Great British Energy Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I just do not know where we think we are going on this. Surely the only thing that matters is the commitments that this Government have made. They have now been in power for six months, and the commitments that they make are the things that matter. What the previous Government did has been rejected by the electorate, and we must now to look at things again. I do not think that we should be held by anything that happened in previous Governments, because the electorate made it quite clear that they did not want to have anything to do with it.

What matters now is the commitments made by the Labour Government. If they think that they are going to reduce our energy bills by £300 in real terms, that should go down in legislation as a commitment from them. It is a figure that they have come up with; we did not dream of it. It was even in the Labour manifesto at the election, was it not? Therefore, we should see this commitment put down in statute so that something is done to keep to it.

I cannot quite understand the attitude of the Liberal Democrats, because they are keener than anybody on ensuring that we do not produce our own oil and gas from the North Sea. The Labour Government have cancelled the exploration licences for there, which means that we will be dependent on foreign supplies whatever happens. How the noble Earl can say that is a terrible problem when he supports not developing our own resources in the North Sea I cannot imagine.

This amendment is certainly something that we should vote for. The Government should be more than happy to be pinned down on this commitment, since they have made it quite clear that they believe in it. If they believe in it, why do they do not put it down in the Bill?

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Can I press the noble Lord before he sits down? How is this amendment consistent with the conventions of the UK Parliament? It seems to me that it is not, and I would like an explanation, please.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord probably knows more about the consistency of the UK Parliament than I do, but this seems to me to be infinitely sensible. I did not ask the Labour Government to commit themselves to lowering energy bills by £300, but they have done so. Therefore, they should be happy to see it in the Bill. I do not what the problem is, really.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, we are on Report. Reference was made earlier to the conventions of the House. It seems to me that the debate is getting very diffuse and not within the advice in the Companion about behaviour on Report.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

We should give the Chair more powers.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

Yes.

Energy Costs for Businesses

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I always enjoy the noble Lord’s interventions. I recognise that there is a potential in tidal power, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is—can I say—badgering me on this and has had a debate already in the Great British Energy Bill about its potential. At this stage, we remain open to discussions about how that can be taken forward.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Could I ask my noble friend: is fusion energy still 20 years away, as it was 20 years ago?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

King’s Speech

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on his maiden speech, much of which I agreed with. I also congratulate my noble friends on their appointment to government. I am particularly pleased to see my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern in the Chamber today—the first time anybody has said those words here. I have heard all the speeches, and I warn my noble friends the Ministers that the one they need to examine in some considerable detail is that of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I will not go into further detail, but in my view it bears great examination.

This is where I will lose the House. We have so much spare land in England that the brave action would be to suspend planning controls for 30 months and use building control. Both Brindleyplace in Birmingham and London Docklands were built under such a regime. Both were brownfield, which, while being a priority, is more expensive due to remediation. We need to use the lessons of things that have worked.

The last Labour Government made at least two attempts to reform planning in the interests of development. We failed. Before the 2001 election, Ministers were sent out and about on one day to show that Britain was open after foot and mouth. On the day in question, I visited various venues in Hertfordshire and reported in on some modest, sensible planning issues. I was at DSS at the time, and received a very poor response from the fellow Minister, so I complained. The upshot was that, by October 2001—by which time I was in this House and at the Home Office—I received a response from the then Planning Minister, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. He made some positive signals and promised to “change the culture”. By 2002, I was the Planning Minister, and by late 2003, someone else was the Planning Minister. That is not the way to change the culture.

What land are we talking about? As at March 2022, 35.4% of England was either national parks, green belt or areas of outstanding natural beauty. Only 10% was developed, and half of that was for transport and utilities. Residential is tiny, at less than 2%. I have heard today the phrase vast housing estates—it is less than 2%. To get growth in housing and communities—and I emphasise the second point—we need to increase the developed area by a little over 1% to around 10%. These figures are from Land Use Statistics: England 2022. The fuss is about where to build. Unless we go for new towns and cities, it makes sense to grow existing settlements for residential and community use. This is where the emotion about the green belt comes in, which is generally the collar around conurbations. A lot of the immediate collar is rubbish land, ripe for development. We can easily, and should, protect the vast areas of pleasant country, but experience shows that it will not happen without active ministerial action, supported from the very top—and I mean the very top. It is crucial that it comes from the top.

In my view, Ministers cannot be neutral on growth and planning. It has never been considered politically sexy, which is why the culture change has failed. True, by 2006, the now Dame Kate Barker had been called in; she suggested getting more certainty and less discretion in order to reduce delays in the system. Regional and local builders, especially the smaller ones, have virtually been wiped out due to planning not being rules-based. Brave developers, such as Urban Splash with its innovation, reuse of existing structures and modern methods, have contributed, but the scale has been nowhere near what is needed.

We need to look at some other sacred areas. During the evidence sessions for the recent Lords Economic Affairs Committee’s inquiry into missing workers after Covid, we were given two examples of the planning culture holding us back. Evidence was given regarding the south-west and the Lake District about the lack of housing for local workers and those coming in to work in hospitality being the cause of the lack of growth. These areas are magnets for international visitors, and hospitality and tourism are a key aspect of the economy in those areas. I briefly declare an interest: for 37 years I have owned a week’s timeshare in the Lake District, and I have seen some of the changes and difficulties. Planning is the single large reason for lack of growth, due to too much discretion leading to uncertainty. Business needs sure knowledge to grow, so the recruitment of staff can be achieved. Some of this will be in the national parks but, as I have said, the numbers involved are tiny and yet the job growth potential for local people is massive. It stops them being driven away.

We have the oldest housing stock in Europe. Average homes in England are required under present figures for demolition and new build to last literally hundreds of years. Some of it should be removed, but much could be improved from an energy and housing quality view. But it needs a plan driven by Ministers, similar to the sustainable communities plan published by Lord Prescott in 2003. We just lost our way. It was a brilliant exercise in planning for communities, but it was never really fulfilled.

Then there are questions of density levels, practical issues such as power points at 1 metre, and design quality, as advocated by the late Lord Rogers on the Bill in 2004. Habitable rooms should not be allowed to be on ground floors in flood-plain areas. There should be a requirement to grow the green belt. The last Labour Government left more green belt than they inherited, but changes were made. Local authorities cannot do this without leadership and partnership from Government.

I shall repeat the figures because of the nonsense. We see headlines about “concreting over our green and pleasant land” but residential is 2% while developed land in England is 10%, half of which is utilities and transport, so we are not talking about concreting over the country. For a little over 1%, all the growth that we need for housing and development can easily be achieved. We have to cut out some of the nonsense that scares people off. Nobody needs to concrete over anywhere; we can achieve the growth easily.