Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Earl Russell

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to this group of amendments on the role of Natural England. It is a big group, so I will not respond to everyone at this late hour. It is clear that there are remaining concerns about the Bill in terms of not weakening nature protections and the complexity of the new systems that are being put in place. There are two problems here. There is the complexity of what needs to be done and there is the issue of whether Natural England is able to deliver on what it is required to do under the terms set out in this legislation, should it be passed.

Natural England is absolutely central to delivering the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund. I want to return very briefly to the comments in the paper today, because I think this is important. The Government cannot both create more complicated systems that as a result of their actions require more people to do more things, to see that the duties made by their legislation get done, and at the same time say that the actual organisations that need to deliver those need to be slashed and cut. Actually, that tension between what are almost two different sides of government worries me. It worries me a lot in terms of what is being done overall. I will just park that there.

Turning to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, of course I fully understand the intention that it is about looking at responsibility, bringing in the Secretary of State and trying to hold the Secretary of State accountable for what is being done. There is an argument to say that Natural England may not be as accountable, and I understand that. My problem is that the Bill actually sets out a process where we have EDPs and the nature restoration fund and I do not think that just changing the wording of the Bill changes any of the complexities of the reality on the ground. There are other ways that we can do that, in terms of holding the Secretary to State to account in any case, and holding Natural England to account, so I do not particularly feel that that is a solution to the complexities that are created by the legislation.

I want to speak to Amendment 328A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 333 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was not certain whether Amendment 328A was a probing amendment, but the noble Lord has clarified that it is. As such, I welcome it and I look forward to the Minister’s response. My view is that the national park authority should be included, and I hope that is the case, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.

Amendment 333 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Young, seeks to clarify

“that the powers given to Natural England under Part 3 can only be delegated to a public body”.

I welcome this amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I also note what the Minister said on the previous group, that the intention of the Government was that it would only be a public body. We definitely welcome that statement. I think there is still perhaps a need to have this amendment to the Bill and, with that, I will sit down.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, back in 2022, when the nutrient neutrality rules came in, it started a three and a half year hiatus that has prevented the building of new affordable homes, caused the bankruptcy of local architects, the closure of local builders’ merchants, the liquidation of many smaller builders and the folding of so many white van journeyman contractors—the plasterers, plumbers, groundworkers, roofers and tilers.

What was the basis of this catastrophe? As a council leader, I sought to find out. It did not take long to identify Natural England as the culprit. So I asked it for its reasoning. It advanced a theory that there was complete equivalence between the application of a single kilogram of phosphate anywhere in a catchment, regardless of the distance from a special area of conservation that needed protection under the regulations. It fundamentally refused to countenance the sort of risk-based approach that would be applied in any other walk of life or by any other regulator. Its approach was that the flushing of a lavatory directly into the protected Surlingham Broad was absolutely equivalent to going to the loo in Shipdham, over 30 miles away along a convoluted network of ditches, streams, tributaries and rivers before those rivers passed by the Surlingham Broad.

It is nonsense. I do not deny that there might be some infinitesimally small, theoretical riparian link between the lavatory in Surlingham and the toilet in Shipdham, but anyone who has studied for O-level or GCSE maths knows that the area around a point increases with the square of the distance, so the effect of the loo in Shipdham would be 30 times 30—900 times—less impactful; that is, if the water from that loo did not percolate into the aquifer, become assimilated into littoral plants, adsorbed on to soil particles or carried away in a farmer’s crops, in which case the impact would be significantly less, and it is.

When I asked, the designated person said that as there are no major processes for permanent phosphate losses within the aquatic environment, the nutrient neutrality approach is to assume that all the phosphorus will at some point reach the site, albeit this may take varying lengths of time and therefore there is the possibility of it contributing to the eutrophication impacts now or in the future. You do not have to be a scientist to realise that this “bathtub principle” is poppycock.

I asked Natural England to provide me with the scientific evidence. It sent me a slim paper repeating its assertions, with a long list of academic references. So I read them. The academic references that Natural England said supported its position argued the reverse. They made it clear that there were major processes for the permanent phosphate losses from the aquatic environment.

As I said in the previous group, this is my specialist subject. Before I joined your Lordships’ House, I gave written evidence to the Built Environment Committee on this point. I will not list all the ways in which I said that the scientific papers contradicted the Natural England stance but, in summary, it disregarded a whole range of natural mitigation factors, including: confusing adsorption with absorption; denying percolation to the underlying aquifer; ignoring the precipitation of phosphates in the calcareous soils that are found in the Yare catchment and along the River Wensum; the related effects of high soil pH in locking up phosphates; the effect of dilution by rainwater and the flows out to sea; and the incorporation and deposition of organic manures in the crops and along the brooks and streams.

The ban on housebuilding has been advanced on a completely unscientific, false premise, and one cooked up by Natural England. In short, Natural England’s interpretation of the scientific literature was misleading and mendacious. Its justification used selective quotation to misrepresent the balance of evidence.

Under the regulations, the test is one of significant harm. Natural England has misdirected itself and advised Ministers to substitute “significant” with “any”. How can it be trusted if it acts in this way? Its misrepresentation of the risk of the flushing of toilets in new homes has allowed it to prosecute a war on the housebuilding industry without justification. It is the enemy of growth. I can hardly believe I am going to say it, but this is probably the once and only time I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because she has fingered Natural England in the article in the Times referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as the enemy of growth.

Further, I then scrutinised Natural England’s nutrient calculator, which I found to be loaded with flaws and poor assumptions.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Earl Russell

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak to this group of amendments and particularly to Amendments 145, 174 and 175. In so far as Amendment 145 is concerned, which requires there to be an assessment, I am not sure that the amendment is actually needed. I have put many local plans through the local planning system, and this has been an integral part of our system. In fact, the inspector has written to us on more than one occasion to say that plans for building, housing, businesses and other environmental goods must be pari passu—alongside and equal with—the requirements to assess Gypsy and Traveller sites. The sense of what Amendment 145 seeks to achieve is already done—and I have the scars on my back to prove it.

As a leader, I have taken my responsibilities for this part of the population very seriously. One of the very last steps I took as the leader in my authority when I joined your Lordships’ House was to commit £1.8 million out of a net budget of £12 million—a significant proportion—to a complete refurbishment and upgrade of a transit site which, when it returned to us from a long lease, needed to be knocked back into shape and made decent. No one understands the importance of this more than I do.

I know that the guidance is listed in Amendment 175, but the custom and practice and effect of these assessments has changed since Covid. That has resulted through mission creep, though well meaning, to a systematic overstatement of the requirements as opposed to previous assessments. I draw noble Lords’ attention to some of the methodological changes. Amendment 174 contemplates a restatement of how we make these assessments and so it is important to lay before the Committee my knowledge of how the methodology has changed.

There has been a material reduction in travelling since Covid. Evidentially the use of transit sites has reduced, and the annual caravan count supports this assertion. The new methodologies that we seem to be sleepwalking into place significantly less regard and importance on the caravan count, a system that has supported the population over many years and has stood the test of time.

There have been other methodological changes. Instead of the face-to-face interviews that consultants engaged by councils have previously undertaken, there has been a switch to telephone interviews. Instead of the rigour and observation of family circumstance and history of travelling, custom and practice now is simply to ask youngsters whether they want a house. It is capturing wants not needs, with leading questions.

This is the point that we need to focus on. There needs to be more rigour as it is leading to a systematic overcounting. If you ask two youngsters whether they would like to have a house and they say yes, and then eventually they get together, the initial need for two is really for only one house, because they got together and are living in the same dwelling house.

I do not want to go through every single enumeration of all the changes, but we need to recognise that there has been a change in methodology since Covid, and the apparent increase in need is partly as a result of those changes and confusion between needs and wants. This is important.

As to my opening remarks, if the inspector places enormous weight on the importance of having a Gypsy and Traveller assessment alongside other parts of the local plan, if there has been a systematic overstatement and misrepresentation then otherwise good local plans could be sent back to the drawing board on a false premise. As the leader of the District Councils’ Network, although I cannot remember the precise example, I recall other districts where they suffered that indignity.

It is not good for the families concerned to have a misrepresentation, it is not good for the local economy to have plans delayed, and it is certainly not good for the national economy with the consequential of stopping building. By all means we must have the counts, but the methods must be robust and evidentially based. We need to get back to the system as it was, tried and tested, rather than the situation we have been sleepwalking into.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I support this group of amendments, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I speak on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who has signed her name to all the amendments in this group.

I will not take up a lot of your Lordships’ time. It is a pleasure to support these amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and others for proposing them. It is essential that, in this Bill, all communities and sections of society are included. It is important that we make sure that the Bill represents the needs of the Traveller and Gypsy communities.

Amendment 145 makes explicit something that is currently uncertain in the Bill: that Gypsy and Traveller sites must be recognised as part of the housing need when the strategic development plans are drawn up. The need for clarity is absolute and, without it, there is a danger that these communities will fall through the cracks and their needs will not be properly met and accounted for.

Amendments 173 and 174 seek to establish a statutory duty for local authorities to assess Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs and to conduct those assessments according to clear and consistent national guidance. These amendments are vital. We need consistency in methodologies, which often vary from area to area. These assessments are subject to criticism and there is worry about incoherence in the way they are done. We need to provide proper, clear and rigorous guidance to make sure that these obligations are carried out fairly and equitably across all areas and communities.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Earl Russell

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Earl Russell

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.