Lord Fuller:

Moved by Lord Fuller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Lords, I sympathise with the amendments on land use put down by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. He wishes to ensure that in this very densely populated country of England we use our limited available land wisely. England—not the UK—is, I think, the fifth or sixth most densely populated country in the world. That includes countries such as Singapore, which are, in essence, city states. So, it is right that we use our land wisely: per head of population, we do not have much of it. Furthermore, as I have said on several occasions, it is the primary duty of any Government to ensure that they can feed their subjects. I believe that the food agenda comes as high as—if not higher—than the defence agenda, although they are clearly very closely interlinked.

However—I am sure noble Lords could all sense a “but” coming down the line, though I shall try to be gentle with the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, as he requested—I am not certain that this is the right way to approach this issue. Land use must be planned in the round. We all need to step back and examine our needs from land as a whole, which include food, biodiversity, flood relief, forestry, access for leisure and health, much-needed housing and of course energy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others, including me, have been banging on about this for several years now. We need a land use framework in the round. I am afraid that a uni-purpose focus such as found in the noble Lord’s amendments, however sensible it may seem in today’s circumstances and business, can only limit our ability to sensibly plan a wider, step-back, more holistic strategy.

For a start, circumstances may change. I see our land use framework as a constant work in progress as the world changes around us. Such changes may include the way our food is produced, the latest imminent threats from foreign countries or the importance of energy to our economy—thus, in this context, the ever-changing balance between food security and energy security.

While today the priority of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is clearly food security over energy, it may be that in the future grade 3 land, for instance, is superfluous to our food security and better off focused on biodiversity or energy. I am afraid that I am not able to support these amendments, however much as a retired farmer I sympathise with their very good intentions.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s Amendments 67, 73, 104 and 105, which I have also signed. I first congratulate him on a polished and passionate introduction to his first amendments.

Amendments 67 and 104 would prevent GB Energy supporting renewable energy projects on, or owning, land that is grade 1, 2 or 3 to prevent the loss of good agricultural land. Amendments 73 and 105 would encourage GB Energy to pursue developments on land that has designations of grade 4 or 5 or on non-agricultural land.

The nationally significant infrastructure projects that have been signed by our Secretary of State have already had a detrimental impact on our best and most versatile farmland. In answer to my Written Question on 2 December about the agricultural impact of the Cottam, Mallard Pass and Gate Burton solar farms, the Minister—who is sitting in his place and is also doing such an able job of shepherding this Bill through this House and Committee—stated:

“For each of these cases, the Examining Authorities’ Reports have been published alongside the Secretary of State’s Decision Letters”,

so I had to find the answers myself. The examining authorities are clear that best and most versatile land, including grade 2, is being lost to existing solar developments. It seems hasty that some of the largest and most controversial solar developments appear to be being signed off with little or no weighting given to the quality of the land or food security. The justification seems to be that the land will be returned to agriculture after 30 or so years, as my noble friend pointed out. Unfortunately, we need to eat for those 30 years.

At Cottam, 5% of the area was best and most versatile land. The report said

“according to the ExA, the Proposed Development would not meet the requirements of the NPPF in this regard and subsequently accorded this a negative weighting”.

At Mallard Pass, 40.7% of this project was best and most versatile land, with the remaining 56% grade 3b —so captured by this amendment but not by “best and most versatile”. The report said

“the ExA acknowledges that there is a corresponding degree of conflict with the Government’s Food Strategy aim of broadly maintaining domestic production at current level, and that there is a potential higher agricultural yield and associated economic benefit from the farming of BMV land that would be lost”.

In answer to my Oral Question prior to Christmas, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, conceded that the Sunnica project had a negative albeit slight impact on farming. In answer to an Oral Question from my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the noble Baroness stated that grades 1 and 2 farmland were not being developed for solar. As my research has demonstrated, this is not entirely true for important grade 2 farmland nor for grade 3a.

It is clear from these examples that the Government’s goal of energy security from renewable energy trumps food security every time. I ask the Minister two questions: with so much land of grade 4 and below in the UK, including in areas with strong solar radiation, why is the Secretary of State so eager to approve sites which undermine our food security? Why are the Government not being straight that this is happening? I had to dig for some time to answer these questions after the replies I was given. Are the Government seeking to hide the embarrassing details of these actions? Research from SolarQ demonstrates that solar development is falling disproportionately on grades 1, 2 and 3 land, and underproportionately on weaker grades. Why is this?

The proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework would remove the protection for agricultural land for food production, simply requiring that poorer land be preferred. Given that the current NPPF is already undermining best and most versatile land use, weakening its protection makes a bad situation worse and makes my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendments even more important.

At present, it seems that this Government will approve any renewable energy project development that anyone cares to put forward, without an overall strategy for where those projects are best placed. Our Government began development of a land use framework that would help inform and clarify this decision-making. The current Government have committed to continuing this work and publishing that framework in the not-too-distant future; I believe consultation is expected to begin at the end of this month. That would allow for an open discussion about our priorities and a rational process for determining where we want our solar and wind energy infrastructure to make sure that each of our limited and precious acres is put to its best use.

It is clear that our best farmland is not being treasured or protected by the Government and it is critical that we use every opportunity to protect it. In the Great British Energy Bill, we have the chance with these amendments to prevent at least part of the industry pursuing damaging developments that are not in our national interest.

I hope the Minister will see the wisdom of putting these protections in the Bill. Would he be willing in his department’s involvement in the land use frame-work also to ensure that renewable energy project development happens on our least agriculturally productive land?

My Lords, this group of amendments pick up the right issue but produce the wrong solution. There is no doubt about it: we need the land use framework to come forward very swiftly to avoid the sort of piecemeal decision-making that we are hearing about, not only on food security and energy but on all sorts of other issues.

To try to task GB Energy with this role is entirely the wrong approach, because the reality is that GB Energy is simply a medium-sized company aimed at investing in a comparatively small number of projects, and again would be a very partial solution to these big dilemmas about how we use the very scarce land we have at our disposition in this country. I want the Minister to press his colleagues in other government departments, because we require a multi-department land use framework that will take a multifunctional look at how we use land. We need not just to look at the strategic spatial energy plan, which will also talk about locational issues and land use in respect of energy; that spatial plan must be nested within the land use framework, and it is increasingly pressing that it comes forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, asked us to be gentle with him. I will say very gently that in this House we do not talk for 12 minutes on an amendment.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Fuller, who put forward a very convincing argument, supported by my noble friend Lord Roborough.

I will make three very brief points. First, surely one of the key lessons of the Ukraine crisis concerns food security. That means taking very seriously our attitude to grade 1 agricultural land. I do not agree with the noble Baroness that this is not the right mechanism for trying to entrench the value of that land. This is a narrow amendment that seeks to put the responsibility on Great British Energy, which is, after all, being created by statute. I can think of no better way of trying to curtail the use of this land in ways that undermine food security.

Secondly, I hope the Minister will find time to comment on the point that my noble friend made on tenant farmers. If a landowner, large or small, decides to embark on a solar project, that is something that he has the right to apply for: it is his land and, arguably, farmers are being encouraged to diversify. If there is a tenant on that land—for example, a family who might well have an expectation to go on farming that land for at least one more generation, maybe for 40 or 50 years—under the 1948 Act, the farmer in question cannot be kicked out if the landowner wants the land for farming. However, if the land will be allocated for other uses and permission is given for a solar array on that land, the tenant has no choice but to vacate his farming operation.

Of course, there will be issues with compensation, but we are talking about a situation that could be incredibly damaging and unfair to a group of farmers in this country. It is a large group of farmers, who are already under a lot of pressure because of other government policies. I urge the Minister to look specifically at that point. If he cannot respond to it today, could he ensure that he writes to Ministers in other departments to clarify it?

Finally, the Government have been quite cavalier in appreciating and valuing local opinion. I will give an example from Norfolk. I declare my interest as a landowner in Norfolk, although what I will discuss is nowhere near where I live. There is a group of solar array applications east of Swaffham on the A47. I think there are five sites—my noble friend Lord Fuller will correct me if I am wrong—amounting to 6,000 acres and straddling about four villages east of Swaffham. There is a huge amount of local opposition. Does the Minister think it right that these people should be ignored? Would it not be far better if the applications went through a local planning process? Indeed, there would be an appeal—but, if so, the local residents would obviously have the chance to put their point of view. Currently, there is a feeling that, in the interests of trying to get these key infrastructure projects through, local people are being ignored and cast to one side.

With those few remarks, I support my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Roborough, and wish them well with their amendments.

My Lords, first, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that I will not speak for 12 and a half minutes.

As I have established, I know a little about agriculture but not an awful lot. Something that occurred to me was that if you want to put up a massive solar plant covering a large area of agricultural land, you want low, sloping, south-facing land. That strikes me as precisely the same as the thing you want to grow crops on, so there is a direct conflict here between food production and solar panels. I point that out to the Committee because this is a vexed problem to which there is no easy solution.

My Lords, I lend my support to my noble friend and congratulate him on moving his first amendment. As in Norfolk, there is a huge problem across North and East Yorkshire, where tenant farmers face being bounced off the land that they currently farm for solar panels. I hope that the Minister responding to this little group of amendments will use their good offices to ensure that solar panels are best built in more appropriate places. I say that as honorary president of the UK Warehousing Association, which has a campaign—of which the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is aware and, I hope, supportive—to ensure that we can get solar panels off the ground, particularly in productive grade 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land, while also helping warehouses to create more of their own energy.

I believe this is a debate to be had. I support those who say that it is perhaps not the role of Great British Energy to do this, but we have to raise this at every turn. If we run out of productive farmland on which to grow food—and to allow tenant farmers of every generation, including new entrants, to enter the market—it would be a very sorry state indeed.

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to respond to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. We congratulate him on moving his first amendment—indeed, he got his own group of amendments together, which is to be welcomed. I am afraid that, on these Benches, we cannot support what he is doing; this is just not the right Bill to do it. Even if his amendments were successful, all they would do is limit the powers of Great British Energy to do this stuff; they do not limit any other organisation or body from doing it.

It is very important that the Government come forward with the land use framework as quickly as possible—these are important issues. My understanding is that that Bill should come through in April or around then. These are complicated issues; we are a small island and there is lots of competition on our land use.

Labour also promised us a rooftop solar revolution. We strongly support that and encourage the Government to continue to work on its delivery. France, for example, gets 5% of its electricity from solar panels on car parks. I would like to see this Government replicating that. We have heard about warehouses, but many are constructed to a standard that cannot take solar panels, because the roofs are not strong enough. We must do more to get solar panels into commercial spaces and housing.

I also encourage the Government to do more on the future homes standard. There is uncertainty about whether it will have proper, fit and strong purposes and standards for new-build houses. Then there is the issue of retrofitting existing houses and how we get more energy-efficient measures into them.

I will point out something to the Conservative Benches. The idea that we can either eat or have solar panels is a false dichotomy. I note that, while Amendment 67 applies to agricultural land of grades 1, 2 or 3, Amendment 73 applies to agricultural land of grades 4 and 5, so the Conservatives are covering quite a lot of grades with their amendments. I argue that climate change itself is the biggest issue for us in terms of food security, not solar panels that cover far less than 1% of our land. We have just had the worst harvest since 1988—if not ever, as some people say—and that was because of a continuous wet climate. We have had the failure of the last autumn and winter crops. It is climate change itself that is causing us to have problems with food security—and that is causing massive problems for our farmers.

I welcome the amendments but they are not ones that we can support.

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for missing the first bit of my noble friend’s introduction to his amendments. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether he could update the Committee on where we are with the land use strategy. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I, too, have been banging that drum for some time.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, gently chided my noble friend for the length of his introduction, I say to her that he is perfectly entitled to speak for 12 and a half minutes when introducing an amendment. That would not be the case if he were just one of the rest of us.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s group of amendments. Significant construction projects inevitably bring competing interests. In this case, the clash is between renewable energy development and agriculture, as well as other environmental considerations beyond decarbonisation. Land use, particularly on a densely populated island, must be approached with great care. Currently, we import approximately 40% of our food. While today’s discussions may focus on volatile oil and gas prices, tomorrow’s may shift to the cost and availability of food. This creates a fundamental dilemma. What should take precedence: food or energy?

Food security highlights the need to prioritise high-grade land for agriculture. However, the Government’s plan to build 1.5 million homes—typically on the edge of towns and villages—threatens this priority. Settlements have historically been sited on fertile land, and expanding housing developments will inevitably consume some of it. Essential services such as schools and shops will require further land use, compounding the problem.

Designating renewable energy as part of the nationally significant infrastructure plan risks bypassing legislation designed to protect communities and high-grade land. Restricting onshore renewable projects to grade 4 and 5 land would safeguard high-quality agricultural land and reduce the impact on the more heavily populated areas. According to Solar Energy UK, currently solar installations take almost 20 times the amount of grade 1 land available as opposed to grade 5. I seriously question whether this is the right ratio and ask the Minister whether he believes that it is.

With the Government’s ambitious housing targets, should it not be mandated that all new building, including homes and commercial premises, be fitted with solar panels, as mentioned partially by the noble Earl, Lord Russell? This would make better use of land already out of agricultural use and reduce the pressure while advancing renewable energy goals.

Great British Energy should refrain from developing high-grade agricultural land, nor is there any justification for it to acquire such land unless Amendment 104 is adhered to. Once agricultural land is repurposed for construction, it is rarely restored. At the end of their operational life, renewable projects will leave behind brownfield sites that will probably be redeveloped, permanently altering the land’s use, leading to unintended consequences for the environment.

I draw attention to the potential conflicts between decarbonisation and other environmental concerns—for example, the low-level but persistent noise from onshore wind and solar farms, generated by inverters and transformers, which can disturb rural communities. Biodiversity loss is another critical concern, also highlighted by my noble friend Lord Fuller.

I strongly support the amendments and urge the Committee to carefully balance food security, environmental protection and renewable energy expansion.

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests in that I own a farm in Devon.

My noble friend Lord Fuller has done the Committee a service by raising the issues of planning and land resource allocation more generally in the context of the Bill. I listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and I think she is right: this is a very much broader issue than this relatively narrow Bill. None the less, this is an important moment to raise such issues. I very much hope that we will get a substantive response from the Minister when he addresses these considerations.

I was promised by the Conservative Government a land use framework by Christmas 2022; I did not get it. I was promised it by Christmas 2023; I did not get it. I would like it now from a Labour Government.

My Lords, knowing that the noble Baroness has waited so long puts my noble friend’s 12 and a half minutes into perspective. I dare say the Minister will ride to her rescue very shortly.

This is an important issue. We have had a number of agricultural debates over recent weeks, and one of the key themes has been the need to put food production at the very centre of agricultural policy. The view of the farming community is that that really is not the case at the moment. Farmers need clarity around the policy framework in the context of this Bill and, indeed, more broadly.

I listened carefully to the remarks of a number of contributors that even solar installations are long-cycle, high-capital-intensity investment decisions. There is an issue around whether land taken for solar would ever, in reality, be repurposed for agriculture.

I recognise that this is a broader issue in many respects than the narrow confines of the Bill but it is important for the Government to give us the context.

My Lords, onshore wind has a remarkably small footprint in terms of its use of the land, which seems to get forgotten. I can see 30 wind turbines from my bedroom window; the nearest is about 1 kilometre away. They are excellent: they show that renewable energy is working. We should have more of them, and I hope that the Government will continue to make it easier for these developments to take place towards our 2030 objective of decarbonised electricity.

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Roborough—Amendments 67, 73, 104 and 105. In bringing forward these amendments, my noble friends raise the matter of great importance that is the agricultural industry, which has been subject to punitive measures by the Government in the form of the family farms tax raid.

Amendments 67 and 104 prevent Great British Energy from supporting projects on or owning land that is grade 1, 2 or 3 to prevent the loss of good and high-quality agricultural land. Alternatively, Amendments 73 and 105 encourage GBE to pursue developments on land that is designated grade 4 or 5 —essentially, the worst agricultural land. It appears obvious that the Secretary of State, who directs Great British Energy, will support an approach that balances the need for renewable energy with the need to preserve our nation’s food security.

As explained by my noble friend Lord Fuller within his allotted time, the purpose of this group of amendments is to protect the best and most versatile land for food production. I echo the concerns of my noble friend Lord Roborough that some of the largest and most significant solar developments seem to be approved without due consideration given to the quality of the land which is being sacrificed in the process. It is an undeniable fact that grade 2, the best and most versatile agricultural land, is being lost to existing solar developments. That is not merely a matter of farming but of our country’s food security. As my noble friend Lord Fuller so neatly put it, at best Great British Energy may help to turn our lights on and heat our homes, but there will be no food on the British people’s plates.

The question is not whether we should develop renewable energy but where we should develop it. The goal of achieving energy security should not come at the expense of food security. I ask the Minister to give us his full assurance that under no circumstances will the Secretary of State approve developments that undermine our nation’s ability to feed itself.

Recent analysis of land take by ground-mounted solar installations shows a concerning trend: solar developments are disproportionately targeting the best and most versatile land—that is, land classified under grade 1 and 2. Across England, only 17% of land is classified as grade 1, yet 19% of the land used for solar installations falls into this category. This trend violates the general recommendation to avoid productive agricultural land development. In contrast, grade 5 land, the poorest agricultural land, has been disproportionately avoided. That is exactly the type of land that solar projects should be prioritising, yet it remains underutilised. Only 0.5% of solar installations are on grade 5 land, despite such land constituting 8% of England’s agricultural landscape.

The issue is particularly pressing, given the Government’s ambitious target to triple solar power capacity to 50 gigawatts by 2030. As we expand solar energy, more and more land will be acquired. However, unless active measures are taken to ensure that the correct land is used for these installations, we will continue to see the loss of high-quality agricultural land, exacerbating concerns over our nation’s food security. Amendment 73, therefore, is vital: it seeks to ensure that renewable energy development does not come at the cost of our most productive agricultural land.

The Bill presents us with an opportunity to take decisive action to protect our agricultural land and, in turn, our food security. Amendment 73 provides a necessary safeguard to protect our best agricultural land by ensuring that solar developments are directed towards poorer-quality land, while not only addressing the concerns of land use but ensuring that the Government’s renewable energy ambitions do not threaten our food supply. I urge all noble Lords to support this amendment, as it is essential to our national security, in terms of both food and energy.

In conclusion, Amendments 63, 73, 104 and 105 offer a practical and necessary solution to ensure that the best land is reserved for food production while still allowing for renewable energy development on less productive land. This is not an either/or situation; it is a matter of finding a balance that serves both our energy needs and our need to protect the land that sustains us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 67 withdrawn.

Amendments 68 to 77 not moved.