Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025

Considered in Grand Committee

17:30:00

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025. Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

My Lords, this instrument, which was laid before the House on 10 March 2025, is another important step in supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar, which are critical in achieving the Government’s clean energy superpower mission, including clean power by 2030. An effective planning system is key to unlocking the new infrastructure that our country needs to underpin our energy security and resilience. It is important that planning applications are determined through an appropriate planning route that reflects a project’s size, impact and complexity and in which potential issues are identified and mitigated as necessary. The nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIP—regime is governed by the Planning Act 2008, where decisions on development consent are made by the Secretary of State for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. The NSIP regime applies to larger projects, with a megawatt threshold determining which energy-generating projects are deemed nationally significant. The NSIP regime provides the largest, most important projects of strategic importance with a single unified approach to seeking development consent, where applications are determined by Ministers balancing local impacts against the wider national benefits. Following submission, an extensive examination period will commence whereby interested parties, including local authorities, people of office and the general public, can make written or oral representations to the examination. This ensures that the voices of communities are heard during the decision-making process. Until recently, a de facto ban on onshore wind generation in England severely limited deployment. Changes introduced in 2015 saw stringent tests introduced into planning policy alongside the removal of onshore wind generation from the NSIP regime in 2016. These changes set an almost impossible bar to meet, resulting in the pipeline of projects sinking by more than 90%, with only 40 megawatts of onshore wind generation consented and becoming operational in the intervening period. In July 2024, this Government disapplied those planning policy tests and committed to reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime, reversing the damaging policies of the past decade and placing onshore wind on the same footing as solar, offshore wind and nuclear power stations. As such, through this instrument, onshore wind projects with a generating capacity of more than 100 megawatts in England will be consented under the NSIP regime. The 100-megawatt threshold reflects the advances in turbine technology over the past decade, with modern turbines being larger and more powerful. Reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime will provide an appropriate route for nationally significant projects to seek planning consent where they are of a scale and complexity that can carefully balance local impacts against national benefits and meet the UK’s wider decarbonisation goals. This will provide greater confidence for developers and incentivise bringing forward projects. Solar has been subject to a 50-megawatt NSIP threshold since it was originally set in the Planning Act 2008. However, much like onshore wind, solar panel technology has seen significant advances in efficiency, enabling a greater megawatt yield per site. Evidence suggests that the 50-megawatt threshold is now causing market distortion. With modern technology, mid-sized generating stations now have a generating capacity greater than 50 megawatts and therefore fall within the NSIP regime. We think this is likely to be disproportionate to their size, scale and impact, and it has resulted in a large amount of ground-mounted solar projects entering the planning system and artificially capping their capacity at just below the 50-megawatt threshold, leading to the potentially inefficient use of sites and grid connections. Therefore, this instrument raises the NSIP threshold from 50 megawatts to 100 megawatts for solar to ensure that mid-sized projects have access to a more proportionate planning route via planning authorities, which should incentivise those projects that would otherwise have capped their capacity to develop to a more optimal and efficient scale. The Government are also mindful that mid and large-scale solar and onshore wind projects are preparing to enter the planning system and may have already invested and undertaken preparatory steps with the expectation of entering a specific regime. Changing the NSIP at short notice could result in projects entering a different regime than expected, with the potential to increase costs to developers or cause delays. Therefore, the instrument also makes transitional provisions for onshore wind and solar projects that are already in the planning process when this order comes into force. These provisions will ensure that projects already progressing under one legislative regime will not be required to move to a different regime as a result of the order. Through consultation, the Government sought views and supporting evidence on reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime at an appropriate threshold and revising the existing threshold for solar. We received a range of responses; most respondents agreed with the proposed approach of reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime, with a majority in favour of a 100-megawatt threshold. While we initially consulted on a 150-megawatt threshold for solar, based on further assessment and analysis of consultation responses, we concluded a 100-megawatt threshold would be more appropriate and better reflect modern technology. In conclusion, we see this instrument as being another important step in delivering clean power, supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar and establishing the UK as a clean energy superpower. It supports an effective planning system that will ensure that applications are processed efficiently through the appropriate regime and will avoid distortionary effects on deployment. These measures ultimately aim to support future energy security and resilience alongside our 2030 goals and wider decarbonisation targets. I beg to move.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the contents and the wishes of the department in this document. Personally, I am very disappointed that we are where we are. I am a veteran of pylon applications; I was fortunate enough to be elected to the Vale of York in 1997, where there was already a long line of pylons going through the heart of the Vale of York to be joined by another, even bigger, line of pylons within a matter of months of my election. We were promised that the original line of pylons would be removed because it was thought that both would not be needed and they are, of course, unsightly. I prefer the situation we had under the outgoing Conservative Government.There was virtually a moratorium on onshore windfarms for a number of reasons. The Minister is potentially going to see a great deal of discontent from residents and communities along the route of the overhead pylons will inevitably follow, particularly onshore windfarms. To take the example of offshore windfarms, there are three stages to the application process. When there is an application for an offshore windfarm, everyone thinks, “Oh great, that won’t affect me out there at sea”. Then the second stage of the application is for a massive substation to bring the electricity on land. The third, and completely separate, stage of the application is that suddenly—hey presto—we are going to have overhead pylons to feed the electricity into the national grid. How many applications does the Minister think will fall under this new decision-making regime where onshore windfarms will be decided by the Secretary of State? How many lines of pylons does he envisage will follow on from the applications? Will his department come forward and dictate that these overhead wires should be converted to underground wires? Alternatively, does he accept—he knows that this is a theme I have pursued quite religiously with him over the past few months—that, if an onshore wind farm is built in, say, the north of England, or in Yorkshire more specifically, the electricity generated will serve the local community? It is colder in North Yorkshire than in many parts of the rest of the country, and we have a distinct lack of electric vehicle charging points. If an onshore wind farm will be built, I see absolutely no reason why the electricity generated cannot serve the population living locally. I regret the statutory instrument in the department’s name that the Government feel is appropriate or necessary. Solar farms of the size that the Minister is talking about—those of 100 megawatts—will take the decision out of local communities. Again, I would be interested to know how many he envisages there will be. His department, DESNZ, will not lead to many des reses. We will not have many desirable residences along the routes of these overhead pylons. In the case of the solar farms, how will the electricity generated—presumably in the gift of the Government—enter the national grid to feed into the hungry south, leaving the rest of us in heat poverty in the north? With those few remarks, I regret that the statutory instrument was brought before us. If we learn one thing from the massive outage in Spain, Portugal and parts of France last week, it is that we are becoming completely too reliant on very unreliable sources of energy—sunshine and wind—because the sun does not always shine, and the wind does not always blow.

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet. I, too, am a veteran of this debate, but I take a different view from that of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. In 2020, I first had a Private Member’s Bill on the inequity of how planning applications for onshore wind development were treated compared with all other infrastructure. It was a simple point: the self-imposed moratorium that the previous Government had put on the development of onshore wind was done on a completely blanket basis. They took onshore wind developments out of the normal level playing field of planning applications and treated them as some sort of pariah developments that should not be used. That is completely incorrect. As part of the move towards renewables and safe, clean and cheap power, we should exploit those opportunities. We all know that the wind does not always blow and that the sun does not always shine. After six years on this topic, I do not need to be told that any more. We all know that we have to have base capacity, that we need variety and that you cannot transition overnight, but that does not take away the argument that there was a basic inequity in how these developments were treated. I tabled the original Bill that I mentioned. I then had another Bill the next year. We then put in amendments on a number of pieces of legislation that were going through. We even won one of them; the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Deben, and the then Opposition Front Bench supported an amendment that had remarkably similar language to this statutory instrument. We won it on the Floor of your Lordships’ House, but it was reversed in the House of Commons, so it is an enormous pleasure to welcome this SI as an example of common sense breaking out on the issue of onshore wind developmentand of the benefit and reward of not taking “no” for an answer in politics.

17:45:00

My Lords, I pay tribute to the persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on this subject and to how she has carried this end of Parliament on a number of occasions. I normally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on an awful lot of things but I do not quite agree with her here. I spent most of my bank holiday break in an EV in Yorkshire, and I was delighted at how easy it was to recharge it. It was the first time for quite a while that my wife and I had been on a long journey in an EV. The difference in the charging network was absolutely amazing. I praise the previous Government’s EV charging policies as much as I praise the present Government for achieving that, but I recognise —from the Cornwall aspect—that there is a challenge here for really rural areas, and certainly when tourists come to our areas. I wanted to contribute today to say that I very much welcome this SI and the move to go back properly to onshore wind. It is an important way in which our landowning and farming communities can diversify their income. I turn to the limit on solar. On every solar farm I have visited in the past few years, I would ask the owners, “What is the energy capacity of this?” They would say, “It’s 49.5 megawatts”, because they do not want to trip over that barrier into the national planning scheme. So I welcome the fact that this SI will make that a lot easier. However, the one question I would like to ask the Minister—this was raised by the Opposition Benches in the earlier debate on energy security—concerns warehouse roofs and commercial roofs. I am a great supporter of solar but, like me, many people ask, “Why are we not managing to have many more solar applications on existing commercial, industrial and car park roofs?” I recognise that there are often different owners—there is the landlord, and then there is the company that occupies under a lease—so the relationship between owners for commercial buildings is never easy. However, I say this to the Minister: it cannot be beyond the ability of the Government to find a mechanism to incentivise that to happen. It would get huge plaudits from all sides of political opinion if we managed to achieve that. It would also help with the understandable reservations that there sometimes are around the agricultural use of solar, by showing that the right things are happening in other areas too. I would be interested to understand from the Minister when the planning regime—as we know, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is in the other place at the moment —will become law, as it surely will. It may be amended in various ways as it passes through both Houses, but might it affect this matter in any way? I very much welcome this SI and hope that we will see a rejuvenation of onshore wind. As I often say, from my own house, I can see—the last time I counted, at least—between 30 and 40 wind turbines. I live on a hill and, to me, they are part of a living countryside. There are right places to put them and there are wrong places to put them; we should leave it to local authorities to decide what those are.

My Lords, I will speak in favour of this order. I thank the Minister for outlining its purpose. The Liberal Democrats have always championed renewable energy. For too long, this country has suffered from the failures of the previous Conservative Government to invest in clean power and to insulate our homes, contributing directly to the energy crisis and leaving householders and businesses facing soaring bills. The vast majority of people in this country want more action on climate change. That is why we welcome this instrument as another important step in supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar, which are both crucial to achieving the Government’s mission for clean power by 2030. We are particularly supportive of the lifting of the effective moratorium on onshore wind. This was a deeply short-sighted and irresponsible policy, introduced via the planning changes in 2015 and 2016, which created a de facto ban in England. This ban limited deployment and caused the pipeline of projects to shrink by over 90%, with less than 40 megawatts of onshore wind generated during this decade. The reintroduction of onshore wind projects of over 100 megawatts into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime is crucial. The order reverses those damaging policies and places onshore wind on the same footing as other generation technologies such as solar, offshore wind and nuclear power stations. This provides an appropriate route for large-scale projects and offers greater certainty to industry. Similarly, we support the decision to raise the NSIP threshold for solar projects from 50 to 100 megawatts. This change is needed in part due to technological advances in solar panels and aims to ensure that applications are processed efficiently through the appropriate planning regime. The previous threshold incentivised developers, as we have heard, to cap their capacity below 50 megawatts to avoid triggering the NSIP process. Raising the threshold should incentivise projects to develop on a more optimal and efficient scale and to ensure that mid-sized projects access a more proportionate planning route via local planning authorities. What assessments have been made of local planning authorities’ capacity and funding requirements to take on this extra work? They must be adequately resourced and supported to handle the influx of potentially larger-scale solar projects. While we support the ambitions to streamline planning for major projects, concerns remain. The NSIP regime involves decisions made by the Secretary of State, and some respondents to the consultation expressed concern that this process might overly centralise decision-making and bypass local authorities and communities. This is particularly pertinent when considering large projects that can have a significant impact on local landscapes and communities. It is vital that the Government strike an appropriate balance between building nationally important infrastructure, protecting our precious landscapes and ensuring that local communities have a meaningful say. This Government must do more to work in partnership with local communities and ensure that they benefit from the infrastructure that they host—more “working with” and a bit less “doing to”. How will the Government ensure that local voices are genuinely heard and their concerns addressed in the NSIP examination period, particularly for onshore wind? Can the Minister provide more detail on timelines for these frameworks and assure us that they will ensure that the balance between deploying renewable energy, protecting nature, ensuring food security and considering where best to locate projects is effectively struck? Finally, the decision to set the solar threshold at 100 megawatts aims to avoid artificial capping and incentivise optimal site sizing. The impact assessment mentions monitoring and evaluation plans, looking at whether projects are clustering below the new thresholds and whether planning timelines for projects have increased. Can the Minister confirm how the planned post-implementation review and ongoing monitoring will assess whether the 100-megawatt thresholds are achieving the desired efficiency and optimal site sizing? All these projects will require timely grid connections, and I encourage the Government to support agrivoltaics. Other noble Lords spoke about the need for more solar on rooftops and in car parks; for example, France generates 5% of its electricity from car parks alone. The Government may want to look at an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on that. I very much welcome signs from them that new homes will have solar panels installed. There are issues around the way that some of the warehouses have been designed; they have not been built to take the weight of solar panels. These legislative changes are a necessary step, but successful implementation requires careful consideration of local impacts and ensuring that our planning system is robust and balanced and takes communities with it.

I apologise to the Minister for missing the first moments of his speech, but as somebody who was taken to a tribunal by those who do not believe in climate change for daring to suggest that we had in effect banned onshore wind, I feel very strongly that this is an ideal moment to say how important onshore wind is. Near to where I live in Suffolk, in the town of Eye, which I used to represent in the old Eye division, there is some onshore wind. When it started, an awful lot of people opposed it; they thought it was going to be very ugly and did not like it. Now it has become iconic. Recently, I was pleased to see—this Committee’s chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, will be interested in this—that an attractive ballet was put on using it as the background, showing a wholly different way in which people have accepted it. I get very tired of people who are very much in favour of having electricity themselves but complain about its expense, which is the cost of gas, and then are opposed every time to having any further renewable electricity. We ought to be supporting this and seeking ways to introduce onshore wind, wherever that is suitable. There are places where it is not suitable; that is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rightly said. Onshore wind and offshore wind need to be linked to the national grid system, but I hope the Government will recognise that the best way to get support for that is always to find the most appropriate way and try to avoid unnecessary pylons—then you can honestly say to a community: “I’m afraid that here there is no alternative”. I hope that people will recognise that, if we spend a great deal more on the distribution of electricity, the only people who will pay for it are the customers. We have to get that balance right. I hope that the Government will look more closely at alternatives and be able to show why they choose pylons. On what my noble friend Lady McIntosh said, I have to say that it is not acceptable. It is no good; we will have to take electricity from where we make it to where we use it. If people want electricity, that is what we have to do. Frankly, there is no connection whatever between this and what happened in Spain. The constant desire to write down what is so essential to us seems to me very sad.

I think I am right in saying that the seat that my noble friend represented is now represented by a different party from ours. We need the electricity in the north—I cannot speak for Suffolk—and it would be much better to keep that source of energy close to where it is produced, rather than having pylons criss-crossing and destroying the countryside.

I am quite sure that nobody takes electricity more distantly than they need to if it is going to be used locally. In my constituency—which was indeed one of the seats lost at the last election—the issue is not a question of pylons. The issues were very different and not really to do with this at all. I come back to the point that it is not sensible constantly to refer to things that are not connected with this. I repeat that there is no connection between the outages in Portugal and Spain and the issue before us.

18:00:00

I want to show how supportive I am of this. I hope that the Government will take on some of the comments made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman about roofs. There is a real question of helping through insurance and making it possible for the renters of big warehouses to have an accommodation with owners. Very often the owner does not get the benefit and therefore does not want it, which places real burdens on renters who dare not put them on the roof because they have to pay a significant amount to take them off at the end of a five-year lease. We have to make it easier for people to do this; although this is not the appropriate moment to do it, perhaps it is the appropriate moment to remind the Minister of its importance.

I thank the noble Lord for explaining the details of this statutory instrument. In essence, this order would enable onshore wind projects over 100 megawatts and solar projects over 50 megawatts to be considered under the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. This effectively bypasses local planning authorities and grants direct approval to the Secretary of State, thereby overriding local consent for large-scale wind and solar projects. The Government have argued that this is necessary to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy in line with their decarbonisation goals and their commitment to becoming a clean energy superpower. However, several important concerns must be addressed, particularly around local involvement, fairness and the broader economic impact of such an approach. First, let us discuss the issue of subsidy. Much like offshore wind, onshore wind projects are heavily reliant on subsidies, costs that are ultimately passed on to consumers. While the Government have touted these renewable projects as cost effective in the long term, it is crucial to ask what the clear cost-benefit case is. If we are to depend on these subsidies to push through such large-scale projects, we must ensure that they provide tangible benefits to consumers in terms of not just cleaner energy but affordability. As we know, the transition to green energy must be balanced with the economic realities that hard-pressed families and businesses face today. Secondly, there is the matter of local consent. Communities should have a say in the decisions that affect their landscapes and way of life. Local buy-in is paramount, and people who live in the affected area should not have their voices ignored. There is real concern that this SI removes that critical step in the planning process by placing too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State and bypassing local consultation. Onshore wind projects can be a significant imposition on the local environment, and it is only right that communities are properly consulted and their concerns are considered before these major decisions are made. The Government have argued that they need to expedite these projects to meet their decarbonisation targets—targets that are at the outset entirely arbitrary. Furthermore, if the Secretary of State is to take on final decision-making powers for these projects, what accountability mechanisms will be in place? Removing local authorities from the process must not also remove transparency. What assurances can the Minister provide that decisions will be subject to robust oversight? Thirdly, there is the Government’s selective approach to energy. We have seen instances where good solar projects, which were designed to be sensitive to the local environment and not disrupt prime farmland, have been rejected by the Government or the National Wealth Fund. Are the Government picking and choosing winners in this energy transition? Are we truly seeking the most affordable, secure and environmentally responsible solutions or are we being driven by ideological preferences for particular types of energy, regardless of their practicality or cost effectiveness? This approach is flawed. By bypassing local consent and placing unchecked power in the hands of the Secretary of State, this order undermines democratic principles.

If I understand this, you are moving from 50 megawatts to 100 megawatts. So the 50 to 100 goes under the Town and Country Planning Act as local decisions. You are actually increasing it; previously the 50 to 100 was under NSIP. Therefore, what you are saying is completely wrong.

We are saying that we want to make sure that we have consent in the local community and robust oversight, and that the order does not undermine democratic principles. That is what we are trying to do, and we also do not want to disregard the voices of local communities. That is the essence of our third concern. The Government’s selective and ideologically driven approach to energy is concerning because it raises serious questions about the cost-benefit of these projects, especially when subsidies are passed on to consumers without a clear return on investment. While the Government champion renewable energy, they do so at the expense of affordability, fairness and proper local consultation. That will not bring the public with them on the journey. Rather than rushing through this legislation to meet arbitrary targets, we need an energy strategy that prioritises practicality, respects local concerns and ensures that the transition to green energy is both affordable and inclusive for all.

Would my noble friend give way so I can ask him about the phrase “arbitrary targets”? The targets are actually the result of the detailed propositions of the Climate Change Committee; they are not arbitrary in any way. He may disagree with the targets, but “arbitrary” means that they have just been picked out of the air. That is not so.

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. However, we are now dealing with a moving landscape and we have an accelerated programme on decarbonisation, which goes beyond what was set previously with the target for 2030. This is critical. This road map is critical to that, and so I am right to question whether these targets are real. They are moving around; they seem to be moving on an arbitrary and accelerated basis. I think it is relevant to ask the question about how these targets are moving, as the order as it stands risks damaging both the democratic process and the long-term success of our energy future.

My Lords, it has been a really interesting debate. First, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that her views are not surprising, as she has managed to convey this to me over the last few months. Interestingly enough, I was interested in the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about EV chargers in Yorkshire because, as the noble Baroness knows, we had an Oral Question about electric vehicles two weeks ago. When I said that we were making progress in rural areas, she gave me the sort of look that suggested that she did not really quite take my point. But we are making progress; certainly, by 2030, we expect to see many thousands more chargers available, including in rural areas. I take the point, and I am not seeking to disagree with the general thrust that, to make this really work, we need to have chargers available to people in rural areas. But we think we are making progress. On the onshore wind applications, we estimate—and I cannot commit to this—that there could be one or two projects per year entering the NSIP regime. We do understand that pylons are not going to be popular. The issue, as always, is that undergrounding is much more expensive. The figures that we have are very rough estimates, but they indicate that under- grounding is perhaps five to 10 times more expensive. As part of the trade-offs that we see in this area, I am afraid that we will continue to have to use pylons. On whether onshore wind energy will serve local communities, one of the benefits of lifting the de facto ban and allowing onshore wind projects to build again in England is, of course, to ensure that clean, homegrown energy is being produced closer to centres of demand. In our various debates today, we touched upon REMA, the review of electricity markets arrangements; of course, we are looking at one of the options for zonal pricing, which we are considering alongside other options for reform of the national wholesale market, but it would strengthen locational operational signals in the electricity market. By implication, the noble Baroness raised the issue of cumulative impact; she mentioned in particular offshore wind leading to substations then grids. We are commissioning NESO to develop a strategic spatial energy plan, which will, in one case, support a more actively planned approach to energy infrastructure across England, Scotland and Wales, both at land and at sea. It will do that by assessing and identifying optimal locations, quantities and types of energy infrastructure required for generation and storage across a range of plausible futures. The first iteration of the SSEP is due for publication in late 2026. That is not a direct response to the noble Baroness, but it shows an understanding of what she is saying. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has talked to me about Suffolk and Sizewell; I will not tempt him to intervene, though I fear I may have just done so. I met local authority leaders in Suffolk last week to discuss their issues with cumulative impact. One issue is about different operators bringing separate applications that conflict, as well as the challenge that a local authority has in dealing with both that and the accumulation. It is something that we well understand. The capacity of local planning authorities is of course an important consideration. Local government has concerns and challenges around this; again, Suffolk local authorities raised the issue with me. There will be a review of resourcing in key organisations across the planning system to determine whether they are suitable for handling an increased number of projects in the coming years. I should say that these issues also relate to my own department, because of the national applications that the Secretary of State has to consider, as well as to Natural England and the Environment Agency. If we are to reform the planning system in the way we wish, these matters need careful consideration. On local concerns, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is clearly right that this will allow more applications locally because the bar will be raised in relation to the areas I have talked about. As the Planning Minister in our department, I see the projects that come through for national consent; they are extensive in setting out the examination process, in which communities have extensive engagement opportunities. I want to make it clear here that, for the applications that come through the NSIP programme, we ensure that local views are taken into account by decision-makers. On post-implementation monitoring, the impact assessment sets out a number of metrics that will monitor this legislative change, including the volume of applications coming forward; the size and scale of projects; and the average cost and times of receiving consent. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for what she said and for her work in this area. It is nice to see that the Government are coming forward with proposals that are very much in line with her previous amendment. On the issue of warehouse roofs and commercial roofs, and the earlier discussion about new housing, my understanding is that this is a matter for building regulations. There is discussion across government in this area, and I cannot go any further than what I said earlier this afternoon: we clearly see the potential here and we want to take advantage of it.

18:15:00

On the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, I note that our ambition for 2030 very much follows the advice of the Climate Change Committee. Today we debated adaptation policies, whereby the committee basically said that the Government need to pull their finger out and get on with it. That is what it has been saying about climate change mitigation, implying that we need to get on with the decarbonisation of our energy sources. That is what we seek to do. We have had independent advice from NESO that, while the 2030 targets are challenging, they can be done—and we are working on that basis. As noble Lords will know, we see that we need an energy mix that takes advantage of the nuclear baseload and that we speed on with renewables. We have gas as our strategic reserve because of the flexibility it brings, and CCUS brings great potential in that area.

What we are seeking to do is not arbitrary; it is coherent. We are not driven by ideology but by science and the horrendous impact of climate change that will come our way if we do not respond effectively. These regulations are a step forward in enabling us to develop solar and onshore wind effectively, and I commend them to the Committee.

Motion agreed.