Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Household Tumble Dryers) Regulations 2026
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:32 - Division on Baroness Hoey’s Motion - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 66 - Baroness Hoey’s Motion disagreed.
Baroness Hoey
That this House regrets the process that led to the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Household Tumble Dryers) Regulations 2026, because (1) the alignment with Northern Ireland the regulations seek to achieve requires the UK to follow EU law, and (2) they will lead to increased costs and lower efficacy associated with heat pump tumble dryers.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, before I move my Motion, I have just returned from Northern Ireland and want to say how shocked people are in Northern Ireland at the terrible atrocity that took place last night. This is not the time to discuss it, but we do need answers and there will have to be proper inquiry. I am sure we want to send all our best wishes to the victim and his family.
Some regulations are very technical in nature, and the effects are not felt widely by the public immediately, but the regulations before us today have a very clear and practical effect that will impact the lives of most households in the country, particularly families. Very simply, this regulation bans the sale of new conventional tumble dryers—that is, convector and vented tumble dryers—from January 2027. From then on, the only new tumble dryers that people in England, Wales and Scotland will be able to buy will be heat-pump tumble dryers. Quite apart from the nanny state restriction of choice because of the Government’s obsession with net zero, the legislation is problematic.
While some people may say that they might be cheaper to run—there are real disputes about that—there is no doubt that heat pump tumble dryers are markedly more expensive to buy than conventional tumble dryers. The last thing that people need at the moment, I would have thought, is those extra costs. The most important thing to me on this is that heat pump tumble dryers work only at ambient temperatures, so they will not work in garages or outhouses in winter, unless and until people start to heat those rooms that previously went unheated. I am not sure how the Minister can say how that is an environmental win.
If we are to understand this SI, we have to look at it in the wider context and at what happened in March last year. Legislation was then published that banned shops in Northern Ireland buying in any new conventional convector or vented tumble dryers from 1 July that year; they were given until March this year to clear their existing stock. Since then, the only new tumble dryers that Northern Ireland shops have been able to buy in are heat pump tumble dryers. Yesterday, a shop in Northern Ireland explained that it has 11 brand new condenser tumble dryers that it will have to scrap, because to sell them would be illegal. How is that going to be good for the environment?
The Explanatory Notes for last year’s regulations explained simply that:
“Northern Ireland continues to apply EU rules on ecodesign and energy labelling, as per the terms of the Windsor Framework”.
So in Northern Ireland we were bound by EU net-zero legislation under the Windsor Framework, which effectively partitions the United Kingdom, keeping Northern Ireland in the EU. The whole point of leaving the EU—as I thought, certainly—would be to make our own laws without being overruled by a majority of other countries.
Speaking about the matter in this House on 26 March last year, I highlighted how the EU legislation on tumble dryers was being imposed without even consulting people in Northern Ireland or businesses. It had to be imposed because the Windsor Framework required it. I said then that it demonstrated how the failure to deliver leaving the European Union for Northern Ireland
“is actually undermining Brexit for the whole of the United Kingdom, aligning Great Britain—drip, drip, drip—with Northern Ireland and thus the European Union”.—[Official Report, 26/3/25; col. 1778.]
In fact, the Minister in the other place said that exactly. She said that
“it is very likely that Great Britain will seek to meet similar standards … Our intention is to apply the measures on a UK-wide basis and maintain the UK’s internal market”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 31/3/25; col. 4.]
In this context, we should be clear that the reason why the sale of new vented and condenser tumble dryers is being banned in England, Wales and Scotland is that the EU has already banned it in Northern Ireland and having the ban in one part of the UK but not the other does not work if we are to maintain any semblance of a common market across the whole UK. But of course we must see that what is really going on is an object lesson in relation to the problems with the Government’s much more ambitious dynamic alignment project to avoid divergence with Northern Ireland, as set out in the European partnership Bill. This approach is fatally flawed for Great Britain, as it is for Northern Ireland. Rather than respecting the once-in-a-generation referendum, the legislation before us today, set out in the broader context of the European partnership Bill, is part of a larger effort to not only undermine that vote, in the sense of using divergence problems flowing from the denial of leaving in one part of the UK to undermine Brexit across the rest of the country. It is actually almost worse than rejoining the EU.
The Minister might tell me—I expect he will—that I should be pleased that we now have a Government committed to bringing GB into alignment with the EU, because this will help mitigate GB-Northern Ireland border difficulties. Quite apart from the fact that it will not mitigate the customs border in any way, while an SPS deal might reduce frictions it will not remove the SPS border because their proposed SPS deal is a GB deal and not a UK deal. I hope the Minister will explain that, because what we need is a more profound and patriotic way of looking at this. In this context, if anyone thinks that the answer to the injustice of the disenfranchisement now of the people of Northern Ireland is to have that same disenfranchisement for the people of the rest of the United Kingdom, I am not quite sure that they have not lost the plot.
The difficulty with this particular set of regulations has been further compounded by the fact that the Government have brought them forward on the proposed basis that they become law by default, with no parliamentary debate or vote, under the negative assent procedure. The only reason we are having this debate today is my Motion. Even in the democratically elected House next door—the other place—there is now a prayer standing in the name of some 46 Members, including the leader of the Opposition, the right honourable Kemi Badenoch. It still has not been given time for a debate. Six parties have signed it including, I am pleased to see, a Labour MP.
Finally, I want to point out that there is now a very real shortage of new tumble dryers in Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland is having to get its heat-pump tumble dryers from Great Britain, yet a significant portion of those tumble dryers currently being sold in Great Britain are not allowed to be sold in Northern Ireland. There seems to be confusion about why this is, with some suggesting that to be legal in Northern Ireland they must contain a certain kind of gas, while others have suggested that there are some heat-pump tumble dryers on the market in GB that do not meet the 80% condenser efficiency minimum required by the EU regulation. Whatever the reason, though, the advice last week was that the new heat-pump tumble dryers meeting the Northern Ireland specification will not be ready to be shipped to Northern Ireland from GB until the autumn.
I have five specific short questions for the Minister. Will the GB market be ready to provide the requisite number of heat-pump tumble dryers—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
Excuse me. Will the noble Baroness sit down, please? Can the noble Baroness sit down, please?
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
No, can the noble Baroness sit down? This debate is limited to an hour. Her time is up, please.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
What assessment have the Government made of the environmental impact of people having to start heating garages and sheds during the winter?
This is a ridiculous way of dealing with an important issue. We get one hour now on a statutory instrument and people have to put their names down in advance, which is why there are so few people speaking today. I beg to move my Motion, but it has been handled extremely badly by the Government.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
I remind noble Lords that this is a time-limited debate and we need to respect the time limits.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I have to start by declaring an interest as the owner of a heat-pump tumble dryer. There is a real question as to who is losing the plot in this debate. I am sorry that there are not more people here interested in the issue of tumble dryers. I have become a bit of an expert over the last few days, since deciding to speak in this debate.
First, I have a question: how many tumble dryers are manufactured in the United Kingdom for domestic use? The honest answer is that specific figures for tumble-dryer manufacture in the UK are hard to come by from publicly available sources, but what is clear is something significant: there is very little domestic manufacturing to measure. The UK market is heavily reliant on imports from Turkey, China and Poland. In practice, virtually all tumble dryers sold in the UK are manufactured overseas. The major brands operating here—Bosch, Beko, Whirlpool, Electrolux, Samsung and Miele—are all produced elsewhere.
This suggests that the idea that this is some sort of Brexit issue, let alone making it about Northern Ireland, is fallacious. Even without these regulations, tumble dryers in the UK—and on both sides of the Irish Sea—will in future be the heat-pump version anyway. All this stuff from Brexiteers about being a rule-maker rather than a rule-taker is nonsense when it comes to domestic electrical equipment. The shift in European rules about such equipment that is already under way has taken the decision away from us. It is nothing to do with Brexit; it is about our position in the world economy. We do not make them. We buy them from elsewhere, and other people are not prepared to produce something that does not have a mass market. The market for condenser dryers in the UK is miniscule. These regulations simply recognise and govern the inevitable consequence of where we are.
My second question is: do we believe in net zero? I have to say I despair at the mover of the Motion’s idea that this is something about a nanny state. I and the majority of people in this country believe this is about saving the planet. To attain net zero, there are big steps we have to take in terms of power generation, but achieving our net-zero target requires myriad tiny steps. This is one of them. This is a small step on the way to saving the planet. For those of us who are concerned about the future, these regulations are an essential element in the overall policy.
The question has been raised of how significant these regulations are. Unfortunately, the regret Motion is simply wrong. It refers to
“increased costs and lower efficacy associated with heat pump tumble dryers”.
As far as cost is concerned, there are costs involved in the switch, as set out in the impact statement, but these are initial costs that are more than outweighed by the subsequent savings in running costs.
Page 9 of the impact statement sets out quite clearly:
“While costs in the early years of the policy are positive, due to the increased cost of purchasing Heat Pump tumble dryers over other technologies (around £40 on average), in later years of the policy costs turn negative as the much longer lifetime of heat pump tumble dryers mean consumers will not need to replace them as often … As energy bill savings (as well as Carbon and air quality savings) are realised across the policy lifetime, in addition to the product cost savings, overall NPV”—
net present value—
“is positive”.
I have done some research on tumble dryers. I looked at a recent edition of Which? from the Consumers’ Association. I do not think it has a particular axe to grind on this issue, and the magazine confirms the impact statement. Which? found that the heat pump versions cost less than half as much to run as the old-fashioned versions. Most tellingly, all the tumble dryers in the Which? report rated as best buys were heat pump versions. They work better, as assessed by the Consumers’ Association. I have a couple more quotes—I have got the time—from Which?:
“Heat pump tumble dryers recycle warm air for better efficiency. This makes them by far the most energy-efficient of all the tumble dryer types available”.
These are not theoretical advantages; they are there and endorsed by Which?
It appears, as the impact assessment also suggests, that the cost differential is declining. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asserted there was a big cost difference but did not provide us with any figures. Well, they are all there in the Which? report. The cheapest best buy heat pump tumble dryer was £299—only £60 more than the cheapest condenser version, which had a significantly lower test score. In other words, that £60 in the figures calculated by Which? will be recouped in less than a year. Heat pump tumble dryers get higher ratings from Which? and it has assessed that they are cheaper to run within a year. I think we really need to look at this in a sensible way, rather than trying to make it a Brexit or even a Northern Ireland issue.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for the opportunity to debate this important SI—although I am still a bit mystified as to why she is so unhappy, since this realigns the UK with the EU, and this would seem to mean that Northern Ireland is in alignment too. More importantly, given the existential climate crisis and household energy bills, I would have thought everybody would support this SI. It is such a win for both consumers and the environment. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, said, we need to take every step we can. The climate crisis means that every possible effort needs to be made not to use energy unnecessarily and to be as efficient as possible in its use.
I think there is a hierarchy in how to dry laundry, and I have long thought that tumble dryers should probably be at the bottom of the hierarchy. For those lucky enough to have outside space, using a tumble dryer is a thoroughly bad use of energy, except on really rainy days. I have been a bit of an evangelist about this, to the extent that I have given friends nice wooden clothes pegs as a hint when they are always talking about using their tumble dryers but they have outside space.
Before noble Lords ask, “What about the rainy days?”, I have lived nearly all my life in the West Country—Somerset and Devon. Even on the wettest of West Country days, it is rare to get three of them consecutively that are such rainy days that you cannot hang the washing out. Hanging out the washing, of course, takes extra time. That is the biggest downside. Besides the big energy saving of using wind and sun to dry things, it makes clothes last longer, in my opinion.
Before I turn to the detail of the SI, I must ask the Minister whether the Government will consider bringing in a provision for flat owners and renters that would make freeholders not unreasonably withhold the right to dry laundry on balconies or in courtyards. I declare an interest as a flat owner where the freeholder forbids laundry to be dried outside, even though we have a nice courtyard where the breeze would dry it. The Government recently brought in the right for people to request to have pets, which should not be unreasonably withheld. I hope that the Minister can have a look at whether freeholders might be asked—or it might even be legislated for—not to unreasonably withhold the right to hang your laundry out. That is the first thing that you should be doing if you possibly can.
One thing that really surprised me in this SI, when I read through the comparisons, was how a heated airer is not very efficient compared with a heat pump tumble dryer. The heat pump tumble dryer is the most energy efficient overall. There are 17 million tumble dryers in the UK, and they account for 2% to 3% of UK energy use. With heated airers, you sometimes need to run a dehumidifier alongside them, and that might add 0.2 kilowatts to 1 kilowatt during the drying period. With that, the combined energy is often similar to or lower than a conventional condenser dryer but not lower than a heat pump dryer. It is quite clear that the heat pump dryers really are the way to go.
A good reason to do it sooner—and I am glad that the date is set for pretty soon—is that we do not want to become a dumping ground for the manufacturers of the old design of less efficient dryers when the EU is no longer a possible market.
In conclusion, heat pump tumble dryers use much less energy. They are better for people’s household bills and, over the 20 years, the impact assessment says that there would be a household saving of about £910 per household. But actually the upfront costs when you buy the new heat pump tumble dryer would be paid off in about two years. All in all, there is everything to recommend this SI, and nothing against it.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in the gap. I want first of all to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in her remarks about the incident in north Belfast—the area I had the honour to represent in the other place for almost 20 years—and totally endorse what she said about that horrific incident. I also want to congratulate her on bringing this SI debate forward, because without this regret Motion we would not be able to debate the matter and hear the contributions of noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked what this was about in terms of Northern Ireland. Paragraph 13.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that this SI
“does … relate to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU”.
On its relevance to Northern Ireland, paragraph 4.2 states that it is bringing the law
“into line with Great Britain’s requirements … This alignment is intended to maintain regulatory consistency with the European Union, as well as Northern Ireland further to the Windsor Framework Agreement”.
So it is relevant, as set out in the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum, because otherwise they would not have mentioned those issues. Of course it is relevant, because this legislation has been the law in Northern Ireland since 4 March 2025. Nobody in Stormont debated it, nobody in the other place debated it, and nobody in this House debated it, but it has been the law in part of the United Kingdom for many months—for over a year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has raised important issues about the expense and the extra costs, and I hope the Minister will respond. But whatever your views on this SI, whether you think it is a good thing or a bad thing in substance, the important point is that people in Great Britain have the opportunity to debate it and decide. In Northern Ireland, we are not afforded that luxury at all. It has been imposed upon us—and that is the point the noble Baroness has sought to bring forward.
It is a matter that should be of fundamental concern to every democrat in the United Kingdom, not just those in Northern Ireland. It should concern legislators in Northern Ireland, it should concern legislators elected to the other place, and it should concern us here. Why on earth do people want a situation where a form of colonialism is going on? This SI affords us the opportunity to bring that out.
As for aligning, I have the utmost respect for what the noble Baroness who spoke previously said, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, pointed out, aligning piecemeal, bit by bit, here and there, does not solve the problem of the trade arrangements with Northern Ireland. It leaves in place the customs barrier and the distinct situation whereby Northern Ireland is subject to laws across 300 areas of our economy and wider, made by a foreign political entity in its interest and imposed on the people of Northern Ireland.
I congratulate the noble Baroness and thank her for bringing this matter to our attention.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I, too, begin by sending our thoughts to the victim and his family in north Belfast. I believe we have an Urgent Question on this matter tomorrow, and we will be able to express our thoughts more fully at that time.
I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for allowing us to have this debate today. As I have said in previous such debates, it is very important that Parliament has an opportunity to debate these matters. However, I also welcome the introduction of speaking lists for regret Motions. Although it is important that we debate these matters, it is equally important that the time allocated to them is proportionate and representative of a cross-section of views from across this House.
These regulations seek to ensure that in future, tumble dryers are more energy-efficient heat pump models, and that consumers have better information about the tumble dryers they are purchasing. More energy-efficient machines will result in lower running costs for the consumer. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has not put his name down to speak today, but I think he would have wanted to ask a question about the additional costs for colder parts of the UK, including my original home country of Scotland, as well as Northern Ireland.
I note that heat pump dryers have been available in the UK since 2010 and that, by the time these regulations were being developed, three-quarters of new tumble dryers sold in the UK were already heat pump models. From these Benches, we support these measures as a step in the right direction—although, as my noble friend Lady Miller has just made clear in her speech, for many people these measures do not go quite far enough.
The regret Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, raises two points of concern: on the process, that is to say, the fact that Great Britain is aligning itself with the EU’s legislation on tumble dryers, and on the substance of the statutory instrument itself, which she has said will cost consumers more. I shall take each of these points in turn, starting with the substance of the regulations.
Tumble dryers consume around 9% of domestic energy consumption, so a reduction of energy usage will have a substantial impact. Heat pump dryers are not only more energy efficient but have a longer lifespan, as others have said, potentially saving the consumer more than £900 in terms of energy usage across the machine’s lifespan. I hope that the Minister will confirm these figures in his closing remarks. Any additional upfront costs of purchasing these new, more energy-efficient machines should be offset against the savings to the consumer in energy consumption.
I have to say that I have never understood why people are against progress towards using less energy at a time when energy is becoming increasingly expensive. It should also be noted that these measures apply only for future purchases. People can continue to use and repair their current tumble dryers until they need new ones. I am somebody who has lived in flats and apartments for the last 30 years and I have had to use tumble dryers as outside drying options are not available: drying clothes on balconies is frequently prohibited and drying spaces in shared garden spaces, as my noble friend Lady Miller has said, are often just not available. People who rent flats are usually going to be much more concerned about the running costs than about the purchasing costs of tumble dryers.
I welcome the detailed impact assessment carried out on these regulations last year, but we query why the consultation took place between 17 July and 14 August last summer. Can the Minister say why they chose a time when many people might have been on their summer holiday? Can he say a little more about the consultation process, including whether consultation took place with representatives across the whole of the United Kingdom?
Tumble dryers can be a major cause of house fires. Can the Minister give reassurances that the heat pump household tumble dryers are less likely to be a fire hazard than older types of machine, such as gas, air vented or condenser models? It is not strictly to do with this statutory instrument, but I would also be very interested if the Minister could say a little about recycling measures for old domestic tumble dryers.
Although these regulations are not covered by the three policy areas of dynamic alignment, as such, they are an example of the kinds of issues we will face if and when we align more closely with the EU. That brings me to the second point in the regret Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey: namely, the process of aligning on these matters with the EU. In previous regret Motions, many colleagues from Northern Ireland have understandably expressed their concern about Northern Ireland being treated differently from the rest of the UK through the Northern Ireland protocol and then the Windsor Framework, and about creating a border in effect across the Irish Sea.
Speaking to the Conservative Post about the regulations we are debating this evening, Jim Allister MP, a firm opponent of the Windsor Framework, said in April this year:
“Although the tumble dryer legislation is not formally part of the Reset, it reflects its underlying logic, bringing Great Britain into alignment with EU law, partly to prevent divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain”.
In that sense, I agree with my noble friend Lady Miller that it is not entirely clear why those who oppose the Windsor Framework should not welcome these provisions. The whole UK will be following these EU proposals, which will reduce energy consumption by our citizens.
As we move towards greater dynamic alignment, I believe it is increasingly important that both your Lordships’ House and the House of Commons have a role in decision-shaping, as well as parliamentary oversight of the Government, in this process. When we were still in the EU, we had a direct role in decision-shaping, through our participation in the EU institutions. These are, no doubt, matters which we shall return to—over many hours, I am sure—in the EU partnership Bill, but it would be very useful to hear from the Minister what progress is being made in his department on how we can feed more effectively into the decision-shaping process as we align more with the European Union.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches fully associate ourselves with the opening remarks of my noble friend Lady Hoey following the appalling tragedy in Belfast. I move on from that, with great difficulty, to say that I welcome the fact that she has brought this issue to the attention of the House. She made a characteristically powerful speech, and I take this opportunity to say that in many respects she is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made the important point that there is differential treatment between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who I respect very much indeed—I will come back to some additional comments that he made—that I think we underestimate at our peril the importance and depth of emotion that is felt in Northern Ireland when measures are brought forward that have a significant difference in implementation between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Of course, it is important to recognise that that will be the case under various agreements in the past, but the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made, and that I emphasise, is that there has been no debate accorded to this measure in Northern Ireland. That is not something we should be proud of in this House or proud of in the United Kingdom. I think that the point was worthy of being made, and it underpins the depth of emotion that was behind the comments of my noble friend Lady Hoey. She is right: these regulations will impact the lives of many households across the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is also right to say that the operating costs moving forward should lead to savings for households and consumers, but he might have added that the upfront capital costs are quite significant. At a time when there are serious problems in the economy and people are really feeling the effect of high costs in their household budgets, adding significantly to the capital costs is important. It is therefore true that initially, through the capital cost element, these regulations are regressive and they will add further costs to the working men and women of this country, only to see the benefits in between two and four years, depending on whether you take the Which? report or additional reports on the subject, which have been manifold. From just six months’ time, people will be able to buy only heat pump tumble dryers, which are markedly more expensive up front. No wonder that, as a result, there is already a rush to buy the remaining stock of convector and vented tumble dryers. The important point was made that mandated models will work only at ambient temperatures, restricting their use in previously unheated rooms in domestic dwellings, which will then add to the operating costs.
Of course, I say that there has been little respect for Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, because the point has been made very clearly that the Government have already banned shops from buying in any new conventional convectors or vented tumble dryers, on the Government’s preferred altar of EU net-zero legislation. This has already, as we have debated at significant length, increased costs in Northern Ireland, not least because of the increased costs of ferries and goods made in Northern Ireland, without attention to the increased costs imposed on the people and the companies living and operating in Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lady Hoey was completely right when she said that
“it demonstrates how the mistreatment of Northern Ireland is creating pressures, not for this mistreatment to end, which would be great, but for attempts to be made to limit the destructive effects of divergence with the rest of the country”.—[Official Report, 26/3/25; col. 1778.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, made the key point about divergence. She touched upon it, and she rightly emphasised that this will be debated in the future. I think the debate this evening is an object lesson in the problems with the Government’s much more ambitious GB dynamic alignment project to avoid divergence with Northern Ireland as set out in the European partnership Bill. My noble friend made the important point that a significant proportion of heat pump tumble dryers do not yet meet the EU minimum condensation efficiency of 80%, which the Northern Ireland tumble dryer regulations now require.
In the short time available, I will pick up on just one or two other points that are relevant to this debate. One is the consistent reference to a more circular, resource-efficient economy. It is misleading—particularly when referenced, I think, four times in the Explanatory Memorandum—to suggest that the circular economy is inherently desirable. Does the Minister agree with me that there are some inherent disadvantages with the circular economy in this instance, including the high initial costs? Businesses often face steep upfront investments to redesign products and implement new technologies. Also, there is the importance of changing consumer behaviour patterns.
Worst of all is the related and critical fact that the Government need, in our view, to bear down on the increasingly high electricity prices, which have now reached historically high levels. These high levels are borne by consumers, and they are key because these dryers are major electricity users. I very much hope that the Minister will take on board that the level of electricity prices in this country has to be addressed.
We on these Benches suggest—this is so important—that the Government would be wise to come forward with measures that address scrapping the carbon tax; axing carbon tax pricing to reduce artificial mark-ups on wholesale electricity prices; abolishing legacy renewable subsidies; temporarily scrapping the 5% VAT on domestic energy bills for three years; and lifting the ban on new oil and gas exploration licences to increase domestic supply and reduce reliance on expensive imported energy. I accept that that would not immediately impact on the price, but it would generate Treasury income, maximise job opportunities—not least in Aberdeen, where 1,000 jobs are being lost every month—and reduce emissions.
The impact assessment points to the relentless justification of central planning:
“The recent increase in electricity prices combined with consideration of pressure on the grid illustrate the need to ensure only the most energy efficient products are available on the market”.
The argument that is being put forward to us tonight is that the energy price increases, a result of the Government’s policies, justify making dryers more expensive—a punitive policy to offset another policy.
In the last 15 seconds, I reinforce strongly from these Benches the importance of the comments that have been made about the differential treatment between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. This is vital, and we should always respect views that are put forward in this House on this important subject.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. Since we are talking substantially about Northern Ireland, I join noble Lords who have remarked on the horrific events over the last day. I very much endorse the Prime Minister’s statement on this matter and salute the bravery of those Northern Ireland citizens who intervened and certainly prevented a life being lost. My thoughts are with the people of Northern Ireland tonight, as I think are those of the whole Chamber. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for proposing this Motion and will come to one or two things she said. I very much welcome her initiative, inasmuch as it gives me the opportunity to set out clearly why the Government believe these regulations are important and necessary.
The regulations form part of a long-standing framework that seeks to improve the energy performance of products, reducing bills for consumers and supporting a more secure and efficient energy system. At their core, ecodesign and energy labelling policies aim to improve the energy efficiency of products, reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions, and save consumers and businesses money over time. They are therefore very much in line with what my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton mentioned about the whole question of whether we believe in net zero and what we do about the emissions, efficiency and energy output of the products and services we consume.
Energy labelling complements this by ensuring that consumers have clear, comparable information at the point of purchase, allowing them to make informed choices and driving the market towards more efficient products. These principles are well established, and the framework was brought into domestic GB law by the last Government following the UK’s exit from the European Union, at which point we retained the ability to update and amend such regulations over time.
Before turning to the specific matters related to the content of this SI, I think it is important to address the process that has been applied here. This instrument has been made under the negative parliamentary procedure, which is provided for under the existing ecodesign and labelling framework regulations for alignment measures. It is important to note that this SI does not establish a new policy framework but operates within an existing one, updating requirements for a specific product group in line with those frameworks. As such, it is consistent with how Parliament has previously agreed that these matters should be handled.
I turn to the issue of Northern Ireland’s alignment with EU rules driving wider UK market decisions. The Government do not replicate EU rules for the sake of it. Our guiding principle is the appropriate regulatory landscape for UK consumers and businesses, removing unnecessary barriers to trade and ensuring protections for the UK’s internal market. These updated standards, as noble Lords have mentioned, have applied in Northern Ireland since July 2025. Prior to this legislation, we have therefore had a split in requirements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland that has created complexity for manufacturers and retailers. We took interim action to address this before the advent of this measure.
When we look at the regulatory landscape for household appliances, the Government have to take a pragmatic view on what is the right approach for the UK. When we consulted industry, it strongly supported this approach. Manufacturers and retailers made it clear that they want a single, coherent, high-standard set of requirements. They do not want the inefficiency of separate production lines. AMDEA, the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Appliances, has repeatedly called on the Government to move at pace in aligning with EU requirements, reflecting the practical benefits of avoiding duplicate production lines, testing and certification. On tumble dryers specifically, AMDEA said that the
“adoption of these proposals is seen as essential for ensuring consistency in product design and construction, reducing market fragmentation, and supporting manufacturers’ ability to seamlessly supply tumble dryers across the British Isles”.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
The Minister has said several times that this legislation is justified on the grounds of simplicity and avoiding two different regimes. Could he therefore explain why the EU regulations on which it is based are only 10,000 words long, whereas the UK statutory instrument is 21,000 words long? How is that providing for similarity? Is there perhaps a bit of gold-plating going on here?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The similarity is in the provisions, which are very straightforward. They require new energy labels, a maximum energy efficiency index, an eco programme on the tumble dryer, minimum power on standby, having spare parts more accessible—this is very important for the circular economy aspect of the use of these parts—and meeting a minimum 80% condensation efficiency rate. That is in both the EU regulations and the UK regulations as they now apply. I suggest that the fact that the UK regulations are a little longer means that we are not slavishly aligning with the EU but putting in our own regulations; they closely mirror a number of the provisions I have set out from the EU but are not the same. I welcome the noble Lord making that point.
By establishing a unified approach, we are driving the market towards cutting-edge energy efficiency, permanently lowering household utility bills and reinforcing a strongly competitive and integrated UK market.
I turn to the impact of these regulations on costs and performance, particularly in relation to heat pump tumble dryers. The Government’s wider analysis of ecodesign measures is that improved efficiency leads to lower operating costs over the lifetime of the appliance, that consumers benefit from reduced energy consumption and that new requirements can deliver improvements in repairability and product life. For tumble dryers, analysis indicates that consumers will benefit from lower operational costs and improved repairability under updated standards.
I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, that tumble dryers account for around 9% of electricity use in the UK, so improving their efficiency will have a sizeable impact on household energy bills and the cost of living. A more efficient tumble dryer may have a slightly higher upfront purchase cost—perhaps £40 on the average £500 that a tumble dryer costs at the moment—but this cost is expected to be recovered within at most two years through improved efficiency. Even modest improvements in efficiency, as the noble Baroness mentioned, will translate directly into lower bills for millions of households. Over the 12-year lifetime of a standard tumble dryer, consumers can expect a net saving of approximately £200 on average, taking account of combined energy savings and deferred replacement costs. Even then, with the longer life of heat pump dryers, the benefits are greater over a 20-year period, particularly with the enhanced arrangements for repairs, with an estimated saving of over £900 on bills.
So, overall, while some products may cost more up front, they are cheaper to run, maintain and own over time. I therefore do not recognise what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said about additional expenses, costs and what have you. This SI is basically a win-win for consumers, the environment and manufacturers. It is a proportionate and technical update within an established framework, consistent with the procedures and powers set out in assimilated legislation and directed at delivering lower energy costs, lower bills and products that last longer and are cheaper to run and maintain.
I fully recognise that issues of relationships with our EU partners and our regulatory frameworks will continue to be debated in this House but, on the subject of this instrument, the choice is more straightforward. To withhold support for these regulations would not remove the underlying challenges; it would simply risk greater inconsistency, less clarity, weaker outcomes and increased costs for consumers and businesses alike. For that reason, while I thank the noble Baroness for bringing forward this debate, I do not believe that the case for regret has been established.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that extensive response. I do not think that everyone in the Chamber will agree with his views on the question of costs. There is a dispute about that, but there is no dispute that these dryers cost more at the moment than conventional tumble dryers.
I was disappointed that I did not get to finish my questions to the Minister. As we still have a few minutes before the one hour is up, I will at least put them on the record. The Minister did not respond to my question about the fact that many people, particularly in rural areas, have their tumble dryers in their garages and elsewhere outside. That costs more. They will not work properly outside as they need a certain amount of heat, so that will cost people more.
The Minister also did not respond to the fact that there are now unused tumble dryers sitting in shops in Northern Ireland that they cannot sell. This is going to happen in the rest of Great Britain.
Finally, I want to say a few words about the way these SIs are handled now. The position has changed. We will have only one hour—a move presumably designed to stop Northern Ireland Peers, in particular, from talking late into the night on issues of great concern that cannot be raised in any other way. Also, if we get this new EU Bill that is coming through, we will see an awful lot more of these statutory instruments, and on a negative basis. So unless someone comes forward, there will be absolutely no debate and no discussion.
I think we should start to test that: to show that we will not be prepared to allow these things not to get debated and discussed. My Motion tonight is to regret the way this whole thing has been handled, and I would like to press it to a vote.