Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Wilson of Sedgefield and Lord Jamieson

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 158, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, sets out the principle that local planning authorities should operate under a duty of candour. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that many, if not most, local authorities operate very good planning services and do what I believe my noble friend is setting out.

However, I agree with my noble friend that there would be a benefit to this. I think it would support planning officers in their job, because they would not be so arm-twisted by others outside—and not just by councillors; I can think of some developers and others who do some arm-twisting at times. This matter is important. Communities need confidence that decisions that shape the character and future of their towns, villages and cities are taken in good faith and that the process is accessible, transparent and fair. The amendment makes a constructive contribution to this discussion.

On Amendment 185SG in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, as a councillor I agree—I think all of us ex-councillors here will agree—that we have frustrations as we know how it ought to be, but it is not. I remember having a very long conversation with people at my local hospital about some things we were seeking to do, asking why they could not move this, or do this or that. They basically said, “We would love to work with you and do it, but every Monday morning we get a call from the chief executive of the NHS and all he wants to know is about delayed transfers out of hospital”. Doing something that would fix a problem in six or 12 months’ time was not on the priority agenda.

This is a big issue with all public bodies: they all have their own priorities and all operate in silos, as has been so eloquently made clear. Placing a duty on public bodies and authorities, not only to follow best practice but to co-operate, could be very beneficial in coming up with better communities and better plans for our areas. This is a vital point. We need joined-up thinking, collaboration and co-ordination. They are not optional extras; they are fundamental. There needs to be some mechanism or tool that makes it very clear for those public bodies that they need to co-operate. I emphasise that sometimes it is the local authority that gets criticised when, in many instances—I would say the vast majority of them—it is about the inability to convene the whole public sector and quasi-public bodies together. Therefore, I am very supportive of the sentiments of this amendment.

Amendment 185J in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raises another practical and sensible point. I appreciate it is a probing amendment, but the issue of GDPR is a crucial one within local government. Again, I can say from personal experience—my noble friend Lord Banner made a comment earlier about the precautionary principle—I find that officers generally have a precautionary principle and will move to the safest option. That is not necessarily the most transparent option. If there is clear guidance that gives them clarity about where that line is, that could be very helpful in enabling officers to do their job better and more transparently, while securing, quite rightly, the privacy of residents and the public.

I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling Amendment 185. There have been a number of comments on this. As set out in Section 102B of the Planning Act 2008, a person within category 1, if they are the owner, lessee, tenant—whatever the tenancy period—or occupier of the land concerned, whose property may be subject to compulsory purchase acquisition under a development consent order, is automatically deemed an interested party. They have notification rights and a statutory place in the examination of an application. The amendment would extend this category to include any Members of Parliament in whose constituency a proposed development is to take place.

I completely agree it is appropriate that MPs know what is going on within their constituencies. However, such a change would give them a formal role in the process rather than relying on access through public channels or discretion. It might alter how MPs engage with nationally significant infrastructure projects, including those that are more contentious. I can see the case and recognise the change in balance between local involvement and the national framework of planning. Therefore, I ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s position. Do they see merit in giving MPs a statutory role in this way? How does that sit with the strengthening of local voices within planning law?

In closing, I thank all noble Lords for raising important questions of candour, co-operation and transparency. These are not just procedural matters but go to the heart of how we deliver in this country—how we build trust with communities and ensure that our planning system is fit for purpose.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their amendments, and noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Candour, co-operation and transparency are key issues in planning.

Amendment 158, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to impose a duty of candour on local planning authorities and their officers when carrying out planning functions. This Government completely support the principle of this amendment. It is important that local authorities and their officers act with candour when carrying out their duties. I hope that I can provide the noble Lord with assurance that this amendment is not needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Amendment 187A, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeks to probe the practical meaning of the new definitions, particularly the “achievement of sustainable development” and “mitigation” of climate change. Repetition signals importance; the fact that the same definition appears three times in such a short clause suggests it would carry significant legal and practical weight. That makes it vital that Parliament understands precisely what is meant. These terms, though laudable, are broad and open to interpretation. Without clear parameters, they risk being applied inconsistently by different authorities. If undefined, in unmeasurable or unenforceable terms, they could slip into the realm of aspiration rather than action, undermining their purpose as guiding principles for planning and infrastructure decisions. Ambiguity would not only weaken decision-making but could result in delays, disputes and costly appeals.

I appreciate that the Government’s Amendment 187 is not grouped here, but it is relevant. That amendment creates a new clause clarifying the relationship between different types of development corporation, ensuring that any overlap is resolved in favour of the higher tier authority. Will the Government consider committing to something similar in relation to these definitions, so that we secure the same kind of clarity and consistency?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for that short but important debate. Climate change affects everybody. Like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I live in a rural area and when taking the dog out for a walk during the summer I could see that the crops were not what they should be. We know this affects everybody in their everyday lives. It is something that this Government, with our net zero policies, et cetera, take very seriously.

Amendment 164, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would place a statutory duty on local authorities to contribute to targets set out under the Environment Act and Climate Change Act and to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act, and achieve targets set out under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.

We already have existing tools and duties that support efforts to contribute towards targets for nature, such as local nature recovery strategies and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, strengthened under the Environment Act, so there is already a legal requirement. The latter Act requires all public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, which must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy, as well as to any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England. Many local authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, drive clean growth, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, and it is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a statutory duty would bring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I very much appreciate what the noble Lord said, As I said, these requirements are a duty on all public authorities, and I am sure we will keep revising this. We know how important it is that we get this right. We will continue to press it with local authorities and all public organisations to achieve that end.

Amendment 187A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to probe the need to make additional climate change provision in respect of the new towns development corporation. This model is currently the only one that has any climate change objectives built into its legislation. Through the Bill, we are going further by including climate change mitigation and adaptation in the already existing aim to contribute to sustainable development and have regard to the desirability of good design. The same objectives will be replicated for all the other development corporation models which currently have no specific objectives in relation to climate change written into their legislative framework. Where development corporations are conferred the role of local planning authority for local plans, they will automatically fall under the planning legislation duties which place specific obligations in relation to sustainable development and climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, not all development corporations will take on the local planning role.

With this in mind, regardless of whether the development corporation takes on planning functions, they will all be required to meet this objective. The UK’s climate is getting hotter and wetter, with more extreme weather events. The effects of extreme weather and nature loss are already here and have impacted all our lives. But there are small wins which can have a big impact. By updating the current framework and making it consistent across the development corporation models and the National Planning Policy Framework, our message is clear that we will place sustainable development and climate change at the heart of all development corporations and guide the use of their powers.

I hope my explanation has reassured the noble Baronesses sufficiently, and I kindly ask them not to press their amendments.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

To be clear, my point was about the clarity of those definitions and whether they could be somewhat better defined, referring in particular to “achievement of sustainable development” and “mitigation of climate change”. It was not about climate change in general, but rather our need for clarity on the definitions in those clauses, because they are fairly broad-brush.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We believe that what is already there is specific and offers clarity. It is fundamental to the planning regime that we want to bring in. If the noble Lord wants, I can write to him in greater detail about what is on offer here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments has given me something of a sense of déjà vu. This is not to diminish their importance—far from it. These are serious and considered proposals. They strike at an issue that has surfaced time and again in our debates: the protection and promotion of those spaces which enable sport, recreation and play. Only last week, in moving his Amendment 138A, my noble friend Lord Moynihan reminded us, as he so frequently does, of the profound benefits that flow from creating space for sport and physical activity.

It is not merely about fitness, although that alone would be reason enough; it is about community cohesion, opportunities for young people, the long-term health of the nation, team-building, learning to get on with colleagues and working together. Well-being should be among the conditions of strategic importance within spatial development strategies.

I regret that the Government were not able to give more ground on that occasion, but there is a replay. We have VAR, and there is an opportunity for them to reconsider and give a clearer signal recognising the urgency of embedding health and well-being into the very fabric of planning. Perhaps today, in responding to this group, the Minister might move a little further.

Amendment 165, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is on the preservation of playing fields and pitches. They are not luxuries; they are the bedrock of grass-roots sport. They are where future Olympians take their first steps, but more importantly, they are where countless young people gain the habits of teamwork, discipline and healthy living. Once lost to development, they are rarely, if ever, replaced. It is therefore entirely right that a planning authority should be required to treat their preservation as a priority, not an afterthought.

In a similar vein, Amendment 179 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, reminds us of the importance of children’s play. A child who has a safe, stimulating play space nearby is a child who will grow in confidence, develop social bonds and establish the foundations of a healthy life. Deny them that, and we entrench disadvantage from the very start. I therefore commend both noble Lords for their contributions. I hope the Government will today recognise that without firm protection we risk losing something that cannot be rebuilt: our green lungs, our playing fields and the spaces where our children first learn to run, play and thrive.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for this debate on an issue that the Government take seriously. Amendments 165 and 179 are in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I am very grateful to them for raising these issues. There is nothing in the Bill that removes the strong protection for playing fields, especially the commitments in the NPPF. Play spaces are vital for supporting the health and well-being of local communities and as such are already considered through existing planning policy and guidance which collectively protect their provision. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that development plans should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. This includes places for children’s play, both formal and informal, including playing fields. Development plans then use those assessments to determine what provision of recreational space is required for local communities.

In December last year, the Government updated planning policy to make specific reference to safeguarding formal play spaces in the National Planning Policy Framework, enhancing the protection of those spaces where they may be threatened by other development types. The framework is clear that play spaces can be lost only if the facility is no longer of community need or there is a justified alternative somewhere else. Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework when preparing a local or strategic plan or making a planning decision is a legal requirement.  

 In recognition of the importance of play space provision for communities, we are also considering what more we can say about this important area as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision-making, on which we intend to consult this year. Further considerations on play spaces are set out in national design guidance that encourages the provision of such spaces and sets out how they can be integrated into new development.  As an aside, I am not sure whether the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are aware that there is now an APPG on play, which was established by Tom Hayes MP.

The Government are in the process of updating that guidance. A new version is expected to be published later this year and play spaces have been reviewed as part of the update. Play spaces can be funded by developer contribution, secured through Section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy, the CIL, which play an important role in helping to deliver the infrastructure required to support new development and mitigate its impacts. That is why the Government are committed to strengthening this system.

The Government have established the parks working group, with local authorities and industry specialists, to find solutions to the issues facing parks and green spaces, including improving the number of playgrounds. Our £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods will help deliver funding to enable new neighbourhood boards across the country to develop local regeneration plans in conjunction with local authorities. Upgrading play areas is a possible scheme that such funding will be used for, enabling the enhanced provision of public areas of play for many communities.

The Government also believe that the amendments may limit a local authority’s ability to respond to its community’s needs around play spaces by setting an overly rigid framework of assessments and legislative requirements.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, once more, and reiterate my acknowledgment of how important play spaces are for local communities and the role that our planning system plays in enabling and protecting them.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Wilson of Sedgefield and Lord Jamieson

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak on this important group of amendments, which touch on the crucial matters of climate change and, more specifically, overheating, energy efficiency and net-zero carbon developments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who have tabled these amendments. Their recognition of the pressing challenge that climate change presents and the role that planning and development must play in addressing it is both welcome and timely. In doing so, I wish to express our appreciation for the sentiment behind the amendments in their name and the desire to ensure that our built environment is resilient and sustainable in the face of changing climate.

We on these Benches recognise the need to address climate change and overheating risks in our built environment. However, it is also essential that we balance these aims with the need to avoid introducing overly burdensome mandates and excessive regulation that could hinder much-needed housing delivery, achieving the 1.5 million homes and economic growth. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to address these important and pressing issues, ensuring that we both protect our environment and support sustainable development and homes that are much needed.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords who have tabled amendments relating to climate change and overheating. It is obviously the biggest issue facing not just the Government and the country but the world. I turn first to Amendments 125, 126, 181 and 216, which concern efforts to adapt new homes and buildings to account for the risk of overheating and the need to drive energy efficiency in new homes. The Government agree that action is needed to address these risks, but we must be mindful of the existing regulatory and legislative regimes that underpin action in these areas.

The building regulations already set specific performance targets for new homes and non-domestic buildings. Compliance with these regulations is mandatory. Aspects of building construction concerned with heating, energy efficiency and cooling are best addressed through these regulations, which the Government are using to make progress on these vital issues. For example, in 2022, a new part of the building regulations was introduced, part O, which is specifically designed to ensure that new homes are built to mitigate the risk of overheating. We are already considering whether part O and its associated guidance can be improved, having run a call for evidence as part of the consultation on the future homes and building standards to seek views on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I would not accept that. It has to be a balance between what we can do to make things more flexible and ensuring that we have the right kind of infrastructure to lead to the growth we want in the local economy. We need a flexible system and what we are trying to devise here is that.

Amendments 135HZG and 135HZH cover the important but technical issue of decision-makers revisiting matters which have been established through the grant of planning permission when determining applications for supplementary consents, such as reserved matter approvals. I recognise that these are probing amendments, and I understand the concern about matters being revisited when they should not be. We want to see supplementary consents determined as swiftly as possible. Case law has long established that supplementary consents must focus on the specific matters directly related to the consent and not revisit wider matters which have been addressed by the original grant of planning permission.

However, we are sceptical about the merits of putting this case law on a statutory footing as suggested by Amendment 135HZG. The principle is well established among planning officers and putting it on a statutory footing will not speed up their decision-making. Indeed, it could create new grounds for legal challenges to planning decisions, which we want to avoid.

Similarly, I am not convinced that we need a review on this matter.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I gratefully appreciate the answer the Minister has given, but I want some clarity. He made two comments there. The reason for this, and I accept it is a probing amendment, is to bring into the planning process absolute clarity that a decision has been made and cannot be revisited. That certainly seems to be the case with case law. But the reason we have case law is because people are making decisions in the planning system which then have to go to court. By making things much clearer, it will enhance the role of those who are saying, “Hold on, we have already decided that there is planning approval for x”. Just because you are now changing the colour of the door, that does not mean you can revisit the original planning permission again. I am slightly puzzled why he is saying that, by making that clarification, it may even result in more legal processes. I am not necessarily expecting an answer tonight, because I appreciate he has valiantly stepped in at the last minute, but if he could think a little more about that and maybe we can have a conversation afterwards.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I could write to the noble Lord on that specific point. But it seems to me that the principle is well established among planning officers and putting it on a statutory footing will not speed up the decision-making. Similarly, we are not convinced that we need a review on this matter. We, of course, are always looking at opportunities to improve the planning system and if there is evidence that supplementary consents like reserved matter approvals were unnecessarily revisiting matters, we would want to take action, but we do not think a review would be proportionate.

Finally, Amendment 185SE seeks to ensure that changes required to extant planning permissions to comply with changes in legislation would benefit from automatic planning permission. I can say we share a common goal, which is to ensure that developments are not delayed by new legislative requirements. When the Government introduce changes to planning legislation, they are usually not applied retrospectively to avoid the uncertainty this would cause, but we recognise that changes to other regulatory regimes, such as building regulations, can impact on approved development and this may require subsequent amendments to the planning permission which can be frustrating for developers. However, we do not think this amendment provides a solution. It is too broad, and some regulatory changes can have a material impact on approved development which warrant further consideration from a planning perspective.

Instead, we are keen to ensure that, when new legislation is developed which could impact on development, the consequences for planning are recognised and minimised. There are already a number of mechanisms available within the planning system which allow changes to planning permissions in a proportionate way, such as light-touch applications for non-material amendments under Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and we are keen to see these mechanisms being used to address the consequences of any wider regulatory changes on approved development. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will beg leave to withdraw his amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Wilson of Sedgefield and Lord Jamieson

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I am also greatly pleased to say that we seem to have broken out into a spirit of co-operation. As noble Lords will know, modelling and simulation are used to drive efficiency in infrastructure and planning projects. I recall, as a project engineer more than 30 years ago, using simulations and realising just how valuable they are in avoiding mistakes and bringing people on board with exactly what you are proposing.

Therefore, they have the potential to reduce costly mistakes in the planning process, deliver infrastructure that is better, more adaptive and more resilient and, as Members have commented, bring residents and others on board because they can see what is there. They would also, I hope, allow developers to modify their plans to reflect what the public want because it can be done so much more easily through a model.

This technology is moving at pace, as are other technologies such as AI, and it is therefore likely that legislation will be required in future to keep pace with changes. Ensuring that the law remains sufficiently flexible and future-proof and does not inhibit development is going to be important, as is how this is integrated into the planning system as opposed to being a stand-alone, nice little model that you look at. If we are going to look at amendments and how changes can be made, we have to think about whether that means we need to produce a volume of paper documents or whether there is some output that we can integrate. It is a complex issue that we need more thought on, but it is a great opportunity. How do the Government intend to ensure that this planning law evolves, and how can it be integrated so that planners are able to realise the full potential of technology? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her amendments relating to modelling and simulation technologies and commend her forbearance for waiting this long to get to this important group of amendments. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his tour de force on the use of twin modelling. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Cromwell, Lord Teverson and Lord Jameson, for their welcome comments.

Amendment 107 seeks to require applications for development consent orders to provide and publish a digital twin model as part of the consultation process. This digital model would need to meet building information modelling level 3. We agree that there is great potential in the development of new technologies, such as digital twin modelling, to support the planning system. The Prime Minister recently recognised the great achievements of planning AI exemplars in speeding up the planning system in local authorities. We also recognise that the use of digital twin modelling could make the potential benefits and impacts of a large-scale infrastructure project more accessible and transparent to the communities affected.

While there is great potential here, we do not think it is proportionate to require it of every applicant at this stage. The purpose of this Bill is to speed up the process by which nationally significant infrastructure projects are consented to deliver the infrastructure this country needs. Requiring digital twin modelling at an early stage in a project’s design is likely to add cost and delay for applicants, particularly given that schemes are likely to change during the pre-application stage.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill also removes the statutory requirement to consult before an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. If the Government wish to mandate this innovation on applications in future, they already have the power to do so. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act gives the Secretary of State, and by extension the Planning Inspectorate, powers to request additional digital products when applicants submit applications.

Amendments 195, 196, 198 and 199 would provide development corporations with the power to undertake modelling and simulation to building information modelling level 3 standards in order to evaluate the impact of the activities. As noble Lords will be aware, development corporations deliver large-scale development and infrastructure projects that take years to deliver. We expect robust and up-to-date modelling and simulation to be undertaken by development corporations to plan and deliver each stage.

However, we believe these amendments to be unnecessary. Development corporations already have broad-ranging powers to do anything that is necessary to achieve their objectives. There is therefore no legislative bar to development corporations undertaking this level of modelling and simulation. None the less, where appropriate we encourage development corporations to make good use of digital tools to promote greater information sharing and collaboration across the projects they deliver. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Wilson of Sedgefield and Lord Jamieson

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we are in favour of and support these proposed changes. The original regulations allowed the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning—OPRED—to recover the eligible costs of providing regulatory services from the offshore sector rather than the taxpayer. It is entirely appropriate that those who benefit from these services bear the associated costs.

The regulations before us simply propose to increase the hourly rate for offshore workers: for environmental specialists from £201 to £210, and for non-specialists from £104 to £114. As the Minister said, the current rates have been in force since June 2022 and these regulations have been updated in the past. OPRED has reviewed its cost base and concluded that these revised rates are necessary to reflect today’s costs for regulatory services, calculated in line with His Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance.

I have had a chance to look through the statutory instrument, the methods used to calculate the costs and the chargeable hours calculations, and they all look fine to me. This is basically an inflationary upgrade, and we are happy to support it to ensure that people who fulfil these specialist, vital jobs are adequately recompensed for their work. I made the mistake of looking at the debate in the other place on this, and I was a little surprised that a simple fees increase managed to be described as ideological and destructive madness driving us closer to economic decline. I wish to make it clear from these Benches that nothing could be further from the truth.

Since we are here, I will ask the Minister a couple of very quick questions. The changes are minor. I recognise that there was no need to consult this time, that industry was informed and that there were no responses, but can I confirm that there is a process for consultation if there are larger changes in future? I notice that a lot of micro and minor industries are associated with this, so will the Minister confirm that, as far as the Government are concerned, there is no cumulative impact of such fee increases on them? I assume that there is not, but I take the moment to check. However, these Benches fully support this basic upgrade in people’s wages.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this may appear to be a narrowly focused measure but it speaks to some wider strategic choices being made—or not being made—by this Government on energy, the environment and industry. It revises the fees charged by OPRED for its regulatory oversight. The current fees have been in place for a while and are being updated in line with revised cost assessments and Treasury guidance for full cost recovery, with the new rates being £210 for specialists and £114 for non-specialists, with the aim of ensuring that the industry, rather than the taxpayer, bears the cost of its own regulation. We on these Benches accept the principle that the polluter pays, and we recognise the importance of cost recovery where it is applied fairly and transparently.

However, although we do not oppose the principle of updating these fees, there are several areas where greater clarity from the Government would be welcome in the broader sense. First, there is strategic clarity. This comes at a time when the Government are shutting down the North Sea oil and gas industry. A windfall tax remains in place and the long-term future of the basin is uncertain. In this context, even modest fee increases risk sending mixed signals. How do these changes align with the Government’s stated ambitions on energy security, net zero and investment in our own homegrown energy?

Secondly, there is investor confidence. The Government may argue that this is a minor adjustment but, for businesses already navigating a complex mix of fiscal and regulatory pressures, predictability matters. Offshore Energies UK has said that the sector could invest up to £200 billion this decade across offshore wind, hydrogen and carbon capture. Can we be confident that the regulatory framework and its associated costs are evolving to match that ambition?

Thirdly, there is the role and future of OPRED. OPRED was designed to regulate the offshore hydrocarbons industry, yet its remit is expanding to include the regulation of net-zero activities, such as offshore wind, hydrogen storage and carbon capture. How will OPRED be restructured and resourced to meet this broader role? Are the cost recovery mechanisms fit for that future?

Fourthly, on fairness across the sector, the Government invoke the “polluter pays” principle, and rightly so, but is this principle being applied consistently across the offshore space? Are our non-hydrocarbon actors, such as offshore wind developers or electricity interconnectors, contributing equitably or is the hydrocarbon sector being left to shoulder a disproportionate share of the regulatory cost?

Fifthly, on employment and skills, the offshore energy sector supports approximately 120,000 jobs across the UK. To preserve and grow the workforce through the energy transition, we need continuity not just in investment but in regulation. What assurance can the Government give that the fee policy is not operating in isolation from the broader industrial skills strategy?

Finally, on transparency, the Explanatory Memorandum notes that OPRED reviewed its costs and consulted with the industry in February 2025 but no responses were received. Should this be interpreted as assent, or does it point to confusion—even disengagement—from an industry uncertain about what to expect from the Government?

In conclusion, although the SI may be modest in scope, it prompts important questions about how we fund and structure environmental regulation in a rapidly evolving energy system. We on these Benches do not oppose the measure, but we urge the Minister to place it within a broader strategic vision—one that balances accountability with long-term investment, climate ambition and energy resilience. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, which reflected the relatively uncontroversial— I would have thought—nature of the regulations.

As I said, these fees regulations will enable OPRED to recover its costs for the provision of regulatory services under the offshore oil and gas environmental regulatory regime, as opposed to such costs being passed on to the taxpayer. The change to the hourly rates will increase OPRED’s annual fees from £6.7 million to around £7.3 million per annum, reflecting the current cost of providing environmental regulatory activities to the offshore sector.

On chargeable activities, OPRED considers the environmental implications of all offshore oil and gas operations before issuing permits and consents covering areas as diverse as seismic surveys, marine licences, oil pollution, emergency plans, chemical permits, oil discharge permits and consent to locate permission for offshore isolation. This SI is not ideologically based. In essence, it is the specialists putting up the fees by £9 and the support staff doing so by £10. The work that OPRED undertakes is very important for the rest of the industry and the North Sea.

I want to answer some of the points noble Lords raised. As far as micro industries are concerned, these regulations will affect only about 100 companies working in the North Sea. As far as consultation is concerned, any further fee increases will be subject to industry consultation and strategic clarity; that is important. None of those who were consulted this time round responded, but I think that this means that people were content with the fact that they were seeing these fees go up by £9 and £10, which increased the burden on the whole of the industry by £500,000. OPRED’s costs ensure that we can continue both to provide effective environmental regulatory services and to adapt to changing requirements, such as changes to the environmental impact assessment guidance.

As far as the North Sea basin is concerned, I do think that it has a future; we are going to be taking fossil fuels out of the basin for decades to come. It will also be an area where we can transform from taking fossil fuels out of the sea to wind and carbon capture, to ensure that we progress to net zero and that our energy is homegrown. As noble Lords know, gas prices are sorted out internationally, so if we have homegrown energy, we will have more control over it. That is what we want to see. With that, I hope that the Committee can agree to the fees going up by £9 and £10. I beg to move.