Lord Teverson:

Moved by Lord Teverson

87: Clause 28, page 39, line 23, at end insert—“(1A) For renewable energy produced from biomass, the forestry authority may only supply or use forestry materials that are deemed to be waste.”Member's explanatory statementThis Amendment prevents public forestry resources being used for the establishment of large scale biomass operations.

My Lords, I declare a couple of interests that are relevant to this Bill. I chair the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership and Aldustria Limited, a company which is into grid battery storage. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for adding their names to Amendment 87.

When I first read through this Bill before Second Reading, I went through all the big things in Part 3 and all the stuff that we have been debating. Hiding in plain sight was Clause 28 on forestry authorities—primarily one thinks of the Forestry Commission here in England—and how their land should be used. It is entitled in such a way, with renewable energy, that you think, “Oh, that sounds good: more renewable energy and forestry. What could possibly go wrong?” Then you look down this clause and think, “Hang on a minute: what goes together most with renewable energy and forestry?” Of course, the answer that springs out is biomass; what else can you do with trees for renewable energy than to produce biomass? I am not totally against biomass for renewable energy, but it is an area about which we have to be very careful.

If we read through the rest of Clause 28 to see the definitions of renewable energy, interestingly we find that it does not actually say what they are but what they are not. It goes through nuclear energy, so we are not likely to have any small modular reactors on Forestry Commission sites in the near future, and it goes through all the fossil fuels and peat, all of which is good. However, it does not mention biomass within those definitions. As we know, biomass has its issues. It is interesting that we are debating this clause at a point when the Financial Conduct Authority has looked at the behaviour of Drax over something of a completely different scale and in a different place. It shows that one of the difficult areas with biomass is how you manage it, have accountability and make sure that, if it is used, it is managed in the right way. So there are a number of issues around biomass, all of which we know. The forestry authorities have a number of ancient woodlands, which certainly should not be touched, and there are issues around clear-cutting and soil quality, particularly if we were to take away all the cuttings—the branches and fallen trees—in that natural forestry.

I am aware that the Minister will say to me—it is a positive part of this clause—that activities carried out under this clause would have to have an environmental benefit. It goes on to mention those environmental benefits to nature and other areas, and I welcome that. However, my concern—hence why I have pursued this amendment—is that it could be said that all those things would be helped if we moved more quickly towards net zero. That is true, and so you could construct an argument that having renewable energy through biomass would reduce climate change, which is positive for all those other natural environment considerations.

I am really trying to find out from the Minister—she gave part of this answer in writing after Second Reading but I want to investigate it further—what exactly was in the Government’s mind when they wrote this. Are they going to cover Forestry Commission land with solar panels or wind turbines? I am trying to understand what this allows and what those organisations’ management plans for renewable energy are likely to be. I can accept, as I put in the amendment, that waste product is acceptable. Having said that, even residual and dead timber can itself be a good springboard for biodiversity. I am really trying to find out the intent behind this, because it is one area that could go very wrong if we are not careful. I beg to move.

My Lords, I am very pleased to support the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. There is widespread concern about the sustainable sourcing of all Drax wood pellets, and it is incredibly important that we ensure there are safeguards in place around the potential for the wrongful use of forestry land. As the noble Lord said, we learned just last week that Drax is now under investigation by the financial watchdog. In the past, it has been fined £25 million for supplying inaccurate data. So while the Government’s decision to reduce the subsidies for Drax is welcome, it will remain the UK’s largest emitting power station, whatever we do. We have to be watchful.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report in May, covering DESNZ’s draft regulations to extend the regime for Drax, highlighted concerns about the ability of Ofgem and DESNZ to hold Drax to account on the sustainability question and the enforcement of environmental compliance. It noted that “key documents” relating to

“Drax’s supply chain processes and reporting practices have not been published”.

A lot of this comes from whistleblowers within the company. The Public Accounts Committee has also criticised the weaknesses in the current assurances and enforcement processes.

However, the UK has a shortage of UK forest biomass. The NAO estimates that the UK is importing 9.1 million tonnes of wood pellets for use in energy production. As has been described on the Floor of this House, this is an insane situation where we cut down trees in British Columbia and western America, cut them up and ship them across the Atlantic to be burned in Yorkshire—which seems to have a big presence here tonight.

Sustainable biomass is going to become harder to get, not easier, so what does the Minister envisage will happen? Will we see an uptick in Forestry Commission resources being used for biomass energy? While I hope that this will not be the case—I am very dubious about the basis on which you accept that biomass power generation is ever low carbon, since wood, coal and oil are, in essence, made of the same things—if that is something that we are going to see, I hope the Government will accept that protections need to be put in place and that any resources used comply completely with all the sustainability criteria and support what is in this amendment.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who, alas, cannot be with us today. I declare my interest as chair the Labour Climate and Environment Forum. The noble Lord’s amendment would insert into the Bill a new duty for the Forestry Commission to take all reasonable steps to contribute to the Government’s statutory climate and nature targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021 in exercising its functions related to planning, development and infrastructure.

The Forestry Commission is a really important player in the delivery of these statutory targets and, for that reason, was listed as one of the public authorities in the original Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. His Private Member’s Bill sought to apply these duties to a whole range of public authorities. During the debate on that Bill, the Government said that they were sympathetic to its aims. This would be a real opportunity for the Government to put that sympathy into legislation.

The Forestry Commission is really important to the achievement of the Government’s targets for three reasons. First, it is the single largest landowner and manager of land in the country, with 750,000 hectares under its control. Secondly, it impacts, to a much bigger extent, on other woodland and associated land in its permitting and regulatory role for other landowners. That covers in excess of 3 million hectares of land. So we are talking about an organisation that, if it does the right thing, can have a huge impact and, if it does the wrong thing, can have a huge impact. Thirdly, this amendment would simply be a natural evolution of the development of the Forestry Commission’s role.

The Forestry Commission was invented in 1919, originally with a sole focus on producing timber and encouraging the replanting of Britain’s depleted timber-producing land. This depletion had become incredibly apparent during the First World War. In 1968—we do not move very quickly when it comes to dealing with forestry—the Countryside Act extended its role to include the provision of public amenities, such as footpaths and open spaces. In 1985, the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act extended the Forestry Commission’s role to include conservation. This amendment is simply another step on that road. It would complete the extension and modernising of the Forestry Commission’s duties to include the delivery of the climate and nature targets that have been invented over the last 15 years.

I am sure the Minister will say that the Forestry Commission has already got conservation duties and is already asked to deliver for climate change. Indeed, the biomass issue that has just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raises some considerable questions about the way in which that extension is happening. It is messy and piecemeal. The amendment would provide an unambiguous and up-to-date duty, without which the Government will very likely not deliver their statutory nature and climate targets. We cannot simply depend on some very piecemeal roles for the Forestry Commission to deliver the right thing on that extent of land.

Noble Lords will understand from this introduction that I do not support Amendments 87A and 87B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The spirit of the land use framework, which is under preparation by government at the moment, is that our scarce land supply has to work in a multifunctional way, delivering multiple benefits. Timber production is important because we are a massive net importer of timber, but so are climate change, biodiversity, flood risk management and access for health and well-being. They are also things that the Forestry Commission needs to deliver in the way it manages land and encourages other landowners to deal with their land. The Forestry Commission is absolutely fundamental in that as the biggest landowner in the country.

To revert to the primary purpose of the Forestry Commission being timber production risks going back to the bad old days of regular ranks of subsidised Sitka spruce—I caricature—marching across the countryside on inappropriate sites with poor outcomes for biodiversity and much subsidised by taxpayers. We simply cannot go back there. We need a modern Forestry Commission that delivers those multiple outcomes that the land use framework requires.

I also express agreement with some of Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am not sure if the percentage ceilings that he gives for land to be used for energy infrastructure are the right ones in percentage terms, but there certainly needs to be an appropriate balance between the requirements of timber production, biodiversity, access, recreation and energy infrastructure. His proposed new paragraphs (c) and (d), which would protect against the adverse effects on sites protected for nature conservation and irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland, are absolutely spot on.

I also look forward to the Minister’s response to the very real and important inquiry from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, into what is intended in the Government’s mind for the Forestry Commission and its role in biomass. I am concerned already at some of the species that the Forestry Commission is permitting at the moment—novel species, very fast growing, with as yet untested uses. I would be concerned if we lost sight of the fact that the vast Majority of Forestry Commission land, particularly in England, is in fact moving towards being a mixed woodland mix that can do all these other duties like biodiversity, access and public health, rather than simply being species that are aimed at commercial return.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow all the noble Lords who have spoken in this group, and as has already been said, I attach my name to Amendment 87 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and to Amendment 93.

I will seek to add to, rather than repeat, what has already been said, but I just follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in addressing Amendment 88 and agree that I am also not sure about the percentages. I would particularly highlight the ancient woodland, how terribly important and terribly rare that is, and so, as per paragraph (d) in that amendment, there is no way we should be doing anything to damage ancient woodland for energy—it is such a precious resource. Noble Lords have heard me go on before about looking at the trees, but let us also see how incredibly precious the biodiversity in soil in ancient woodland is.

On Amendment 87, I think biomass is now a very dirty word, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rhetorically asked, “What could possibly go wrong?”. Of course, that has already been answered with the single word, “Drax”. The energy think tank Ember said Drax is “the UK’s largest emitter” and that the power

“is more expensive than … gas, it’s more polluting than coal, and more dependent on imports than oil”.

There should be no future biomass at Drax; that is my position and the Green Party’s position. It really is a tragedy that we did not get to that point when we recently had the opportunity.

The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, picked this point up. I signed this amendment, but I am almost tempted towards saying simply that there should be no biomass from forests, because as the noble Baroness asked, what does “waste material” really mean? We are thinking about biodiversity and about organic material that is a resource. If you leave it on the forest floor, it contributes to the generation of soil and provides habitat for a huge variety of organisms. Is that really waste at all? Is there any such thing in a forest? That really is the question. We need to be thinking about having a war on tidiness and the idea that for any sort of planting, we want these nice, neat rows with clean bare soil in between—we need to think about what kind of damage that does.

Particularly in addressing Amendment 93, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a study that was out last year funded by the Forestry Commission. It was entitled Rapid review of evidence on biodiversity in Great Britain’s commercial forests. It found that there is in fact a huge shortage of data and information about what is happening in the biodiversity, specifically in commercial high forests. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised the issue of the land use strategy. How can we be making the plans within this Bill, or indeed for the land use strategy, if we do not have the data about the biodiversity, which this study, funded by the Forestry Commission, identified? I also point to another Forestry Commission study from late 2023, which warned of the risk of catastrophic ecosystem collapse in our forests. This was signed—the work of 42 experts—and pointed out all the risks that our forests face from wind, fire, pests and diseases, and it said there are already forests in continental Europe and North America where we have seen this kind of biological collapse. We need to be thinking about making sure that the Forestry Commission is given the statutory duty, which Amendment 93 would give it, to ensure that it looks after biodiversity as well as, of course, the crucial issue of the climate emergency.

It is worth repeating again that we are incredibly forest and woodland-deprived in the UK by international comparisons. We have to look after what is there for human health, for well-being, for the climate and for nature.

My Lords, I speak particularly to the amendments that I have tabled in this group. It is fair to say that the Forestry Commission is quite an unusual organisation—it is a non-ministerial department for a start. I was the Minister and then the Secretary of State with the relationship with the Forestry Commission and my experience was that, frankly, I used to get somewhat frustrated, thinking that it should get on and plant some trees. It almost seemed very reluctant to just get on and plant trees. The reason it matters—the clue is in the name, but perhaps the organisation literally cannot see the wood for the trees—is that trying to give the extra targets is important for the Forestry Commission to make sure it is on track in doing what it is supposed to do.

One of those aims is to help achieve the 16% woodland cover target by 2050, which we are at risk of missing. The Forestry Commission should have at the forefront of its mind that its role is about trees, woodland and forests. I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, was concerned about single species, or perhaps only certain species being granted in commercial estates. It is vital that we have mixed forests. One of my concerns was that it seemed like, for any tree that was not a broadleaf, it was almost like it was automatically bad and we should not be touching it. Actually, we need that mix for a combination of factors. There is no question that a broadleaf tree will bring absolutely better biodiversity overall, but so do the pines and, critically, the pines will grow a lot more quickly and contribute far more quickly to issues involving climate and emissions. That is why having a combination tree estate under the UK forestry guidance really matters.

One of the things that motivated me in the Bill is the fact that this Clause has, in essence, a motivation for the Forestry Commission to adopt a lot of renewable energy projects in order to pay for its own expenses and operational costs. I am not convinced that that is what we should necessarily be trying to do; nor do I want to stand in the way of the Forestry Commission engaging in renewable energy projects because quite a lot of its land would encourage that.

However, one of the reasons for me tabling the Amendment to suggest replacing lost cover “twofold”—that was, candidly, an arbitrary number—is that I would not like to see, for example, what happened back in 1987 with the hurricane that affected large parts of this country and blew down a million trees in a small part of Suffolk. I was later told by Natural England that it would have opposed any replanting of what was there. I am conscious of what has been said. It may just have been conifer plantations. Nevertheless, they provided a purpose. Would we want instead to see just solar farms in the middle of the magnificent series of forests that we have there? That would not be right. My sense is that, if it is going to press on with this, a lot of it will hopefully be on aspects such as turbines and similar to generate electricity locally or put it into the grid, but it is vital that we continue to make sure that the Forestry Commission thinks that its main job is to plant trees and to help grow our woodland cover across this country.

As a lot has been said about Drax, one of the reasons for mentioning

“a sustainable source of timber” in the explanatory statement is that I was not solely considering biomass. For what it is worth, if we are going to continue having biomass in this country, why should we not have UK-produced timber being a significant source of that? One of the things that we need to make sure we are doing in future is moving to having a lot more wood in our construction of homes. Although most British people love bricks, stone and similar—I should say “English and Welsh people”, as a significant proportion of the housing stock in Scotland has wood as a principal material in its construction—we need to do more of that in this country. It would be good for carbon more generally. It would also mean that we consider what to do, with it still being at risk of being a limited resource, in terms of the construction industry more broadly for all the other infrastructure that we want to do.

I support Amendment 88. It would be a useful way to focus the mind of the forestry commissioners. It is fair to say that I do not necessarily agree with everything that has been said about why that could not still be seen to be a secondary duty in terms of renewable energy and that we make sure that at least there is one group of people. By the way, about 10 foresters work as civil servants in government; the Ministry of Defence has the most because it has the most land of any government department. It is important that we keep very much at the forefront of our minds that forests are good and woodland is good, and we definitely need the Forestry Commission not to be diverted when that should be its primary purpose.

In this group on the Forestry Commission’s actions and duties, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 88 and in support of Amendment 93, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I support pretty much all of the amendments in this group. This has been an interesting conversation on not only the role and development of the Forestry Commission but its relationship with hosting energy, including what safeguards and protections need to happen as we go down that road and what our forests will look like in the future under climate change.

My amendment is designed to put in place some safeguards on the new powers granted to the appropriate forestry authorities for energy generation, transmission and storage on public forestry land. At the heart of all this is a balance between what we do to hit our climate and nature change duties and what we must do not to further damage our ecology and biodiversity. It is fine to make use of our forests for these things, but it must not have detrimental impacts. That is what I have tried to balance in my amendment.

The commission gains unprecedented powers to host and sell energy from renewable installations on land under its management. Yet, when I looked at Clause 28, there were no clear legal protections for most precious habitats. My worry is that, without such safeguards, we will see renewable energy infrastructure sited in ways that harm our ancient woodlands, our carbon rich peatlands and other priority habitats that the Government have a duty to protect, particularly under our 30 by 30 biodiversity targets.

I am looking for a reasonable balance between timber production and nature conservation. That reasonable balance is in the Bill, but what does it mean? It is not purely defined in the Bill, which was also a worry for me. In response to that, my amendment tries to take a pragmatic way forward. I note the issue raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Bennett, about the percentages. My amendment says that no more than 2% of all Forestry Commission land and no more than 5% of any individual site could be given to energy storage and development. I will go away and look at that. At the moment, there is no cap on that at all. Noble Lords may not agree with my percentages but putting a percentage in the amendment is a whole lot better than having no percentages in there at all; however, I will go away and look at whether there is another way in which that might be done.

This issue is particularly acute in our national parks and where our national parks and Forestry Commission land co-exist; in the New Forest, that is 47%, while, in Northumberland, it is 15%. These are treasured landscapes. Energy development must be proportionate, consistent with statutory park purposes, subject to democratic oversight, not impacting on leisure facilities and making sure that our national parks authorities have some say in and control over these things. These are important matters.

My amendment does not seek to reject the role of using Forestry Commission land to help with our energy; it just seeks to put some safeguards on that. I will go away and consider my amendment. This debate has been useful for me, and I will reflect on this, but there need to be more safeguards in the Bill—of that I am still certain. I would be very happy to work with the Minister between now and Report to see whether there are ways in which we could do that together; that would be welcome.

This has already been discussed in detail but, turning briefly to Amendment 93, I have supported the Private Member’s Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, at every stage of its passage through the House. It is absolutely essential that we update our climate change legislation. In the last debate on his Bill, I said that it was the equivalent to the Government being the general and knowing what the military strategy was but failing to tell any of their own troops. The Government need to work with all these public bodies. These things are so pressing and so complicated. The Government are holding on to all this stuff and not passing the orders down and empowering others, including the public bodies. The Forestry Commission owns 5% of all public land. It needs a duty to enhance and meet our climate change and biodiversity targets; it is silly that it does not have that.

I am sorry. I am a little buoyed up having come through the Crown Estate Bill and the Great British Energy Bill, where we managed to work with Ministers and get such provisions added to the Bills. It is on my agenda to do that in this Bill; that makes sense. I would like to work with the Minister, but it is a minimum for me that a similar amendment to the ones in those Bills is added to this Bill. If the Government want to make use of forestry land for energy generation, that is fine, but with that comes some responsibilities; those responsibilities include that this duty should added.

My Lords, I very much approve of what the Government are doing in this Clause. I think they should go a bit further. I want to illustrate this in the context of the challenges faced by southern broadleaved woodlands, which existed for many centuries as places of industry. People made things there; a lot of products came out of it. The whole biodiversity of that ecosystem comes out of a continuous pattern of use. It is interesting to see, for instance with NEP, how little biodiversity is left in the woodland when the woodland ceases to be of value. All the biodiversity there, which is considerable, has moved outside. Our woodland biodiversity is important.

The Government should be organising themselves, and the Forestry Commission, so that we can see a restoration of a commercial purpose to the southern broadleaved woodlands, particularly in England. We cannot at the moment rely on forestry. All the species that we used to grow in profusion have no big current use. Our neighbouring forest in Eastbourne was planted to beech 100 years ago. When they are felling it now, 100 year-old trees are going to firewood. There is no market now for really high-quality beech.

In the small wood that I own, oak is the main crop. We have acute oak decline coming in now. You are asked to wait 100 years for oak. If it is all going to rot away before then, there is no outlet. We really need a system that can take general wood output—branches, brash, thinnings, uneconomic trees—and turn it into something useful. The outlet available at the moment is energy.

The Forestry Commission is hugely important in this as it has a breadth of organisation and understanding, whereas the ownership of woodland tends to be extremely fragmented in the south. It can bring a lot in motivating, organising, inspiring and controlling when it comes to looking after biodiversity principles.

I am very pleased to see the direction in which the Government are moving here. My understanding is that this clause is written in a way that allows the Forestry Commission to work with partners in achieving its objectives; it does not have to do everything itself. However, I urge the Government to make one change to this: not just to look at renewable power but to look at renewable feedstocks for industry.

If we are to replace oil as the feedstock for our chemical industry, we need to go after every available source of concentrated carbon, and woods produce quite a lot of that. In looking at the powers that Forestry Commission has under the Bill—there are already young British companies using wood products to produce jet fuel and similar things—we need to add that extra aspect: not just renewable energy, but renewable feedstocks for industry.

My Lords, the amendments in this group speak to the vital role of our nation’s forests in delivering both environmental and societal benefits. As I begin, I refer the Committee to my registered interests, in particular as a forest owner and as a developer of new forestry and woodlands.

Turning first to Amendment 87, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I recognise its thoughtful intent. It seeks to ensure that public forestry resources are not disproportionately used to supply large-scale biomass operations. We are sympathetic to the amendment’s aims and to many of the comments made in this short debate. The responsible management of public woodland must prioritise environmental protection and long-term sustainability, but the picture is complex. Biomass plays a role in our renewable energy mix, and there may be cases, such as thinning or disease control, where repurposing woodland material is practical and sustainable.

This is ultimately a question of balance. I ask the Minister to outline how existing safeguards ensure that public forestry will not be placed under undue pressure from commercial biomass demand. I also note, as my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out, that the overwhelming use of felled broadleaves is currently for home heating. Without the wood-burning market, mature forestry economics are undermined in these situations. It would be a shame to lose that incentive for managing our native broadleaf plantations and natural woodland.

Amendments 87A and 87B in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey raise important points about the core purpose of the Forestry Commission. Amendment 87A seeks to clarify that the commission’s duties under Section 1(2) are considered secondary to its primary role, which is the planting of trees and serving as a sustainable source of timber.

We acknowledge the intention behind these amendments to ensure that the traditional functions of the Forestry Commission are not diluted, and that tree planting and timber production remain at the heart of its mission. I have many years of experience of dealing with the Forestry Commission, and I pay testament to that organisation for its single-minded and effective focus on managing forestry and developing and encouraging the development of new forests and woodlands. We would welcome clarity from the Minister on how these proposed duties would interact with the commission’s existing role in biodiversity, climate resilience and landscape restoration. The challenge, as ever, is in balancing competing land uses while meeting ambitious environmental goals.

On Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I again acknowledge the motivations behind the proposal. It seeks to prevent overuse of public land by the forestry authority and to protect vulnerable habitats, particularly ancient woodland and sites of ecological significance.

We all agree that such sites must be afforded strong protection. However, in my view, the protections already afforded are more than sufficient. My own experience is that the safeguards applied to new forest and woodland developments in England make the planting of meaningful sites well-nigh impossible already. Placing further obstacles in its path could be a retrograde step.

I therefore look to the Minister to clarify whether the existing regulatory frameworks, such as the environmental impact assessments and habitat safeguards, already provide a sufficient backstop. I also ask the Minister what changes this Government would consider to make the development of new forests easier and more streamlined.

Finally, Amendment 93, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and ably introduced by the noble Baroness, would introduce a statutory duty on the Forestry Commission to contribute to targets set under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021, as well as to adaptation strategies.

Having been lucky enough to hear Richard Stanford, CEO of the Forestry Commission, speak, I ask the Minister: what consultations do this Government have with the Forestry Commission about the extent of the contribution already being made by forestry to wider societal goals?

The Forestry Commission is well aware of the benefits of woodland and forestry to carbon sequestration, biodiversity gain, flood management, water quality and the management and protection of our cultural heritage that well-planned management and creation of forestry can deliver. Those benefits are inextricably linked with its core mission of planting and looking after trees; I question the need for them to be laid out separately. In reality, I fear that this amendment could create confusion and have unforeseen consequences in the medium to longer term. The UK Forestry Standard already incorporates best practice around these objectives, and is underpinned by the realities of the Woodland Carbon Code.

I echo comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Young, on the biodiversity measurement in productive forestry as well as in non- productive forestry. The data is simply inadequate at the moment, and the biodiversity net-gain calculations supplied by Defra simply do not work for forestry.

I also support my noble friend Lady Coffey’s point on the rates of growth of productive forestry and the rate at which they can contribute to carbon sequestration versus native broadleaves. It would be wrong to demonise these trees; they are useful for bringing down atmospheric carbon much more rapidly than native broadleaves, as well as providing a valuable and productive source of building materials.

There is real benefit in the Government working with the Forestry Commission to recognise the wider contribution already being made to our country from the co-benefits delivered alongside timber production, and listening to the Forestry Commission on how new forest developments can be enabled on a greater scale.

In conclusion, the amendments reflect a shared desire across this House to ensure that our forests are designed and managed sustainably and responsibly. As the role of forestry continues to evolve, whether in climate policy, nature recovery or renewable energy, it is right that we scrutinise the balance between economic, ecological and social priorities. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I do not have the hands-on experience of managing forestry that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, does. My mother’s family home was in the middle of Savernake Forest, so it is very close to my heart, and the three elderly uncles who lived there when I was growing up worked in the forest in exactly the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. They did active work for the Forestry Commission: the kind of work that the noble Lord was describing.

Clause 28 sets out to amend the Forestry Act 1967 to grant the forestry authorities powers to pursue electricity generation from renewable sources within the public forest estate. Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, seeks to restrict forestry authorities to supplying or using only waste materials in the context of renewable electricity generation from biomass. I completely understand that the intention behind the amendment is to prevent large-scale biomass operations on forest estate and inappropriate harvesting practices in the name of renewable energy, but I suggest that the concern is already addressed in statute by the balancing duty laid out in the Forestry Act 1967.

Clause 28 of the Bill applies the balancing duty specifically to renewable electricity, which means that forestry authorities are required to balance their renewable electricity functions with their forestry responsibilities and the conservation of natural beauty and flora and fauna of special interest. If the noble Lord is concerned that, without his amendment, the Forestry Commission would be able to engage in large-scale deforestation for the purpose of biomass, the Government’s categorical view is that that would not be consistent with the commission’s statutory duties.

Furthermore, I believe that the amendment would have unintended consequences that could constrain routine woodland management practices, including existing operations that contribute to the health of existing woodlands and the sustainable supply of biomass. Forestry authorities are committed to delivering the sustainable management of our forests and meeting the requirements set out in the UK forestry standards. These standards are upheld through processes such as thinning, where selected young trees are removed to enhance the quality and health of the broader woodland area—I think the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, referred to this. Through that process, all the material produced could be used for biomass. The proposed amendment could have the unintended effect of producing a narrow interpretation of “waste” that could exclude material most suitable for energy generation, such as material produced through the thinning process. This would limit the uses of forest materials and ultimately would be wasteful in itself.

Finally, it is important to note that sustainably sourced biomass can play an important role in our renewable energy systems, in transitioning away from fossil fuels and in meeting our net zero targets. Existing frameworks and duties provide a high bar for the Forestry Commission’s role as manager of the nation’s forests. These existing statutory duties underpin the commission’s current practices, including the sustainable supply of biomass, already operating at a smaller scale, as part of routine and acceptable day-to-day woodland management practices. The Forestry Commission has no plans to engage in the development of large-scale biomass technologies in the forests that it manages. It is for these reasons that I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

I will consider Amendments 97A, 87B and 88A together. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendments, which aim to protect the forest estate from adverse impacts as a result of renewable electricity activities. I reiterate that our public forests are a precious national asset providing vital environmental, social and economic benefits, and this legislation will not change that fact.

The noble Baroness mentioned using wood in construction. Just before Recess, I visited an office building just across the Thames from here that was constructed using timber. It is a fantastic building. It looks out onto a small woodland as well, which makes it even better. So that is an important factor.

The forestry authorities’ key statutory duties remain to promote the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation, the management of forests and the production and supply of timber and other forest products. The additional revenue stream produced from the sale of electricity from renewable energy developments will enhance their ability to deliver their existing objectives.

Amendments 87A and 87B would require the forestry authorities to replace any woodland lost to renewable electricity development by double, with this being planted as near as possible to the original site. I reassure the noble Baroness that the size of the public forest estate will not reduce as a result of renewable energy developments. The estimated footprint of renewable electricity projects will be relatively small and there will be no net loss of woodland area. Renewable energy installations are successfully integrated into woodlands in many areas of Scotland. Scottish officials explained to mine that, generally speaking, where trees might be felled for, say, access purposes during the construction phase, they can be replanted once the access is no longer required.

It is the Government’s view that the amendment is unnecessary as there is already existing statutory provision to ensure that impact is mitigated in both the Forestry Act and the planning and development process. Therefore, permanent deforestation at concerning scale for the purpose of renewable electricity development would not be consistent with the Forestry Commission’s existing statutory duties.

Furthermore, I believe the amendments could have the unintended effect of limiting the ability to utilise new and potentially more suitable land to create new woodland habitats when undertaking compensatory tree planting. Some locations are less suitable for woodland creation, and replanting woodland as close as possible to the installation may not align with ecological and other environmental and timber-supply priorities.

The amendment may also limit the ability to pursue restoration measures beyond compensatory tree planting that could deliver greater environmental value. The Forestry Commission will ensure that compensatory planting takes place where woodland is permanently lost to renewable energy projects, but the planning process can often identify more effective ways of enhancing ecology and biodiversity. We would not want these alternative approaches to be constrained as a result of this legislation.

Amendment 88A specifically requests that Clause 28(6) is removed completely. The intended effect of this is to prevent regulations being made for purposes beyond those explicitly set out in the Bill. Many examples of the provisions set out in subsection (6) can be found in any large Bill. They are technical provisions that do not affect the fundamental purpose for which regulations can be made. In this case, that fundamental purpose is determined by subsection (5). I reassure the noble Baroness that, if regulations were to be made in reliance on the power in subsection (6) to make, for example, incidental or supplementary provisions, the scope of those regulations could not be broadened in the way that her amendment appears to be concerned about.

Further, the reference in subsection (6) to the ability to make different provisions for different purposes does not mean that any of those purposes can go beyond the general purpose set out in subsection (5). They cannot.

I note for completeness that the Government are currently reviewing subsection (5) in response to recommendations made in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill. I therefore do not believe that the amendment is necessary for the intended effect. Given the existing provisions and the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness is reassured and I hope she will agree to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would place a limit on the amount of the public forest estate that forestry authorities may use for renewable electricity projects. I recognise that our public forests are a national asset and that this amendment has been made in the spirit of protecting them. However, the existing statutory duties and regulatory frameworks will prevent excessive development of the forest estate. The estimated footprint of these renewable electricity projects will be relatively small. There will be no net loss to woodland area or the size of the public forest estate as a result of the renewable electricity projects. Furthermore, any renewable electricity developments will be subject to the relevant planning process and considered against the forestry authorities’ existing statutory balancing duty set out in the Forestry Act 1967.

It should be noted that public land being managed by forestry authorities in Scotland is being used to generate renewable electricity at commercial scale, and these developments are subject to no such restriction. The authorities there have been trusted to develop renewable electricity projects on the land they manage, balancing conservation with the need to lower our national carbon emissions and combat climate change—one of the greatest threats to our precious environment.

This amendment also seeks to prevent forestry authorities indirectly or directly causing any adverse effects to irreplaceable habitats, as well as to designated habitat sites or sites of special scientific interest, as a consequence of renewable developments. As far as habitat sites and sites of special scientific interest are concerned, there are existing designation-specific duties on all public bodies, including the Forestry Commission, as well as procedural requirements, that provide robust protections. For sites of special scientific interest, the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that developments likely to have an adverse effect on these sites should not normally be permitted. Further, the Forestry Commission has a statutory duty in exercising its functions to take reasonable steps to further the conservation and enhancement of the special features of SSSIs.

When it comes to habitat sites, including special protection areas and special areas of conservation, existing statutory requirements restrict public bodies, including forestry authorities and planning authorities, from undertaking or consenting to activity that might adversely affect site integrity. These are highly protected sites and renewable electricity developments that could adversely affect their integrity could not be taken forward unless strict derogation conditions were met. The National Planning Policy Framework is also clear that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, local planning authorities should refuse planning permission for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats. Given these existing protections, I hope the noble Lord is reassured and will agree not to press his amendment.

Finally, Amendment 93 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and spoken to very ably by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. The amendment would place a statutory duty on forestry authorities to take all reasonable steps to contribute to biodiversity targets set under the Environment Act 2021 and targets set under the Climate Change Act 2008, and to contribute to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act 2008.

The driving force behind Clause 28 is the need to increase the amount of renewable electricity that can be generated in the UK. This will enable the forestry authorities to increase their contributions to government targets set under the Climate Change Act. The forestry authorities are required to undertake afforestation and conservation by law, and, by their very nature, they are already providing significant benefits to help tackle biodiversity loss and climate change. It is therefore my view that this amendment is unnecessary.

With regard to biodiversity targets, the balancing duty in the Forestry Act 1967 requires forestry authorities to endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between forestry matters and the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, and the conservation of flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features of special interest. The Forestry Commission also has responsibilities to consider and act to improve the environment via the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, as strengthened by the Environment Act. This requires public authorities, including the Forestry Commission, to consider and take action to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. In doing so, they must have regard to the relevant local nature recovery strategy, as well as to any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.

The Forestry Commission has ambitious net-zero targets, which it is working to meet via several significant projects for woodland creation and peatland restoration currently under way across the public forest estate. In 2024, Forestry England, the Forestry Commission’s executive agency responsible for managing the nation’s forests, delivered £1.8 billion in natural capital outcomes through activities including newly created woodlands, key species reintroduction programmes and a 6,000 hectare rewilding programme.

In the context of climate adaptation planning under the Climate Change Act, the Forestry Commission already provides reports on how it is adapting to or proposes to adapt to climate change. Furthermore, where renewable electricity development on the public forest estate is consented to through the development consent process for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the national policy statements will apply. The national policy statement for renewable energy stipulates that the Secretary of State should have regard to the aims, goals and targets, including targets set under the Environment Act 2021, of the Government’s environmental improvement plan and other existing and future measures and targets.

The overarching national policy statement for energy also references the importance of the Government’s net-zero commitment and efforts to fight climate change. The statement requires that, in considering any proposed development, the Secretary of State should take into account its potential benefits, including its contribution to meeting the need for low-carbon energy infrastructure, which will play a crucial role as the UK decarbonises its economy. Given these existing provisions, I hope the noble Lord is reassured and I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will not press the amendment on his behalf.

I will reflect further on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the development of new forests and on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lady Young on the measurement of BNG for forests. I will come back to them on those points.

The Minister gave a very impressive list of different pieces of statute, guidance and legislation from right across the spectrum that guides the Forestry Commission in its work. I just want to plant the idea in her head that perhaps the time has come for some legislation that consolidates all of those requirements. It is now nearly 60 years since we last had a forestry Bill.

I will pass my noble friend’s comments on to the Defra Minister.

My Lords, if this was not the House of Lords, I think I would ask for a round of applause for the Minister. That was very concentrated information over about 15 minutes without even a breath, so my congratulations to her.

Clearly, there is another debate that needs to happen. I am absolutely fascinated by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that the Forestry Commission is not too strongly into planting trees. That could just explain the fact that we are rather behind on our tree planting targets in this country. I really welcomed the in-depth, practical view of how the Forestry Commission worked from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.

As far as my Amendment is concerned, I can see from what the Minister said in answer to one of the other amendments that the role model here may be what is happening in Scotland. I will look at that further and try to understand further what the Government are trying to achieve in terms of the Forestry Commission and renewable energy. I may or may not come back to this on Report, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 87 withdrawn.

Amendments 87A to 88C not moved.

Clause 28 agreed.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.48 pm.