Grand Committee
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations form part of the Government’s wider programme of reviewing retained EU law to ensure that the statute book operates clearly and effectively within the UK’s domestic framework following EU exit. They ensure that the UK’s high standards for the use of animals in scientific research continue to operate clearly and effectively in domestic law. The instrument before us makes technical amendments to retained EU law relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures. Its purpose is straightforward: to preserve the existing framework, maintain legal clarity and ensure that the law remains operable and enforceable in domestic law.
I want to be clear at the outset: these regulations do not weaken animal welfare protections, create new permissions for animal testing or reduce regulatory scrutiny. The UK’s strong protections remain in place. The UK continues to operate one of the most robust regulatory systems in the world, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is important. Under that framework, animals may be used only where there is no viable alternative, the number of animals used must be kept to the minimum necessary and the most refined methods must be used to minimise harm. These requirements are enforced through a comprehensive system of licensing, audit and enforcement by the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit.
Alongside the Act, animal welfare standards are supported by the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes. The code sets out the minimum standards that licensed establishments must meet for the care and accommodation of animals used in scientific work. Compliance with the code is a condition of holding a licence, and these regulations ensure that the code remains legally effective within the UK framework so that the same high standards continue to apply.
I am very much aware that the use of animals in science attracts significant public interest and it is right that it is subject to robust scrutiny given the important welfare and ethical considerations involved. The Government’s position on animal testing is clear: we are committed to working towards our long-term vision where animal testing is replaced in all but exceptional circumstances. As noble Lords will know, in November 2025 we published the replacing animals in science strategy, backed by £75 million of investment, to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of non animal methods. The strategy includes commitments to establish a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods, create a preclinical translational models hub and expand challenge-led innovation for alternative methods.
At the same time, there remains an immediate need for the use of animals in some areas of scientific research and testing to protect human and animal health and the environment. When we rely on medicines and medical technologies, we rely on rigorous safety testing that, in some cases, still requires the use of animals. Where animals must still be used, it is essential that they are protected by a rigorous and enforceable regulatory system.
This is exactly what these regulations do. They preserve existing protections through a framework designed to minimise harm, drive continuous improvement and ensure that animal research is conducted responsibly and only when it is truly necessary. These regulations provide legal clarity following EU exit to ensure that the UK’s high protection and welfare standards continue to be upheld. I therefore commend this SI to the Committee.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I shall say a few brief words about this statutory instrument and commend my noble friend the Minister for the way in which he has set out it and its purpose. My gaze wanders to our colleague from Hansard, because it has occurred to me that, since my reintroduction to the House a week ago today after a few days’ absence, my remarks might be considered a maiden speech, and I want to reassure the Committee that it is no such thing. I am just here to continue my work, much of which has involved actively promoting science at every opportunity, and to give voice to the many scientific organisations outside this House whose advice and assistance are so valuable and welcome.
I doubt that there is any member of the Committee here today who wants to see animal testing and research if it can be avoided and the Government are rightly committed to ending it. But, for the time being, animal research remains an essential component of scientific and biomedical research and it helps to ensure that potential new drugs, vaccines and medicines are safe and effective. As I understand it, for example, certain anaesthetics have been made possible only by research on animals, and who among us here today has not benefited at one time or another from an anaesthetic? The research that is done is fundamental to advancing our understanding of complex biological systems and disease mechanisms and it plays an important role in safeguarding human, animal and environmental health. It is also critical to responding to health emergencies, including any future pandemic, which none of us wants to see but which remains one of the most significant threats to our national security and indeed our very existence.
Scientific advances continue to be made by the life sciences community. Members may have heard the news a week ago from Cambridge that a research group there has developed a vaccine that might be applicable to a whole category of viruses, with the use, for the first time, of artificial intelligence. This could be a real breakthrough. Like all new technologies, it can be used for good and sometimes not. At the same time, we must recognise that alternatives to animal testing are not yet mature enough in complexity and application to replace whole-animal models, so we must continue to support a balanced research ecosystem that enables both high-quality animal studies and the responsible development of animal methods.
When this SI was laid, I contacted the Royal Society of Biology for its advice. I should declare an interest, because I worked for the Royal Society of Biology before I was elected to this House. The society confirms that, as my noble friend has set out, this statutory instrument is essentially a tidying-up of the existing standards. It represents a change that will help the sector to propose improvements in practice and for the regulator to accept them and help to embed them as expected standards across the research community. The SI is related to minor amendments to the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes, such as mandatory standards of care and housing, et cetera. These amendments themselves largely relate, as my noble friend has said, to removing references to the EU, which are no longer valid, as well as a few minor clarifications.
The amendments relate to the first two-thirds of the code of practice. The final third of the code of practice, which relates to non-mandatory guidance and leading practice, has been removed, as the Home Office will be revising this more heavily at a later date —my noble friend may be able to confirm this—and will take into account advice given by the Animals in Science Committee on strengthening leading practice. This part will now exist as a stand-alone resource. The real point that I want to make is that the benefit of this is that it can be updated more quickly than if it remains part of the mandatory code of practice and should help more effectively to embed emerging improvements and practices across the sector. On this basis, I hope that this statutory instrument will commend itself to the Committee.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I, too, will speak briefly to the statutory instrument. These draft regulations must ensure that the UK’s high standards for the use of animals in scientific research continue to operate clearly and effectively and they make technical amendments relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures. It is only correct to have strong scrutiny where the welfare of animals is concerned. I for one hope that the Government are fully committed to meeting those targets set for 2030 to emphasise the fact that this must and should include progress reporting, set with clear time scales of action leading towards supporting a transition away from animal use in science and absolutely to maintain our current standard, as well as to be in line with the post-EU governance. Any procedural changes must require primary legislation.
These technical changes around transparency and oversight are in line with maintaining UK standards and benchmarks, following the removal of the EU references. Assurances are required, though, on how they will operate in practice, whether the amendments fully preserve the existing protections and reporting requirements and how the key provisions will be updated over time. Above all, every effort must be made to prevent the unnecessary suffering of animals and, again, to acknowledge that further steps are required to reduce the use of animals in research.
Lastly, I ask the Minister: what mechanism will replace EU-level comparators and oversight? Will the provision translate into improved public accountability and transparency? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the department on bringing forward these regulations, which I believe reach the right balance. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has great expertise in the field of science, has set out, there will be certain circumstances in which we will have to continue, for a short time into the foreseeable future, with these scientific regulations.
I would like to ask some questions, if I may. Are the regulations going to impose an additional burden on the Home Office? Does the Minister feel that he and the department have the resources to deal with that?
At some point in this parliamentary Session, we will receive and consider the Brexit reset Bill. I assume, rightly or wrongly, that these regulations will not have a further review as part of the reset because we have now incorporated them into retained EU law. My understanding—perhaps this is wrong—is that, if there were to be any changes to the regulations over and above what we are discussing and adopting today, that might require primary legislation. It would be helpful to know what the vehicle for that legislation would be. Would it be the Brexit reset Bill, or can we be assured that there will be no further changes?
There is a link between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Is the Minister confident that his department can take all the decisions they need to take? Where is the decision-making going to fall? Will it be entirely within his department, collaborating with DSIT, or are they going to have to work in collaboration? Who will actually make the final decisions?
Lastly, I understand that the target is that there will be a 35% reduction in the use of dogs and non-human primates in such experiments by 2030. Is that still the case? Are we on course to achieve that?
I put on record that I think that we have reached the right balance here on what can be perceived as a very vexatious issue. I congratulate the department and the Home Office on bringing these regulations forward.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of this instrument and other Members of this Committee for their enlightening speeches. I welcome the return of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, after a limited period away.
As we consider these regulations, it is important that the framework for scientific procedures on animals continues to minimise avoidable suffering and reflect current best practice. We support the technical purpose of these regulations, consolidating assimilated law into the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. They provide a clearer domestic legislative framework following our exit from the European Union. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for making further inquiries on the detail of the reset Bill and the context in which this will operate.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations. I am pleased to say from the outset that these Benches are broadly supportive of what the Government are seeking to achieve, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is rightly regarded as a cornerstone of the UK’s world-leading regulatory framework for the use of animals in science. It embodies the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement—the three Rs—and has for 40 years provided a rigorous harm/benefit frame- work that commands respect both domestically and internationally. These regulations do nothing to diminish that framework.
In essence, this instrument tidies the house. It restates, revokes and replaces assimilated law—the legacy EU provisions that were absorbed into our statute book following Brexit—and consolidates them properly and coherently into the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Explanatory Memorandum is candid about this being a technical continuity measure. No new burdens are placed on licence holders, and no new regulatory requirements are introduced. I think that is the right approach, and I commend the Home Office for bringing it forward. I also note that Northern Ireland has been properly engaged: legislative consent was obtained and no objections were raised. That matters, given that the regulation of animals used in science is a devolved matter. I am glad that the Government have handled it appropriately.
However, there is one question that I must put to the Minister because it goes to the very foundation of the legal authority underpinning this instrument. The matter has already been alluded to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. The regulations are made under Sections 12 and 14 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. The Explanatory Memorandum itself acknowledges, at paragraph 6.8, that any regulation made under those powers
“must be made by no later than 23 June 2026”.
That deadline is now a matter of days away. Can the Minister confirm what will happen after 23 June, should further technical consolidation of assimilated law in this area be required, whether by way of correction, clarification or updating the powers in Sections 12 and 14, which will no longer be available? The only route would be primary legislation, which, as the memorandum itself observes, is a considerably more burdensome vehicle for what may in some cases be very minor adjustments. Will the Government set out how they intend to address that gap? Are there further instruments in this area still in preparation that need to be made before the deadline falls?
I am satisfied that this instrument is legally sound and practically sensible. We support it, but I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance on the question of what comes next.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the detailed questions and contributions that have been made. I welcome back my noble friend Lord Stansgate following his short interregnum in parliamentary life. Having myself been subject, at one point, to a short interregnum—slightly longer than his—I know that it is certainly a gap that is felt personally, but I am pleased to see him back in his place today.
I welcome the support, in broad terms, from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. The central point, which I hope reassures the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady McIntosh, is that these regulations do not weaken the safeguards for the use of animals in science. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is the cornerstone of the UK system. These regulations make simple technical amendments for restating, revoking and replacing the retained EU provisions so that the legislation continues to operate effectively in domestic law.
I reassure noble Lords that the measures do not reduce welfare standards, create new permissions for animal use or remove existing safeguards, and animal use may still be authorised only where there is no viable alternative and following rigorous independent scrutiny. I say that at the beginning of my comments because it goes to the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Grender, about the future direction of travel. In the document produced in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, in DSIT, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in Defra, we set out, as a manifesto commitment, the direction of travel and a road map to reduce the use of animals in science and, ultimately, to set out further downstream how we can end it altogether, if possible, which is a very big challenge. As my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, there are still some areas where it makes a valuable contribution to medical research. We intend to attempt to meet the 35% reduction target mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. That is a joint effort between DSIT and Defra. We have put in £75 million, and the Home Office has oversight of that regulation.
A number of points were made around the Brexit reset Bill. I am afraid I cannot comment in detail on the content of that Bill. What we are trying to do is to give statutory footing to the existing procedures to date. I will look at the points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made with regard to 23 June, but my understanding is that we have brought all the changes forward to ensure that this is now in UK domestic legislation without ties to the EU, and that this instrument covers all the necessary requirements. I will check that, because it is important that we do so, but that is my understanding of the situation to date.
In response to my noble friend Lord Stansgate, who mentioned a number of points, Section 3 of the code will be republished and we will seek to update the section that he mentioned. I have commissioned the ASC to look into how we deliver leading best practice for animals in science. Again, that goes to the heart of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made from the Front Bench.
Regulatory oversight remains the responsibility of the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, which operates under regulatory principles that include proportionality, transparency and accountability. Related to points made in the debate, if there are instances of non-compliance, the regulator retains a wide range of enforcement powers, from advice and licence variation through to suspension, revocation and, in the most serious cases, referral for prosecution. Nothing in the regulations changes that. Enforcement decisions are evidence-based and risk-informed. The aim of the instrument and the work that we are doing is to secure the best outcomes for animal welfare and ensure that the regulatory framework operates proportionately and effectively while driving continuous improvement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also mentioned Herbie’s law. I understand the interest and concern around developing a proposed framework for replacing animals in medical research by 2035. We tried not to set arbitrary deadlines in our document as they could prove undeliverable. Instead, we have set out a science-based approach that provides clear timelines for specific deliverable actions as evidence and capability are developed. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that the Government’s new strategy sets out a long-term vision for a world where the use of animals in science is eliminated except in exceptional circumstances, and even those might be areas where we can push forward as medicine and science develop. However, it is not yet possible to replace all animal use, given the complexity of whole biological systems.
However, I assure her and those supporters of Herbie’s law that the Government are clear that progress must be led by science. Progress must be made, but in a way that does not lose the benefits that my noble friend mentioned. We are all living healthier lives today because of the outcomes of research and investment, however difficult and challenging this is at certain points in time.
I hope I have answered all the points in front of the Committee today. Those that need further investigation I will respond to in due course. If there are no further comments, I commend this SI to the Committee.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
On that 23 June issue, once the Minister has ascertained what the situation is, could he write, letting me know?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I certainly can but, again, my understanding is that the instrument before us today covers all necessary requirements. We have brought forward all the changes needed to ensure that UK domestic legislation is correct without ties to EU law and that the 23 June deadline is, effectively, met by these regulations. I will reflect on that. I cannot give details of the Brexit Bill. It has not been published yet so it is not appropriate to do so. I will reflect on what the noble Lord said and, if there is further information to add, I will write to him. If any noble Lord wishes to have that correspondence, can they please contact my office?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I understand the predicament that the Minister is in. Do we know when the Brexit reset Bill might be published?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As ever, we probably do know but are not able to tell. That is a convention of this House because it is important. We have not published the Bill. We have to publish the Bill and, at some point, we will. With that—
Lord Moylan (Con)
I hope that the Committee will indulge me if I ask a further question on this point. After 23 June, it will not be possible for the Home Office or whichever other department it is—this will arise again in the next debate—to bring forward measures using statutory instruments to adjust these regulations. It will have to be done by primary legislation, or a framework will have to be put in place by an Act of Parliament that allows those changes to be made by SI. The tenor of the Minister’s answers to the questions asked of him suggests that that framework will be put in place by the Brexit reset Bill. That has not been said before, as far as I am aware. Is it the Government’s position that the so-called powers gap will be addressed, as the Minister implies, by the Brexit reset Bill or by some other Act of Parliament, of which we have no knowledge yet?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I apologise to the Committee if I did not make myself clear. I thought that I had. I was asked a question about the Brexit reset Bill and whether any further information was required in that Bill to deal with this issue. I have said that I cannot comment on the Brexit reset Bill, but I also said, in response to the question about 23 June, that our assessment is that this SI puts us into the position that we are in, in relation to all the assimilation required.
As a third point, I also said that, as this has been raised today, I will test it again with officials outside the Committee to make sure that it is the case. It is my understanding. The Brexit reset Bill is a matter for future discussion with primary legislation on a number of issues related to the Brexit reset. This SI puts in place what we already have, with the same mechanisms that we already have, but, if there are issues around 23 June, I will examine them with officials and write to the noble Lord. With that, I commend the instrument to the Grand Committee.
Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, airport slots are permissions that allow airlines to take off and land at specific dates and times. They are a valuable resource at capacity-constrained airports. The UK currently has nine such airports, including the main five London airports—Gatwick, Heathrow, London City, Luton and Stansted—as well as Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds Bradford and Manchester.
These regulations are necessary in the context of the continuing conflict in the Middle East, which is creating disruption and uncertainty for the aviation sector and therefore for airline passengers. The Government have therefore designed a hand-back measure for slots for the summer and winter 2026 seasons, which will allow airlines to return up to 10% of their slots, if necessary, without losing the right to those same slots the following year.
The use of this hand-back does not need to link to fuel shortage, because there is no fuel shortage at present, as UK airlines have stated. However, the impact of the continuing conflict in the Middle East is more nuanced and wide-ranging. Airlines are facing longer flight paths, increased fuel costs and, in some cases, shifting passenger demand, particularly on routes affected by regional instability. These regulations provide flexibility to manage genuine operational challenges and reduce the risk of last-minute cancellations. There is therefore a need for intervention.
The developments in the Middle East remain unpredictable and continue to put undue pressure on the aviation sector. These pressures are completely outside the control of airlines, but are nevertheless having an impact on their ability to operate as planned. Without intervention, airlines would not be able to respond to known risks to their operations and passengers would be exposed to last-minute cancellations and disruption at the departure gates. These regulations respond directly to the uncertainty and operational impact of the Middle East conflict by providing limited, targeted flexibility, while maintaining the overall integrity of the slot allocation system.
The statutory instrument allows airlines to hand back up to 10% of their allocated slots at slot co-ordinated airports across the UK. These are the UK’s busiest and most capacity-constrained airports, where demand for take-off and landing times is greater than the available capacity. As I said, the regulations apply for the summer and winter 2026 scheduling seasons. Airlines will be able to hand back up to 10% of their slots without losing their historic entitlement to these slots in the following equivalent season.
This 10% flexibility is split into two stages. Airlines may return up to 5% of their slots by a specified date in each season and a further 5% throughout the remainder of the season. To return slots under these regulations, airlines must give passengers at least 14 days’ notice if a flight is cancelled. This approach strikes a careful balance. It provides airlines with some flexibility to adjust their schedules to mitigate impacts of the conflict in the Middle East, while keeping passenger protections at the forefront. Importantly, the measure is time-limited, because it applies only to the summer and winter 2026 seasons, ensuring a proportionate response to current circumstances.
The regulations also allow returned slots to be reallocated where possible. This helps to ensure that valuable airport capacity is not left unused if the situation in the Middle East were to take a definitive positive turn. It also enables airlines that are less exposed to wider impacts of the conflict in the Middle East to step in and make use of returned slots to meet passenger demand. The draft instrument being considered today applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Airports are a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but there are currently no slot co-ordinated airports in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Government undertook a targeted consultation with airlines, airports and other sector stakeholders on our proposal for alleviation for the summer and winter 2026 seasons. The consultation received a total of 59 responses. There was strong support among airlines for the proposed slots hand-back provision, albeit that most wanted the hand-back threshold to be 20%. Airports were generally opposed to alleviation being granted and wanted a lower threshold for hand-back. The Government have therefore adopted a balanced position, providing a 10% hand-back for summer and winter 2026. This gives airlines enough room to manage a genuine operational challenge if it arises, while making sure that they cannot use it on cancellations that go well beyond what the situation requires.
Furthermore, in the light of the consultation, and airport responses in particular, we have ensured that slots that are handed back can be reallocated. This ensures that where airlines are able to make use of these slots, they can be picked up, so that valuable airport capacity is not wasted, striking an appropriate balance between flexibility for airlines and efficient use of airport infra- structure. During times of crisis or widespread destruction —for example, during Covid-19—the Government have stepped in to provide alleviation from slot usage requirements over and above the existing justified non-utilisation of slots provisions set out in the slots regulation. Most recently, in summer 2022, the Government implemented a 30% hand-back to stabilise airport operations and reduce disruption for passengers.
The Government are grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of this instrument. I will now address the comments that it raised. The 10% hand-back provision was consulted on and a range of views was received. While many airlines argued for a higher threshold, no substantive evidence was provided. Ministers concluded that 10% represents an appropriate and proportionate balance supported by the available evidence.
On passenger impact, the 14-day notice period aligns with previous slot alleviation measures and, where airlines return slots, passengers are protected under UK law and are entitled to a refund or rerouting. Wider rights, including compensation in some cases, are set out in aviation consumer protection rules. The existing justified non-utilisation of slots regime—JNUS—is reactive and does not support forward planning, increasing the risk of late cancellations. This measure addresses this gap.
On the final points raised, the Government continue to monitor fuel supply closely and engage with industry, with UK airlines reporting no current shortages. Finally, the powers underpinning this instrument expire on 23 June 2026, under the retained EU law Act. Replacement powers are being sought through the civil aviation Bill and any future use will depend on the prevailing circumstances.
The policy intent behind these measures is clear: to support a resilient aviation sector while protecting passengers and the environment. First and foremost, they support better planning for passengers. By enabling airlines to adjust schedules in advance, passengers are more likely to receive early notice of cancellations, rather than facing last-minute disruption at the airport.
Noble Lords may be considering why the Government are acting now, before any acute or system-wide shortage of fuel has materialised. The answer is that this is a preventive, forward-looking measure. The disruption caused by the conflict in the Middle East is already affecting airline operations, costs and demand patterns. Waiting until those pressures result in widespread cancellations or operational instability would risk greater disruption to passengers and the sector. By acting now, the Government are enabling airlines to plan ahead, adjust schedules in an orderly way and provide passengers with meaningful notice of changes, rather than reacting at the last minute.
Secondly, these regulations reduce the risk of unnecessary flights. By removing the pressure to operate flights purely to retain slots, we expect fewer near-empty aircraft in the skies. This enables more efficient use of jet fuel stocks and aviation network capacity.
Thirdly, they help protect connectivity. Airport slots underpin route networks that have been built up over many years. Allowing airlines to retain their historic rights, despite temporary disruption, helps ensure that those connections can be restored once conditions stabilise.
Finally, these measures support the financial stability of airlines. Without them, if an airline was aware of issues that would make it difficult to operate a flight, it would face a choice between continuing with plans to run it anyway or cancelling it at the last minute and potentially losing that slot at the airport permanently.
To close, these regulations represent a practical, proportionate response to a specific and challenging set of circumstances. They maintain the integrity of the slot allocation system while introducing temporary flexibility to reflect real-world pressures. They support airlines, benefit passengers and help avoid unnecessary environmental harm. Above all, they are a measured intervention that is time-limited, targeted and grounded in the realities facing the aviation sector today. I hope that noble Lords will recognise the balance that has been struck and will join me in supporting these measures. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a pilot, an honorary vice-president of BALPA, the pilots’ union, and a former director of an airport. I generally welcome these provisions but, of course, they are part of the assimilated law of the EU —quite conveniently so, in fact, in that we can make alterations of this kind to the slots system. I want to question the Minister a little on one or two aspects of this instrument.
As we know, and as is referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, slots are a major asset of airlines. Sometimes, they are actually worth more than the whole of the rest of the airline put together, including its aircraft and all the rest. So they are enormously valuable. The allocation of slots is, therefore, a critical matter; of course, that also includes any slots that become available for reallocation.
The Minister referred to this being a temporary measure. I would like to get a confirmation from him. He said that it relates to the Middle East conflict, but he then spoke later about the jet fuel situation and so on. That is clearly a looming threat, I suppose, but it is not the main argument here. The main argument he is deploying is that the Middle East conflict means that a lot of airlines are no longer able to carry out their normal routes as they would like to do and that, consequently, the aim is to avoid the nonsense of having aircraft running without passengers, as it were, as has been the case in a number of instances.
Allowing airlines to have their slots put back and then used at a later date seems to make sense, except for the fact that, as I read it, the measure ultimately talks about a five-year term with a review. The Minister said that it is a short-term measure for 2026. Can he confirm to me that that is the case? Can he also confirm that the other element written in here somewhere—the five-year term and review—is not relevant to this point? I would be very grateful for some confirmation on that.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations. This is a core part of the current responsibility of the department in difficult times internationally. It is absolutely the right thing to do to try to ease pressures on airlines in this environment, as the current geopolitical situation has made many routes much less viable than they were and led to cutbacks around the world in the number of planes flying at the time being.
However—and I think we will come back to this at greater length in debates on the forthcoming aviation Bill—that we are having this debate today indicates that this is a heavily regulated area. We inherited a lot of that regulation from the European Union, and I had hoped, and it remains my view, that this sector should be regulated less than it is. It probably should not need a debate in Parliament to enable an airline, in an international crisis, to take a decision to scale back some of its activities temporarily without the risk of long-term damage to its business. So, in my view, this debate should not need to happen but, in the context of the current laws, it is absolutely essential.
I have a particular concern that I want to raise with the Minister about the impact on some individual airlines. The choice of 5% or 10% does not make complete sense to me, in the context of an environment where the most affected routes are those through the Middle East. I will take a practical example: if an airline like Emirates had two flights a day to a UK airport, they would not currently be viable because of the geopolitical situation. The reality is that tourist numbers to the Middle East have dropped very sharply. I had an email myself today from a hotel in Oman that I stayed in some while back begging me to come back and offering me a good deal to do so, so there is no doubt that numbers have fallen sharply. It is therefore very probable that running two planes a day is not viable for the time being and you can afford only, in practical business terms, to run one plane a day. That is a 50% drop. But if you can only cut 5% or 10%, that does not quite work arithmetically. I am slightly concerned that the inflexibility of the numbers in this regulation will not fit with the practical reality facing a number of airlines, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments about that.
My final point is that there were a couple of airlines that did not want this to happen. I am very interested to hear from the Minister why that was. There may be practical reasons, or this may be simply anti-competitive pressures—we can imagine one or two airlines that might want to get in the way of sensible changes to ease pressures on their competitors.
In particular, I want to press the Minister on the issue of the 5% or 10% figures, because it seems to me that for some airlines, if you have very large numbers of slots for Heathrow or Gatwick, fine, that makes perfect sense, but if you have a relatively small number of slots, then you are worse affected than other airlines by the geopolitical situation and it may very well not work at all. I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend and the statutory instrument that he has moved. I understand entirely that it is designed to support a resilient aviation sector, and I just want to ask one question.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred, as indeed did my noble friend, to the example of 2022, when, as I understand it, there was a 30% hand-back of slots. I just want to ask, if the information is to hand: what happened afterwards, when the temporary provision ended? Did the slots go back in precisely the same way to the airlines that had them at the time? The reason I ask is because I am curious as to whether, in the current conditions, a 10% hand-back will result in these eventually being handed back to the same airlines. It may or may not be the case, but I would be interested if the Minister has anything he might be able to add on this.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this draft instrument and explaining its purpose, and for the advance meeting with his officials and the briefing they sent. As with all such measures, we need to look not only at the administrative detail but at the practical impact on passengers. Other noble Lords referred to the impact on the airlines themselves; quite a bit of my comment will be about the passengers and about the impact on the wider aviation sector and its sustainability.
These regulations amend the slot usage rules so that airlines at specified UK airports can return a limited proportion of slots for the summer and winter 2026 seasons. We understand the case for flexibility during a period of considerable uncertainty, including in particular the conflict in the Middle East. We do not want airlines to be incentivised to operate empty or near-empty flights simply to preserve the historic slot rights as described by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. That said, flexibility, in our view, must not come at the expense of passengers. Even where there is some notice, these changes, we fear, could still lead to cancellations with relatively little warning, causing significant disruption to travel plans. In a period when household budgets are under pressure and fares remain high, that could mean higher replacement costs for families, as well as losses on hotels, onward travel and other arrangements already paid for. I notice that train tickets is an example that is laid out in the fifth question of appendix 1 of the Department for Transport’s answers to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. That is a very good example of what I am talking about here.
There is, too, a broader question of balance. The airline sector is under pressure. We recognise the need to support its long-term sustainability, but we worry that the burden of adjustment should not fall unfairly on passengers, especially leisure travellers, who are less able to absorb sudden change. We feel that we need to be careful that a measure intended to provide resilience does not instead create avoidable uncertainty for customers.
I have a few questions for the Minister. First, what assessment has been made of the likely pattern of cancellations under these rules, including whether certain groups of passengers are more likely to be affected than others? Secondly, what discussions has the department had with airports about the impact of these arrangements on their income, operations and resilience—particularly given that, as I understand it, two airlines opposed this proposal and airports across the board were against it? Thirdly, what evidence led the Government to settle on this particular threshold when airlines had sought a different level of alleviation?
On a point of clarity, I note that the instrument is made under powers in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Can the Minister confirm precisely how these powers interact with the timetable for these regulations?
Last but by no means least, I return to the impact on passengers. We understand why the Government are seeking to avoid unnecessary flights being operated simply in order to retain these slots, but the answer cannot be to shift the cost of uncertainty on to travellers. If an airline believes that it cannot operate a slot, there must be a clear and fair mechanism for dealing with that in a way that protects consumers as far as is possible. For that reason, although we recognise the intention behind the regulations, we have some scepticism that this is not entirely the right balance. However, I look forward to hearing more persuasive arguments from the Minister.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I had not meant to speak; I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for speaking out of turn. The noble Baroness’s questions have prompted two questions from me.
Flight cancellations have been trailed in the press for the past two months. I declare an interest because I am due to fly away in August and September, and I am sure that many families will have already arranged their holidays. We have not seen these cancellations yet. Can the Minister confirm that that is because these regulations have not yet been adopted and that, once they have been adopted, cancellations will happen?
My second question flows naturally from what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about the impact on consumers. Obviously, the regulations before us give airlines the power to cancel slots for a temporary period and give passengers 14 days’ notice. Passengers used to be covered by the EU package directive, which is a different department. I do not know whether that is still the case, but it would be great if the Minister could write to me on that. He will know that, if your flight is cancelled in July, August or September, which make up peak holiday season because of the school holidays, the chance of you booking another flight for a price similar to the one that you originally booked is nil, so there are going to be huge oncosts. I do not know whether the department has an answer for that. Also, the chance of finding accommodation on an alternative date will probably be slim. Is the department aware that there will be some deeply unhappy families who might be affected in this way?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have cast my remarks mainly in the form of a series of questions. Before I come to the first question, let me just say that my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has put her finger on a very important point. The effect of these regulations is to transfer potential costs that would fall on airlines to passengers and airports. There may be a very good reason why you want to protect the airlines in this way, but one has to recognise that that is the economic effect of what is happening. If you can cancel a flight with no penalty, the circumstances described by my noble friend will of course arise in relation to families. There are also problems for airports, because they have no revenue from that flight and other connecting flights are discombobulated, if I may put it that way, as a consequence.
It is true that they are given by these regulations a 14-day window in which to reallocate the flight. My understanding is that, when the instrument was first drafted and consulted on, they would not have been allowed to reallocate flights at all, so the 14 days are a concession to their interests. But, quite seriously, no large airline will decide to operate a service at 14 days’ notice, because it will not have any passengers. The passengers will not know about it sufficiently in advance, except in extreme circumstances. I want everyone to understand that this is what is happening: potential airline costs are being transferred to passengers and airports.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations and for the thoughtful points that have been raised. I will attempt to answer as many as I can now. On those that I cannot, I will write to the noble Lord concerned and to other noble Lords present.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, who has considerable experience. I cannot find in the draft statutory instrument any reference to a five-year term. The measure put forward today is about only the summer season and the winter season of 2026. He will find the permanent proposition for slot regulation in the civil aviation Bill, which I have no doubt he is studying more or less as we speak. I hope that will satisfy him, but if not we can discuss it afterwards.
My understanding about the three types of airport and what might trigger a change in categorisation is that it is triggered by the airport itself and by the level of potential use and, therefore, congestion. The company itself, Airport Coordination Limited, is clearly very efficient, with 40 employees, but there is a wider point that goes to some of the questions. A lot of this is about the stability of both the airlines and the airports sector. We are good at this in Britain, and we want the airline sector to prosper. We have to give it some stability in circumstances in which the international situation has destabilised it a bit.
I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, about the impact on individual airlines. He is clearly right that airlines that fly directly to the Middle East will be more affected than those that do not. On the impact of the wider geopolitical circumstances for any potential fuel shortage, I am very happy to confirm that the Government do not currently believe that there is an airline fuel shortage, but there could be in future, and if there is, we need to make adequate preparation for it in advance. It is quite hard to know where that might apply, so we have to apply some general thought to how we manage this. A lot of what is going on here is about giving some stability and certainty to airlines to resume normal business when they can, and it is about what happens, proportionately, to airports that rely on a throughput of passengers.
Lord Grayling (Con)
The question I raised with the Minister is absolutely central to the Government’s decision to take a 5% or 10% figure. He said that the airlines wanted more. I explained a very specific circumstance in which one particular airline—there will be many others affected in that way—would need more. He therefore needs to explain why the Government have fixed on this figure when the airlines said that it was not the right figure and common sense says that many would need more.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. The answer is that the airlines provided little or no evidence of any figure but would prefer more because that would give them more flexibility in circumstances where airports would have preferred this not to happen.
Lord Grayling (Con)
I am not interested in what the airlines said they wanted, because the department took the decision to alight on a particular figure. The Minister has not explained why the department took that decision, when simple common sense says that many airlines would need a different figure because of the basic arithmetic I described to him earlier.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The answer to that point, whether or not it satisfies the noble Lord, is that we have to do something in general in these circumstances. Previous circumstances of various sorts have produced different figures. The Covid figure was 30%; I do not know how that was calculated. We feel the need to do something because we have to give some certainty both to airlines and to potential airline passengers. I take his point about the geographical differences and will certainly write to him further about what individual airlines in those circumstances said. I have no evidence that certain airlines proposed huge differences, but I will certainly go away and find out about that.
Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 58th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024–26.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument was laid before the House on 15 April 2026.
This statutory instrument is one of the legislative measures being taken to implement the UK’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement—that is, the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. It helps implement the UK’s obligations in relation to environmental impact assessments for activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction within the remit of marine licensing. The UK must be able to meet all its obligations under the BBNJ agreement before it can ratify it. This statutory instrument will help enable that through amendments to the marine licensing regime.
Before I turn to the detail of the statutory instrument, I want to begin by underlining why it is so important that this Committee supports progressing this legislation. The BBNJ agreement is an implementing agreement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It aims to support the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This is a landmark international agreement that creates a legal framework to protect the two-thirds of the ocean that lie beyond any nation’s jurisdiction. These vast waters contain extraordinary biodiversity and ecosystems that are vital to the health of our planet and are home to sharks, whales, sea turtles and countless other species.
Primary legislation was needed in order to implement fully our BBNJ obligations. Accordingly, the BBNJ Bill was introduced last year and received Royal Assent on 12 February 2026, marking a significant milestone in our journey towards ratification. We are now taking forward the secondary legislation that is needed for the UK to fully implement the agreement. This instrument is part of that work; it needs to be made before the UK can ratify the agreement and participate fully in the first Conference of the Parties, which we expect to take place in January 2027.
This instrument helps implement the UK’s obligations under part IV of the agreement, which requires environmental impact assessments for activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction that could have a significant impact on the marine environment. Under the agreement, the UK is required to ensure that the potential environmental impacts of any planned activity in these areas are suitably assessed before a decision is taken to authorise the activity. This instrument makes provisions relating to activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction so that environmental impacts can be suitably considered in line with these obligations.
Currently, a small number of activities involving deposits, scuttling and incineration are already licensable in areas beyond national jurisdiction. However, to date, only two marine licences have been issued for such activities since 2011. This instrument extends the marine licensing regime to additional activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These new activities correspond to types of activity that are already licensable when carried out in UK waters, such as construction or removal activities. Licensable activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction will include those carried out or controlled by UK persons, as well as activities undertaken from British vessels, aircraft, marine structures or floating containers.
This instrument makes a number of amendments to the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011. An exemption is added so that several of the new activities will not require a marine licence where they do not meet the threshold for needing an environmental impact assessment or a screening for an environmental impact assessment, as set out in the BBNJ agreement. This exemption reduces the burden on regulators and industry, while still ensuring that we can meet BBNJ obligations by enabling the new activities to be assessed first to determine whether they are lower impact or need a full environmental impact assessment. An exemption is also introduced for the removal of specific subsea cables carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Removal of these cables has a low environmental impact and is considered to consistently fall below the BBNJ screening threshold.
Alongside this instrument, I highlight the Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026, which makes corresponding provision for activities within Scottish competence. These are activities that are regulated by the Scottish Government under devolved powers. The Scottish instrument adds new licensable activities to the licensing regime under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and makes other changes to that regime. This ensures that the Scottish licensing framework aligns with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement. The Scottish order was made in March 2026 and will come into force on the same day as the BBNJ agreement enters into force for the United Kingdom.
To avoid dual regulation, so that a marine licence is not required under both our licensing regime and the Scottish Government’s marine licensing regime for the same activity, this instrument provides for an exemption in relation to certain activities regulated under Part 4 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. This instrument also makes consequential amendments to ensure that existing exemptions and registration provisions can apply appropriately to activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This statutory instrument implements the necessary changes to marine licensing to enable the ratification of the BBNJ agreement. We are confident that its provisions will improve environmental protections in areas beyond national jurisdiction, while avoiding unnecessary regulatory burden. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out this statutory instrument. We support the implementation of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction—BBNJ—agreement and welcome this SI, which enables the United Kingdom to meet its international obligations under the global oceans treaty. We have long campaigned for stronger protection of the marine environment and support international action to conserve biodiversity in areas that until now have been beyond national jurisdiction, including the global goal of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.
We note that the SI introduces a number of licensing exemptions for activities that the Government consider to pose a low environmental risk, such as the removal of cables, as described by the Minister. Although we recognise the need for a proportionate and workable regulatory framework, we believe that it will be important that these exemptions are kept under regular review and do not undermine effective environmental oversight as activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction develops over time. Although we support the implementation of this treaty and this SI, we remain clear that the Government must ensure that the new licensing exemptions do not in turn become loopholes in the future and that regulators are properly resourced to enforce the agreement effectively.
We think that some aspects warrant a bit of closer scrutiny, particularly the new exemptions introduced through Articles 39, 40 and 41. Those raise questions about the breadth of the regime. Although we understand in principle the exemption where a screening opinion concludes that an environmental impact assessment is not required, it rests heavily on an assumption of low environmental risk and the current low volume of applications. When I read up on this, I was absolutely mesmerised by the fact that only two licences exist at the moment. It is quite a large statutory instrument for just two operators.
Although only a small number of applications have been received to date, that position may change. There may be a discovery, and I guess the Government are trying to be ahead of the curve of a sudden gold rush, in effect, of dredging for essential minerals in the deep ocean. So I congratulate the Government on this, as it feels a bit ahead of the curve and that is really unusual. That is good. However, I noticed that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee felt that the UK itself was a little behind the curve in comparison with one or two other countries.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this important SI. Two-thirds of the world’s oceans lies beyond any nation’s jurisdiction, so it is crucial that we support international co-operation and that we take our own responsibilities and opportunities for action seriously. That is why the previous Conservative Government played a leading role in negotiating the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. In our waters, we have established 296 marine protected areas, and we have established the Blue Belt programme and backed our overseas territories. Indeed, the UK overseas territories are home to an estimated 94% of all known UK biodiversity. We must take that role seriously.
This secondary legislation follows the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act to ensure compliance with the treaty, specifically regarding environmental impact assessments for activities that require a licence and for which the Marine Management Organisation is the licensing authority on behalf of the Secretary of State. This will ensure that potential environmental impacts are assessed before activities are approved in areas under the UK’s control. The Official Opposition therefore welcome the order.
More broadly, however, the Government do not seem to be taking their role seriously. Until recently, they were determined to give away the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and to pay for the privilege, despite concerns about its ability to protect precious marine biodiversity around the Chagos archipelago. The Chagos Islands MPA was designated in 2010 and is home to coral reefs and 76 species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list of threatened species. Sadly, the Government do not take the UK’s international role seriously and were prepared to give this all away for the Chinese shipping empire to pillage every inch of that ocean.
Closer to home, last year the Government decided to grant the EU 12 years of continuous access to UK fishing waters, despite concerns of overfishing and concerns from the UK fishing industry. Indeed, one organisation described the deal as a
“horror show for Scottish fishermen”.
When the Government show a disregard for our sovereign territory, marine life suffers as a result, not to mention the other financial costs to our economy and public finances.
As this instrument passes to help us meet the obligations of the BBNJ agreement in full, I urge the Government to reflect on how they are living up to the UK’s international role in other areas. If we are expected to be responsible for areas beyond our national jurisdiction, it means taking our sovereign territory overseas even more seriously. What assurances can the Minister give that UK fishing waters will not be harmed further in the Government’s planned UK-EU reset? What further steps are the Government taking to protect marine life in and around overseas territories? I look forward to hearing from the Minister, but I commend and welcome this order.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short but sweet debate. I am pleased that noble Lords fundamentally have supported this statutory instrument, as it is important. We do need to ratify the agreement, so I thank noble Lords for their broad support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about enforcement and resources. The Marine Management Organisation’s enforcement strategy includes a range of tools, including advisory letters and formal enforcement action. We want to apply any enforcement proportionately on risk and evidence. We can place conditions on licences requiring licence holders to keep records, make returns or provide information to the Marine Management Organisation. However, we are also looking at how the MMO can develop intelligent gateways in areas beyond national jurisdiction to assess where there may be non-licensed activity taking place and how to address that. Regarding non-compliance, any breach of the licence terms and conditions may lead to that enforcement action being taken. That can include variation, revocation or suspension of the licence, the issuing of an enforcement notice, civil penalties or criminal proceedings—which carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and a term of imprisonment of up to two years.
On resources, the MMO charges for licence applications on a cost recovery basis. Applications under BBNJ will be charged at the highest band-3 hourly rate. While the MMO applies a cost recovery approach, not all costs are currently recovered through this mechanism. The remainder are covered by grant-in-aid funding. We are looking to move towards fuller cost recovery to get to that place.
The noble Baroness mentioned that there have been only two applications for a licence on an activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. One was for the Virgin Orbit launch, which I am sure the noble Baroness is aware of. She also asked how we could increase resource if we suddenly had more activity. A cost recovery basis should cover it, but we do not anticipate many activities. Our evidence shows that there have been very few so far. We have a few case studies. It is difficult to completely assess the volume, but we do not expect much to come forward.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the lack of a review. I am unaware as to whether there is a process for that, so I shall pick that up and ask for more information.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his comments. He mentioned the environment around the Chagos Islands. National security is paramount, but we have secured a deal that will help to protect the unique environment of the Chagos archipelago. The UK and Mauritius have both committed to protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments. The agreement will be supported by an enhanced partnership between the UK and Mauritius under which the UK will support Mauritius’s ambitions to establish a marine protected area that protects the globally significant ecosystems in Chagos. This has been welcomed by conservation NGOs, including the Zoological Society of London. The UK and Mauritius have been working together to attach great importance on the need to protect marine diversity, including the fight against illegal fishing.
This legislation will help to ensure that the UK can meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement and be able to ratify it, while establishing a flexible proportionate approach to regulating licensable marine activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It is a crucial step, ensuring that effective measures are in place to protect our environment for the future.
Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, magnesium L-threonate monohydrate has recently been authorised as a novel food following a public consultation and a safety assessment by the Food Standards Agency, which concluded that it is safe under the proposed conditions of use. This instrument sets the purity criteria—that is, the required safety and quality standards—for this form of the mineral magnesium, to permit its use and sale in food supplements in England. The instrument is a routine and technical measure, which will ensure that food supplements regulations continue to operate effectively following the authorisation of novel substances for use in food supplements.
The regulatory approach taken here is well established. Where new substances are authorised, it is necessary to update the relevant legislation so that they can be used in practice, and to ensure that clear and enforceable quality standards are in place. Noble Lords will be aware that, under our existing legal framework, vitamins and minerals may be used in food supplements only if they are listed in legislation and meet appropriate safety and quality standards.
Magnesium itself is already a permitted mineral listed in legislation. However, different chemical forms of that mineral must also be specifically listed before they can be used. A related statutory instrument already laid under the negative procedure adds this substance to the list of permitted forms of magnesium. However, for food supplements containing this substance to be lawfully sold, purity criteria must also be established. An SI following the affirmative procedure is required to set the purity criteria for this substance in legislation. That is the sole purpose of the regulations before the Grand Committee today. The criteria specified in this instrument reflect the scientific specification assessed by the Food Standards Agency and will ensure that, where this substance is used, it is manufactured and marketed to a consistent and safe standard.
Food law is a devolved matter. This instrument applies in England only. Wales and Scotland have made equivalent amendments to their food supplements regulations and Northern Ireland applies the existing EU equivalent regulations, as required by the Windsor Framework.
It is important to emphasise that this measure is enabling, not mandatory. It does not require any business to use this ingredient or change its products. The use of this new optional substance will initially affect only the applicant who requested this authorisation and who benefits first from a five-year exclusive use period. During this period, only the applicant may use and sell magnesium L-threonate monohydrate as a form of magnesium unless another business obtains authorisation based on its own data or with the applicant’s permission. In the longer term, other businesses will benefit from the authorisation of this substance, supporting choice and product innovation while maintaining robust safety standards.
Food supplements legislation is in scope of the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which will involve alignment with EU legislation in this area. In this case, the substance has already been authorised for use in the EU, so we expect no change in practice for businesses when alignment takes place. We therefore consider it appropriate to proceed now, following the Food Standards Agency’s safety assessment, to allow this substance to be used in GB as soon as possible.
To conclude, these regulations fulfil our requirements to update food supplements regulations where new substances have been authorised for use in food supplements, and they continue to uphold high standards of safety and quality for consumers. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I rise for the fourth and final time. I thank the Minister for presenting this statutory instrument with her usual clarity and purpose. On these Benches, the priority is a fair deal for consumers, which means that all food supplements must meet the highest possible standards of quality and safety. The Food Standards Agency has assessed this form of magnesium as safe and on that basis we do not oppose its authorisation, but we have one or two questions about how the purity criteria will work in practice.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this SI. These draft regulations are a purely technical measure, setting the purity criteria for magnesium L-threonate to be used in food supplements and for its legal sale and use, in compliance with the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003. This is a novel food. It was examined by the experts on the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, which pronounced on its safety and uses. The current levels authorised in the novel foods authorisation are 250 milligrams of magnesium per day, which is roughly equivalent to 3,000 milligrams of magnesium L-threonate per day. This level was established based on health-based guidance values.
The Food Standards Agency consulted on this matter. I understand that concerns were raised during that consultation that the maximum level initially proposed for magnesium L-threonate in food supplements would result in a lower amount of base magnesium compared to the EU’s maximum level of 250 milligrams. This would have risked disadvantaging British businesses that market their products in the EU. The FSA, after consultation with outside organisations, agreed the level that we have before us, which is the same as the EU’s. On this occasion, UK scientists made that decision and it was not foisted upon us by the EU. The future, however, looks rather different.
The assessment of safety is not one set figure but a range, allowing this revision to a higher but still safe level. I commend the work of the independent experts in the ACNFP, whose assessment allowed this product to get approval. They get abuse from ignorant people, who complain that they do contract work for the food industry and therefore must be biased, but I do not want the Government to employ any so-called expert if he or she is not good enough to get contract work from an outside company. These are excellent people and I commend them.
I would like to raise some broader concerns about food regulation. There has been much noise about the Government’s intentions for dynamic alignment with the EU. The sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement involves 18 key agri-food policy areas. The Government want us to believe that this deal will simply ease traffic at our ports, when in fact it requires adopting thousands of EU laws, including future changes to them, over which we will have no say whatever. This includes policies such as those approving or restricting food texturisers, enhancers and processing aids; dictating vitamin dosages, mineral concentrations and ingredient reporting; and authorising emerging food technologies, synthetic alternatives and lab-grown products. Many noble Lords across this House will have views and insights on each of these areas, but they will be denied any say. More broadly, the deal risks sacrificing areas of growth and progress, such as precision breeding and gene-editing, or the development of vaccination programmes for cattle against MTBC, mycobacterium tuberculosis complex.
What assurances can the Minister give that these successes will continue under the SPS agreement? Will she clarify what safeguards, if any, are in place to ensure parliamentary oversight of future changes and to protect parliamentary sovereignty over UK law? These are important considerations; they are not relevant to the measure before us, but we will face them in future if the SPS agreement goes ahead. It is important that we have a say and can make recommendations over regulations such as those before us today. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, as I said at the beginning, we welcome these regulations.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their participation and questions in another short and sweet debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about the EU and divergence, and the noble Lord just touched on that as well. To clarify, this form of magnesium has been approved as a novel food in the EU, where it can be used in food supplements. There are some minor differences between the EU’s and the Food Standard Agency’s assessments, but they do not create a material difference or any safety concerns. In the FSA’s view, the differences are due to differences in assessment style rather than in the product itself. In addition, the applicant has confirmed that the product, as manufactured, will comply with both the EU and GB specifications. That therefore does not give rise to any concerns regarding its trade between GB and the EU.
While we are on the EU, the noble Lord talked mainly about dynamic alignment and the legislation that will come with that, and asked for reassurances in that space. We are still in the middle of negotiations and I cannot go into the detail of them. They are not directly relevant to this statutory instrument, but the noble Lord knows that I am always more than happy to sit down, have a cup of tea and discuss these issues with him in detail as we move forward through the EU discussions. We know where we are on that.
Just to finish, the noble Baroness also talked about review periods, safety, and so on within that. Clearly, a lot of these areas are in the FSA’s area, and we in Defra—and, I know, the Department of Health and Social Care—meet regularly with our colleagues in the Food Standards Agency, because it is really important that we uphold standards and work very closely together. I will reference these concerns in our next meeting with the FSA, because the noble Baroness makes very important points that when we are bringing in new legislation around novel foods, we need to ensure that we are confident in their safety for the long term and that consumers are being suitably protected.
Having said all that, I remind noble Lords that this statutory instrument is very much a routine technical measure; it does not place any new burdens on businesses but ensures that use of the substance meets clear, consistent safety and quality standards. I thank noble Lords once again for their contributions and commend this SI to the Committee.
Energy Prices Act 2022 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Prices Act 2022 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 16 March 2026 and consist of one of the briefest SIs that I have had the pleasure to introduce in this House. The SI consists of two clauses, one of which is a citation and commencement clause. The other one is a very straightforward amendment to Schedule 5 of the Energy Prices Act 2022, which amends the period to which certain powers in respect to Northern Ireland may be exercised from 26 months to six years. Therefore, this is a very brief SI, but I think it will be helpful to noble Lords to explain why this is being put forward today.
In the Autumn Budget on 26 November last year, the Chancellor announced changes we would be making to reduce costs on energy bills in Great Britain. We committed at that time to working with the Northern Ireland Executive if they chose to develop a comparable offer. These regulations show us delivering on that commitment.
In Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the energy bill changes rely on Energy Prices Act powers subject to different sunset provisions. On this occasion we are altering the sunset relevant in Northern Ireland to facilitate the Executive’s delivery. In Great Britain, the changes announced were to discontinue the energy company obligation home insulation scheme, and to transfer 75% of renewables obligation costs in respect of domestic supply to the Exchequer. The energy company obligation has never applied in Northern Ireland. As a result, the Executive’s comparable proposal to reduce bills relates only to the latter scheme. The Northern Ireland renewables obligation is a scheme to incentivise renewable electricity generation in Northern Ireland. As with the renewables obligation in GB, it closed to new applications in 2017.
Following ongoing official-level engagement, my colleague the Minister for Energy Consumers received a letter from the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland on 2 March. Minister Archibald asked that we take forward Energy Prices Act regulations to support her department’s powers to deliver. We laid these regulations two weeks later.
As noble Lords may know, the context here is that most energy policy issues are transferred matters for the Executive in Northern Ireland to decide on. We in the UK Parliament have a role in these regulations because the primary legislation was passed in 2022 when the Northern Ireland Assembly was not sitting. None the less, I should be clear that the powers we are ensuring that the Northern Ireland department can access relate to a transferred matter and are entirely for it to exercise. It will be for the Executive to announce the full details of the policy they are taking forward.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement, particularly his concluding words acknowledging Northern Ireland’s unique dependence on heating oil and how his department will maintain a vigilant eye.
There are issues of timing around this SI, which I am sure will be debated this evening. There were also issues of timing around the last SI that the Minister introduced, in March. I had substantial doubts about that one, more than I have about this one, but, in both cases, I am mindful of the fact that there has been serious dialogue with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive. Although I was very uneasy about the last SI, which was on greenhouse gases and was introduced in the Chamber, I did not vote against it because the fundamental job of the Government here is to pay close attention to and have a proper dialogue with the Executive in Northern Ireland.
That said, I will say something in favour of this SI, as against the last one. The danger with the last SI on greenhouse gases was that paragraph 51 of the Windsor Framework commits the United Kingdom Government to ensuring that Northern Ireland goods appear in the UK market without any advantage to either Scotland or Wales, on exactly the same equality of treatment. That seemed to be a major problem—an implicit conflict—because the last statutory instrument favoured Scotland. But this one, by and large, is driven by a proper and correct concern with the future of energy supply in Northern Ireland, and I thank the Minister for his introduction to it.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we welcome and support the Energy Prices Act 2022 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026—and particularly the continued effort to ensure that consumers in Northern Ireland receive appropriate protection from the continued volatility of energy costs following the war in the Middle East. I thank the Minister for introducing this.
We are supportive of the Government’s removal of the energy obligations and ECO policies from consumer energy bills that were, in the UK, brought in under the Autumn Budget. Consumers in Northern Ireland should be able to benefit, as consumers in Great Britain have, from these powers. We welcome this SI, but I have some questions for the Minister.
It is ultimately for the Northern Ireland DfE to decide how to use these powers. We welcome the work that is being done to provide it with support in designing that system. That inter-government co-operation is welcome. I note that the exact design of the comparable offer is yet to be finalised, as drafted in the Explanatory Memorandum. I recognise that the Minister might not be able to answer this, but does he have an idea of when the work on this will be completed from the DfE in Northern Ireland? As has been mentioned, it is extremely important that these measures are put in place so that consumers in Northern Ireland can enjoy the same benefits as their counterparts in the rest of the UK.
It is well understood, and the Minister mentioned, that some 61% of households in Northern Ireland are dependent on oil central heating as their primary source. Those figures are from 2024 or 2025. I recognise some of the work that the Government have done since the conflict in the Middle East on trying to prevent price gouging. The Minister has mentioned the £53 million support package that has been provided. We welcome that package, but the Minister will recognise that there is more to be done there. Knowing that Northern Ireland is dependent on this fuel oil and that those prices have been particularly hard hit because of the conflict, will some of these measures help to deal with those problems?
More generally, what further consideration is being given by the DfE in Northern Ireland and GB Energy, as a community energy scheme, to replacing those outdated heating systems and moving to more cost-effective and efficient heat pump technology? Is that perhaps a project for GB Energy, a community energy project? Has any consideration been given to that in government? Also, can the Government outline how long these amended measures are intended for? Is it expected that they will remain in force until 2030, as is possible under the SI? What criteria will determine whether they are withdrawn or extended? We support this instrument and have no objection to it.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, this instrument underpins the measures that we have already debated. It creates no new powers and His Majesty’s Opposition are supportive of it. More broadly, as the Minister knows, we do not believe that the Government can lower the structural cost of energy for families and businesses in Britain simply by moving policy costs around from energy bills on to tax bills. But I accept that we have debated the content of the RO and the policy context in which this SI has been brought forward at some length already.
This measure is very specific to Northern Ireland. It is something of a surprise because it extends by six years from a date that has already passed, 3 April. So we are in an unusual position whereby this does not apply but is going to apply retrospectively. I regret that; it should have been brought back at a much earlier stage.
The questions asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, just now were very relevant. The Explanatory Memorandum specifically states:
“The UK Government is working with the Northern Ireland Executive as they consider developing a comparable offer”—
at least they know that that is what is intended—
“to the RO to Exchequer policy, and the exact design of this comparable offer has not yet been finalised”.
That makes it clear that we are pretty close to it. We are just short of the exact design.
It is useful for the Committee, I think, to hear from the Minister a bit more detail on the status of the discussions and the status of the project that is being proposed so that we are not simply writing a blank cheque. I accept that, elsewhere in the SI, there is an important recognition that this is clearly a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly, but, given that they have used the words “exact design”, it is incumbent on the Minister and the Government to provide details to Members of the Committee—not least Members from Northern Ireland—so that they can study them following this debate.
I appreciate that the EM goes on to say that this is an enabling measure and
“does not itself provide financial support or determine the design, timing or announcement of any scheme in Northern Ireland”.
However, we are already well on the road to a final proposal. My noble friend Lord Bew and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, focused on the timing and how long it will take. Given that we now know that the exact design of the comparable offer is yet to be finalised —we are clearly making very good progress—are we talking about six weeks or six months? Are we talking about a year? Why are we talking about six years, rather than three or 16, in the SI?
I would be very grateful if the Minister could give us clarity on the status of the negotiations with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive and on what the Northern Ireland Executive are thinking about in this context; after all, they have known about this since the Budget. I ask him to provide as much detail as possible so that Members who are interested in matters relating to Northern Ireland are well briefed. I say that with renewed emphasis today. Regrettably, yesterday evening, we had a debate in the Chamber in which there was real concern from Members from Northern Ireland—or Members with a particular interest in Northern Ireland; they happened to be from Northern Ireland as well. They were worried that Northern Ireland was a sort of afterthought and that the policy had not been properly designed in recognition of the fact that Northern Ireland is absolutely an inherent and important part of the United Kingdom.
There is a danger of a similar interpretation with this measure. Quickly coming to the House with an SI that recognises that the timing has now lapsed and that we need a new extension does not look good unless the Minister can demonstrate clearly that there has been detailed discussion of what exactly this policy is going to look like, with information about the design of the comparable offer given to the Committee and the House; I hope that the Minister will now be able to give that.
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI. I hope that he will be able to provide much further information on it either today, in this Committee, or in writing.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their useful contributions to this short debate. I hope I will be able to provide some of the detail that they were looking for on this measure, and particularly on the enhanced sunset clause that noble Lords are now considering. But, before I do that, I have not yet had an opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, back to his slightly amended place in this House, and to say how delighted I was to see his return. I look forward to the many occasions that are now possible for our convivial and constructive debates across the Chamber on the future of energy policy.
Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
It is unfortunate that your Lordships have me again for this SI, but I hope I can be brief and to the point on this one. I believe that this particular SI produces a number of fairly technical but pretty minor changes to the way contracts for difference are bid for and allocated, and I hope we will gain the approval of noble Lords this afternoon.
These regulations were laid before the House on 20 April 2026. As I alluded to, the statutory instrument makes several minor and technical amendments to improve the operational efficiency of the contracts for difference scheme during the assessment of applications. Subject to Parliament, the Government intend to introduce these targeted and practical measures in time for allocation round 8, which opens to applications on 20 July—so there is some haste in this procedure this afternoon.
The contracts for difference scheme is the Government’s flagship policy for supporting new low-carbon electricity generation in Great Britain. CfDs are awarded through annual, competitive auctions, with the lowest-priced bids being successful. In March, the Energy Secretary outlined a package of measures to go further and faster on clean power in response to events in the Middle East. That included bringing forward the opening of AR8 to July to provide certainty for clean energy investors.
The most recent allocation round, allocation round 7, alone secured 14.7 gigawatts of clean, homegrown generating capacity, across 201 new projects. AR7 built on the success of AR6 in September 2024, which secured over 7 gigawatts of renewable capacity across Great Britain. It is worth just looking at the upward curve of the amount of capacity procured in those two rounds. We will not go back to allocation round 5, but certainly in those two rounds there was a very successful allocation outcome.
Indeed, AR7 was the most successful renewables auction in European history. The AR7 reforms we introduced to boost competition and investor confidence secured renewable capacity at strike prices 40% lower than the cost of building and operating a new gas power plant. These achievements show how central the CfD scheme is to our mission to deliver clean power by 2030 and strengthen Britain’s energy security.
The Government keep the CfD scheme under review to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. The regulations will make the following three amendments to improve the future operation of the scheme.
First, they will enable the National Energy System Operator, NESO, which is responsible for the allocation round process, to correct certain types of errors it makes during the assessment of applications by issuing new or amended qualification decisions where evidence supports this. NESO, in its role as the CfD delivery body, assesses applications against the eligibility criteria and determines whether applicants qualify to participate in the competitive allocation process.
As the CfD scheme has grown in popularity, the volume of applications has increased significantly, with several hundred submitted in recent allocation rounds. Although eligibility checks are very robust, a larger number of applications increases the risk of errors in assessment decisions, and this amendment will ensure greater consistency and fairness in how the CfD eligibility requirements are applied.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to listen to the Minister. He is the one Minister who, I know, if we asked for a one-and-a-half-hour explanation, he would be able to do it without notes because of his deep knowledge. When I looked at the Explanatory Note, I saw that it said that these regulations concern arrangements for determining whether renewables projects qualify for contracts for difference. I want to address that theme about a specific area.
The Minister mentioned AR5. Of course, AR5 was pretty disastrous, generally, but there was a bright spot in it. It is an area where I have to congratulate the previous Government on a very wise decision in including geothermal energy for the first time. I was privileged, three months ago, to officially open the United Downs geothermal electricity station down in Cornwall, near where I am resident. I have been a proponent of geothermal for some time.
I have a question for the Minister in that area, about determining which renewables qualify for CfD rounds. Obviously, the great by-product of some of this technology is the critical mineral of lithium, which is really important to our future industrial success in this country. Do the Government envisage geothermal continuing to be one of the areas that is ring-fenced as a technology in future rounds?
My second question for the Minister goes back to his past when he was a Member of Parliament in Southampton, where geothermal energy was important for heating. Given the Government’s strong will to broaden the application of CfDs, geothermal in many ways is even more suited for district heating, beyond combined heat and power schemes, which can be CfD related. What is the Minister’s view as to whether the Government see geothermal heating being part of a future CfD round?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction—clearly, this stuff is more complicated than eBay. I also thank my noble friend for raising important questions about geothermal that I hope the Minister will come to answer, but we support the inclusion and further development of that technology within our renewables energy mix.
These regulations are modest but worthwhile technical reforms to the contracts for difference scheme, and they have our support. As we know, auction rounds are the central part of our drive to clean energy, the energy transition 2030 and net zero by 2050. As the Explanatory Note sets out, competition has grown, so it is essential and welcome that, between rounds, the Government are undertaking these fundamental reviews of the way in which these complicated auction rounds work in practice. We welcome the fact that that has happened with stakeholders and that the Government are looking to improve and streamline these systems.
I turn to the reforms themselves, the first of which involves NESO reviewing the process for non-qualification decisions, as the Minister set out. Applicants will now be able to submit new evidence when requesting a review. We welcome this; it is overdue and is clearly a sensible reform. When an applicant has got so far in the process, it would be silly not to do that for the sake of one mistake on the form. As the Minister said, we know that many AR7 applications failed due to very minor omissions, so this is welcome. Allowing corrections at review stage will reduce unnecessary exclusion and improve fairness.
The second reform allows the delivery body to amend non-qualification decisions where the framework permits. This introduces much-needed flexibility into what was previously a perhaps overly rigid process and enables errors to be corrected without needing to process further to costly appeals.
Thirdly, Regulations 7 and 8 strengthen the treatment of pending applications. The definition is extended so that those still within appeal windows can submit sealed bids, while Regulation 8 ensures that those bids cannot be disclosed. This is an important safeguard for the integrity of the auction process. I will not ask the Minister to give us a two-hour explanation.
Taken together, these changes are administrative but meaningful and they will help make the process more streamlined and efficient. They reduce barriers, improve fairness and strengthen confidence in the system. As the Minister said, they come at a significant moment in our transition. As he pointed out, allocation round 7 was a landmark—the largest in European history, with 14.7 gigawatts across 201 projects and over £22 billion of investment, and the largest of our rounds to date. Of course, coming after the problems we had with a previous round, it was extremely welcome that it was successful.
I also welcome the fact that the Government have made the decision to bring AR8 forward to July 2026. That maintains momentum and sends a clear signal of the UK’s commitment to the clean power 2030 ambitions. That is, in turn, good for industry and for showing a clear path to investment in our renewable future.
I have a couple of questions generally, since we are here debating this. On contract length for CfDs, we welcome the fact that the Government have already extended the contracts from 15 to 20 years. The Minister will be aware that it is my party’s policy that we would like to see those CfDs extended further, to 25 years, with the asset lifetime stretching from 25 to 30 years. Are the Government open to and actively considering that? Is it on the agenda?
Obviously, the strike prices at the last auction were above those in previous rounds of auctions. There are several reasons for that, primarily global inflation pressures. There is a need in the next round to make sure that we set a competitive price, one that recognises that inflation is there, so I have a quick question for the Minister about the calculations that the Government are making for AR8, because obviously inflationary pressures are still there—in fact they are exaggerating a bit—while making sure that we get a successful auction at a good price.
It was in the press today, and I presume it is accurate, that the Government have now secured grid connections for half of the projects needed to get us to clean power 2030, so I am pleased to see that the grid reforms are having an impact and that we are making that progress. But we have a lot coming through the system, so I ask for reassurance from the Minister: a lot of projects are bunched together, so I want to be sure that a product of our own success is not that we create bottlenecks in the system.
In the last round, AR7, we actually secured only 1.3 gigawatts of onshore wind. I recognise that the Government have removed the effective planning restrictions that previously existed. To my mind, there is more to do. A bit like my noble friend who raised geothermal, I wanted to ask the Minister a quick question: what more can be done to further kick-start onshore wind and onshore wind investment? In particular, what is the Government’s thinking on AR8?
To conclude, these regulations are sensible and proportionate. The Government have clearly worked with stakeholders and have stakeholder support. We welcome the regulations and are pleased to see that really detailed reviews are happening between these essential and important auction processes.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very kind opening remarks, which I greatly appreciate. It is good to be back for what is, as he says, always a constructive and convivial exchange of views with him. I am sure that that will continue to be the case, even in the very late nights that I anticipate we will spend debating the energy Bill when it comes before the House. In the four or five months that I did this job before leaving the House to come back in a new incarnation, I was deeply grateful to his private office as well for always being highly professional and responding quickly to any requests from this side of the House. I would be grateful if he could pass that on.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, except that I want to correct him on one point, which is very difficult, because his knowledge is as extensive on the subject of energy as the Minister’s. When I was Minister for Energy, back in 1990, we launched the first support for geothermal energy. It was part of the non-fossil fuel obligation, which was a precursor of the current regimes. We had a series of technology bands, and one of them was geothermal. We felt it was very important that it should be recognised as an important part of the renewable energy programme moving forward. It was a long time ago, and it may not have made huge progress in the intervening decades, but nevertheless it was certainly identified as an important part of that work at that time. I echo what he says about its continued importance in the context of renewable energy.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their very constructive and interesting contributions. I will attempt to address them as best I can. I do not think that I will have to write to anybody but, if necessary, I will make sure that it is done.
I have worked very successfully with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, over a number of years in all-party groups and as shadow Energy Minister, and have always found him to be very constructive and helpful. He has been particularly helpful today by raising geothermal, which for a long time has been one of the issues closest to my heart. The Southampton geothermal scheme came in seven years before the Government recognised that geothermal had some interest and future. I acknowledge that this was in 1990, but the Southampton scheme had been up and running for seven years before that. However, that is a very minor point.
The noble Lord put important points forward concerning what is likely to happen to geothermal. Do we think that it is a very important technology for the future? Yes, and it is a very important technology in terms of the rollout of heat networks that is taking place. Also, being one important low-carbon source for informing those heat networks, it is pretty good for ensuring that, if you have a low-carbon alternative to what is normally the case in heat networks—a high-carbon gas engine—going into the scheme, geothermal can be a very efficient, long-lasting and virtually permanent alternative to that gas engine putting the heat around the network.
There are questions to answer about the capex involved with that process and how that is undertaken—whether jointly with the heat network or in addition to a heat network that is already existent. There are also questions on how geothermal may or may not be eligible for the AR process. The noble Lord knows that geothermal is not just one thing. Sedimentary geothermal is normally drilled at shallower depths, gets heat up from aquifers and associated activities and then goes through a heat transfer arrangement. Then you have much deeper geothermal, which can go far deeper and penetrate, for example, hot rocks. That is what is happening in Cornwall, which the noble Lord opened up. I was unfortunately unable to be there on the opening day, but I was very glad that he was the person chosen to open those proceedings.
The noble Lord will know that those particular schemes, of which there are three—one of them is now operational—are all about producing mainly electricity with, interestingly, lithium extraction as a by-product, but they are not strictly comparable with sedimentary geothermal, which is all about heat elsewhere in the country. Indeed, there are much greater prospects than were hitherto thought for both sedimentary thermal and hot rocks. As the noble Lord mentioned, it was almost a lucky accident of AR5, you might say, but the miserable outcome of AR5 was tempered somewhat by the fact that, because there were no bids in the main pot, geothermal actually managed to get its bids in at that particular point.
Bringing that together for AR8 and future allocation rounds, clearly, allocation rounds are based on the production of electricity, so purely heat-based geothermal would not qualify and would need to be supported— if it is to be supported—by means other than the allocation round process. So, as far as AR8 is concerned, the question of the pots and so on is still being determined, but it is certainly the case that purely heat-based geothermal will not qualify in future. Then we have the question of the United Downs schemes. We await the outcome of the other two schemes. Of course, they have a great deal on their plate at the moment, so I am not sure whether they will be bidding for a lot more schemes right this minute, but that is where we stand as far as geothermal and allocation rounds are concerned.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was concerned about the extension of the CfD from 15 years to 20 years in the most recent rounds. I note his party’s policy to take that even further. The extension from 15 years to 20 years was certainly a measure to make sure that those people who are bidding into the system have good, regulated cover for their product for a reasonable number of years; obviously, that then reflects on to the amortisation of the capital process and the security that that gives. Clearly, that was a factor in making sure that so many people got into the allocation rounds, bid and succeeded.
Whether that 20-year figure needs extending further, as far as offshore wind is concerned, will need to be looked at in terms of the experience of AR8 and, possibly, AR9—and, indeed, the practical outcome of AR7. So, it appears at first sight that it has been a very positive extension, but, of course, as the noble Earl will know, there were different levels of CfD provision for, for example, Hinkley. So it is not the case that CfDs are “one size fits all” as far as those terms are concerned.
The noble Earl also asked what is being done about onshore wind. There is a lot happening as far as onshore is concerned, in addition to offshore, in terms of its access to the AR process, from which it was previously banned, in effect, and in terms of not just powering new onshore schemes but repowering existing onshore schemes. He will know that the intention is to bring repowering into the AR process, if that can be done, which would in itself be a considerable step forward—for example, in the threefold additions that one can get from repowering on sites that have hitherto worked to a much lower capacity in the past. I think I have responded to the points from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but if he does not think so, I can certainly take them up in writing.