf courses, apparently—would ever be submitted for renewables and that this really was not something that GB Energy should be concerned about, and certainly not him. On another occasion, the Defra Minister told your Lordships’ House that grade 1 and 2 land would not be part of the large-scale solar scene—move along, nothing to see here—and that, in any event, this was not the place to debate these matters.

They might not be worried but I am, because the Government have lost control of the numbers on solar. Let us examine those numbers. In Lincolnshire, a county that does more than any other to put bread on our table, already 2% of the land is under threat. Worse, thanks to my noble friend Lord Frost, who is not in his place, we learned that the majority of the Heckingham proposal is predominantly for the best grade 1 land under the rules laid down 60 years ago.

In response to a Written Question last November, the Government told me that only two farms, amounting to 1,400 hectares, were being assessed under the NSIP regime. There are five such schemes in the county of Norfolk, where I live, comprising over 7,500 hectares. We were told from the Dispatch Box that there would be no grade 1 or 2 land included in the Sunnica proposal, but there was.

Warm words and soft soap have been spoken around the Government’s proposals for a land use framework. That is something that should be welcomed, but they are only proposals, they are subject to consultation, and, in any event, they would be advisory and not statutory, and so not something that you could hang your hat on. Nevertheless, we now learn that this framework contemplates that fully 9%—not the 1% we were assured—of our farmland will be subsumed under non-agricultural uses to meet our renewable energy and other environmental objectives.

On so many levels, the Government’s rhetoric is at odds with the reality. They have lost control of the numbers and in so doing are imperilling our food security, which is national security.

Given that the Government’s promised indications have unwound so quickly—rather like a summer shower evaporates on a hot solar panel—I do not consider that the Minister has earned the benefit of the doubt on this matter. For this Bill is before us now, this evening—or should I say this morning? It is in the here and now, so this is the moment to ensure that Ministers are required to give direction to GB Energy to take sufficient and proportionate account of our food security alongside energy security.

I will not dwell quite so deeply as I did before on the reasons why we should be concerned about the impact of the uncontrolled growth of solar panels on our food supply. Suffice to say that on the economics, a farmer would do well to earn £200 an acre from the fruits of his labour, having invested millions in plant and equipment, and taking his chances with the risks of weather and the market. By contrast, solar developers are offering him the chance to sit on the beach with an index-linked £900 per acre or more for the next 40 years. The incentive there is to go way beyond the 1% and put our nation’s food security at risk. It is our responsibility to contain and to prevent the uncontrollable contagion—in fact, a stampede for solar on the best and most versatile land, leaving us vulnerable and ever more susceptible to the supply shocks and inflation on the food goods that every person must buy every day.

I am grateful to the Minister for facilitating a meeting with the new chairman of Great British Energy. At that meeting, Herr Maier conceded that his company would be a private company but one that would need to act in the public interest. That was reassuring, although I was struck by how it seemed to be news to him that saving customers £300 a year was within his remit. However, now that this important public principle has been accepted, I really do not see the prejudice in enshrining those public benefits in statute to direct the Secretary of State to balance food security alongside energy security, to avoid the risk that a private company established under the Companies Act 2006, with statutory duties to promote its own self-interest, will not get carried away on a frolic of its own in pursuing its own energy-related objectives while blind to the wider impact.

That is why I have presented this amendment in the way that I have. Amendment 50 is significantly less restrictive than the one I previously suggested. It follows the pattern in principle of government Amendment 38, but it is related to ensuring that solar farms and energy security versus food security are correctly balanced—in fact, the appropriate balance with the Secretary of State’s directions to GB Energy to balance between energy and food security and the public and private interests.

I do not want anybody to misrepresent what this amendment is demanding. It is not a ban on solar; well over 50% of the land would still be available for it. It is not restricting renewable energy on our best land. I am not saying that GB Energy should not invest in solar in any way, shape or form; I am saying that the best land should be reserved for food production, and the less good can be preserved for other purposes. It is in the national interest that it is done this way.

The Minister has said that he has sympathy with my arguments but that this is not the device or place to make these points. However, I fundamentally disagree. As a private company with £8.3 billion burning a hole in its pocket, you would expect GB Energy to set the tone, to provide expectations and to be the physical expression of what the Government expect, so this is exactly the right place and moment to shape our nation’s future energy supplies. If we do not do it here and now, where will it be done, and when, or are we just prepared to risk further legislation to rein in GB Energy later, as we have needed to do this evening with the water Bill that flows through this House?

I am very interested to hear what other noble Lords may have to say on this matter. It is a serious one, and there is nothing more serious than ensuring that our nation is fed. I hope that the noble Lord, even at this late stage, will concede, as he has done on the similarly worded Amendment 38, that this is a reasonable, sensible and proportionate way of ensuring that GB Energy does not get carried away on solar. If he does not, I regret to say that, even at this late hour, I am prepared and minded to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn to Amendments 50 and 52 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and spoken to in his prose poem of a speech. The importance of maintaining our natural resources to support UK agriculture and of supporting local stakeholder consultation in affairs that affect their surroundings and quality of environment are values that we share with the noble Lord. However, for the reasons that I will now set out, I must resist these amendments.

Great British Energy will be subject to the same rigorous planning processes that currently exist to protect agricultural land and minimise the effects on food security. The National Planning Policy Framework includes the preservation of agricultural land for food production as a key consideration in its legal framework governing renewable energy products. It emphasises the need to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land—namely, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said, grades 1, 2 and 3A.

More broadly, looking beyond these specific amendments, the Government recognise that food security is national security—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said. The Government do not believe that the accelerated rollout of solar generation poses a threat to food security; I will come on to that in a minute. The total area used by solar farms is very small: even in the most ambitious scenarios, less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land would be occupied by solar farms. Furthermore, solar generation can be co-located with agriculture, and many projects are designed to enable continued livestock grazing alongside energy generation. Innovation may also reduce the impact of solar farms on agriculture. The emerging science of agrivoltaics is developing innovative ways in which solar can be integrated with arable farming

On statistics, it has often been argued that the land use framework says that 9% of land will be used for energy development. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, mentioned the 9% figure; although he did not actually say that that would cover energy generation entirely, it was implied. This is not actually correct. The 9% figure covers agricultural land that would be used for the creation and restoration of habitats—I emphasise “restoration of habitats”—such as woodland, heathland, grassland and peatland. It does not cover generation alone. Defra will publish in the near future a land use consultation as an important first step in starting a national conversation on land use. There is also evidence that solar can improve biodiversity in certain areas and under certain circumstances when it is installed on agricultural land.

For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord is assured that Great British Energy will always consider the effects on our agricultural land as a necessary element of its regulatory approvals and will, therefore, withdraw his amendment—although I am not holding my breath.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I will not respond in detail and this is not the place, save to say that you do not have to be an expert or a regular listener to “Gardeners’ Question Time” to know that not much grows in the shade. The suggestion that agrivoltaics on arable land might be some sort of amelioration is for the birds.

I am itching to withdraw this amendment, but the Minister and I are so far apart. He says “less than 1%”. The land use framework contemplates more than 9% being taken out of production. There is an appropriate tension to be drawn between food security and energy security. I am afraid that I have not received the assurances that I require. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Fuller]

51: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Offshore energy(1) The Secretary of State must assess the impact of offshore energy installation and generation which occur under Great British Energy’s functions on—(a) the environment, and(b) animal welfare.(2) If the assessment under subsection (1) determines that the relevant offshore energy installation and generation is causing—(a) environmental damage, or(b) significant animal welfare issues,Great British Energy must cease facilitating, encouraging or participating in the relevant activity.(3) For the purposes of this section “offshore energy installation” means any installation that is offshore for the purposes of energy generation, including wind, tidal and wave energy installations.”Member's explanatory statement
This would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare of the installation and generation of offshore energy technologies and its associated cabling.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I am disappointed that the Minister did not adequately engage on the issues that I raised. For example, he mentioned biodiversity as being a matter, but that is not included at all, in any way, shape or form, in the Amendment 38 that he moved. I just think there is an insufficient balance between carbon and those other matters on sustainability.

It looks like we may have lost the battle this evening, but make no mistake: Labour’s war on the countryside continues. In the circumstances, I will not press this to the vote, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment with disappointment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Lord should not have spoken to the amendment if he intended not to move it, but we will take that as not moved.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 111 and 112 in my name, and in support of Amendment 113, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller.

Amendment 111 would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of offshore wind energy technologies. Amendment 112, also in my name, similarly requires an environmental impact assessment, but with the focus on the decommissioning of oil and gas structures.

The threat posed by the installation and generation of offshore wind farms and tidal energy is not new to the House. Many will be familiar with these concerns, as we on these Benches raised such issues in Committee in debates on the Crown Estate Bill, and discussed the purpose of electricity generation and the Crown Estate’s role in the stewardship of our seabed.

In considering the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fuller, we must again address the Crown Estate’s strategic and unprecedented partnership with Great British Energy, which is estimated to result in up to 30 gigawatts of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030. We should expect to see considerable and accelerated growth in offshore renewable energy projects, with offshore wind contributing significantly to these efforts. The UK is the second largest offshore wind market in the world. Under the new Government, allocation round 6 has awarded 5.4 gigawatts of offshore energy contracts across fixed and floating offshore wind and tidal stream.

The speed and scale of these planned developments raises concerns about the impact on the marine ecosystem, as expressed by bodies such as Birdlife International. As stewards of our seabed and investors in and facilitators of offshore renewable energy projects, the Crown Estate and GB Energy have a duty to assess the impact of offshore energy installation and generation. GB Energy must restrict such installation and generation if it is found to cause the environment and its associated animals harm. Environmental concerns linked to the installation of offshore energy projects and the operation of these technologies include, but are not limited to, increased noise levels, the distortion in light pollution, and the potential impact on carbon storage and the biodiversity of the seabed and its composition.

In an overview of the ecological impacts of offshore wind on the marine environment, Birdlife International highlighted the impact of the installation and operation of offshore wind farms on marine animals. It found that the installation and generation of offshore wind technologies produces underwater noise, affecting the echo location behaviour of marine mammals. Porpoises, seals and marine birds have been shown to be displaced by wind farms, with some marine birds displaying consistent avoidance behaviour during breeding seasons. Noise pollution produced by piledriving has also been found to impact the behaviour of pelagic fish.

I have briefly outlined the impacts on our environment caused by offshore wind, yet other technologies also have the potential to cause significant harm. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller for addressing the threat tidal energy poses to the fish which inhabit our seas. As he will no doubt discuss this impact in more detail, I will succinctly outline the problems associated with tidal energy generation, which is foreseen to increase rapidly in the coming years. Tidal turbines in open water could result in additional mortality caused by rotor blade collision. This is significant, as tidal waters serve as key feeding areas for fish, as well as passage corridors for migratory fish. Other risks include changes in underwater noise, electromagnetic fields and habitats, and displacement.

Finally, I hope the Minister will listen to the concerns highlighted in the amendments in this group and will confirm to the Committee that he recognises that Great British Energy is in a unique and critical position to assess and minimise the impact of offshore energy installations on our environment and the marine life which inhabits it.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 113. I have previously tabled amendments to the Bill on land, and now I return to the sea, which well fits someone whose territorial designation is Gorleston-on-Sea in the county of Norfolk.

These amendments require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of tidal energy technologies and their associated cabling. When we consider tidal energy, I am not thinking just about the fish, important though they are—in the tidal races, the machines can mash their flesh—but about sea-birds and the rest of the marine flora and fauna. I am thinking about not just living creatures but the wider environmental effects that may happen slightly away from the installations of the machines themselves, in the associated cabling that links those machines to land—a topic I will return to.

I am not against harnessing this almost inexhaustible supply of energy. The energy is there; it is year-round, predictable and reliable. It deserves to be won and it should be won. But I am not starry-eyed about the practicality of building machines that can survive in the most hostile environment, pounded by the seas and eaten away by salt-water corrosion. I am involved in the liquid fertiliser business, so I know more than most how hard it is to reliably engineer things in these tough, salt-aggressive environments. It is hard to engineer reliability in these unforgiving places, but that does not mean we should not try.

We know that tidal generation is best located where the water flows fastest—where it is choked through the channels, so that the speed naturally increases—so the machines can operate most effectively. Last November, I visited Saint-Malo and saw for myself the world’s first tidal barrage power station, opened in 1966; it is nearly 60 years old. It was a really impressive spectacle. It is cheap energy, but it has not come without cost. Thomas Adcock, an associate professor in the department of engineering science at the University of Oxford, says that there has been a “major environmental impact” on the Rance estuary as a result of the tidal station. He said that

“this would make it very difficult to get permission to do such a barrage again”.

Researchers point to the adverse impacts on marine life of altering sedimentation patterns, as well as the impact on oxygen and nutrient levels in the water. I saw for myself that the fast-flowing water passing through the 24 turbines left nowhere for the fish to go. Sand-eels and plaice have disappeared, and the silting has reduced the number and variation of other fauna. Sand-eels are the subject of the very first post-Brexit EU fishing trade spat, and of course they are the preferred diet of British sea sea-birds, so this is an important matter. It is in the public interest that this all be taken into account, so that mitigations can be put in place.

My amendment would require GB Energy to take into account a number of factors and to continuously monitor them when assessing energy proposals. Examples include the cumulative impacts of the installations when considered alongside the predicted impacts of other projects in the area; transboundary impacts, whereby activities in other countries, such as commercial fishing, may be affected, as we have seen; and interrelationships whereby impacts on one receptor, such as noise, can have a knock-on effect on another and disturb species. Examples include sub-sea noise, which my noble friend mentioned, physical processes such sedimentation flow —we saw this in France—and the updated navigational risk assessment possibly deflecting vessels into the path of other sensitive zones.

For offshore tidal proposals, perhaps with tethered devices, we must have regard to the cables that will transfer the energy to the coast. Coming from Norfolk, I take particular interest in the Cromer shoal chalk beds marine conservation zone. It is one of 91 such protection zones established by the last Government, by an organisation lately chaired by my noble friend Lord Banner. The MCZ is a protected inshore site 200 metres off the north Norfolk coast, extending about 10 kilometres out to sea and covering 321 square kilometres. It protects our diverse species. It is predominantly sandy, but the chalk beds provide a stable surface for seaweeds and static animals to settle and grow, and they are home to the Cromer crab, one of the important exports of our county; it is an important source of economic activity too. So, even though marine energy machines may be some miles offshore, we need to consider the whole cable system as well, particularly if it passes through places like the Cromer MCZ on its way to the grid.

None of this is mentioned in the Bill, which is a slim Bill with fat consequences. The Secretary of State is not required to give directions to GBE to take these important environmental safeguards into account. My previous amendments observed that GB Energy is a company: there is to be a fiduciary board, and it is established under the Companies Act 2006 to promote its private self-interest. So, unless it is constrained, we should not be surprised if GB Energy acts in its private interests, not the country’s interests. If it follows purely commercial principles, why should it need to take the marine environment into account unless it is directed to? This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide such directions.

I expect the Minister to say, “This is all very well but it is not really necessary”. However, we must learn lessons from the water Bill, which flowed through this House as an example of what to do when you have a private company that is established for public purposes yet strays from the path. I do not want a repeat of that. Success does not look like having successive legislation later to cure the unintended consequences of GB Energy getting carried away because it acts in the private interest, not the public one.

Let us put protections in the Bill now. This amendment would provide a simple safeguard, along with those proposed by my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel, so that the Secretary of State is directed to ensure that sensible precautions are taken to protect our fisheries, sea-birds and other flora and fauna in the whole end-to-end tidal generation system, from the coast all the way to the grid. I am not trying to block tidal power and I am certainly not seeking to add cost or complexity—still less a set of directions or to provide excessive control. My concern is to make sure that this private body, established for public purpose, acts in the wider public interest—not just its self-interest—as to its environmental responsibility and sets an example to others.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Offord’s Amendments 111 and 112, to which I have added my name. It has become increasingly apparent, from many points of view, that impact assessments are necessary. In particular, in exercising its functions, GBE should be required to consider the environmental impact and the effect on sea-birds and marine life of its installation of offshore wind facilities, as well as of its decommissioning of oil and gas structures.

I also support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s Amendment 113, which seeks to place the same obligation on GBE with reference to tidal energy projects. I have looked for information on both the Sound of Islay project and the Bristol Channel project, both of which I was reasonably familiar with some years ago but about which I have heard nothing in recent years. I am heartened by my noble friend’s enthusiasm for the sector and look forward to hearing whether the Minister expects that GBE will be encouraged to make investments in it. As my noble friend Lord Fuller said, this is a slim Bill with fat consequences. We have to make sure that GBE will act in the public interest.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for letting me speak. I wish to correct the record: it was actually me who described what my noble friend is describing, not my noble friend Lord Fuller.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Although I do of course wish to be associated with those remarks.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I cringe, with apologies to my noble friend Lord Ashcombe; I did not realise that it was he who said it. Anyway, whoever said it, I very much supported the view that it might well be possible for the price of liquid hydrogen to come down as the technology developed and got better.

My noble friend Lord Roborough said to me that it was always going to be expensive. I said that it was being manufactured by wind turbines in the North Sea at the moment, but as we have already discussed, the problem with wind is that it is intermittent. The wind gets turned off every now and then, the windmills do not turn, and electricity is not generated. Apparently, it is very expensive to replace all the filters, and so forth, and you need to have a constant supply of electricity to produce hydrogen.

What is felt about this on the Opposition Benches does not really matter; what matters is the attitude that the Government are taking towards liquid hydrogen and whether this is something that Great British Energy will be investing in or not. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us where the Government stand on liquid hydrogen, as it is an important component of having clean energy for this country.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words to some of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom. He mentioned the carbon cost of steel, but there is one other element we should not forget. I understand that building pylons to take power overground is cheaper than putting it underground, but I plead with the Minister to accept that there are areas that we should try to protect. In fact, in the long term, it is probably as cheap, if not cheaper, to put power lines underground. I recognise the dilemma that the Minister is in, but we should look at the aesthetic value of what we are talking about, as well as the financial one. I believe that there are some areas of the United Kingdom that we should protect at all costs.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom on carbon accounting. He said that he does not know very much about oilseed rape, but I do. About 20 years ago, in some of the very earliest stages of emissions reduction, I was involved commercially in that.

My noble friend asked that we should have pilot plants and studies to see whether the energy balance of oilseed rape can be done, as if it has never been done before. I can tell your Lordships that pilot plants were set up on Teesside, at enormous expense, and analysed to death. Although this is not a debate on farming, I can say that, at normal yields, when all was said and done, after the ploughing, sowing, fertilising, spraying, harvesting, processing and transportation, you came ahead on a carbon basis only when or if you burned the straw that otherwise would have been left behind in the field. Of course, at low yields, you spent more carbon on growing it than you got back at the end.

I make no other comment save to say that my noble friend is correct that, often, superficially attractive green energy schemes, when you boil them down, cost more carbon than they yield. That is important to look at because, otherwise, we could sleepwalk into an enormous waste of public funds through GB Energy, chasing projects that do not hit the target—which, of course, is to allow us to be more sustainable in future.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. If I may, I will call out the elephant in the room on this Bill. We have had 10 groups of amendments turned into 18 groups on this final day in Committee—over half of the groups that we are discussing today are the result of one party degrouping amendments. We have spent over two hours speaking to the first group of amendments, and we have 18 groups to speak to today. I have heard a lot of speeches, but in the case of many, I could not tell which amendment they were even speaking to.

I will say just this: we support the Government and the Bill. This is an extremely important Bill. I am pleased to see action taken on these measures after the Conservative Party failed to do anything about it, left bill payers vulnerable to the increase in bills as a result of the war in Ukraine and ended up spending £40 billion of taxpayers’ money subsidising bill payers for no long-term benefits. In this group, we are generally supportive of Amendments 61, 65, 69, 70 and 74. For groups that we feel were unnecessarily degrouped, we will probably not make comments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fuller]

67: Clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must not facilitate, encourage or participate in the development of renewable energy technologies on agricultural land classified as grade 1, 2 or 3.” Member’s explanatory statement
This would restrict the types of land on which renewable energy technologies can be developed under Great British Energy’s activities, to protect the most productive and versatile land for food production.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 67, 73, 104 and 105 on the Marshalled List stand in my name. This is the first set of amendments I have brought to your Lordships’ House and, on that basis, if I make some small procedural missteps, I ask the Committee to treat me gently.

The purpose of this set of amendments is to protect the best and most versatile land for food production. That is not to say that solar or renewables are intrinsically bad. It is just that solar and renewable energy should be focused on the poorer land and food production on the best. Having needed to dig for victory within living memory, we cannot afford to forget that having food in your belly ranks above having a roof over your head in the hierarchy of the most basic needs. I am not seeking to be obstructionist, but we have to recognise that we are a crowded island and we all have to eat—and you cannot eat a solar panel.

There are plenty of calls on land use, for housing, for water management and drainage, for amenity and the environment, for factories and transport uses and, of course, for food production. My amendment seeks to balance the tension between energy and food production. It cannot be left to an operationally independent private company—GB Energy—and the directors who have no concern for food to get carried away and undermine the food security of our nation.

It is because of these tensions that the last Government proposed a land use framework, so we can strike the right balance as a nation between these competing land uses. I note we are still waiting for that to be published by this Government, who have exhibited quite a cavalier disregard for anything that happens in the sticks, unless they can cover it with concrete or carpet it with panels.

At this stage I should declare my interests as a director of companies involved in the agricultural supply and farming industries. But this is not about my personal interests. Protecting the best and most valuable land is in the national interest. I am not alone in stating this. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talks about food security being national security, and I agree.

Put simply, the UK is not self-sufficient in food and continues to rely on the kindness of strangers to feed it. It is important, because last November I asked a Written Question about how many hectares of solar farms were currently being considered under the NSIP regime. The answer came back that there were about two farms covering 1,400 hectares under consideration. Now, I know in Norfolk alone there are 7,000 hectares and five schemes. It is the same elsewhere. The Government have simply lost control of the numbers on renewables. They are unsighted on the stampede to take our best land out of production and lock it away for a generation. There is an unthinking dash for renewables overlaid by a reckless indifference about one of our largest industries: the food industry, the backbone of private enterprise on our shores. GB Energy has no concern for any of this, but it should. That gets to the heart of why these amendments are needed to the Bill. We cannot afford to be careless with our food supply.

Last year national wheat yield was down 25%, from over 14 million tonnes to about 11 million. It is partly explained by bad weather, but also by so much productive land being temporarily placed in environmental schemes— there was a herd effect. I am pleased to say that plantings have bounced back this season; but that 25% reduction should serve as a warning about the fragility of our food supply.

A casual approach to land use materially affected our ability to feed ourselves before anyone even realised. As I say, the cultivated land has bounced back this year and the damage has been repaired, but when land is converted to solar it is locked away not for one season but for 30 years—a whole generation. That is consequential; we cannot accidentally sleepwalk into locking away our best land. It needs a more planned approach and that is why we need directions.

I am grateful to your Lordships’ Library for providing me with a best estimate of the different types of farmed land here in the UK. In essence, Natural England estimates that, under the classification system established in 1966, about 21% of the land under cultivation and grazing is grade 1 or 2, and 21% is the upper end of good grade 3—the best and most versatile land. If we make an allowance for the lower end of grade 3, I suggest that about half the 8.9 million hectares of farmed land in England could be classified as the most productive and worthy of protection. This is the land that is the subject of these amendments.

I am not going to dwell on the difficulties the Library tells me it had in collating this information, but if we just accept—and be gentle with me—that about half the land is grade 1, 2 or 3, which is the best land, that would still earmark about 4.5 million hectares for non-food uses, including renewables. I am going to refrain from describing this vast area—4.5 million hectares—in the traditional unit of measure, which is probably football pitches. I venture to say that 4.5 million hectares is about two Waleses, or nine Norfolks. I have heard it said that the amount of land that could be devoted to solar, even in the most adventurous scenario, is probably no larger than the area devoted to the UK’s golf courses, but that is to miss the point. If indeed the coverage is much less than 1%, there is nothing to fear from protecting the best land. In other words, if my amendment is accepted, there will still be plenty of the worst land for renewables, just not in the places where the best land feeds us.

Let us move on to the economics. Thanks to this Government, the public now start to realise how farmers work in difficult conditions to eke out a precarious existence in a risky enterprise buffeted by weather and global trade issues. The reward for this all effort is about £200 per acre, often having invested millions in productive plant and equipment such as sprayers, tractors and combines. These farmers are being offered about £900 per acre to sit on the beach, with no-risk, index-linked income streams for 40 years, by giving up farming and installing panels on their land. There are whispers that, should they do this, after a passage of time that land would then be zoned as previously developed land, rather than farmland, and be worth considerably more as a result. You cannot blame landowners for seeking to covert to solar—except that some landowners want to turf off their tenants, and that is no good. It is a completely rational thing to accept, and completely in their private interest to do so. This amendment recognises that, while it may be in their private interest, it is not in the national interest. We cannot have a situation where it is open season for renewables regardless of the wider consequences.

The state exists to arbitrate between the private and public interest, and I say that we cannot be cavalier or careless with our food supply, however much we crave clean energy. We need to strike the balance between eating and heating. That means ensuring that food is preferentially produced on the grades 1 and 2 land, while accepting that grades 4 and 5 can contribute in other ways—that is the way forward. That said, even where grades 4 and 5 land could be contemplated for renewable energy, it is often the case that while some of this is impaired in agricultural terms, it has other values. Some of those values may include amenity value, outstanding landscape value or contribution to a wider social benefit, perhaps in an area of natural beauty. It is for this reason that, even in cases where land may be at the poorer end of production, changes in use to solar or renewables should be consulted on by residents within a 20-mile buffer of the widest proposed land extent. My amendment 104 provides for this stipulation.

Taken together, my amendments seek to establish and enforce the balance and tension between the private and public interests. That is what the state is for: to protect us from the herd effect that can stampede a whole industry in a particular direction before it can be appreciated what is happening, as we saw last spring.

I want to talk about why it is important that GB Energy is constrained by these amendments to the Bill. It is partly because no one in the countryside is prepared to take anything on trust from this Government going forward. Labour does not really understand the countryside—but I tell you, the countryside understands Labour.

Great British Energy is a company. There is to be a fiduciary board, and there are duties under the Companies Act 2006 to promote its self-interest—the private interest. The Secretary of State will be empowered by the Bill to make certain directions, but we would not need these amendments if the nature of those directions were already in the Bill. We should not be surprised if, left uncontrolled, GB Energy acts as company law requires: in the best private interests of the company, not the public interest of the country. It is not scaremongering; it is what we have just seen, having spent hours and hours debating the Water Bill, so there is precedent for wanting these sorts of controls.

My amendments would require the Secretary of State to ensure that GB Energy focuses its activities in such a way that it does not undermine our food security—our national security—and that it acts in the wider national interest and does not pursue its own private interest. There is no such requirement, so it falls to us to ensure that there is.

My amendments are important for another reason, and I want to dwell on an economic reason why they are is so important. I referred to the nature of the contracts being offered to farmers to incentivise them to give up food production and sit on the beach: long-term, state-backed, secure income streams that are index-linked, underpinned by a physical asset in a country with strong property and commercial rights. These are the sorts of investments that pension funds around the world seek out. The parcelling, packaging and collateralising of such assets into derivatives is what Wall Street thrives on. If we do not apply limits, we risk the perverse incentive that would convert much more than 1% of the British countryside—a huge amount of land—into nothing more than a global energy play, with the benefits transferred to offshore territories, controlled from who knows where. The countryside is not there to be collateralised, so GB Energy should be directed to give preference to the hard-grafting and toiling farmers of the best lands, who feed us, rather than driving the countryside in the direction of providing passive income for global investors elsewhere.

Failure to accept these amendments would be a policy designed to kill the family farm even faster than the Government are planning to do so already, transferring control of much of the countryside to Wall Street, while British jobs—proper jobs—and real family businesses are greenwashed out of existence. Rural Britain will be rinsed unless we get a grip here, with its landscape and environment impaired.

To summarise, the stampede for solar is economically rational for individual farmers, but economically illiterate for the countryside and our environment. It is not a matter of food security versus energy security: I know we need to keep the lights on, but we have all got to eat. Food security and energy security can and should be bedfellows, and this amendment provides a sensible framework whereby they can live alongside each other, in the national interest, and with the consent of those most directly affected by the installations.

In essence, GB Energy should be required by statute to prevent a repeat of—a modern version of—the Highland clearances on the lowlands, in an unthinking and unconscious dash for renewables on our best land. GB Energy cannot have operational independence over our food supply without limit or regard to consequence. Can the Minister tell us why the Government would be against this when, under my proposal, we could still have nine Norfolks-worth or two Wales-worth of land to work with, but at least with the security of food in our bellies? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on his first set of amendments. Of course, he is right that our food security is very important indeed to this country, just as moving as quickly as we can towards clean power is also very important, and I certainly accept that of course there is a balance to be drawn. Certainly, the importance of maintaining our natural resources to support UK agriculture, and supporting local stakeholder consultation in affairs that affect their surroundings and the quality of the environment, are values that I share with noble Lords who have spoken in the debate tonight. But I must come back to the fact that we are talking about Clause 6 and the issue of whether we should seek to amend Clause 6 in the directions that the Secretary of State can give to GBE.

I repeat what I said in the first two groups: these directions are a backstop where an intervention is needed, not a way in which to develop policy in relation to land use. In response to my noble friend Lady Young and other noble Lords, my understanding is that the Government plan to publish a 12-week consultation on land use early in this year. The consultation will inform the publication of a land use framework in England, to be published later on in this year.

I have also noted constructive comments about the need for us to develop—indeed, some noble Lords wish us to mandate—the use of solar in warehouses and in industrial and domestic properties, and these matters are under very urgent consideration at the moment. But we will always need ground-based solar, as well as onshore wind, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggested, which of course is why we got rid of what was in effect a ban that the last Government so grievously introduced in relation to that development.

The projects that GBE will be concerned with, that it will invest in and that it will give guidance and encouragement to—because of course that is an important part of its role, too—will be mandated. Inevitably, its job will be to consider government guidance on the most suitable land for renewable energy projects, and any project that it is involved in will be subject to the same rigorous planning processes that currently exist to protect agricultural land, minimise the impact on food security and provide ample consideration for local community interests.

The environmental impact assessment regulations of 2017 require that certain types of projects, including large-scale renewable energy developments, undergo an environmental impact assessment to assess their potential impact on the environment. Developers must also ensure that their projects comply with environmental regulations, which can include mitigating impacts on local wildlife, water resources and soil quality.

Further, the National Planning Policy Framework includes the preservation of agricultural land for food production as a key consideration in its legal framework governing renewable energy projects. It emphasises the need to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land, namely grades 1, 2 and 3a, from development that could compromise its productivity. Developers must consider the classification of the land involved in renewable energy projects and ensure that developments do not conflict with planning policies aimed at safeguarding agricultural land.

On the noble Lord’s suggestion that there is a dash for renewables, yes, there is a dash for renewables—I do not deny it. We have to have a dash for renewables. But that does not mean that existing protections are being overridden. Of course we recognise that poorly sited onshore projects can have impacts on the local area, which is why we will retain important checks and balances to protect the environment.

But, in the end, we come back to why we have Clause 6. It is a backstop power which we hope will never have to be used; it is not a way of seeking to change policy in relation to land use.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, we have had a good debate that has explored the tensions between food and energy security in the context of the national interest. It has recognised the tensions between the establishment of a private company, GB Energy, acting as it is required to do in its own narrow self-interest, and its responsibilities as a public body with a duty to set the right example.

I have taken from some of the comments that, “Lord Fuller has perhaps played the right notes but in the wrong order”. I am not Morecambe and Wise to my noble friend Lord Roborough, but I would just like to refer to some of the points that have come along.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for his comments on the balance of land use and the importance of the “tilted balance”. Please do not misunderstand: my amendments are not saying that there should be no solar or renewables, or that we should have only food production. It is about where we put this thing in the tilted balance.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Roborough for shining a light on the fact that, notwithstanding that the Minister said, “Well, there are rules to be followed”, the rules are not being followed. That is why it is important that these amendments are made to the Bill, because we cannot really give the benefit of the doubt: if hitherto they have not been followed, why will they be followed now?

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, but even more grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for being gentle with her so I did not have to be.

The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, talked about the broad picture, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, for his point about tenants, because that has been lost as part of the social fabric in this.

I will be brief. This is such an important issue that I do not feel we can just leave it on trust that the Minister for Energy Security will necessarily dovetail in with the Minister for Food Production to get that tilted balance right. The nation cannot risk GB Energy going rogue, and there has to be a better way with that. It is hard. Energy security and food security can be bedfellows: we are not being fundamentalist about this. At heart, my amendments are about putting food production on the best land, and solar and other renewables on other land.

We have we have fleshed out quite a few details and I know we are in Committee. I hope the Minister will meet with me and colleagues before Report, so that important safeguards can be taken into account in the Bill, if not in Clause 6 then perhaps somewhere else—who knows? I also hope that we may even have the heralded land use framework which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, promised before Christmas—but there we are.

On the basis that the Minister will meet me, I am prepared to withdraw these amendments, but in so doing I signal my intention to re-present them on Report, having taken soundings from colleagues that, if we cannot make satisfactory progress towards getting an acceptable way forward, we may need to test the opinion of the House. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 67 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 85G and 85H in my name.

In this week of all weeks, when temperatures have dropped to minus 20 in parts of our nation and we are down to less than a week’s-worth of gas, it is time for the rhetoric on renewables to collide with the reality of what it takes to power our economy and protect the comfort and well-being of our citizens. There could not be a better moment to have this debate, with Mother Nature dialling a wake-up call to us all.

We need to be more realistic about the practicality of heating and lighting our homes, grounded in the world as it is rather than how we want it to be. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that GB Energy takes a structured and quantitative approach to investing in energy production from renewable and wind energy assets. These investment plans would be evidence on an annualised basis, but broken down into monthly segments to reflect the seasonality that we all experience, with mandatory monitoring on a monthly basis. At its heart, my amendment seeks to force GB Energy to use a data-driven approach to address the structural energy gap we get every winter and, inter alia, to use that data to prioritise investments in energy assets that give energy security above the desirability of decarbonisation.

Energy security and decarbonisation are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but when the UK’s energy balance is published monthly, as these amendments would require, it will act as an obvious spur on investments to keep the lights on every month as a first and primary duty. These amendments do not dilute the ambition of GB Energy or abandon the obvious desirability of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. However, requiring GBE to publish its plans for renewables and to address the predictable gaps that come each year will bring some reality to the rhetoric.

This country is bumping on empty this week—it is a serious matter. We are too reliant on the kindness of strangers to heat our homes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, head of your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee says, the crux of the matter is the robustness of our plans for

“the doldrums of winter when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow”.

I am not rubbishing renewables but we need to be less starry-eyed about their ability to make the contribution some have thought they can, especially in winter. The amendments would therefore require GB Energy to be specific about how its investments in renewable and wind energy assets, and the planned additional investments over its existing ones, will contribute to the aggregate energy demand in monthly slices. There is a purpose to this, which is to ensure that when we flick the switch, the light comes on; when we press the button, the motor whirrs into action; and when you open the bill, you should not have to fall over in shock.

I am not interested in adding bureaucracy; NESO has a responsibility to produce these aggregate demands and I do not intend to interfere with those. But we know that there are seasonal variations in sunshine, and as with solar, also with wind; we all know the wind tends to blow harder in the winter as storms barrel across the Atlantic. My amendment will require GBE to take this predictable seasonality into account in its investment plans, to ensure that those investments in renewables can realistically contribute to meeting the energy requirement on a monthly basis, especially in winter. It is also about holding GBE accountable for the hard-nosed business of addressing these predictable structural energy gaps in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, highlighted, working hand in glove with NESO to address the market failure.

It sounds obvious that this should be the case, but my sense is that the Government are primarily focused on decarbonisation, even if it just ramps up surpluses in the summer that require these constraint payments to pay wind turbines to be switched off. If we are chasing carbon alone, we are missing the point. We need to balance renewables and wind investments in a way that also balances energy markets every month so that we do not run out of juice when it is cold.

This is important, because the total amount of standby generation capacity that we need is scaled by the months with the greatest deficit. It is on not an annual basis but a monthly basis. Because we have these predictable gaps, we pay standby gas power stations millions to keep ticking over, ready to jump into action when needed. Control rooms up and down the country are staffed by people playing patience and waiting for that call. That is expensive. It also underpins the entire speculative subculture in energy markets, in a process that the Daily Telegraph last week called the “gasino”, whereby speculators make a fortune while householders pick up the tab.

My colleagues have noted that the Guardian reported this week that two gas-fired power stations were paid £12 million for just three hours of electricity. We should not be surprised. Running a power station is expensive—there are staff, there is capital and maintenance, with people sitting around waiting for that call—and it is expensive to provide this insurance. The truth is that we are having to pay twice for much of our electricity, once for the renewable capacity, which we hope will boil that kettle, then again to have non-renewables on standby, ready to leap into action so that we can ensure that we can boil that kettle when the mercury falls. The consequence is that we are paying for some of the most expensive electricity in the world. Our costs rose 124% in five years, according to government figures. The UK’s energy price per kilowatt hour was 25.85p per kilowatt hour in 2023—significantly higher than in Germany, France and the US. We are becoming structurally uncompetitive as a result.

If enacted, my proposals would mean that the company’s objectives and functions would be forced by the market and public opinion to rank energy security above the decarbonisation function. That way, our £8 billion investment in GBE will keep the lights on. That is how we get best value from those investments, and we have energy markets that work more efficiently and at lower costs, which is a good thing. I expect the Minister to say, “Well, this is all rather burdensome”, and give ifs and buts and ask why would we need to publish this stuff. However, nobody questions when the OBR on a monthly basis publishes the forecast for the Bank of England. I do not see why, if it is good enough for the Bank of England, the GBE should not be forced to publish its investments as well.

I mentioned in the earlier debate how GB Energy is a private company, but it is established for public benefit. Publicising its plans and monitoring them is for the benefit of the public. It should not be entitled to cloak its activities in secrecy, as a private company established under the Companies Act 2006 would normally be expected to do. Mandating a monthly look at the markets, with a view to reducing the amount of back-up generation that we need, would avoid the perverse incentive to invest in renewables that make the surplus even greater. We do not want to overprovide standby back-up, so we end up paying excessive compensation payments, and we pay people more than is necessary to play solitaire in those control rooms. We do not want to underprovide, so that speculators hold us over a barrel in the short squeeze.

It follows that the requirement to publish the plan, to invest with the purpose of reducing the monthly or the predictable energy gaps, ensures that it brings a dose of reality to the complicated job of not only calculating the gap but doing something about it. That is where GB Energy can have a good, effective and ambitious role. Success looks like GBE publishing the plans and data so that we can see how effective it has been in needing fewer people in the control rooms by minding that gap, seeing fewer people falling over when they open their bill and a realistic, data-driven, balanced energy market that is not held hostage by ideology so much, so that we can move our economy forward—to keep the lights on and keep those motors whirring.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 85F, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray and Amendments 85G and 85H tabled by my noble friend Lord Fuller. As I explained in an earlier group, it is very clear that the price of electricity is presently adversely affected by the pricing mechanism applied by NESO, which is the price being determined by the last price of gas as used. If you are using gas only as a balancing item—that is, when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, you fire up a gas power station to make sure the lights do not go out—it is much more expensive. The electricity generated by that last switch on of a gas power station determines the price of electricity, and that has a huge negative effect on the consumer, obviously. That is why these amendments are so necessary.

I would like to ask the Minister if he thinks that it is right that the electricity price is determined by the last firing up of a gas power station, which is being used simply as a balancing item when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. As we have seen over the last few days, there have been many days when the proportion of our electricity generated from wind is under 10% and that generated by gas goes above 50%, which means that power stations that are used only occasionally are being fired up, and that is very expensive.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for tabling Amendment 51A. We also believe in a just transition and the need for that to happen alongside support for skills and jobs. One of our issues is that, despite the money invested in the Budget, we still see very low levels of predicted growth coming forward as a result of that investment. There is more for all of us to think about and do to make sure that the transition is a just one that creates green jobs and growth, and that we actually help people transition from the old industries—if I can call them that—to new green industries. This is the second industrial revolution; this stuff is not going away. All the jobs of the future will be green jobs, or we will not have jobs. We need to do more as a society to support that transition.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in strong support of Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Of course we want to consult widely with farmers, fishermen and communities; after all, these are the people who are most likely to be greatest affected by the generation of renewable energy in the countryside. However, that energy will be consumed in the cities, and so those people will not necessarily see the benefits. The harms could be damaged landscapes, the consumption of land, and the introduction of noise and general disruption from construction. We are looking at towering turbines and new pylons. In my own area, in Norfolk, Diss faces being surrounded—fenced in—on both sides by two huge lines of pylons as part of our drive to net zero. Acres of land are lost to solar, with the loss of jobs in the countryside and the debilitating hum of battery storage.

What can the Minister say about the extent to which the consultation will be coupled with reassurances and promises of compensation for those in parts that are most affected—possibly a reduction in electricity or energy bills? It should not be just the generality of everyone’s electricity or energy bill but particularly those people who are most affected.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Hamilton, Lord Teverson, Lord Grantchester and Lord Fuller, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young, Lady Boycott, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, for their thoughtful contributions so far to this debate. This group has dealt with the critical subject of the strategic priorities of Great British Energy, and we must recognise the importance of this issue.

I begin with Amendment 46. As we discussed on the first day in Committee, the drafting of the Bill is concerningly lacking in detail. Unlike other Bills we have scrutinised in this House, the Great British Energy Bill lacks a clearly defined purpose and does not set out the company’s strategic priorities and plans. I am grateful that Amendment 46 looks to define the impacts of Great British Energy’s strategic priorities: the security of energy supply and the diversification of the ownership of energy facilities for the benefit of people and communities.

By explicitly stating that Great British Energy’s strategic priorities will assist in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency, we would ensure that the £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money is used effectively for the Government’s stated purpose. Not only this but it is critical that Great British Energy looks to achieve a secure energy supply, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We saw how that was disrupted with the war in Ukraine. This is not an issue that can go unaddressed when discussing a Bill that the Government claim is so consequential to our country’s energy production, supply and security.

In fact, Clause 3 explicitly states that

“Great British Energy’s objects are restricted to facilitating, encouraging and participating in … measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy”.

However, the Bill makes no provision to ensure the security and future of our energy supply. We are concerned that there may be some tunnel vision here on renewable energy to achieve the Government’s unilateral, and perhaps overambitious, target of clean energy by 2030; that would inevitably compromise our energy security. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for addressing this concern in their amendment.

Amendment 47 in my name requires the statement of strategic priorities and plans to include the reduction of household energy bills by £300 by 2030. Throughout the election campaign, the Government repeatedly promised that Great British Energy would cut household bills by an average of £300. A similar claim was made by at least 50 MPs, the Science Secretary and the Work and Pensions Secretary, and even the Chancellor said:

“Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, will cut energy bills by up to £300”.


In an interview in June, the Secretary of State himself claimed that Great British Energy would lead to a “mind-blowing” reduction in bills by 2030. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, put it so eloquently, the public are hearing this message and must not be misled.

It is worrying that in the other place the Government voted against a Conservative amendment to make cutting energy bills, quoting the £300, a strategic priority for Great British Energy. By doing that, the Government voted against an amendment that would hold them to their word. They voted against ensuring delivery on their promise to cut energy bills for the British people. Why do this? If it is not £300, what is it? The public genuinely believe that Great British Energy, as a new energy company, will supply them with cheap electricity. Can the Minister give the Committee a cast-iron guarantee that GB Energy will cut energy bills? By how much will they be cut?

The pledge to cut household energy bills by up to £300 was not the only promise the Government made during their election campaign. They also promised that Great British Energy would create 650,000 jobs, yet this too was defeated from becoming a strategic object of Great British Energy and is absent from the Government’s Explanatory Notes on the Bill and the Great British Energy founding statement. Why is this? Amendment 48 in my name would ensure that the Government are held to their word and that the creation of 650,000 new jobs is included in the statement of strategic priorities.

These are not trivial matters: they are promises that are important to people. The Government have already put 200,000 jobs at risk with their plans to prematurely shut down North Sea oil and gas. The public are aware of this transition and they want a just transition, but they are hearing of an acceleration in offshore oil and gas to the detriment of jobs and no commitment given as to the new jobs that will replace them. The Secretary of State has made huge promises that greatly impact people’s energy bills, their businesses and their jobs. It is therefore critical that the Government are held accountable.

Amendment 49 in my name would introduce a specific strategic priority for Great British Energy to develop UK energy supply chains and require that an annual report is produced on the progress of meeting this strategic priority. It is essential that our transition to net zero does not increase our reliance on foreign states, as has been mentioned many times, and particularly not on hostile foreign states. I think we all want to see a “Made in Britain” transition, where our offshore wind turbines are constructed by British manufacturing companies and erected by British high-skilled workers, and deliver clean, cheap energy for British homes and businesses. With that in mind, my Amendment 49 would make domestic supply chains a strategic priority for Great British Energy. In this transition to net zero, we are presented with great opportunities for investment and for new jobs. As with employment, we must ensure that British people and domestic companies benefit from the increase in investment we hope to see in the coming years. Therefore, we must not simply outsource this transition; the transition will not be just if it benefits only Chinese companies.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for tabling Amendment 55. It is critical that the Secretary of State must consult with various groups and local communities, including farmers and fishermen, when implementing a statement of priorities that will almost certainly have significant implications for them. I remind noble Lords of Amendments 26 and 110, to which I spoke on the first day in Committee. I raised the importance of local community consultation when the activities of Great British Energy might result in the erection of pylons.

I also draw the attention of noble Lords to Amendments 106 and 107, which will no doubt be addressed in future debate. I too have expressed my concern on the impact of Great British Energy’s functions on coastal communities and commercial fishing. I seek to ensure that an annual report is prepared and published to assess those potential impacts.

I turn to Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I do not intend to be repetitive, but this too is a fundamental issue with the Bill—it lacks strategy. How can the Minister expect the Committee to have thorough debate when the details of the Bill are so vague? The Bill lacks substance and we need to clarify the strategic priorities. However, by addressing amendments such as Amendments 50, and Amendment 73 which will come later in the debate, we can begin to address some of these glaring omissions.

EV Strategy: (ECC Committee Report)

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important debate at a pivotal moment for the personal mobility that underpins our economy and growth. The report explains in great detail that the choice of an electric vehicle affords much greater driving pleasure, greater acceleration, lower maintenance costs for home chargers, competitive daily charges and, thanks to direct-drive motors, the consignment of the grinding of gears to the history books—but if only this mode shift were that simple.

The market for EVs was already stuttering when the report was published in February. Since then, there have been further dramatic changes, as the growth as a proportion of the whole market has stagnated. We are literally at a fork in the road for electric vehicles. The report highlights a number of things that must be done for us to get back on track.

Before I talk about the rollout of chargers, I thank my noble friend Lord Leicester for his comprehensive list of electric vehicles that are made in this country. He missed out one that is close to home for us both, in Norfolk, because Lotus Cars is shortly to be manufacturing its Type 135 in our great county.

To return to the provision of charging infrastructure, the report makes it clear that it is much easier for the market to provide charging points along the motorways and main roads, while there are few incentives on the B roads and in out-of-the-way places. As a council leader back in 2018, I recognised that it was really important for the council to take a lead in the provision of this public infrastructure. Our approach was grounded in the understanding that not every motorist has a long gravel drive; many live in flats or terraced homes, and simply do not have anywhere to park outside their home—a point that other noble Lords have made. Our council understood that we would never get the wide uptake of EVs unless we democratised the opportunity for anybody to charge a vehicle close by, so we invested in the fat cables in our car parks to serve the first generation of fast chargers, with better app support. We have now extended the number of installations in our leisure centres and other public buildings with a second generation, taking advantage of government funding and adding our own resources to decarbonise.

However, we still needed to drive forward, having done our bit to begin with. Two years ago, we made a big offer to each of the 120 town and parish councils in our district. We would procure, install, maintain and manage an electric charging point in the grounds of their village hall or bowls club car park; all they needed to do was find that space. We would hook it up to the mains, and the app would ensure that any electricity consumed by chargers would be refunded, with a margin for themselves.

A third of our population lives in rural villages, and we wanted all residents and their visitors to be able to charge, especially as we had lost so many rural petrol stations. We would provide a real choice of mobility technologies for everybody in the countryside—and, of course, by putting the capital costs of these chargers on to the local council tax payer, those amortisation costs would then not fall in a surcharge on the pence per kilowatt hour on the public charges, which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the report have enumerated. We did not want to discriminate against those who could not charge at home.

These parish councils are valued partners and make an enormously positive contribution to our national life, but, two years on, I regret to say that only a single installation has been made under our offer to the villages. Although there are a few in the pipeline, our offer ran flat. Yes, the market will provide on the highway and, yes, urban authorities can upgrade their lamp-posts, but we can and must do more in the countryside.

I want to relay some of the reasons why our parish councils did not take up our offer. Some parishes simply assumed that there was not enough electricity, notwithstanding that we were going to have a survey as part of the offer. The offer was rejected on the basis of hearsay, rather than evidence. Some market towns felt that taking a lead locally and installing charging points was a service—a service that, on principle, they did not seek to provide. Others felt that they were not going to get used, so why bother? A few cited the lack of mobile coverage in the countryside as an issue; unless you have a mobile connection, you cannot connect to the app and download the code, and so the electric charger would not work—but that is of course notwithstanding that most village halls in most parish councils now have wifi.

There were cases where the parish council wanted to learn more but could not persuade the village hall committee to get on board. Some were just simply unrealistic. Sometimes in rural areas there is just not the oomph in the network to provide the sort of rapid charging found at a service station. They were rejected on that basis, and therein lies a real case of the excellent being an enemy of the simply satisfactory. Finally, and notably, most local councillors just did not want people hanging around the village hall. I was disappointed. There was a pocketful of excuses.

I tell these disappointing stories because they are part of my real-life experience, and if there is to be a plan for more electric cars, we will need a national strategy that takes some of these concerns into account. As the SMMT has observed to me, just making the plan is worthless unless the market participants can look beyond defeatism or prejudice. Having a plan is one thing but delivering it is another. Only when we have leadership across the whole of the public sector—that includes some of our 9,000 parish councils, as well as principal authorities—will we get universal, not just urban-based, coverage.

It is important to make progress quickly because, unless we start to address some of these headwinds, we will never get progress. I was pleased that the report makes it clear that home-based charging is nearly always cheaper, but home-based charging is just one of the costs. It has become clear to me, especially since February, when the report was written, that, leaving the simple energy cost per mile to one side, the total cost of EVs is now rising fast, and is making the internal combustion engine even more competitive once again.

Although electric cars are now subsidised by manufacturers, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, said, the upfront purchase costs are still more expensive—especially when taking into account the interest payments, which are not the same as when interest rates were 0.5%. There are also insurance costs: a function of providing a like-for-like replacement, plus some astonishingly risk-averse repair quotations for minor prangs in the car park that see write-offs, are now driving premiums to eye-watering levels. Depreciation is ruinous. It has destabilised the motor traders, who have been trying to catch a falling knife on the impaired value of their stock. The private motorist, as we have heard, is at a serious disadvantage to the corporate purchaser, with no tax incentives or opportunities for salary sacrifice and other things. Of course, battery range is not what it was thought to be—my noble friend made that point so clearly.

I will not dwell further on the 20% versus 5% VAT level, but it is discriminating against people who live in flats and do not have the long gravel drive or large diesel 4x4 to fall back on. We know from the SMMT that the fiscal drag is bringing electric cars into the luxury super-charged tax rate, at another £500 per year. Who would buy such a car with their own money? The costs, over and above the mileage costs, are running away.

We hear now that road charges have been mooted. I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned this, because it is a truth that we will have to grip. Not only is the total cost of ownership of electric versus combustion becoming much more significant but, if we then end up with road pricing, it will be the nail in the coffin. It would dramatically increase the cost of running an electric car.

I am not going to dwell further on the increasing proportion of electric vehicles against internal combustion engines in sales, but the policy is destabilising UK motor dealers, and undermining European and domestic manufacturers, by encouraging a flood of Chinese imports of uncertain quality and with concerns over embedded IT. This well-intentioned regulation is undermining our economic stability and electronic security, delegating production and wealth creation to parts of the world with lower environmental standards. Given the importance of cars to the global economy, we cannot ignore this global context. We must approach EVs and our policies as part of economic security, which in turn is part of our national security.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, there has been a bit of chuntering so I should explain that the Clock was wrong; the noble Lord has not taken more than 15 minutes.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I noticed that it was showing eight minutes when I started, so I think I have some more time.

I was talking about the role of electric vehicles and our treatment, in trade and tariffs, of our economic and national security. A dilemma is around the corner. After the US elections, will we follow the Canadians with a 100% tariff on Chinese EVs, or will we pursue a more EU-aligned strategy that combines a less aggressive tariff approach with tighter regulation—but at the risk of hobbling UK production? Informed commentators know that the upcoming UK policy choices on such matters as tariffs and trade are being watched closely in Beijing and Washington, as well as by our new friends in Brussels, who are the subject of a renewed charm offensive from London.

Whether it is America, China or Europe, the trade treatment of EVs here in the UK will set the tone for global trade negotiations in a much more complicated trading environment in an unstable world. One thing is for sure, though: if we side with our allies on protectionist tariffs, this will drive up the costs of UK electric vehicles still further, which will increasingly aggravate the move to electric. But if we side with China, this could kill off our industry anyway and leave us reliant on imports for ever. These are big dilemmas.

There is nothing more democratic than the freedom to get about. This report has made an important contribution to this important market at a single point in time, but it is a fast-moving target. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, well in navigating this complex macroeconomic, security and environmental situation. My view is that the fiscal approach, our environmental regulations and government policy targets need to be urgently tweaked—not done away with—to ensure that customer preference for electric vehicles is maintained, not further undermined with our economy damaged. This is not a market that can afford to go into reverse but, unless there is a change in tone, gears will continue to grind. Let us hope the engine does not seize up completely.

King’s Speech

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, in my maiden speech I am delighted to follow the convention of thanking those who have made me so welcome in your Lordships’ House since my introduction in March, including the doorkeepers, the clerks and staff, and the many friends from all sides, but especially from local government, and particularly from my own county of Norfolk. These include my noble friend Lady Shephard of Northwold, as well as my noble friend Lady Eaton, who has provided so much guidance and support.

Since my introduction, I have been seeking a moment to make a mark on two issues that are close to my heart and where I think I can make an informed impact. The first is the business of food production and food security, and the second is the importance of good housing as the foundation of building strong communities. This debate gives me the opportunity to talk about both, because at its heart it is about the two most basic human needs: food in your belly and a roof over your head.

Perhaps I can tell noble Lords a little bit about myself. I have pursued a career in the agricultural supply industry, which for nearly 20 years I combined with the leadership of a local authority in Norfolk, a position I recently relinquished to concentrate on my duties here. I was raised in the Norfolk seaside town of Gorleston-on-Sea, which I am proud to have as my territorial designation. As befitting somebody from the coast, I have a strong belief in the utility of the picture postcard. Keen observers in your Lordships’ cloakroom will note that my own peg is illustrated with an image of the superb Gorleston beach rather than my name. I would show you one of these postcards, but as a keen new Member I have learned from the Companion that display of visual aids is forbidden during debate.

Gorleston is a wonderful part of Great Yarmouth, a historic borough that provided the homecoming for a Norfolk man, Nelson, upon his victorious return from the Battle of Copenhagen. It now plays an important role in our nation’s energy security, having evolved global leadership in many aspects of clean energy production while benefiting from the world’s largest wind farm array on our doorstep. I was schooled in Suffolk and graduated from the University of Reading with a degree in agriculture. I clearly remember visiting the farm of the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, as part of our studies. Eyes have often glazed over when I discuss my role in the fertiliser industry but, hey, we all have to eat and my business sits at the foundation and is one of a number of enablers of our entire food chain.

The entire agricultural supply trades support an army of farmers, who have created our countryside and our natural environment and whose dedication, professionalism and innovation have made our agriculture the most innovative, sophisticated and productive in the whole world, and responsive to external shocks such as the Ukraine situation. The supply industries have innovated the technical advances that prove that there is not a binary choice between farming and wildlife. No longer is there a contest between food production and the environment. They can live alongside each other and be achieved together.

Perhaps more than any other, the food, drink and agriculture sector is dominated by unlisted family-owned businesses. These firms have an eye to the long-term thinking that builds generational wealth in our islands. Not all have deep pockets, but they tend to be embedded in their communities, spending money locally and enjoying the loyalty of staff who work with them for decades. I read the newspapers and am greatly concerned that unlisted family businesses, the bedrock upon which our economy is founded, could be pivoted into short-term thinking, salting away capital rather than investing if mooted changes to property reliefs are introduced. Any Government should tread carefully on capital taxation of such businesses. I know more than most that there is no such thing as unearned income when you put your family’s wealth on the line when building a firm to make better futures for those who work with you. Remember, these are the people who feed us.

As a nation that produces only two-thirds of the food we consume, where we have competitive and comparative advantage on matters such as genomics, we should exploit it. But chasing regulatory alignment with our closest neighbours in a way that hobbles our food chain, with counterproductive carbon taxes and trade barriers that do nothing to reduce emissions yet drive up domestic prices, will do nothing to help our exports of beer, bread and cheese to global audiences and help earn our place in the world.

I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned food security in his opening remarks, but lately it has been overlooked. Food security is something that we must focus on in times of international unrest and extreme weather. We celebrate those who put food on the kitchen table across the nation and deliver that most basic survival need of all—nourishment.

I have another, completely different string to my bow. What I have learned in nearly two decades as a council leader is that when you arrive at the council offices on a Monday morning to find people there with all their possessions in a plastic bag, having been made homeless over the weekend, it focuses the mind. If you cannot sort it, who will? Fixing housing issues is not just about building homes, but it is a critical issue facing us all. Over the years I have chaired two local plans, throughout the 2010s delivering 1% of this nation’s entire social housing additions, replaced every home lost to right to buy and more besides, been in the top 10 for the new homes bonus—the reward for delivering houses, not just talking about them—and played a leading role in building physical and social infrastructure up front alongside the construction of new homes.

I know a little bit about this. The planning problem is not just with councils. Councils cop the blame in the press because they hold the ring between the proponents and the objectors. It is the national agencies, often with their heavy-handed overregulation, that must share the blame for most of the delays and obfuscation in the planning system by adding costs that we cannot afford. While the modernisation of planning committees might be an eye-catching announcement in the press notices yesterday, a clear restatement of the equality of the three limbs of sustainable development—social, economic and environmental—and the recalibration of the balance between them, so that one limb does not have a veto over the others, would be more useful. It is time that the veto over delivering new affordable homes, establishing new communities and building new infrastructure is removed from Natural England, which in my experience, and that of your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee, has been found wanting.

Not building new homes does nothing to clean up our rivers. Wheeling out rogue algorithms on bat numbers should not blindly condemn communities to congestion for ever. Forcing councils to hire people in yellow coats to tell ramblers how to walk their dogs in the name of GIRAMS regulations is simply pointless posturing. Preening, self-serving bureaucracy by unaccountable agencies acting as activists rather than as regulators must be rolled back if we are to progress.

It is now clear to me that preventing the reform of nutrient neutrality rules last year might have been good politics, but artisan journeymen such as bricklayers, plumbers, roofers and tilers have been caught in the cross-fire and paid the price in lost work and failed businesses. This has made it even harder for us to meet the targets.

Ah, the targets—we have been in this place before. All I will say is that simply wishing for houses to be built is not a strategy; to make progress here, we need to recognise that there is a world of difference between funding new homes and financing them. Funding is writing the cheque; financing is putting that deal together. They are completely different disciplines. In a world where writing the cheque is not easy, the Government must give more licence to local planning authorities, such as district councils in the travel-to-work areas to which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred and which surround our cities, to set up development corporations, pull deals together and take the risk on upfront infrastructure delivery, with repayment as the new homes are occupied.

I am conscious that I am slightly over time but, as this is my maiden speech, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me. I sat on the CIL review in 2016-17 and—to go into one detail—I find it astonishing that local authorities are prevented from borrowing against projected infrastructure income, in the way that they can with Section 106. I could point to many other examples. Only by fixing such things will we allow more homes to be built. Simply hoping that our wishes come true will not be enough.

Everything that I have done in my career has brought me to this place to talk about these two most consequential issues of our time. I am proud to be debating the importance of good food placed on kitchen tables in new homes—food and shelter. These are the two most basic needs for individuals, without which there can be no true foundations for a healthy society and a vibrant economy. I stand by to play my part in helping our nation provide for these needs, and I wish the new Government well in seeking to fulfil them.