Tropical Forest Forever Facility

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what contributions and initiatives they have undertaken in support of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility.

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

My Lords, the UK has had a long-standing role in protecting forests and supporting efforts to halt and reverse deforestation. While the Government did not announce an investment in the Tropical Forest Forever Facility at COP, we very much remain supportive of the TFFF and are proud to have substantially assisted Brazil to develop the initiative. We will continue to provide support to the TFFF, including through co-funding the World Bank trust fund that will operationalise the facility and through the AIM4Forests programme, which will provide critical technical assistance to support delivery of the TFFF.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his new role. It is deeply disappointing that the Government have let down historic allies such as Brazil, Norway and Germany by not investing in the Tropical Forest Forever Facility at COP 30. It is a desperately needed initiative to end tropical deforestation, and it has cross-party and public support. I have two questions for the Minister. First, why will the Treasury not count investment in the TFFF as an asset on its public balance sheet? Secondly, when will the Government implement the long-overdue Schedule 17 due diligence provisions under the Environment Act?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The decision on whether to invest in the TFFF, as it came up, following the intense work that the UK did in developing it with the Brazilian Government, was very much part of the question of our fiscal position around the time of the Budget. That does not mean that this is necessarily gone for ever; it will be under continuing review in the future. I will write to the noble Baroness on the implementation of the schedule that she alluded to, because I am not exactly sure of its status at present.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister may need to write to me too to answer my questions. In the autumn the Joint Intelligence Committee produced a report on the impact on the UK of global biodiversity loss, which the report is believed to say is very significant. Will the Minister please find out what has happened to that report? When will it be published? Will the Government continue to make clear that biodiversity loss, the loss of forests and global deforestation are damaging to us all?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I will indeed have to write to the noble Lord about where exactly that report is at the moment. I remind him that the UK is extremely active on its biodiversity arrangements, particularly its forestry and woodland arrangements. The target for the 16.5% coverage of woodland and forestry in England by 2050 is already being substantially adhered to: 21,000 hectares of new woodland were introduced last year, which is a generational record. The UK will continue to act in that manner on its biodiversity commitments.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to our Secretary of State for DESNZ and his team for their dedication to keep attention on the climate agenda. Does my noble friend agree that, besides finance, the United Kingdom’s organisational support and commitment to encourage deeper participation from other nations are critical to realising effective change?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Yes, I agree with my noble friend. The UK continues to be one of the major donors to forest conservation and restoration, and we expect to deliver on the £1.5 billion of spending on forests pledged at COP 26. The UK is co-chair of the Forest & Climate Leaders’ Partnership, a coalition of more than 30 Governments working together to accelerate delivery of the goal to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030. This played an instrumental role in delivering key commitments for indigenous peoples and local communities —who are, after all, the best stewards of tropical forest development and protection—including a commitment that will regularise land tenure in 160 million hectares of forest, one of the most effective ways to protect forests. We also backed the Belém call for the Congo Basin, which will deepen forest protection in the world’s second-largest rainforest.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the noble Baroness’s Question, is the Minister aware that Ed Miliband said that the TFFF is a key game-changer in reversing the destruction of rainforests and that that is why the Government worked closely with the World Bank and with the Brazilian Government to get this in place? The Minister mentioned that the last Budget was a problem in terms of UK decision-making, but France had similar issues, as did Germany, Malaysia, Singapore and Norway—I could go on—but all those countries came up with hard cash to support this very worthy scheme. Was Ed Miliband overruled?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

No. The particular circumstance surrounding the TFFF itself, as I am sure the noble Lord will be aware, was one of intense UK participation in the setting up of the TFFF. As the noble Lord mentions, we consider it to be an essential and significant initiative as far as the future of forests and biodiversity is concerned across the world. That is why we put so much effort into getting this off the ground and support the continued funding for the operationalisation of that fund. It is just that, at that particular moment, we were not able to produce some additional funding for the TFFF initiative. We very much welcome that other countries have initially put some in. As I have mentioned, it does not mean that the issue is gone and forgotten; it is under continuous review for the future.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, this might as well have been considered a Defra Question, so I offer my sympathies to the Minister. But here we are, and I am always grateful to be able to ask a DESNZ question, my first to the new Minister. In the COP 30 Statement repeat last week and his initial response today, the Minister did not rule out contributing to the TFFF fund in the future. He may not have had the opportunity to read the letter entitled “Nuclear necessities” in yesterday’s Times, signed by 14 senior academics and luminaries in that industry. Given our country’s current economic situation and the need for large capital investment to meet the Government’s own green targets, can the Minister now rule out funding the TFFF and instead guarantee that future funding will, as the letter requests, prioritise re-establishing our critical domestic infrastructure, perhaps including a medical isotopes reactor and a thermal hydraulics facility—preferably in north Wales?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I very much welcome the noble Baroness to her new position on the Front Bench opposite, and I hope we will have constructive discussions in the future. She underlines the question of the different priorities that are ahead of us at the moment in terms of where to put money at particular junctures. I must admit that I am not a habitual reader of the Times, so the noble Baroness is one step ahead of me there, but I will have a good look at that letter. What she says underlines that at the moment this country has a huge number of sometimes not always well-anticipated demands on our funding—nuclear is one of them, and obviously defence is another—and that clearly has an effect on where you put money at particular points, however much your heart tells you that you would like to do so.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned earlier the tree planting that has been going on in the United Kingdom. Is he aware that the biggest threat to those trees reaching maturity and helping with the net-zero calculation is the grey squirrel? Can he give signs of the Government’s determination to deal with the grey squirrel problem and the main research in fertility control going on at the government laboratories at the Animal and Plant Health Agency?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I am not sure I can give the noble Earl the assurance that the Government will go out and shoot large numbers of grey squirrels in the near future. I accept that squirrels, deer and other similar animals are probably the biggest threat to what we plant as a woodland plantation and whether it actually gets to maturity in 50 years so that it can make its impact on reafforestation and carbon emissions reduction. That is one reason why the UK is concentrating its woodland afforestation and forest development efforts on managed plantation woodlands, so that the best protection is available within those woodlands from the sort of predation that the noble Earl mentions as a barrier to the development of mature woodlands and forests.

Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this is my first appearance before the Grand Committee—and a very welcome one for me. In my previous parliamentary career, I spent a lot of time trying to take statutory instruments apart as a member of the Opposition. I would pick little bits from those statutory instruments into pieces, to try to put the then Minister on his or her toes. I am sure that practice will not be followed in this House for statutory instruments, but I accept that, if it is, I will have only myself to blame for what transpires.

These regulations were laid before the House on 13 October 2025. They seek to establish the legislative basis for creating a statutory open data scheme—fuel finder—which will increase fuel price transparency across all UK petrol filling stations, empowering consumers to compare prices on a near real-time basis.

In recent years we have witnessed the rise in fuel prices and the profound impact that this has had on households, businesses and communities across the UK. Between 2021 and 2022, the price of petrol and diesel rose by over 60p per litre, driven by global supply and demand shocks stemming from the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In 2022, drivers paid an estimated £900 million more at the pumps across major supermarket retailers than the previous year. By 2023, higher fuel margins across the whole market had cost drivers a further £1.6 billion.

The CMA found that price rises for fuel and disparities between prices at a local level were largely driven by major retailers using this volatile backdrop, and the lack of transparency, to unfairly increase their profit margins at the expense of consumers across the UK. That therefore contributed to the cost of living crisis and the hardship that families up and down the country have felt in recent years. That is why we are delivering change to protect consumers, to put an end to unfair pricing practices and to increase transparency in the fuel retail market.

In line with the CMA’s recommendations as part of the road fuel market study, we are rolling out a statutory open data scheme for fuel prices—fuel finder—at the end of this year. These regulations will supersede the CMA’s current voluntary scheme and mark a decisive step in empowering motorists across the UK to compare prices easily and to make informed choices about where they purchase their fuel. Motorists across the UK will have greater visibility on the range of choice available to them, and retailers will be incentivised more than ever to offer more affordable prices in a more competitive market. Perhaps the fuel finder name ought to be “cheaper fuel finder” because that, I hope, will be the inevitable consequence of what these measures will put forward for the motorist.

I turn now to the detail of this instrument. These regulations will require all petrol filling stations in the UK to register and report changes to their fuel prices within 30 minutes of a change. The information will be freely available, and almost in real time. This marks a fundamental step towards restoring competition and fairness in a market that has proved that it will not self-correct without government intervention. By making this information openly available to any third parties that request it, we will enable the market to integrate this data into digital mapping services and vehicle satellite navigation services to help motorists locate the best prices in their area.

We recognise that this represents a change in operations for industry, and because of this we are taking a pragmatic approach. From 2 February, forecourts will need to be registered with fuel finder and begin reporting price changes. For the first three months, until early May, the CMA’s emphasis will be on supporting businesses to comply with the new regime, rather than enforcement. This will allow businesses a chance to adapt smoothly. We want retailers to succeed in meeting these obligations, and we will work with them to make sure that the transition is as straightforward as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument forward. This was indeed a Conservative initiative, started under the previous Government and designed both to increase competition and to benefit consumers; His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are of course pleased that the current Administration are continuing our work.

The need for this measure was made apparent by the excessive profits earned by major retailers due to a sudden rise in fuel prices in the wake of global supply shocks resulting from the Covid pandemic and Russia’s attack on Ukraine. By 2023, higher fuel margins across the whole market were costing drivers a total of £2.5 billion, £900 million of which went to major supermarket retailers as a result of a 60p per litre hike in fuel prices for consumers.

This instrument aims to create a fairer fuel market. Competition is its aim, and competition is best achieved through the transparency of data and information. Artificially increasing margins becomes materially more challenging when the consumer is no longer on the wrong side of asymmetric information and fully knows that he or she can drive just a few minutes down the road to save money. Being aware of pricing is one part of this, but knowing whether margins are fair and whether their past increases were proportionate is another equally important factor.

Although this instrument requires petrol filling stations to report price changes, it does not extend to reporting on the availability of fuel types. We would be most grateful if the Government could address this issue at pace. It cannot be logical that a driver will be able to see a competitive price but then be disappointed by an empty pump when they arrive at their destination. Is the Minister giving consideration to this? Do the Government accept that an individual using a fuel finder app will indeed be disappointed to arrive at the pump only to find that what they want is not available and will, as a consequence, potentially lose faith in the system?

If it occurs within the Government’s timeframe, the launch of the fuel finder will come two years after the CMA’s recommendation and a year later than originally planned. The Chancellor included the fuel finder in her Budget speech, but she failed to mention that it is a continuation of a Conservative policy and avoided saying that the measure was delayed by her own Government. Instead of the Government delaying for a year then, potentially, blaming complexity for not being able to introduce more thorough transparency measures while protecting low-volume providers, can we please have actions, not words? A potential solution would be to create categories of petrol filling stations and to require major retailers to report in more detail. We must ask: why is this out of the Government’s scope?

We are also concerned about the instrument’s timescale. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Consumers confirmed that guidance and training would be published before the rollout of the whole programme, but this will come as little reassurance to petrol filling stations. Both stations and providers need time to adapt, prepare and comply with these new regulations. It will do little to help them if the guidance is released as the regulations come into force. That will potentially happen if the Government leave this too late. Additional last-minute costs will be passed on to the consumer, which is precisely what this instrument aims to prevent.

The Under-Secretary of State said that the scheme is to be launched at the year end, but the full provisions of this instrument will come into force only on 2 February next year. Can the Minister please confirm that the guidance will come out before the end of the year, given that the Member in the other place was slightly less clear as to which date the guidance will be published by?

Despite these reservations, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition welcome the introduction of this measure that we initiated. It will provide a more competitive market and drive the rate of price increases down. Our aim should be to create a more certain and more competitive market for the consumer, bringing costs down for hard-working people. We very much hope the Government will take our suggestions on board and action them accordingly.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and in particular the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his very constructive contribution. As he rightly points out, this proposal originated with the previous Government but, I think, fell at the time of the general election—it had started to go through the House. The present Government have been able to take that original proposal and have some extensive consultations and discussions with industry and various other key actors in this field to make sure that the fuel finder was as streamlined and as effective as it could be. That is the form in which it comes before us today.

In terms of the regulations coming in in February, the aim is to make sure that this proposal comes in by the end of the year but, as the noble Earl will appreciate, there is a large number of technical issues to resolve in order to meet that date. What I can best say today is that there is an aim to do that by the end of the year and we hope that will be possible. I hope the noble Earl will understand that there is a lot of work to get this in place and we hope that will be finished in time for that target date to be achieved.

When the fuel finder was originally introduced, there was some suggestion that availability at the pumps should be included among the things that petrol stations had to provide. However, following substantial consultation and considerations of the practical challenge of reporting fuel unavailability—officials did conduct a thorough analysis—it was decided to postpone that and remove the requirement from the fuel finder scheme. But, as I have emphasised, that is a question of postponing and removing for the time being.

If a number of those really practical difficulties can be resolved, that might be something for the future as far as the scheme is concerned, but what the Government wanted to do was make sure that we could introduce a practically implementable and early actionable scheme so that we could get this running on an open access data arrangement as soon as was conceivably possible. I do, however, understand the noble Earl’s concerns. I happen to have an electric car, so perhaps I am a little outside the considerations in this instrument, but I know the problems of an electric car owner thinking that they have found an electric charge point only to find that someone else has been using it for the past three hours and they cannot get near it. There are measures in the industry to resolve that sort of problem, so this is something worth looking at for the future.

I emphasise that the first three months of those technicalities will be until early May. The CMA’s emphasis, as the enforcer, will be on supporting businesses to comply with the new regime rather than enforcement, as I have said, so there will be a period coming in to make sure that the scheme works well and that everybody is undertaking it properly. This scheme is well founded—I welcome the support that has been given to it by the noble Earl and the party opposite—and I am sure that, with a good wind from everybody in this place, it can be in place as soon as possible, to the benefit of motorists across the country.

Motion agreed.

COP 30

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I start by welcoming the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead. I pay tribute to his experience and look forward to working opposite him going forward.

COP is 30 years old and multilateralism, as frustrating as it can be, remains the only practical means of protecting our shared home, planet Earth, and progressing our joint efforts to ensure the survival of future human generations. Here in the UK, the Met Office’s State of the UK Climate in 2024 report confirmed that the UK is warming at approximately 0.25 degrees per decade, with the past three years ranking among the five warmest since records began in 1884. While some continue to deny the existence of climate change, last year in the UK we had the worst-ever wildfire season and the second-worst harvest on record.

Our world is warming faster than we can change our carbon-based ways, and even more extreme weather is inevitable. I thank Brazil, the Secretary of State, the UK negotiating team and all those who worked tirelessly to keep the COP process alive. It is testimony to global co-operation that, despite the challenges, 194 parties united to adopt the text, confirming that the global transition towards low emissions and climate-resilient development is irreversible.

It is important to acknowledge that collective progress since the Paris Agreement has bent the emissions curve, moving projected warming from over 4 degrees Celsius to the 2.3 to 2.5 degrees Celsius range. However, we cannot celebrate incremental progress when the future of our planet remains in jeopardy.

The final text acknowledged that the collective progress is

“not sufficient to achieve the temperature goal”

and that the carbon budget consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is now small and being rapidly depleted. The COP text acknowledges that there is likely to be an “overshoot” of the 1.5 degrees Celsius, the extent and duration of which we must work collectively to limit. This is a stark warning and my concern is that Governments have failed to grasp the urgency of the climate emergency.

Any delay in action will push millions of vulnerable people further into poverty and lead to climate breakdown. Urgency must be met with decisive global leadership, yet the UK Government’s commitment to this leadership has been undermined by a lack of financial support. While the negotiations resulted in ambitious financial targets, such as the call to scale up financing to at least $1.3 trillion per year by 2025 and the reward target to scale up and at least triple adaptation finance by 2035, the UK’s financial contributions failed to materialise.

The UK was acknowledged for working with Brazil to help it develop the pioneering Tropical Forest Forever Facility. This vital fund aims to prevent deforestation, yet while that fund secured $9.5 billion in commitments and was endorsed by 53 countries, the UK Government did not contribute. I note that the Secretary of State said in the other place:

“We have not ruled out contributing to investing in the TFFF in future”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/25; col. 247.]


We hope this is the case. Will the Minister say what non-financial contributions the Government are able to make?

We remain concerned about the UK’s official development assistance and the cuts to those programmes. They are vital programmes helping those on the front line of climate change to adapt. Global leadership could see the UK as part of the chair of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, working alongside Brazil, and using remote monitoring to help detect methane leaks and using our world-leading oil and gas expertise to help fix them.

The Government rightly acknowledge that the transition away from fossil fuels is critical, and that it was

“the hardest sticking point in the talks”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/25; col. 241.]

Despite a broad coalition of 83 countries backing a road map away from fossil fuels, the final text tragically contained no explicit reference to the phase-out. At home, we welcome the commitment to no new oil exploration in the North Sea. More must be done to bring about energy market reforms, reduce energy bills and insulate our homes urgently. Many parliamentarians, including me, attended the National Emergency Briefing on the climate and nature crisis last week, which called for an emergency-style Marshall plan. I call on the Government to engage with and take heed of these calls for urgent, sustained action.

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

My Lords, the climate crisis is the greatest long-term challenge we face, but, equally, the transition to clean energy is the greatest economic opportunity of our time. Emissions from energy being some 70% of emissions overall means that the path to clean energy is an essential part of tackling the climate crisis, not just in the UK but across the world. At home, our commitment to clean energy is about energy security, lower bills and good jobs. Globally, with the UK responsible for just 1% of emissions, working with other nations is the only way to protect our way of life and seize the opportunities of a green economy.

We are reflecting today on the outcomes of the COP 30 conference in Belém. More than 190 countries met in Belém, where the Brazilian-framed COP 30 focused on implementation. The UK worked with Brazil and partners to put forests at the heart of the agenda and supported global coalitions to cut methane, phase out coal and accelerate clean energy investment. The negotiations were tough, but progress was made on three critical fronts, and they will be reflected in some of the further questions that I think will follow from the Statement this evening.

The first goal is keeping 1.5 degrees Celsius within reach. Countries reaffirmed their commitment to 1.5 degrees Celsius global net zero by mid-century and encouraged countries to raise their targets where needed to support this. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, underlined, we are quite a way from that, and some of the more faint-hearted among us may think that it is a target we cannot reach now. I accept that it is very difficult, but the signs are good that there are some possibilities to moving further towards making that target achievable, such as new commitments from China, for example, in its NDC coming into the COP at this stage. China has pledged to cut its emissions significantly for the first time. Indeed, 120 countries so far have come forward with 2035 NDC, with large numbers coming up in the next year, including India, which is an important actor in this realm.

Secondly, there is finance for developing nations, building on the COP 29 pledge to mobilise $300 billion annually and scale towards $1.3 trillion from all sources. COP 30 agreed to pursue efforts to treble adaptation finance by 2035 within the climate finance goal agreed last year, ensuring that vulnerable nations have the resilience they need. The UK was active in that area.

Thirdly, and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Offord, is going to like this very much, there is the transition away from fossil fuels. While a universal road map could not be agreed, 83 countries and 140 organisations endorsed the concept that Brazil will launch road maps on fossil fuels and deforestation, showing that coalitions of the willing can drive progress even where unanimity is elusive. The UK very much welcomed that coalition of the willing and will work closely with the Brazilians to move that commitment forward, even though it was not the final communiqué as far as the COP itself was concerned.

The mutirão agreement advanced carbon markets, gender, technology, technology transfer and transparency. Importantly, more than 190 countries reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris Agreement and multilateral action. That is essential right now as far as the crisis we are in is concerned.

I shall now briefly answer some of the points raised by noble Lords this evening. Perhaps before I do that, I could just express, as a newcomer to this place, my extreme disappointment—almost distress—about the abrupt turn that the party opposite has taken on its commitments on climate change and all that is associated with it. I certainly recollect in my time in the other place working closely with many thoroughly dedicated Members on the Conservative side in bringing forward what Britain was going to do about climate change and how we would go forward together to achieve those goals. Indeed, I was a member of the committee that brought in the net-zero target as far as UK emissions are concerned. Noble Lords will recall that that was when the noble Baroness, Lady May, was Prime Minister. Indeed, she is one of the noble Lords who have, in effect, denounced this pivot away from action and support for net zero as a target for the UK and serious action on climate change. I am afraid that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, thoroughly reflected that pivot and simply did not address the issues at COP and what we need to do together as far as those issues are concerned.

The Government’s commitment on North Sea gas and net zero is clear. Our commitment to clean energy is about delivering energy security, lower bills and good jobs—400,000 new clean energy jobs by 2030. So this is not a threat but an opportunity as far as a low-carbon future is concerned. Indeed, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine illustrates the cost of relying on fossil fuels. Globally, twice as much is now invested in clean energy as in fossil fuels. Globally, renewables have this year overtaken coal as the largest source of electricity. The economics have shifted and the direction of travel is clear, and it is distressing to hear the party opposite going in precisely the opposite direction. I hope that wisdom will prevail in the longer term and that we will be back together with a consensus on where we go on climate change in the future.

I also remind the noble Lord, Lord Offord, that on nuclear the Government have committed £63 billion in capital funding for clean energy, climate and nature, including nuclear, putting the UK on a path to clean power by 2030, bringing bills down in the long term, creating thousands of good jobs for our country and tackling the climate change crisis.

In relation to the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on 1.5 degrees, as I have mentioned, we need great ambition—of course we do—but we should also recognise the progress that has been made since the Paris Agreement. The final text agreed on action to take in the form of the Belém Mission to 1.5 and the Global Implementation Accelerator, as well as countries’ commitments to net zero that can be built on. In respect of Brazil’s new fund for forests, the UK has played a big role in helping to support Brazil to design the TFFF. We have a difficult fiscal situation in this country. We have absolutely not ruled out—I stress that—contributing to it in the future. We are determined that the fund succeeds and will continue to work with Brazil to help ensure that it does.

The message from Belém is clear: clean energy and climate action are the foundations on which the global economy is being rebuilt. They are good for Britain because they deliver jobs, investment and energy security. They lower bills for families and businesses, and they are the only way to protect future generations from the threat of climate breakdown.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the new Minister to your Lordships’ House and to his role, and welcome particularly his response to the noble Lord, Lord Offord.

Central Hall Westminster on the morning of 27 November was very crowded. I did not see the Minister there and I appreciate that he had many other things to be doing at the time, but that of course was when the National Emergency Briefing to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred was being held, when 10 of the UK’s leading scientific experts spoke to the packed hall, addressing our interrelated climate and nature emergency. Given the, I am afraid, limited outcome of COP, particularly in the failure unanimously to agree the road map on transitioning away from fossil fuels, those experts asked for a televised emergency briefing to the nation to explain to the country the urgency of the crisis that we face. Are the Government prepared to support that call and act on it? What else are the Government planning to do to highlight the reality of the emergency situation we are now in, as demonstrated by the dreadful floods in Asia—Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Thailand—where the death toll is already more than 1,400?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right that we are seeing in front of us right now all the things that the scientists said were going to happen. They have been proved absolutely right. So the first thing we need to do is stick to the science, make sure that whatever we do is in line with the science and explain that science to the country in a very clear way: if we do not do these various things, we can already see the results of inaction in front of us. While I cannot commit this evening to a national televised discussion on how we go forward, what I can commit to is the continuation of the attempt by this Government to explain very clearly what they are doing, for example, on clean energy and why that is absolutely essential to keeping our hopes of 1.5 degrees open and making sure that as a result of that—for the episodes that we are now seeing, a lot of this is baked in, obviously, to the climate warming we have already—there is the possibility of a better, safer, cleaner and more prosperous world in the future.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. I pay tribute to Secretary of State Miliband for his sheer commitment working towards COP 30—building, let us not forget, on the work that the previous Government achieved, led particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Sharma and Lord Goldsmith. Those were Conservative commitments.

However, I note that in the language around coal and fossil fuels at successive COPs, there has been a great weakening, from the “phasing out” of Glasgow through “phasing down” to “transitioning away” and now to a weak plan and pathway. It was St Basil the Great who spoke about us always having two different paths,

“one broad and easy, the other hard and narrow”,

and that within our minds we are always working out which path to take. Basil said:

“The soul is confused and dithers in its calculations. It prefers pleasure when it is looking at the present; it chooses virtue when its eye is on eternity”.


If we are serious about keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees—an immense task in itself—does the Minister agree that we need to use bold language in the UK to show global leadership and to press those who have walked away from the Paris Agreement to follow the path of virtue?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question, which I very substantially agree with and find very little to disagree with. It is essential that we use bold language in moving forward as far as this crisis is concerned, and it is essential that globally we stick to what we have said at successive COPs—and I accept that some of the wording has been weakened over successive COPs—on moving away from fossil fuels and bringing in clean low-carbon power. It is fair to say that the UK has used bold language on this and continues to pursue policies which indicate the practical aspects of that bold language as far as the UK’s commitment is concerned. We were disappointed and would like to have gone further as far as the language and commitments of COP 30 were concerned, but I remind noble Lords that there was this commitment by 80 nations to pursue moving away from fossil fuels, and a great deal of activity from the Brazilians following on from COP 30. All is not lost in this activity, and I look forward to that being considerably strengthened and taken forward as we move from this COP to the next COP.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the way to increase energy bills is to go on with fossil fuels, which are the most expensive, and that the idea that we get cheaper energy by extracting more fossil fuels from the North Sea when we would be paying the international price for them is not sensible? Does he also agree that if Britain does not keep to this excellent policy, produced by Conservative Governments again and again, and supported by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, we cannot ask anybody else to do it? Would it not be the very worst thing for the British people to make global warming worse so that we have a climate in which we cannot live properly? Is it not the shortest of views not to recognise that we have to move as rapidly as possible to protect our children and grandchildren? Is it not about time we grew up and learnt the realities of life?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

As on so many other occasions, I cannot find myself disagreeing with a single word the noble Lord, Lord Deben, says on this subject. I have been, frankly, in awe of his commitment and clarity on this issue over many years as chair of the Climate Change Committee. Indeed, we have spoken on a number of joint platforms with precisely this view in mind. The only thing I would add is to remind noble Lords that the recent fuel price crisis was a fossil fuel crisis of the volatility of global gas prices and it exposed the extent we are in hock to fossil fuels in a way that we would not be if we had a much lower portion of fossil fuels in our economy—preferably none at all. We would have a much more stable energy economy and a great deal of new investment and jobs to go with it.

[Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am often dismayed at opposition to taking action on climate change, not simply out of a point of principle but because I am one of a number of mayors—well, I am a former mayor—around the world who have been urging national Governments and multinational organisations to create the conditions in which we can take action on climate change. I have just come back from the C40 World Mayors Summit in Rio—250 to 300 mayors getting together before COP because they were concerned that COP would not deliver the impetus for the scale and pace of change that we need. Those mayors are saying that they want to take action on climate change, not simply out of abstract principle but because, first, they see the huge economic opportunity in it and, secondly, they see the opportunity to avoid huge future costs—the impact of climate change on our physical infrastructure and cities being on the receiving end of the consequences of climate change; for example, migration. They are doing it not because they think it is just a nice thing to do; in the UK, from Bristol to Glasgow to Brighton, cities across this country are taking action.

In terms of bringing a question and a challenge, something missing from the Statement was cities. We have been making the case that, on the sheer math, 55% of the world’s population now lives in cities—it will be two-thirds by 2050—and we need to move to delivery, not just statements and, dare I say, not just language. What can we do to elevate the voice of cities and make them a formal part of climate negotiation processes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My noble friend Lord Rees has a tremendous record of taking action on global warming and low-carbon economies in his own city of Bristol. The question of how cities bring to bear the enormous potential of their action alongside Governments nationally and internationally has long been recognised in terms of the Curitiba commitment and other things, where cities across the world have banded together to take local and sub-national action alongside national and international action. My recipe for this continuing is to encourage UK cities to take part in those international joint city arrangements and become partners in global green gas carbon emissions reductions, which can take place at all levels. COPs have increasingly recognised that and have enabled cities to play a much greater role in discussions as those COPs progress.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

If the noble Lord, Lord Rees, my noble friend Lord Deben and the Secretary of State are right that the cost of renewables is on a declining curve and already cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives, that will be a wonderful thing, but can the Minister explain why, if they are cheaper, we need to guarantee for 20 years a price in real terms for renewables backed up by subsidies in the shape of state-financed back-up power for when renewables are not producing and therefore cannot compete with fossil fuels?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

It is because the model of how renewables develop is precisely the opposite of how fossil fuels develop. They are very capital-intensive and, after that, the power that comes from them is, in essence, free. Therefore, we need to establish, through capital support in particular, those renewable arrangements which can give us in perpetuity that cheap power for the future. These things in essence are not subsidies; they are investments in how that power reaches us for the future. I am sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and I have had debates in the other place, that this discussion will continue, but I very much stand by my view—and accept he stands by his view—that non-fossil fuel power is inevitably going to be cheaper, more secure and more reliable than the fossil fuel economy we have at the moment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, since there is time, I very much appreciated the tone and the energy of the Minister’s response to my initial question, but that, and all our discussion, very much focused on the energy side of tackling the climate emergency. I hope the Minister will agree that, as was stressed at the National Emergency Briefing, the climate emergency and nature crisis are intimately interlinked. At that briefing, Professor Nathalie Seddon, professor of biodiversity at the University of Oxford and founder of the Nature-based Solutions Initiative there, spoke about the incredibly parlous state of nature in the UK and the impact that is having on human health as well as on the climate. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government really are focused on and understand that interlinkage between nature and climate?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Indeed. At COP 30, the essential integration of nature and climate change was emphasised both in the communique at the end and during discussions. I can assure the noble Baroness that the UK Government are absolutely alive to this. In terms of investment in nature funds, we have shown practically that we are willing to, as it were, put our money where our mouth is and make sure that we are full players in the international integration of nature and climate change action.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I still did not understand the answer from the Minister. If renewables are cheaper, why do they need a subsidy and a guaranteed price, just because they need a lot of capital up front? The same is true of most industries and it is simply not a convincing reply.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

As the noble Lord will know, these underwritings are not permanent.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

They are for 20 years.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

They are usually for 15 years, which means that a renewable development that is subject to that underwriting has, at the end of 15 years, a fully amortised and free energy solution for the future. Therefore, it is tremendously good long-term value, as far as that energy supply is concerned, to have that initial undertaking, which reduces and goes down to zero after that 15-year period.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Would the Minister remind my noble friend that this was precisely the reason why the Conservatives invented this system at the time? It was done because we have a present system of very large companies, with a great deal of money, pushing fossil fuels all the time. If you are going to replace that, you have to provide an alternative. That is what was done, it is what the Conservative Governments continued to do, and what the present Government absolutely properly have continued.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Indeed, and the noble Lord will recall that the previous system of renewable obligations was a continued underwriting, whereas the CfDs we now have are an investment reducing over time, leading to the implementation of secure long-term supplies of renewable energy. I am happy to pay tribute to the then Conservative Government for effectively inventing CfDs, which were a tremendous step forward from the previous arrangements. Among other things, they have certainly secured the enormous increase in wind and other forms of renewables that have come forward as a result. If only the Conservative Government had not banned onshore wind last time, we would be even further forward.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the Bill be read a second time.

Scottish and Northern Ireland legislative consent sought.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to address your Lordships’ House for the first time, and particularly on a subject that has been close to my heart for as long as I can remember; namely, the health and welfare of our planet and how we can protect and repair our oceans—which will be greatly enhanced by the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill that I am introducing today.

I would like to commence my remarks, however, by thanking all those who have welcomed me to your Lordships’ House so warmly and have assisted with my introduction to it. My thanks go to the Garter King of Arms, to the clerks of the House, to Black Rod and, of course, to the esteemed doorkeepers of our House. Indeed, my thanks go also to the marvellous supporters at my introduction—my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Blake of Leeds—both former council leaders in their cities, as I was for a number of years in Southampton, the city I have lived in all my adult life, and which I had the honour to represent as one of its Members of Parliament for some 27 years. I have spent much of that time in Parliament promoting, advocating for and supporting action to fight climate change, particularly through the establishment of low-carbon energy, and I hope to be able to continue that advocacy in my time in this place.

I have taken the title of Baron Whitehead, of Saint Mary’s in the City of Southampton, as my thanks to the place that has nurtured me and given me all my life chances, and to which I am hopelessly devoted. St Mary’s is the parish in the centre of Southampton and, remarkably, contains two institutions of national and international repute: the St Mary’s Stadium of Southampton Football Club and the National Oceanography Centre. The former is probably of national repute mainly in the minds of its supporters—one of which, alas, I am—but the latter really is a centre of international repute. It has already played a huge role in monitoring and promoting the health and welfare of our oceans and will continue to play a key role in the UK’s approach to the matter following, I hope, the adoption of the Bill.

This is a Bill of ambition and global significance. It will, alongside associated secondary legislation, enable the United Kingdom to implement its obligations in the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction—the BBNJ agreement—and allow us to take the essential steps required for the UK’s ratification. This is a landmark agreement. It represents the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiation and determined scientific advocacy. It concerns nothing less than the future of the two-thirds of the world’s oceans that lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation.

These vast areas of ocean—remote, largely unexplored but fundamental to life on earth—regulate our climate, sustain fisheries, support communities and host ecosystems of staggering complexity and beauty, yet they are increasingly vulnerable to overexploitation, pollution and the cumulative pressures of climate change. The BBNJ agreement is the world’s collective answer to this challenge. The Bill gives the United Kingdom the means to play its full part in that shared endeavour.

The United Kingdom was among the first countries to sign the BBNJ agreement when it opened for signature at the UN in 2023. We did so because we recognised that the two-thirds of the oceans beyond national jurisdiction must be governed responsibly, transparently and with a shared sense of stewardship. The Bill provides the domestic legislative framework to implement the three core pillars of the BBNJ agreement, relating to marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, and environmental impact assessments. It provides for regulation-making powers, allowing us to implement future decisions taken by the BBNJ Conference of the Parties, ensuring that the United Kingdom can remain at the forefront of global ocean governance in the years ahead.

The Bill is divided into five parts, with Parts 2 to 4 aligning directly with the three substantive sections of the BBNJ agreement. Part 2 introduces obligations around the collection, storage, use and reporting of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction and of digital sequence information on those resources. UK researchers operating from UK craft—for example, our royal research ships—will be required to notify a national focal point within the FCDO before and after collecting marine genetic resources, including digital sequence information on those resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Repositories and institutions holding marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdictions will be required to provide access to samples under reasonable conditions. This will apply to bodies such as the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre and UK universities. Similarly, UK databases containing digital sequence information on such resources will need to ensure public access.

Those who make use of such material, whether for academic research or commercial innovation, will be required to notify the national focal point once the results of such research are available, including when those results take the form of published papers or granted patents. The FCDO will send these notifications to the BBNJ clearing house mechanism, an open-access platform enabling parties to the agreement to understand what is being collected and where, and how it is being utilised. This transparency is the foundation of the BBNJ agreement’s benefit-sharing regime. It ensures that researchers in developing states have access to the same scientific information as their counterparts in developed economies.

Marine genetic resources may be the source of tomorrow’s medicines, new sustainable materials, novel enzymes and breakthroughs that we cannot yet imagine. The UK is proud to be home to world-leading institutions such as the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre—there it is again—and our many outstanding universities. The Bill ensures that they can continue to operate at the cutting edge of marine science while contributing to a fair and inclusive global framework.

Part 3 gives the UK the necessary powers to implement internationally agreed measures relating to marine protected areas and other area-based management tools established under the BBNJ agreement. These measures will be agreed at future meetings of the BBNJ Conference of the Parties and may include restrictions or management measures that apply to activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This part enables the UK to implement emergency measures—for example, in response to a sudden environmental disaster requiring urgent international action. In essence, Part 3 ensures that when the international community collectively agrees to take measures to protect a vulnerable ecosystem in areas beyond national jurisdiction, the United Kingdom has the means to act accordingly.

Part 4 updates the UK’s domestic marine licensing regime to incorporate the environmental impact assessment requirements of the agreement as they apply to licensable marine activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The Bill grants powers to update domestic legislation as new standards and guidelines are developed by the Conference of the Parties. The ocean economy is evolving rapidly—new technologies, new industries and new pressures. This part ensures that the UK’s regulatory framework remains modern, agile and aligned with international best practice. Put simply, these measures future-proof our environmental assessment process for activities on the high seas.

In addition to this primary legislation, a small number of statutory instruments will be required before the United Kingdom can complete its ratification. These relate in particular to environmental impact assessments and the definition of digital sequence information, and will be laid after Royal Assent. Once that secondary legislation is in place, the UK will be in a position to deposit its instrument of ratification with the United Nations.

As noble Lords may know, the BBNJ agreement will enter into force on 17 January 2026, having now reached the crucial threshold of 60 ratifications. The inaugural Conference of the Parties is expected later that year. Importantly, the UK can attend that conference as a state party only if we have ratified at least 30 days beforehand. That is why timely passage of this Bill is of genuine importance.

The Bill may appear narrowly scoped and targeted, but its implications are profound. It supports the United Kingdom’s commitment to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. It reinforces our belief in multilateralism and the rules-based international system at a time when both face increasing strain. It allows us to address global challenges—climate change, biodiversity loss and food security—not in isolation but in partnership with allies and developing states alike.

The UK’s leadership in the early BBNJ negotiations was informed by the extraordinary expertise of our marine scientists, legal scholars and environmental advocates. Many of them have waited a long time for this moment. Their passion and persistence have been instrumental in bringing this agreement to fruition.

Allow me to recognise the considerable contributions made by noble Lords from across the Chamber, by civil society organisations and by our research community, all of whom have shaped the UK’s approach to the BBNJ agreement. In the spirit of cross-party relations, I pay tribute to the Ministers in the previous Government, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who were part of the team that signed the treaty on behalf of the UK Government in 2023. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for International Development for the opportunity to open this debate.

The health of our ocean is inseparable from the health of our planet. Although we may not often see these ecosystems with our own eyes, the responsibility to protect them falls on all of us. The BBNJ Bill is our opportunity to rise to that responsibility to safeguard fragile ecosystems, to support sustainable development and to ensure that the benefits of ocean science are shared fairly and responsibly. The United Kingdom has always played a leading role in advancing global ocean governance. With this Bill, we have the chance to continue that leadership. The ocean cannot wait, and nor should we. I beg to move.

Floating Offshore Wind and Contracts for Difference

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate. It is sad, but understandable, that there are not more Members present in the Chamber to take part in or listen to it. I have to say that if more hon. Members had been present, they would have heard a comprehensive and substantive contribution from the hon. Member in support of floating offshore wind, as she has given on so many occasions. I could not disagree with much of what she had to say, and I and the Labour party could strongly support a great deal of it.

The potential of floating wind is now pretty much undisputed. It is a technology that can go where other offshore wind cannot. It is particularly adaptable for deeper waters, more difficult circumstances, and parts of the UK that otherwise would not have much in the way of floating offshore. Floating offshore’s ability to take the offshore wind revolution to its next stage is manifest in the Celtic sea, Scotland and the north-east of England. It will ensure that we take advantage of the wind speeds around the UK, which are such a national and international asset for our country, wherever we can.

Labour want to see at least 5 GW of floating offshore wind—I emphasise “at least”—deployed by 2030. Not only that, but we want to see the arrangements in place to properly support that deployment. We envisage Great British Energy playing a substantial role, taking stakes in future flow as it goes forward and supporting it all the way. We also propose establishing a national wealth fund. That fund will play a substantial role, along with other bodies such as the Crown Estate, in developing the necessary future infrastructure for FLOW.

As we know, at present the infrastructure is sorely lacking, as the hon. Member for North Devon mentioned. The assembly, erection and future servicing of floating platforms all require substantial upgrading of the port facilities. While it is a little bit encouraging that the FLOWMIS programme allocated some funding for port development, it is clearly by no means enough to get the infrastructure properly under way. As RenewableUK recently said, we need at least 11 ports to support floating offshore wind, not just Port Talbot and the port in Scotland supported by FLOWMIS.

We come then to the question of how we actually get at least 5 GW of FLOW installed by 2030. As the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) pointed out, if we do the sums on our ambitions for offshore generally and FLOW in particular, we have to move ahead far more quickly in allocation rounds than we have done in the past and are anticipated to do in the immediate future. That is against the backdrop of pretty total failure to fund and support either FLOW or offshore fixed wind in the most recent allocation round, and to a considerable extent in the allocation before that.

The figures for how much we must put in place per allocation round, in both fixed and floating offshore wind, over the next several rounds are compelling. We have to move far faster and far more extensively to secure those arrangements for the future.

For FLOW, moving into AR6, the prognosis appears pretty bleak. It looks like perhaps just one FLOW project will actually fit in the pot 2 budget—the budget FLOW sits in—despite, as the hon. Member for North Devon said, there being at least four shovel-ready projects, ready to go right now, that could easily fit within that allocation were it made available. I do not think that includes the Hexicon project—a really important project which needs enormous support, because it has twin-turbine capacity, which is a further step forward in FLOW technology and can take the whole FLOW arrangement forward.

We have the beginnings of a real breakthrough as far as FLOW is concerned, but it is probably directly hampered by what AR6 has in store for us. That should not be allowed to stand. Of course, we are in rather different circumstances than we were in yesterday morning. I might have been standing here today asking the Government to do various things over the summer to sort out some of the problems; what I will be doing is asking the next Government, whoever they are, to get on with it quickly, particularly because AR6 is already well through its various design iterations and there is a limited window for changing anything in it before the tendering for the various projects. Whatever party comes in after the election, this issue will pretty immediately land on the desk of the Government, and by “pretty immediately” I mean that the new Government will have to get AR6 and floating offshore wind right possibly within a month.

The problem for FLOW is not the uplift in administrative strike price. The Government actually did not do a bad job of looking at where the price was and where it should be for AR6. The problem is the budget that has been allocated to this particular pot. Were there to be a reasonable uplift in that budget, it is highly likely that a number of the shovel-ready projects would be successful in AR6 pot 2. Of course, I cannot specify what a new Government are likely to do, but the case for early action to put that right is compelling. Even today, I hope that the Minister will commit himself to getting that action under way in his Department, as far as he has any capacity in the few days before we all pack up and start knocking on doors—if he has not already.

This is a looming loss of opportunity for floating offshore wind, and there is a wider prospect that a technology in which we are world leader will almost immediately start falling away. As the hon. Member for North Devon said, if we do not get the projects under way early, there will be a chain reaction: people lose confidence in the investment, they take their investment elsewhere, the projects do not progress, the appetite for investment in infrastructure starts to fall away and the whole thing starts to disintegrate. We are at a vital juncture. In their last few days, I hope that the Government can grasp the opportunity of making investment in FLOW right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The Minister and her colleagues have repeatedly said today that they care about cutting bills for families, but a recent report by the Resolution Foundation found that the onshore wind ban has hit the poorest households’ income six times harder than that of the richest. Such households have been forced to pay additional electricity bills as a result of the total failure to build onshore wind in England. How on earth can Ministers continue to sit there and claim that they stand up for working families when they continue to block the cheapest form of clean energy there is, which could cut bills for families who desperately need help? Before she leaves office, will the Secretary of State pledge to put this right so that onshore wind can be built again and customers can save money on their future bills?

[Amanda Solloway]

That is absolutely not the case. We stand here incredibly proudly as Ministers in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and we have made a commitment. We are doing more than has ever been done on renewables and offshore wind, and we have done more to help people with the affordability of their bills.

Draft Carbon Capture Revenue Support (Directions, Eligibility and Counterparty) Regulations 2024 Draft Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage Revenue Support (Directions and Counterparty) Regulations 2024

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 General Committees

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I ought to start by saying that we not only have no objections to these regulations but certainly plan to support them, inasmuch as they are a reasonably timely response to the Energy Act, which, as the Minister says, went through the House last autumn. One day, when the BBC gets round to broadcasting the episode of “The Reunion” about the Energy Act, the Minister and I will probably be hauled up to give our amusing anecdotes about the Bill’s riotous—and lengthy—passage through the House. But until then we will have to keep those secrets to ourselves.

These two statutory instruments stem from, as I have said, a pretty timely next stage in the business arrangements for carbon capture and storage and stem primarily from sections 59 and 60 of the Energy Act. I will not draw the Committee’s attention to what exactly is in the regulations, because the Minister has already set it out in a very straightforward and comprehensive way. I will just say that they establish the relationship of the contract-giving process to the counterparty, the circumstances under which those eligible for revenue support under those arrangements can or cannot receive it, and who is and is not an eligible transporter and storer. That is all very good and very straightforward.

By way of clarification, I have two brief questions, which are about the process rather than the validity or otherwise of the measures. Hon. Members will have noticed two things about the SIs. The first is that they talk about “a” counterparty; indeed, the consultation a little while ago indicated that the Government would probably designate the Low Carbon Contracts Company as the counterparty for these processes. The explanatory memorandum to the directions, eligibility and counterparty regulations sets out why the LCCC is a good fit as the counterparty, and noted that its costs will be no more than £350,000 a year, making it a good fit for the amount of work it is supposed to do.

What I cannot find anywhere is whether the Government actually have designated the LCCC as the counterparty. Section 59 of the Act states:

“The Secretary of State may by notice given to a person designate the person to be a counterparty for carbon dioxide transport and storage revenue support contracts”,

which are the subject of the carbon dioxide transport and storage revenue support regulations. Is that a secretly given notice that we do not know about, or is it a public action that we should know about? Is it an action that has not yet been taken but that may be taken in the not-too-distant future, or are there considerations still outstanding as to whether the LCCC should be designated?

That is not a completely academic point, because the SIs talk as if the LCCC has already been designated, but there appears to be at least a technical possibility that it has not been and that another person might be so designated, if the designation has not already, by notice, been finalised. It would be helpful if the Minister said whether that notice of designation has been given and I have missed it, or whether it is still to be given and there are issues outstanding in the issuing of it.

The second thing hon. Members may have noticed is the extent of the carbon dioxide transport and storage revenue support regulations. The explanatory memorandum states:

“The extent of this instrument (that is, the jurisdiction(s) which the instrument forms part of the law of) is England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland...The territorial application of this instrument (that is, where the instrument produces a practical effect) is the United Kingdom. The activities of a carbon dioxide transport and storage company may take place in the United Kingdom, above or below the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom, and waters in a Gas Importation and Storage Zone”—

and we have discussed gas importation and storage zones previously. The point is that it is not immediately apparent that all the activities of a carbon capture and storage transportation company will land within the UK’s territorial waters, inasmuch as it is widely anticipated that captured carbon will, at a fairly early stage in the development of CCS arrangements, be barged in from jurisdictions outside the UK for storage in UK territorial waters. Indeed, one ambition of a number of the hub-based storage arrangements is that they will attract custom from other European jurisdictions, outside the UK. The position of the hubs in the North sea makes that an enticing proposition for countries whose storage facilities are not as developed as those we are likely to have in the UK.

In those circumstances, the question for the Minister is: how do the draft regulations apply? When things come into the UK’s jurisdiction—things that do not originate from within the UK, but which still fall within the purposes of carbon capture and storage in general —what part of that is covered by the revenue support arrangements, or is it all covered? If there are problems with what part is in or what part is out, is it the Minister’s view that in general they should be outside the regulations? Or, does he intend to produce arrangements whereby what he sees as actions within UK territorial waters can be revenue supported as part of the whole process?

Those are a couple of minor questions to keep the Minister on his toes. Other than that, we have no objections to the arrangements.

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution; as ever, it was thoughtful and thought provoking. The two draft instruments we are discussing are broadly administrative in nature, as I am sure everyone will have judged, but they outline the vital operational procedures for enabling Government’s proposed business models for carbon capture, transportation and storage.

To respond to the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I, too, look forward to that episode of “The Reunion” on Radio 4. Indeed, to extend his analogy, if hon. Members were ever on “Desert Island Discs”, I am sure they would find the Hansard of our proceedings and discussions on the Energy Act an essential tool to take with them to the desert island. I would suggest that an audio version might be useful in getting some sleep on said desert island.

On the hon. Gentleman’s questions about a counterparty, as he said, the Low Carbon Contracts Company is expected to be the counterparty to the RSA. On his specific point about whether it has already been appointed, the LCCC is the existing counterparty for the contracts for difference for low-carbon electricity. It is the resource-efficient and cost-effective option to act as the RSA counterparty, and stakeholders can therefore be confident in the LCCC’s ability to carry out the counterparty functions.

[Dr Whitehead]

Has it been designated?

[Andrew Bowie]

As I just said, it has already been designated as the existing counterparty for contracts for difference, and there is an assumption that it will be designated for the transportation and storage moving forward.

[Dr Whitehead]

So the answer is no.

Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards) Regulations 2024

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 General Committees

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The Opposition very much support the changes, which we hope will come in for allocation rounds 7, 8 and 9—it would be nice if they came in for AR6, but that is not in anyone’s gift to sort out right now. First, we think they will make a material change to the quality of the schemes supported by Government funding. Secondly, we think they will uprate the whole industry so that it is clear about what it is doing about UK-sourced materials for the schemes, arrangements for UK jobs and the sustainability of the whole supply chain and of the products themselves. So far, so good; we are fully behind the proposal to introduce SIRs as a replacement for the present arrangement, which is the sustainable supply chain declarations.

I ought to say before we proceed that my voice is not that great. I was also enthusiastically supporting my football team on Saturday, but unfortunately the result was not as positive as that for the Minister’s team, which I understand has now been promoted to the championship. If my team fails to get promoted through the play-offs this season, our two teams will play each other, so we will both have lost our voices if we meet again under those circumstances.

The problem with the regulations is one of potentially considerable detail. If I am wrong in my concerns, I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister of why I am wrong. Alternatively, if I am not wrong in my concerns, will she tell me what the Government are thinking of doing in the future to put right what I think is a potential problem for the process?

The problem is that both the allocation round and the new process that is to be introduced are competitive and have a budget, but one precedes the other, providing for the possession of a sustainable industry reward, or SIR, which essentially allows the company to go on to the full allocation round. If a company does not have an SIR, it cannot go into the main allocation bidding.

Once the SIR process is in place, companies bidding to go into the main allocation round have three possible outcomes. The first is that they have bid for an SIR and their bid has been ticked off—the Government have said, “Yes, your bid qualifies for SIR status, so you can through to the allocation round.” However, that company may not necessarily want to bid in that first round, prior to the allocation round, to get a funded SIR, because they may have ways of reaching what is in the SIR other than by going for a funded SIR. For example, a Danish offshore wind operator may be able to reach those arrangements through its own existing internal facilities. It may say, “Well, we are going to bid in without a funded SIR, but we have an SIR, so we can qualify for the eventual allocation round.” That is outcome No. 1. No. 2 is a straightforward process where a company bids for and gets a funded SIR, and then goes through to the allocation round with that funded SIR in its pocket.

The third possibility depends to some considerable extent on how the budgets are set, both for the SIR and the eventual allocation round. A company could have qualified for an SIR, with the Government having ticked off its proposals as SIR-qualifiable, but when it gets into the pre-allocation round competitive bidding, it may fail to get an SIR because of the budget constrictions in the SIR process—logically, because it is a competitive round, it is possible that some people will fail to get a competitively bid SIR to go into the allocation round. At that point, it is a company that had a bid process in at pre-qualifying, which allows it to be competitive against all those other bidders that have funded SIRs going into the actual allocation round. If a company has bid on the basis that it is likely to win some funding in the SIR allocation round, but it fails to win it, logically it has to readjust its bid, as if there was no SIR in place, in order to remain competitive in the actual allocation round.

As far as I can see, companies would not be denied access to the allocation round, because they did have a certified SIR in the first place. If they have bid and lost, as opposed to having decided not to bid, their bid will have to look different in the allocation round itself. Is it the case that the most advantaged people in the allocation round may well be those who have bid for an SIR and lost, and who have then readjusted their bid accordingly? Could it be that the smartest strategy for companies is to try to lose an SIR, while having indicated that they can, in principle, meet its terms? They can then bid more competitively than if they had had an SIR in the first place.

That is not to undermine the scheme as a whole, which is potentially very good, but there is a potential problem with the process of going between two separate competitive allocations to get to the eventual position of companies being in possession of a CfD, which is what we want to happen. That could distort the bidding process and could certainly lead to some lack of clarity about the principle of placing these additional requirements on bidders to secure the sustainability and so on of supply chains, which could potentially undermine the process.

Does the Minister therefore have any guidance she can give me to show that this is not really a problem, because of various issues that she can conjure up this afternoon, either on receiving inspiration or otherwise? Alternatively, if she cannot fully satisfy me that I need have no worries about this issue, which I quite understand, we could perhaps engage in correspondence subsequently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Solloway]

I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Angus for their contributions. I will endeavour to answer the questions as fully as possible, but if I fail to answer them all, I am incredibly happy to have further meetings on the subject, as suggested, although this issue is not in my portfolio.

All companies need to meet a minimum standard of investment before they bid into the CfD, so there is a level playing field for everybody. Companies will know if they have been allocated an SIR before they bid in. If they fail to get a CfD, their budget will be reallocated to those who were successful. As I have indicated, however, if I have not fully understood the question, I am happy to clarify further.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Angus, the UK does not manufacture all the components required to build a wind farm. We do not expect to make everything, and it would not be legal to mandate UK content. Where investment goes beyond the UK, we want that to go to cleaner, net zero-consistent firms that support our net zero commitments.

The contracts for difference are a key pillar for our energy security, but they need to adapt to changing market conditions. We are determined to make offshore wind deployment a success story and we are willing to take innovative steps to make that happen. Sustainable industry rewards have been deployed with industry input. They will provide much-needed support to an industry that has faced a tough economic environment and supply chain disruptions.

That support should trigger significant investment in expanding the supply chain’s capacity and capability in many deprived coastal areas around the UK and in new, cleaner manufacturing processes. The investment will help to deliver our levelling-up agenda and will positively impact communities that host large infrastructure projects by providing new, well-paid, high-tech manufacturing jobs, as well as by maintaining existing jobs. New offshore wind manufacturers from Britain and overseas are already looking at the UK, thanks to our package of supportive measures. It is true that the measures will have an impact on consumer bills, and we are talking to the Treasury to get the balance right between what realistic sustainable industry rewards can achieve, through targeted revenue support to get investment in the supply chain back on track, and the cost to the consumers.

These measures will also put us on an equal footing with our direct competitors in the EU and the US, who are investing heavily in their offshore wind supply chains. Considering how much deployment and potential we have, it is only right to try to attract and support as much of the supply chain as possible. It is key, though, that we provide the support in a targeted, proportionate way.

As many hon. Members will know, allocation round 6 of the CfDs is now live. The budget for allocation round 6 was announced as part of the Chancellor’s spring Budget. At over £1 billion, it is four times larger than for the previous round.

[Dr Whitehead]

The Minister is giving a good response to this afternoon’s debate, but I do not think that she addressed the detail of the particular point that I raised. It is not a question of reallocating CfDs but of how we go about a competitive allocation round if we have people in different circumstances, albeit with an SIR, leading up to that allocation round. I would appreciate an opportunity—outside this Committee, if possible— to get to the bottom of that particular problem.

[Amanda Solloway]

I would, of course, be delighted to facilitate that, either with me or the relevant Minister.

Although that budget does not include the SIRs, it is none the less a crucial step in our renewable energy deployment plans and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the UK remains one of the world’s leaders in renewables. The Secretary of State will decide in due course whether to increase the budget later this year. I commend the regulations to the House.

Large-scale Solar Farms

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Henderson, for your consideration of the time available in what has been a very useful and educational debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing this debate. I also congratulate hon. Members on the way they have put their cases. The contributions from the hon. Members for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), for Buckingham (Greg Smith) and for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and the right hon. Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) all added greatly to the tissue of the debate.

Let us get one or two canards out of the way first. This debate was not, to my mind, about a lot of people standing up and being nimbys, although I understand that hon. Members will quite rightly want to defend what they consider to be the best interests of their constituencies. We had an intervention from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who said that he would stand by South Holland and The Deepings to the last; the right hon. Member for Gainsborough, who I think perhaps is producing evidence for the wrong side in the civil war, nevertheless made the point very strongly about what he felt he was here to do for the interests of his constituency. That is not about nimbyism, but about defending what one thinks is best for one’s own area of the country.

The problem we have is how we ally together a policy that, by and large, everyone in this Chamber is agreed on and the way we carry it out in practice. The policy, on which I think there is no real difference between the Opposition and the Government, reflects the strong view that we should move rapidly forward on the deployment of solar across the country. The Government have a target of 70 GW of solar to be deployed by 2035. In our plans for decarbonisation of the energy system by 2030, we want to see 50 GW installed by 2030.

That is, in part, because solar is now one of the cheapest forms of energy that can be deployed in an energy emergency, where we have to produce an enormous amount of additional capacity over the next few years, in addition to replacing what is going away, to ensure that our system is resilient, stable and homegrown for our future. The fact that solar has to play a central role in our overall energy economy in the future, and the fact that the targets for installation of solar are very similar between the Opposition and the Government, underline how central it is felt to be that solar should play that key role.

When we decide that it will play that key role, the next question is: how do we do it? That is what a lot of the debate today has landed on. Where do we put solar? How do we put solar in various places? What is the most beneficial way to do it, assuming we are going to do it for the country as whole?

Much as we might want to, we will not be able to deliver all the solar on roofs and brownfield sites—certainly not on roofs. But, as I will come to in a moment, the issue of what proportion we can install in particular areas relates to how the Government set out planning and other energy management arrangements that prevent or downgrade the possibility of putting solar panels on to roofs, buildings, industrial workplaces and so on. The Opposition very much want to see, if possible, the predominance of that solar development concentrated on brownfield sites, roofs and industrial buildings, but we recognise that there is an enormous amount of work to do to facilitate the planning and commissioning arrangements that will allow that to happen.

Hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Redditch, mentioned cost and remediation on brownfield sites. Solar treads very lightly on the earth. We can do things with solar on brownfield sites that we might not be able to do with other forms of development on a brownfield site, particularly if it needs some remediation, so that is not the key issue. The key issue is the value of brownfield sites in an urban context and the hope value that those sites have, often in contradistinction to the sort of value that the developers think they might get from land that is not going to change its value, on hope or otherwise, in terms of their developments.

[Sir David Davis]

I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that if we increase the incentive, up to the point of mandating in some cases, for the use of brownfield sites and roofs and so on, that is likely to alter the economics, with people like Elon Musk and others investing in more cost-effective and more easily used photovoltaic cells for that purpose?

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, indeed. As the right hon. Member will know, solar is now not looking for subsidy from the Government in the way that, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal mentioned, it was a number of years ago. It might be that we ought to look at how we can direct the best use of land and facilities for solar, by reintroducing incentives and disincentives that can go into solar development for the future. I would emphasise that that is all in the gift of Government to bring about, in terms of changes to how planning, underwriting and frameworks are organised. We mentioned the land use framework, which has still not come forward from DEFRA. All those things can play a much more substantial role in getting the balance right about where we put what is an imperative to develop for the future.

Some of the questions that have been raised are about not so much solar itself, but, among other things, the cumulation of particular sites in particular places. Of course, there is not anything in planning arrangements that can easily deal with the question of cumulation. Again, that needs to be put into the context of a wider land use planning arrangement for the future. I am from a constituency that has one farmer, although we are not allowed to recognise who that farmer is in the census because we are not allowed to record one farmer in the census return; it has to be two farmers or no farmers. However, I do understand that it is a real issue when there is a cumulation of a number of these things in rural constituencies, and they can see no benefit of that cumulation for their local populations.

Again, it may be within the gift of Government to mitigate that problem by enabling local communities to benefit from the output of the particular farms in their area. Notwithstanding that, it is certainly the case that cumulation has come about not just because of developers’ lust for very large schemes, but because at the moment those are some of the only places where they can get decent connections in the near future. For example, Lincolnshire was the site of two power stations—Cottam and West Burton—which have now closed, but it still has good, high-level grid connections.

Therefore, there are schemes that might come forward in other parts of the country that do not have such good connections, which are being put on the backburner just because developers can get particular connections right now. That is also in the gift of the Government to sort out. They should get the connections in the country on a regularised basis so that the people bringing forward their solar developments actually have a choice of where to put their connection based on the best site for their development, rather than just looking at the economics of getting a connection right this minute.

[James Gray]

There is a perversity here, of course, which is that the further away a site is from the input into the grid, the bigger it has to be. Because Lime Down, the one in my constituency, is 30 miles away from a link into the grid, it has to be at least 2,000 acres, probably more, in order to pay for the connection.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is certainly true, but a much wider issue is the fact that connections in this country are pretty much available on a lottery basis. At the distribution network operator level, most of the capacity in most DNOs is taken up, and at the national grid level, the connections are entirely dependent on where the lines go. They do not necessarily go to where people want to connect up, and they are also very much at the limit of their capacity at the moment. A national plan to enable those connections onshore to be distributed equally across the country would go a long way to facilitating much better distribution of the wind and solar projects that we want to see for the future.

Although I do not represent a rural constituency myself, I have great sympathy with the problems of accumulation with solar development. The solution, however, is not to throw solar out; it is to do a number of the things that I have mentioned this afternoon—to reach our target and secure the equitable deployment of solar across the country to manage our electricity future positively.

[Dr Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about equitable distribution. I understand to some extent the point he is making, but surely there is some sense in saying that areas such as Lincolnshire, which have such high-quality farmland, should not have massive solar farms at all, because we will simply reduce our food security.

[Dr Whitehead]

I was intending to go into the 3a and 3b debate, but I do not think it will add anything greatly to what I have to say. Again, it is in the gift of Government, for schemes above the 50 MW level, to look at what the overall planning guidance suggests we should do. I am personally a little sceptical of the overall case about food production and land use because after all it was recently estimated that if we did produce the 70 GW target, that would take about 0.3% of UK land area, up from 0.1% today, compared with 69% of the land that is farmed. That does not add anything to the debate on Lincolnshire itself, but the point is that the actual land take of solar overall will be pretty minimal compared with what is in agriculture currently. As a matter of interest, the land taken by solar already is one fifth that taken up in the country for golf courses.

[Dr Johnson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

You will have to be quick, Dr Whitehead.

[Dr Whitehead]

I think the hon. Lady will forgive me for not being the Government right at this minute. It is not my responsibility to set out what the Government would do for the future; it is my responsibility to respond to this debate as the Opposition.

I have already said what we want to do in terms of planning land use and arrangements for the deployment of solar in a much more methodical way, and bringing forward arrangements that can, for example, make rooftop and brownfield solar much more achievable, to alter the balance of advantage and disadvantage for deployment across the country. That is probably all the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham can expect me to say about what we will do in government, but I would add that the Government could do that today, so I hope the Minister will tell us what he will do in terms of that balancing to get solar deployed in the future.

[James Gray]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. I have been listening very carefully to his extremely interesting speech, but I must admit to being a little confused about what Labour party’s policy is on these matters. Let me ask him straightforwardly: will the incoming Labour Government —if there is one—be in favour of large-scale solar farms in the countryside or against them?

[Dr Whitehead]

That is a really interesting question. It is not necessarily the case that there will be an incoming Labour Government, but it is nice to hear the hon. Gentleman declare that there will be; that is really helpful. Should there be an incoming Labour Government, we will want to ensure we reach our targets of solar deployment equitably for the country as a whole. If that means bringing in new legislation, guidance and rules to allow that distribution to take place equitably, that is what we will do. As I am sure he will understand, the detail would take about three quarters of an hour to unpack, so we will have to leave it for now. I am very happy to have a cup of tea with him in the not-too-distant future and set all that out in some detail if he would find that interesting.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing this incredibly important and timely debate on large-scale solar and the impact of the plans on rural England.

It has been fantastic to hear the passionate and well-informed speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), for Buckingham (Greg Smith)—he talked about the benefits of small modular reactors, which was music to my ears—and for North Wiltshire (James Gray).

My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) talked about the positive benefits of further investment in nuclear power, which is why we unveiled the civil nuclear road map earlier this year—the biggest investment in nuclear in 70 years. He would struggle to find a bigger advocate of the benefits of our domestic oil and gas industry than me. I assure him that, despite my Scottish Presbyterian upbringing, I associate myself much more with the cavaliers than the roundheads. We also heard from my right hon. Friends the Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). I think I have engaged with just about every one of them individually on various energy infrastructure projects, not least recently on solar.

It was also good to hear the concerns of communities raised in the interventions of many other Conservative Members, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick), for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Danny Kruger), for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers).

I represent a vast rural constituency that encompasses some of the best farmland north of the border, which is itself looking at significant energy infrastructure build over the next few years, so I completely understand those concerns and have heard them myself from local communities worried about what that build will mean for the countryside in which they live and of which they are so fond.

Three years ago, the Government adopted our sixth carbon budget with the world’s most ambitious climate change goal—to reduce emissions by 77% by 2035, compared with 1990 levels. We also committed to fully decarbonising the electricity system by 2035, subject to security of supply. Renewables such as solar and wind, alongside other low-carbon technologies such as nuclear, will underpin the UK’s transition from a reliance on fossil fuels to a new, secure, clean energy system. Solar is an important part of the energy mix, and its deployment is a key part of the Government’s strategy for energy independence and clean growth.

As set out in the British energy security strategy and the energy security plan, we are aiming for up to 70 GW of solar capacity by 2035. To achieve that, we need to deploy both rooftop and ground-mounted technology. Ground-mounted technology is one of the cheapest forms of electricity generation and is readily deployable at scale. As such, the Government consider that there is a strong need for increased ground-mounted solar deployment, as reflected in the recently published energy national policy statements.

However, the Department and I recognise that, as with any new development, solar projects may impact on communities and, indeed, the environment. The planning system must allow all views to be taken into account when decision makers balance local impacts with the national need.

Because of the quasi-judicial role of Ministers in determining planning applications, I hope that Members will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any specific matters in relation to specific projects in the planning system. Nor can I comment on the merits or harms of any particular proposals, as that could be perceived as prejudging the subsequent outcome. However, the Government recognise that solar projects can impact on land use, and I can speak to that. It is important that the Government strike the right balance between those considerations and securing a clean energy system for the future. Again, the planning system must take those issues into account.

As the recently published national policy statement for renewable energy infrastructure sets out, solar developers

“should, where possible, utilise suitable previously developed land, brownfield land, contaminated land and industrial land. Where the proposed use of any agricultural land has been shown to be necessary, poorer quality land should be preferred to higher quality land avoiding the use of ‘Best and Most Versatile’ agricultural land where possible.”

If it is proposed to use any land falling under Natural England’s best and most versatile agricultural land classification—grades 1, 2 and 3a—developers are required to justify using such land and to design their projects to avoid, mitigate and where necessary compensate for any impacts.

It is clear to me and to the Government that concerns remain about the scale and volume of projects that are being applied for on BMV land in specific areas of the country, particularly in areas with historic and established grid connections. We have concerns that not all developers are properly considering those requirements. That is something that needs to be rectified. We want to see that, following the new EN-3 publication. Although I can say little of detail in this Chamber, I want to assure hon. Members that we are listening and that work is ongoing to see what can be done to ensure that balance is met.

Reference has been made to the fact that there are no Liberal Democrat Members in the Chamber this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch described their policy as “bananas”, which means, “Build absolutely nothing anywhere ever.”

[Dr Whitehead]

Near anybody.

[Andrew Bowie]

Near anybody—sorry. However, that is not actually the case. The Lib Dems’ proposal, which was voted on at their conference last year, is to remove restrictions on new solar and wind to accelerate deployment of renewable power. It is quite clear why there are no Liberal Democrats in the Chamber today; they would ride roughshod over the views of rural communities around the country to increase the deployment at pace and scale of solar and other technologies.

The reason why there are not many Labour Members in the Chamber is, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) suggested, that not many of them represent rural communities, and they are not seeing the impact of the applications. I am now of the opinion, however, that they are just as confused about the Labour party policy on this issue as we all are, following what was a very interesting speech from the Opposition spokesperson.

Solar and farming can be complementary, supporting each other financially, environmentally and through shared use of land. Analysis shows that even in the unlikely scenario that all additional solar needed to meet the British energy security strategy ambition of 70 GW were to come forward as ground-mounted solar, which is not going to be the case, it would be less than 1% of all types of UK utilised agricultural land that was needed to accommodate it. However, as I have referred to, the concentration of so many of those projects in specific areas is concerning, and UK-wide analysis cannot take that into account. Again, although I am unable to say anything specific at this time, I can assure colleagues that we are listening.

The Government consider that improving our energy security is urgent and of critical importance to the country. I do not think that there is any disagreement on that, but it must be achieved together with maintaining food security for our United Kingdom. Solar projects and agricultural practice can co-exist. For example, the science of agrivoltaics is developing, in which solar is integrated with arable farming in innovative ways. That is coming on in leaps and bounds. Solar energy can also be an important way for farmers to increase their revenue from land less suited to higher-value crop production. Again, on that there is very little disagreement.

What we ultimately want to achieve is protecting our environment, backing British farmers and delivering long-term energy security with more low-carbon energy. I guarantee that this Government and this Department will not countenance the industrialisation of our green and pleasant land. It is possible to maintain and increase our food production in a more sustainable way in some areas and to see land use changes in others.

I turn briefly to the issue of cumulative impacts, which has been brought up multiple times. The planning system sets out how applicants and decision makers should consider cumulative impacts. When preparing an application for a development consent order, applicants for solar deployments and developments under the NSIP regime

“should consider the cumulative impacts of situating a solar farm in proximity to other energy generating stations and infrastructure.”

It is then a matter for the examining authority to consider cumulative in-combination effects with the other solar farm proposals and other developments in a locality when conducting an examination of a particular NSIP solar project. During the examination, the views of interested parties, which will include advisory bodies and local planning authorities, will be taken into account in the examining authority’s recommendations. Again, I assure colleagues that we are looking at that issue.

The Department and I appreciate the concerns raised about the clustering of projects around grid connections in some areas. As we bring more new energy infrastructure online to meet the demand for clean, secure electricity, so too must we increase grid capacity. As set out in the spring Budget, the Government are working with Ofgem and network companies to release more network capacity and prevent speculative projects from obtaining and retaining network capacity. That should result in more capacity across the country and help to reduce the clustering of projects.

Community engagement has also been raised. It is vital—this is where Conservative and Labour party policies differ dramatically—that communities have a voice in decisions about their local areas. There are established routes in the planning system to consider the impact of solar projects and to enable communities to raise concerns about developments. I know that there are concerns about how effective those routes are, but I will set out the policy as it stands.

The national planning policy framework, which underlies the planning system for projects below 50 MW, encourages developers, including those proposing solar projects, to engage with local communities before submitting an application. Local authorities will consider a range of factors when assessing applications, including visual and environmental impacts. Members of the public can submit their views to the planning authorities, and significant concerns will be taken into account as part of the local decision-making process. Developers taking larger projects through the NSIP regime must complete considerable community engagement before any approval is granted, giving communities ample opportunity to feed in their views. The level and quality of community engagement, among other factors, will be taken into account by decision makers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

My right hon. Friend knows that I am no longer the Minister responsible for the network or the national grid, but I will ensure that her concerns are passed on to the relevant Minister. Ofgem and the electricity system operator are engaged in a considerable review of how connections are offered across the country, because there is a problem with that system. That is recognised and is being addressed.

Let me briefly touch on community benefits, which have also been raised. It is important that communities can participate in and benefit from the deployment of new low-carbon energy technologies in their local area. However, the Government do not have a formal role with regard to community benefits for solar and other large-scale renewable energy projects. We believe that those are best agreed at a local level, between the renewable operator and the local communities, so that they can be tailored to each community’s individual needs. They cannot be taken into account and, I am afraid, are not relevant to the planning decisions. A number of solar developers already provide community benefits on a voluntary basis. We are working with Solar Energy UK, the industry body, to provide further guidance and advice on community benefits for solar developers and communities and to develop a more consistent approach across the country that is fair to all parties.

[Dr Whitehead]

Does the Minister accept that under the present trading arrangements for energy, a developer cannot provide a trading benefit for a local area only and has to treat it as though it were a national benefit? Is the Minister interested in changing that so that benefits can come to local areas, rather than simply being spread across the national grid, as hon. Members have said?

[Andrew Bowie]

As I said, we are working with the solar industry now to develop proposals and give guidance and advice on how best to support local communities and deliver community benefits, so that communities that host these projects on behalf of the wider nation see a benefit. We are not closing our minds to any suggestions that might benefit such communities moving forward. This is a wholesale change in how we deliver energy across the UK, so we should be open to thinking about how we do that in the most appropriate fashion.

I assure right hon. and hon. Members that we are deploying rooftop solar. It remains a key priority for the Government, and continues to be one of the most popular and easily deployed renewable energy sources. We want to see more rooftop solar on industrial and commercial properties, such as warehouses, factories and buildings, to make maximum usage of the available surfaces for business as well as for the environmental and climate benefits. There will be more on that in the solar road map, which will be published in the next few months.

The issue of forced labour was raised. I addressed that in the Chamber just the other evening in response to a debate that was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). However, as it has been brought up again, I reassure Members that the Government are committed to tackling the issue of Uyghur forced labour in supply chains, including in the mining used for the manufacture of solar panels, and are taking robust action. Over the past two years, we have introduced new guidance on the risks of doing business in Xinjiang, introduced enhanced export controls and announced the introduction of financial penalties for those who fail to report as required under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That followed our announcement in September 2020 of the package of changes to section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act. These changes will require large businesses and public bodies to report on specific areas within their modern slavery statements, including their due diligence processes in relation to modern slavery. There will be yet more on that within the solar road map on what the industry is doing to ensure that it is not reliant on forced labour anywhere in the world, but particularly in China.

We need an increase in ground-mounted solar alongside rooftop solar over the next decade to meet our energy security and net zero goals and to reduce the cost to consumers. But it is clear to me, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and His Majesty’s Government in general that this growth must be sustainable and enabled by a robust planning system that balances the wider benefits with the local impacts, that local communities are listened to and that food security concerns are addressed. That is what we are committing to do. I look forward to the publication of the solar road map, which is the result of the solar taskforce’s work. The document will set out deployment scenarios as well as key actions needed to address challenges in several priority areas, including the grid, rooftop supply chains and skills.

Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing forward this debate—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I assure my hon. Friend that it is imminent. We will see the publication within the next few weeks.

[Dr Whitehead]

Spring or summer?

[Andrew Bowie]

Spring. I close by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing forward this important debate. The contributions have been enlightening and well informed, and show the passion with which Members, who I am proud to serve with, have for the local communities that they are honoured to represent in this place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I am sure the Secretary of State does not want a repeat on her watch of the failure of allocation round 5, when her Department managed to crash the offshore wind market. However, the industry is already warning that the parameters set for floating wind in the next round, AR6, could mean that only one sub-gigawatt project succeeds in getting contract for difference support: way off the Government’s recently trumpeted target of 5 GW of floating offshore by 2030. What steps is she taking to ensure that we do not see another failure and lose the global race for this emerging technology?

[Claire Coutinho]

If people want to ensure that we win the global race for renewable technology, they should, frankly, vote Conservative. Under the Conservatives, world-leading mechanisms have been introduced. The only country that has built more offshore wind capacity than the UK is China. We have an enormous and very successful track record, and continue to work with industry to ensure that AR6 will be a success.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am not sure that answer gives much reassurance to industry or this House. The truth is that uprating our port infrastructure is critical for deploying floating offshore wind and for reaching a zero carbon power system, but Government support is so inadequate that they are funding only two ports, dropping viable projects on the way, when, according to the floating offshore wind taskforce, to reach floating offshore wind ambitions we need infrastructure upgraded in at least 11 ports. Is this not another example of the Government failing to invest for the future and failing to back British industry?

[Claire Coutinho]

The only failure on renewable energy is the record Labour left when they were in power, when 7% of our electricity was generated from renewables whereas now that figure is 50%. On ports, not only have we got our world-leading freeport agenda but we have put forward projects such as FLOWMIS—the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme—which is also helping to build our port infrastructure.