Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Household Tumble Dryers) Regulations 2026

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. Since we are talking substantially about Northern Ireland, I join noble Lords who have remarked on the horrific events over the last day. I very much endorse the Prime Minister’s statement on this matter and salute the bravery of those Northern Ireland citizens who intervened and certainly prevented a life being lost. My thoughts are with the people of Northern Ireland tonight, as I think are those of the whole Chamber. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for proposing this Motion and will come to one or two things she said. I very much welcome her initiative, inasmuch as it gives me the opportunity to set out clearly why the Government believe these regulations are important and necessary.

The regulations form part of a long-standing framework that seeks to improve the energy performance of products, reducing bills for consumers and supporting a more secure and efficient energy system. At their core, ecodesign and energy labelling policies aim to improve the energy efficiency of products, reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions, and save consumers and businesses money over time. They are therefore very much in line with what my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton mentioned about the whole question of whether we believe in net zero and what we do about the emissions, efficiency and energy output of the products and services we consume.

Energy labelling complements this by ensuring that consumers have clear, comparable information at the point of purchase, allowing them to make informed choices and driving the market towards more efficient products. These principles are well established, and the framework was brought into domestic GB law by the last Government following the UK’s exit from the European Union, at which point we retained the ability to update and amend such regulations over time.

Before turning to the specific matters related to the content of this SI, I think it is important to address the process that has been applied here. This instrument has been made under the negative parliamentary procedure, which is provided for under the existing ecodesign and labelling framework regulations for alignment measures. It is important to note that this SI does not establish a new policy framework but operates within an existing one, updating requirements for a specific product group in line with those frameworks. As such, it is consistent with how Parliament has previously agreed that these matters should be handled.

I turn to the issue of Northern Ireland’s alignment with EU rules driving wider UK market decisions. The Government do not replicate EU rules for the sake of it. Our guiding principle is the appropriate regulatory landscape for UK consumers and businesses, removing unnecessary barriers to trade and ensuring protections for the UK’s internal market. These updated standards, as noble Lords have mentioned, have applied in Northern Ireland since July 2025. Prior to this legislation, we have therefore had a split in requirements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland that has created complexity for manufacturers and retailers. We took interim action to address this before the advent of this measure.

When we look at the regulatory landscape for household appliances, the Government have to take a pragmatic view on what is the right approach for the UK. When we consulted industry, it strongly supported this approach. Manufacturers and retailers made it clear that they want a single, coherent, high-standard set of requirements. They do not want the inefficiency of separate production lines. AMDEA, the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Appliances, has repeatedly called on the Government to move at pace in aligning with EU requirements, reflecting the practical benefits of avoiding duplicate production lines, testing and certification. On tumble dryers specifically, AMDEA said that the

“adoption of these proposals is seen as essential for ensuring consistency in product design and construction, reducing market fragmentation, and supporting manufacturers’ ability to seamlessly supply tumble dryers across the British Isles”.

[Lord Frost (Non-Afl)]

The Minister has said several times that this legislation is justified on the grounds of simplicity and avoiding two different regimes. Could he therefore explain why the EU regulations on which it is based are only 10,000 words long, whereas the UK statutory instrument is 21,000 words long? How is that providing for similarity? Is there perhaps a bit of gold-plating going on here?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The similarity is in the provisions, which are very straightforward. They require new energy labels, a maximum energy efficiency index, an eco programme on the tumble dryer, minimum power on standby, having spare parts more accessible—this is very important for the circular economy aspect of the use of these parts—and meeting a minimum 80% condensation efficiency rate. That is in both the EU regulations and the UK regulations as they now apply. I suggest that the fact that the UK regulations are a little longer means that we are not slavishly aligning with the EU but putting in our own regulations; they closely mirror a number of the provisions I have set out from the EU but are not the same. I welcome the noble Lord making that point.

By establishing a unified approach, we are driving the market towards cutting-edge energy efficiency, permanently lowering household utility bills and reinforcing a strongly competitive and integrated UK market.

I turn to the impact of these regulations on costs and performance, particularly in relation to heat pump tumble dryers. The Government’s wider analysis of ecodesign measures is that improved efficiency leads to lower operating costs over the lifetime of the appliance, that consumers benefit from reduced energy consumption and that new requirements can deliver improvements in repairability and product life. For tumble dryers, analysis indicates that consumers will benefit from lower operational costs and improved repairability under updated standards.

I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, that tumble dryers account for around 9% of electricity use in the UK, so improving their efficiency will have a sizeable impact on household energy bills and the cost of living. A more efficient tumble dryer may have a slightly higher upfront purchase cost—perhaps £40 on the average £500 that a tumble dryer costs at the moment—but this cost is expected to be recovered within at most two years through improved efficiency. Even modest improvements in efficiency, as the noble Baroness mentioned, will translate directly into lower bills for millions of households. Over the 12-year lifetime of a standard tumble dryer, consumers can expect a net saving of approximately £200 on average, taking account of combined energy savings and deferred replacement costs. Even then, with the longer life of heat pump dryers, the benefits are greater over a 20-year period, particularly with the enhanced arrangements for repairs, with an estimated saving of over £900 on bills.

So, overall, while some products may cost more up front, they are cheaper to run, maintain and own over time. I therefore do not recognise what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said about additional expenses, costs and what have you. This SI is basically a win-win for consumers, the environment and manufacturers. It is a proportionate and technical update within an established framework, consistent with the procedures and powers set out in assimilated legislation and directed at delivering lower energy costs, lower bills and products that last longer and are cheaper to run and maintain.

I fully recognise that issues of relationships with our EU partners and our regulatory frameworks will continue to be debated in this House but, on the subject of this instrument, the choice is more straightforward. To withhold support for these regulations would not remove the underlying challenges; it would simply risk greater inconsistency, less clarity, weaker outcomes and increased costs for consumers and businesses alike. For that reason, while I thank the noble Baroness for bringing forward this debate, I do not believe that the case for regret has been established.

Offshore Oil and Gas: Venting and Flaring

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in reducing emissions and wasted gas via venting and flaring on offshore oil and gas infrastructure.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)]

UK oil and gas has one of the lowest upstream methane emission intensities globally. Industry and the Government have committed to the World Bank’s zero routine flaring by 2030 initiative and have gone beyond it with venting. The UK industry achieved the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative’s 2025 target for 0.2% methane intensity five years early, reaching 0.18% intensity by 2020. The NSTA projects that this will have decreased to 0.12% in the 2024 results, due to be published in autumn 2026.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the Green Alliance has found that North Sea operators are still wasting gas worth £300 million a year—enough to heat around 570,000 homes. That lost gas is nearly a third of Jackdaw’s projected peak output. Why are the Government tolerating such inefficiencies? Will the Minister commit to banning routine flaring and venting in law, through the energy independence Bill, bringing the deadline forward to 2028 and directing regulators to accelerating enforcement before new drilling is approved?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The Government are not tolerating the wastage of gas in the way the noble Earl suggested. The target that we have set, which the industry is adhering to, is for zero upstream flaring and zero upstream venting by 2030. As I have set out, the intensities that go with that are reducing ahead of the target and will certainly be met by 2030.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain whether, when calculating emissions from the UK, we estimate the emissions associated with imported oil and gas? If not, why not? The initial suggestions are that increasing our production would, in global terms, reduce the amount of emissions associated with our own use of energy.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I believe that that is a fairly complicated question in terms of national emissions versus overall global emissions. Obviously, as far as the UK generally is concerned, the calculations for emission purposes are based on national emissions. But, as the noble Baroness will know, there is a parallel consideration on what the case is for imported emissions and how that factors into the national figures. I will certainly write to her to clarify that position in total.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister is very aware that rapidly reducing methane emissions can help us to rapidly cool the planet, effectively buying time for longer-term carbon reduction efforts. Will the Government mandate independent third-party verification of all offshore methane emissions by 2027 so that our exporters can meet the EU’s methane import standards, which will hit us in 2027?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The ability to independently monitor those emissions has been very much enhanced by satellite technology and various aerial observances, which can accurately depict where those emissions are coming from offshore and who is emitting them, so there is an effective independent verification position in place at present, which will aid greatly towards the achievement of that target by 2030.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, whatever improvements might be made in dealing with the consequences of extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea in environmental terms, it is undoubtedly the case that the environmental and economic benefits are greater if we extract from our own native resources than if the resources are extracted from Russia and refined in a third country. Yet this Government have decided to relax sanctions on Putin’s Russia, to accept Russian oil refined in third countries and to acquiesce in the loss of jobs and investment in Aberdeen and the North Sea. How can it possibly make sense to strengthen Putin during a war against Ukraine and to leave people in Scotland jobless as a result?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

No, the Government have not relaxed sanctions against Putin and Russia. I believe the noble Lord is referring to recent decisions about how to phase in new sanctions as far as Russia is concerned, particularly concerning third-party products which arise not from crude oil itself but from the refining of it, particularly in circumstances where the UK does not have that refining capacity at home. The decisions that have been taken very recently relate only to that and not to the ongoing and increased sanctions as far as Putin is concerned.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Why does my noble friend think most of the media, a good many Members of this House and informed opinion outside actually think exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Gove, asked—that we have relaxed the view on Russia? Why has that impression got around?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Well, I imagine the impression has got around because people are not listening to what is actually being said about the position of sanctions as far as Putin and Russia are concerned and how that relates to third-party products, particularly jet fuel, which is a current urgent situation. As far as the overall picture is concerned, it is clearly the case that sanctions are not being relaxed against Putin’s Russia and, indeed, on the contrary, are being increased.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Could the noble Lord follow up that answer and explain to the House in what respects sanctions are being increased?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

There is a package of new sanctions which are being imposed against Russia as far as their general supplies of oil and gas and various other things on the global market are concerned. The issue I was mentioning a moment ago is one part of that, and that is the phasing in of the sanctions relating to third-party products which arise from refining, which may or may not come from Russian crude oil products.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

But has the Minister not heard the comments of Ukraine’s sanctions commissioner, Vladyslav Vlasiuk, who said—and this is a direct quote—that

“temporary exemptions … may still generate additional revenues for Russia’s war machine”?

What is his answer to the commissioner? While I am on my feet, can I just say that I think it is appalling the way our own petrol refineries are warning that they are at risk of closure due to high carbon taxes? Does the Minister not agree that meeting demand through domestically refined oil products is preferable to financing Putin’s war in Ukraine, and will he commit to reviewing the tax burden which is currently risking our own refineries?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord will know that the UK refineries are not able at present to refine exactly what is required as far as a profile of a country’s energy needs are concerned because of the nature of the set-up of those particular refineries and the nature of the crude oil that is coming into those refineries for refining. Therefore, it makes complete sense to ensure that we have a proper profile of imports of various refined products in not just a climate emergency but the present emergency relating to Hormuz, which may not involve UK refineries only. The quote that the noble Lord mentioned is about imports of crude oil from Russia being relaxed to countries across the world—not by the UK but relating to relaxation by other states. The UK is firmly behind the notion that there will not be crude oil coming into the UK from Russia, but the question of refined products is another matter.

King’s Speech

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley]

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows:

“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to open the fourth day of our debate on the gracious Speech. His Majesty’s Speech recognised the challenges facing our country and set out a clear plan not just to meet those challenges but to build a more resilient Britain which protects people for the long term and spreads opportunity for all. Today’s debate will cover some of the issues at the heart of the Government’s plan, including energy security, education, technology and culture.

I will begin with energy and our response to the second fossil fuel shock in just four years. Almost two years ago, this Government came into power with a mission to take back control of Britain’s energy security. As my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, set out in our debate on the previous gracious Speech, it was clear then that the only way to bring down bills, drive growth across the country and tackle the increasingly urgent climate crisis was to end our dependence on unstable fossil fuel markets that we have no control over and instead harness our immense potential for clean, homegrown energy.

As someone who has been campaigning and advocating for, and writing on, clean power for just shy of half a century, it is a privilege for me to be part of a Government who are now delivering on their promise. Since July 2024, we have secured enough clean, homegrown power for 23 million homes through two record-breaking renewables auctions. That clean power is already making a difference: new wind and solar saved Britain around £7 million per day in gas purchases during the first month of the Middle East crisis.

We have moved solar power from the margins to the mainstream, making rooftop panels standard for new builds and bringing plug-in solar to the UK for the first time. We have established Great British Energy, our publicly owned clean energy champion, which has already installed solar on hundreds of schools and hospitals, as well as investing in cutting-edge floating offshore wind projects. We are delivering the biggest public investment in home upgrades in British history with our £15 billion warm homes plan to get solar, batteries, heat pumps and insulation into more homes to save energy, cut bills and ultimately lift up to a million households out of fuel poverty—all of which is contributing to record growth in our domestic clean energy workforce, which is set to double to around 860,000 jobs by the end of this decade.

While the Government have made remarkable progress, the House needs no reminding that our mission has taken on renewed urgency and importance following the conflict in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Just as we saw four years ago when Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine sent gas prices soaring, the impacts of 21st-century conflicts are felt far beyond the battlefields. Once again, it is businesses and households here, including, as is so often the case, the most vulnerable in our society, who are bearing the brunt of wholesale price rises. In response, the Government have taken direct action to bring down bills, as well as expanding the £150 warm home discount to 6 million people.

There are those who believe the long-term solution to this latest fossil fuel crisis lies in doubling down on our dependence on oil and gas—the very problem which led us here. This Government believe that would represent a failure to learn from multiple crises going back to the 1970s and an abdication of our responsibility to households and businesses across the country, which would continue to suffer. Instead, as the Energy Secretary has set out in the other place, we are going further and faster for clean, secure, homegrown energy to ensure we are never at the mercy of volatile fossil fuel markets again.

That means bringing forward the next renewables auction to July, exploiting untapped public land for solar and batteries, and working across government to speed up the electrification of our economy. It also means taking direct action to break the link between gas prices and electricity prices, which is responsible for some of the extreme costs that we have seen in recent years. Noble Lords will be aware that successive Governments have failed to address the complex challenge of delinking but, from next year, we will seek to transfer existing low-carbon generators that have renewable obligation contracts and which supply about a third of our power on to fixed-price contracts that deliver value for money for consumers. In doing so, we will safeguard households and businesses from spikes in the price of gas.

The next great step forward on the road to energy security, as set out by His Majesty in the gracious Speech, is our energy independence Bill. This legislates for the powers that government needs to deliver the full benefits of the clean energy transition to the British people. It will underpin action on three core objectives.

First, it is about standing up for working people by tackling the cost of living crisis. The energy price cap fell by £117 in April because of the decision taken in last year’s Budget to move the cost of some levies from bills to the Exchequer. This Bill will place that change on an enduring legal basis, removing an average of around £90 a year of costs from household bills, as part of the £150 reduction in costs announced in the Autumn Budget. It will also pave the way for the warm homes agency—a dedicated public body that will deliver the warm homes plan and tackle fuel poverty across the country. It will bring in new rules to ensure that landlords invest in home upgrades that cut bills for renters as well as giving the energy regulator the powers that it needs to be a strong consumer champion and stay ahead of a rapidly changing energy system.

Secondly, this Bill will speed up our drive for energy security as well as the electrification of our economy. That means transforming market, planning and regulatory frameworks to get projects, including offshore wind and hydrogen, built more quickly. It means speeding up the buildout of vital grid infrastructure, with a package of measures to reduce unnecessary delays, including reforms to land access rules and networks consenting.

Thirdly, the Bill will deliver a fair, managed and prosperous transition, with the North Sea at its heart. This Government’s view is that neither drilling every last drop nor turning off the taps completely is a realistic plan. Instead, we are led by the science, the facts and the needs of workers and communities, so we are managing existing oil and gas fields for their lifetimes, including through new transitional energy certificates for areas adjacent or in close proximity to existing fields, linked via a tie-back. We are also demonstrating the climate leadership that people expect of us by meeting our manifesto commitment not to issue new licences to explore new fields and the commitment to ban fracking.

At the same time, we will keep investing in the rapidly growing energy industries of the future and help workers and communities take up the opportunities that they offer. Bearing in mind that the green economy is expanding three times faster than the economy as a whole, we are locking in this growth for the future. The Bill will also expand workers’ rights and protections, as we pave the way for a new generation of good jobs in clean energy.

In the gracious Speech, His Majesty also set out plans for the nuclear regulation Bill. It is no exaggeration to say that we are on the cusp of a new age of nuclear power in this country, driven by government investment in the biggest nuclear building programme in half a century—from Sizewell C to our small modular reactors programme with Rolls-Royce SMR.

Nevertheless, according to last year’s Nuclear Regulatory Review, the sector is still held back by a system that is overly complex and “bureaucratic”, and which favours process over safe outcomes. The environmental impact assessment for Sizewell C, for example, was 44,000 pages long and left neither side particularly happy. It is not hard to see why the UK is the most expensive place in the world to build new nuclear.

The measures in the nuclear regulation Bill will deliver a pro-nuclear, pro-nature approach to building, with a co-ordinated system that reduces costs and timeframes. This is not about compromising safety; it is about simplifying a needlessly unwieldy and frustrating system so that we can unleash the potential of this rapidly growing industry. It epitomises everything that this Government are doing to get Britain building things and owning things again. Alongside the energy independence Bill, that is how we will become more resilient and create more opportunities for today’s and future generations.

Turning to technology, the gracious Speech was clear that every path to stronger growth in this country has innovation front and centre. That is why this Government have made a record investment of £86 billion in research and development, as well as launching five AI “growth zones” across the country. In the Department for Energy, we are exploring all of the possible ways in which AI can improve our power system and cut out inefficiencies.

The Government’s task is not only to fuel innovation but to help people navigate and benefit from the changes that new technology inevitably brings. Free AI training is being rolled out to 10 million people—a third of the country’s workforce—in the biggest national training effort since Harold Wilson’s Open University. We are introducing a national digital ID through the digital access to services Bill, which will provide people with a free and optional proof of identity to access services without needing to rely on physical documents that can get lost or be stolen.

It is clear that people need to trust the technologies they use every day and, in particular, that their children are safe online. In the last eight months, we have legislated to make online content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority offence in the Online Safety Act, and we have stood up to X to stop the spread of intimate deepfakes on its platform. Our cyber security and resilience Bill will better protect our most essential services, such as hospitals and water supplies, from advanced cyber attacks.

We know that parents everywhere are grappling with how much screen time their children should have and the impact of social media. That is why we are running a national consultation on the best ways to protect children’s well-being, including a possible social media ban, overnight curfews and other measures. The question is not whether we will act but how.

The gracious Speech set out plans for an “education for all” Bill, based on the principle that every child should be supported to achieve and thrive. The measures include national inclusion standards, with tools to help teachers identify and support those with additional needs. For those with the most complex needs, new specialist provision packages will be designed with experts and tested with parents to set out exactly what support is required.

We will set clear expectations of public services and hold them to account. For the first time, Ofsted will inspect nurseries, schools and colleges to see how well they include children with additional needs. We will regulate independent special schools, ensuring that children get the right placements without unnecessary costs. We are investing billions of pounds across the system to support early intervention and make it easier to access specialist expertise. We will also invest in the transformation of local SEN—special educational needs—services, including £1.8 billion to bring experts, such as speech and language therapists, into settings.

Finally, let me touch on culture. This Government are determined to maintain the UK’s reputation for world-class events, while ensuring that working people up and down the country can both enjoy them and feel the wider economic benefits in their communities. The new sporting events Bill will ensure that events such as the 2028 European football championships can be delivered as efficiently as possible, while securing the jobs and world-class facilities that our regions deserve. It will also strengthen our claim to host future global events and tournaments, including the 2035 FIFA Women’s World Cup.

We also need to ensure that real fans have fair access to matches, concerts and other major cultural events. For too long, fans have been ripped off by touts buying large volumes of tickets online at an industrial scale and reselling them for vastly inflated prices. We are introducing secondary ticketing laws to end the scourge of touting, by making it illegal to resell a ticket for more than its original cost. In this context, I pay tribute to the work of Robert Smith of The Cure, who has done exactly that with his ticket prices and world tours and has encouraged many other artists to do the same—I thereby out myself as a dedicated Cure fan in the process. This will support our world-leading creative industries by diverting profits back into our live events sector and the pockets of hard-working people. This could save fans £112 million each year and result in a £37 reduction in the average ticket price on the resale market. Therefore, Robert Smith’s efforts will become just the norm as far as tickets are concerned, with all the consequences that that involves.

I began by setting out some of the challenges we face as a country in a world which is more volatile and dangerous than many of us can remember, but as the expression goes, necessity is the mother of invention. As we face up to these challenges, we have an opportunity to strengthen our foundations, and not just get through hard times but build something stronger from them: by getting off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels and embracing the security of clean, homegrown energy; by putting science and technology at the forefront of economic growth; by ensuring every child gets the support they need to succeed; and by making the UK one of the best places in the world for sporting and cultural events, with British citizens feeling the direct benefits. That is how we will make our nation more resilient while ensuring everyone has the platform they need to go forward and thrive.

Climate Change: Government Action

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Curran]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to tackle climate change.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)]

Since coming to office, the Government have taken decisive action to tackle climate change by accelerating the transition from volatile fossil fuels to homegrown clean energy. Indeed, as we face the second fossil fuel shock in less than five years, every solar panel we have put up, every heat pump we have installed and every electric car on the road has made our country more secure and has helped us to tackle climate change while protecting bill payers and creating good jobs.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will he join me in sending warmest wishes to Sir David Attenborough on his 100th birthday? I am sure that all in this House would pay tribute to the extraordinary contribution of Sir David to our understanding of the natural world, but he also tells us what we stand to lose if we do not take urgent action to address the threat of climate change, and he is absolutely clear about the devastating consequences. Does my noble friend agree that the energy independence Bill in the King’s Speech is of critical and central importance, not only to the energy security that he references but to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, which is essential in combating the consequences of climate change?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

First, I am delighted to join my noble friend in paying tribute to Sir David Attenborough, not only for being 100 years old but for the increasing work he has done in recent years not only in talking about the natural world but in bringing public consciousness to bear on the costs of not doing anything about climate change and on how our natural world will change irrevocably if we do not. The energy Bill in the King’s Speech is a crucial part of the next stage of countering climate change in this country, and, in conjunction with the carbon budget and growth delivery plan, it will enable us to meet our next carbon budgets coming up.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a role for adaptation in tackling climate change? Would the Government see fit to reward farmers for retaining excess floodwater in times of flood to prevent downstream communities flooding?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will know, a report on adaptation will be coming out shortly. I accept that this is an essential part of a two-legged approach to climate change: we must be aware of what we need to do to adapt to climate change as well as to mitigate it. Farmers retaining water is a very important part of that adaptation process. I hope that we can respond positively to what they are doing in this respect.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, our understanding of climate change is fundamentally reliant on international global science, which is under threat. I implore this Government to do more to support international climate science. What specific actions are the Government taking to monitor the cumulative impact of that reduction in science, and what steps are we taking at the international level to support this work going forward?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The Government are completely guided by the science as far as climate change action is concerned. I share the noble Earl’s concern that in terms of the climate change debate in this country we appear to be moving away from the science—which is the underpinning of everything that we need to hold on for future action. The particular issue as far as retaining the science is concerned is continued support for and understanding of the work of the Committee on Climate Change and how it is interpreting the science to make sure that its recommendations are absolutely with the science. The noble Earl will know that the seventh carbon budget that has come from the Committee on Climate Change is up for consideration by the Government by the end of next month. That will underpin its work in this respect.

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his Answer and for all that the Government are doing. In the light of the richly deserved tributes to Sir David Attenborough, what is the Government’s view on the role of public education and investment in public education around the climate emergency? Do they commend, for instance, the “People’s Emergency Briefing”, the new film which has been produced? Do they want to increase investment to rebuild the political consensus that we had some years ago that this is a national emergency?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Like the right reverend Prelate, I am very disappointed about the partial breakdown in the consensus that we had on the emergency that climate change represents in this country. It is this Government’s fervent wish that this consensus can be regained. We are already putting a lot of resources into various bodies which can ensure that climate change is discussed fairly and without bias in the public sphere, aiming to get that consensus back again as far as the public are concerned.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the King’s Speech did mention climate change. He said that his Government would be a “leading advocate” in the fight against climate change, yet there is not a single policy specifically about nature or the environment in the whole speech, in the whole government agenda. Given that and given that nature and the environment underpin our economic security, our food security and our productivity, when are the Government going to take this whole issue seriously and produce some policies where nature is supported?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know what the Government have been doing to take on the recent environment and nature plan. That is now at the heart of the clean power 2030 drive to ensure that our power systems are compatible with and supportive of nature and the environment rather than destructive of them. That is a commitment that the Government have. While it is true that this King’s Speech has not put forward specific measures relating to this, it is nevertheless interwoven in everything that the Government are doing as far as climate change and low carbon are concerned.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, we know that climate change is already having an impact on food production and farmers. In one recent survey, 78% of farmers said that they were impacted by the effects of climate change. Can the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to ensure that food production will continue in the decades ahead in the face of climate change and extreme weather events?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The question of food production is obviously bound up, among other things, with how the environment of our country is changing due to the effects of climate change and what effect that has on crops and food production security in general. The Government are actively involved in ensuring that the way we produce food is brought up to date with the changes that are taking place and, indeed, giving support to farmers and agricultural communities in making those changes. It is a very important part not just of the mitigation of climate change but of adaptation, and that is something that the Government take very seriously.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, Drax emits more than 13 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, more than the six largest gas power plants combined. Despite this, it has recently been reported that it is ditching its plans for carbon capture and storage technology. Given this fact, and that Drax receives nearly £0.5 billion in supposedly green subsidies, can the Minister outline whether the Government are reconsidering the entitlements they currently offer the power station?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will understand that the arrangements that were made for Drax as far as the period up to 2032 is concerned are half as costly as the support arrangements for Drax which were made under the previous Government and they require Drax to produce much less power and be a marginal power producer, along with other power stations, rather than the baseline arrangements that there were previously. The Government have acted to both curtail and balance what Drax is doing, but this agreement ends in 2032 if Drax does not undertake further activities to ameliorate its emissions from biomass—which, admittedly, is lower carbon in the first place—so watch this space. The present arrangement is running its course on a better basis than previously, but there is undoubtedly more to come if Drax does not stand by its obligations for the future.

Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 March be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 27 April.

Motion agreed.

National Emergency Plan for Fuel

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans, if any, they have to activate the National Emergency Plan for Fuel.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)]

The UK benefits from a strong and diverse range of energy supplies, and the physical supply of fuel to the UK is stable. The national emergency plan for fuel, which has been in place for over a decade, sets out a number of levers that can be deployed in a fuel emergency depending on the type of issue being faced, and this is summarised on GOV.UK. We would consider intervention, with a preference always for the least invasive measures first, if it appears that there could be a shortfall of fuel nationally; but, to reiterate, we are not in this situation.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, this morning the CEO of Wizz Air, which carried over 30 million passengers last year, warned that European airlines risk collapse by September if jet fuel prices remain at current record levels. We are starting to learn of flight cancellations taking place to save aviation fuel and passengers being compensated so airlines can make savings now. Businesses are saying that the Government are not prepared. We have seen the closure of two refineries here in the UK in two years and the threatened closure of the remaining four due to carbon taxes and electricity prices four times higher than in the US, which makes the UK particularly vulnerable. Given that President Trump has stated that there is no timeframe for ending the Iran war, when will the Government listen to industry, level openly with the public, be transparent and heed the words of the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, who has admitted that shortages are coming? Now, the Government should publish a national emergency plan for fuel to show how we can shore up our domestic supply of all forms of fuel and allow the public to make considered decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Lord conflates a number of different sources of fuel into one in his question. It is certainly the case, as far as petrol, diesel and other similar fuels are concerned, that supplies in the UK are stable. The UK as a refiner of petrol actually exports petrol from the UK, so there is no question of supply problems there. Only 1% of the crude oil that goes into petrol refining comes from the Middle East and only 7% of diesel comes from the Middle East so UK fuel supply is generally stable and secure. Jet fuel is slightly different as a higher percentage of it comes from the Middle East, but the airlines in the UK are clear that they are not currently seeing a shortage of jet fuel. Indeed, aviation fuel is typically bought in advance, and airports and their suppliers keep stocks of bunkered fuel to support their resilience.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the double blockade of the strait is still in place and shows no signs of easing. The national fuel emergency plan was last updated in April 2024, yet current pressures across aviation fuel, diesel and fertilisers are unique and complex. What consideration is being given to updating and stress-testing the plan? How will the Government balance timely information with avoiding panic? What steps are being taken to support early economy-wide fuel efficiency measures?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Earl is absolutely right to point to the complexity of the situation at the moment, not just in terms of particular kinds of fuel supply but the knock-on effects of, for example, a lack of supply in the Middle East as a result of some refineries being bombed and long-term supply questions across the world about certain other fuels. The national emergency plan for fuel, however, is a plan for shortages of fuels, of which there are none at the moment in the UK.

The wider question is: what will happen as far as prices are concerned as this crisis develops, since we have no means of determining exactly when it will finish? That is not an issue for the national emergency plan for fuel, but it is one for the question of stabilising prices for consumers and ensuring that businesses are not at risk from those prices getting out of control. Indeed, as the noble Earl knows, the Government have already started taking initiatives in this respect. For example, £53 million has been distributed to cushion the effects of price rises in home heating fuel, which are particularly suffered by people who are off grid.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that sufficient consideration is being given to the maintenance of adequate stocks of petrol and jet fuel for the military, for their ongoing military operations and their essential training, and that consideration is also being given to alleviating any pressures from the price rises on the already hard-pressed defence budget?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I cannot speak in any detail for the Ministry of Defence, but the noble and gallant Lord can be assured that the question of bunkering and keeping supplies, particularly of jet fuel, is very much directed in conjunction with both civil aviation and military requirements. The question, as he implies, is a further one of prices. It is a matter of looking at how best a particularly targeted intervention can be undertaken in future to ensure that prices do not undermine various activities in this country. The Government are keeping a close watch on that at the moment.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, the national emergency plan for fuel remains a contingency for crisis. Its objectives include protection of human life and alleviation of suffering. Since 2020, energy companies have made £125 billion in profits and around 120,000 people a year die in fuel poverty. Does the Minister agree that there is a crisis and that lives can be saved by curbing profiteering by energy companies?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Yes, the noble Lord asks me whether there is a crisis and there is one in place at the moment. However, we have considerable difficulty in determining exactly its direction and depth, precisely because we do not know what the position is and will be, particularly concerning the Strait of Hormuz, for the future. The response to that crisis, as far as the Government are concerned, clearly has to be to take every measure possible to ensure that the Strait of Hormuz is open—and open without tolls—for the passage of fuel across the world, but we do not know how long that will last.

The plans that we are therefore undertaking, particularly given the prices that may be an issue in global fuel scarcity, with various people trying to cannibalise everybody else’s fuel supply, are under our control nationally. We can therefore indeed intervene, if necessary, to make sure that those prices remain as stable as possible and, particularly as far as those who are in fuel poverty are concerned, that more people do not fall into fuel poverty as a result of those problems.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Two of our refineries have shut under this Government and the remaining four are at risk from high costs and very high taxes. What has emerged from government discussions with our refiners to expand our refinery output? That is the way to national security—not relying on product imports from dangerous parts of the world.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I do not quite recognise the noble Lord’s description that the four refineries in this country are at risk. Those are very large and stable refineries. As he knows, they continue to refine the forms of crude coming into the UK into petrol and other fuel products. Those refineries are set up to provide a particular kind of output based on the crude oil coming into them, and that is not necessarily a full spectrum of fuel products. Therefore, part of a strategy, as far as fuel is concerned for the future, is to look at where those refineries can expand and increase their production if possible, and to make sure that, where they are not able to easily refine the things we need, we have secure sources of those for the future.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, military aid to the civil authorities, or MACA, tasks are a standard provision within national resilience and there is a MACA task for fuel shortages. However, policy is clear that the military should only ever be used in extremis. The challenge is that, in recent years, they have become the default setting for many government departments when, frankly, right now, they should be doing other things. Can the Minister reassure your Lordships’ House that civil contingency is in place and that the military will only ever be used at times of extremis? I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Yes, indeed I can assure the noble Lord that that is the situation. It is what is set out in the national emergency plan for fuel, particularly in terms of the kinds of interventions that can be deployed in a fuel emergency, ensuring that the least invasive measures are carried out first. As the noble Lord will know, there are circumstances in which the military could be involved in making sure that fuel gets to the right destinations and that it is carried and delivered securely and reliably. That is all in the national emergency plan for fuel—a plan that we are not intending to implement at the moment because the circumstances envisaged by that emergency plan are not in place.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure us that steps are being taken to ensure that we have adequate storage for fuel and gas? The situation that the Government inherited was certainly unsatisfactory for gas and, given the unstable international environment, we clearly need much more reserve capacity to provide resilience.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to raise storage and resilience. As far is gas is concerned, we have reliable supplies from a range of sources. Most notably, 43% of our supplies come from UK fields. A further 20% comes from Norwegian fields, some of which can be landed in the UK only when it has come from the fields. Only a small percentage comes in from LPG and other tankered arrangements. The question of supply, therefore, is about supplementing those secure supplies with a reasonable amount of reserve facility. That is indeed in place, in terms of eight reserve supply arrangements, as well as the development of the former Rough field in the UK for gas supply purposes.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, on the Minister’s last point about resilience and the Norwegian fields, does he personally support the early development of Rosebank and Jackdaw?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that those two fields have exploration licences but do not yet have production licences. The general point about those fields, and indeed new fields, particularly in the UK, was made just recently by the director of the International Energy Agency, who said that those and other fields

“would not change much for the UK’s energy security, nor would they change the price of oil and gas. They would not make any significant difference to this crisis”.

Regarding the current crisis, it is right in general to continue to move away from reliance on volatile and possibly unstable sources of fossil fuel and develop the greater security that comes with renewable and low-carbon energy, which is what the Government are doing.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that those fields produce oil and gas that is cheaper and of a better quality than the comparable materials that we import? Surely that is a sensible way forward.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Lord perhaps refers to the relative cost of supplies into the UK, which is a fairly complicated matter, and the carbon content of those supplies, which is also a further complicated matter. Those supplies are lower in carbon content than LPG coming in but are nevertheless much higher in carbon content than renewable supplies, which the Government are working on at the moment. The question of price and value is a very complicated issue, but one which is not necessarily germane to the current crisis.

Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 17 March 2026.

Since 2011, the warm home discount has supported low-income and vulnerable households by reducing energy bills during the coldest months of the year, when support is most needed. The Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2022 ended on 31 March 2026. These regulations will extend the scheme in Scotland for a further five years, until 2030-31, providing certainty for households, suppliers and delivery partners.

Fuel poverty is a devolved matter in Scotland. Under the Energy Act 2010, as amended by the Scotland Act 2016, Scottish Ministers have powers to design their own fuel poverty scheme, subject to consultation with and agreement from the Secretary of State. To date, Scottish Ministers have chosen not to exercise those powers and have instead consented to the UK Government laying regulations on their behalf. That remains the position for the next scheme period. Under devolution arrangements, the Scottish Government have provided their formal consent for these regulations to be made.

In September, the Government consulted, with the agreement of the Scottish Government, on proposals for the next scheme period. Consultation responses relating to Scotland were shared with Scottish Ministers, who have determined the eligibility criteria for the next scheme period within the agreed spending limit, as set out in these regulations.

The regulations will continue to require energy suppliers with more than 1,000 domestic customer accounts across Great Britain to participate in the scheme. Suppliers with fewer than 1,000 domestic accounts will, as now, be able to participate in the scheme on a purely voluntary basis.

These regulations will continue to provide for £150 rebates to be provided by scheme suppliers under the data-matched core group and the application-based broader group, a different division of groups than is the case with the English scheme. Participating suppliers will continue to be obliged to provide a £150 rebate to eligible households in the core group, applied directly to their electricity bill. These regulations set out new eligibility criteria for the core group in Scotland, aligning qualifying benefits with those of the Scottish winter heating payment as of December 2025 for the next scheme period. It is estimated that the number of households that receive a core group rebate will increase by roughly 250,000 to 345,000 households per year compared with 2025-26.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for bringing forward this SI and explaining it in such detail, especially given the fact that we have already debated this at some length, when my colleague from the Liberal Democrat Benches also participated in certain aspects of it.

The focus on Scotland allows us to look at some specific aspects relevant there and to consider why the Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026 are so important for Scottish households—needed as they are, I might add, because of the high cost of energy and electricity in not only Scotland but the rest of the United Kingdom, because of the doubling down on the policy of building intermittent wind farms far from the grid and energy costs that are sky high relative to international comparisons. With those wind farms operating at some 31% to 40% of their maximum potential capacity, we are required to continue to import gas and to pay for gas-fired CCGTs all year long for the sole purpose of being available when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. For that reason, it is all the more important that this draft warm home discount provision is available—because of the high prices of electricity and the need to protect those most in need in Scotland.

We understand how important this is, since the warm home discount is being immediately offset for so many by rising energy prices, driven by the Government’s own policy choices. It is important to note that suppliers are not funding this support; it is paid for by households through an additional levy. The Government are increasing taxes on working people to fund handouts to others, rather than fixing the problem at source by addressing the issue of making electricity cheap.

In addition, the administration costs will continue to rise. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the administration costs alone are estimated to be about £20 million per annum. It is time the Government addressed the need to cut electricity bills. We hope that during the brief coming recess, DESNZ will have the opportunity to see whether it can axe the carbon tax, scrap renewable subsidies and overturn the North Sea licensing ban. That will provide the greatest benefit to people on low incomes, not least vulnerable Scottish customers.

As the Minister has said, the WHD scheme supports those on low incomes, vulnerable to cold-related illness, or living wholly or mainly in fuel poverty. That is of course right—it is a policy that has been supported by both sides of the Committee. We need to target fuel-poor households, with the highest estimated energy costs identified through data matching, which we covered when we last discussed this important measure in the context of the rest of the United Kingdom.

I welcome the recognition of the Secretary of State being able

“to direct energy suppliers to communicate with ‘matched’ customers identified through automated data matching, and … requiring suppliers to provide information on eligibility, the use of automated decision-making, and where to find the Scheme’s privacy notice”.

We already agreed to that in a previous debate on the application of the WHD extension elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that we should also consider Professor Dieter Helm’s concern that, in not considering the WHD orders in the context of the wider energy policy being pursued by the Government, we are, to use his words, simply “moving the deck chairs”. The most important issue is that the warm homes discount scheme must be judged in the context of the fundamental issue of energy costs, and, most importantly, the high energy costs that make us so lacking in competition, particularly in the UK industrial sector but also in terms of very high domestic costs.

For many of the people concerned, fuel is perhaps the most important and noticeable change in energy prices for low-income households. Only recently, industry chiefs have warned that British electricity costs mean that domestic refineries are struggling to compete, and therefore that Britain will be increasingly reliant, as will Scotland, on imported fuel. Average petrol prices, at 157.62p a litre, are currently 25p higher than at the start of the war, and diesel has risen twice that to 188.9p a litre. Does the Minister recognise that, as the war has proven, it is important for a major economy to be focused on increasing its reliance on domestically generated fuel and not on imported fuel? This issue of security of supply is one I hope that we will return to and that the Minister can also address today.

We still import 60% of our gas, which is around 20% of our national energy demand. I hope that, during the brief Recess, the Secretary of State will reconsider his refusal to allow production at remaining North Sea gas fields, particularly Rosebank and Jackdaw, and that, at least recognising that there may be political motivation behind his decision, he will return to this subject shortly after the 7 May elections. As we know, when we look at Rosebank and Jackdaw, the emissions intensity is substantially lower than imported LNG from the United States. Therefore, on any environmental grounds, it makes great sense to develop our own gas reserves, not to mention the benefit to the Treasury of the revenues that are generated.

In the context of Scotland, we are losing nearly 1,000 jobs a month in Aberdeen—1,000 valuable jobs that are highly regarded around the world. It is so important to recognise that, from Aberdeen to Ardersier, we need to make sure that we protect jobs in Scotland and that this policy of being completely opposed to new licences, and not adjusting the commercial and fiscal terms that would encourage the extension of current production in reservoirs and tie-backs, is very damaging to the economy, puts up prices and, in turn, means that, in future, more people may have to avail themselves of the regulations we are discussing today.

We are approaching a brief break, which is an opportunity to test how popular the Government’s energy policies are in Scotland. I hope that this will allow DESNZ to undertake a comprehensive review of its doubling down on an energy policy that is high-cost—one of the highest in the world—and regrettably more polluting than it needs to be. I gave the example of LNG imports from the US against our own production from, for example, Rosebank and Jackdaw.

We are increasingly highly reliant—I know that the Minister will always expect me to say this—on Chinese solar imports from Uyghur slave labour and coal-fired factories. We are also highly dependent on ever-enlarging warm home discount schemes, which, we both agree, are a fundamental responsibility of parties in government. However, those schemes, which should be welcome because they ease some of the consequences of these policies, do not deter us from the most important issues: addressing the policies and reducing the cost of energy. Ultimately, if we can do those things, such policies will be less necessary because we will have addressed the facts that we need to be more competitive, that energy needs to be more affordable and that we need to protect jobs—not least in Scotland—which are absolutely vital to our economy and our energy mix.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate; I will attempt to address them in the best way I can.

I have got to know the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, well during my time as a Minister in this House. I say to him, with respect, that, although he is unfailingly constructive and courteous and makes important points, I fear that he has today given us a tour d’horizon of all the things we have been discussing over the past few months, wrapped within the carapace of the SI before us, which relates only to the specific Scottish circumstances of the warm home discount scheme. I hope he will forgive me if I do not give a detailed reply to some of his points because they have been discussed on other occasions; perhaps we could, over a drink at the end of the Session, tease out some of these issues between ourselves as we prepare for the proroguing of Parliament.

On the contributions concerning this specific SI, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, for his contribution. His concerns relate to the enormous increase in coverage that has been achieved by these new arrangements. Because the Scottish Government asked the UK Government to set up an SI for a scheme similar, but not identical, to that in the rest of the UK, the benefits of the substantial increase in coverage now relate to Scotland and England just the same. However, there are of course questions relating to the fact that there are, and have been since 2011, considerable differences between some of the detail of the Scottish scheme and the English one. That is partly because of the identification of virtually everybody who is taking part in the expanded scheme in England, but it is not quite so as far as the Scottish scheme is concerned.

In the Scottish scheme, there is a core group and there is a broader group. The broader group is subject to identification by application and is then put into the assistance system by the energy suppliers, but there is a question about whether those energy suppliers are going to do that properly. How will it be ensured that they do, and, if they fall short, how can that be rectified by things such as making sure that industry initiatives are brought up so that the broader group does not suffer in the way that it might otherwise do? It is down to the Scottish Government and Ofgem to make sure it happens, but it is clearly something that we need to keep a close eye on as the scheme develops.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the Government are taking action on energy prices and bearing down on them. As he will know, we have the energy price cap, which has made sure that prices go down by about 7% over the next few months. We have had the transfer of renewables obligation levies and the ending of eco-levy costs to reduce bills. We have an ambition to take considerably more off energy bills in the future using those sorts of devices.

The noble Lord talked about domestically produced fuel. We completely agree on the need to have domestically sourced power in the UK. That is exactly what the Government are doing with increased offshore wind and solar. I have already talked to the noble Lord about how we can increase the amount of domestically produced onshore gas by increasing the biomethane that is injected into the grid—a completely domestic source of gas. The Government are acting on these things.

The noble Lord quoted Dieter Helm, saying that we are only moving the deckchairs. Sometimes moving deckchairs is a good thing, particularly if the deckchairs were previously in the shade and you can bring them out into the sun by the things you are doing. For example, one of the things that we are doing here is to move the effect of the funding from standing charges to individual markers related to the amount of power that is being consumed by particular customers. Instead of that money being taken for these warm home discount schemes from standing charges, they will be a combination of matters now, which will save people something like £39 on standing charges. So yes, we can move the deckchairs. I am conscious that we need to move further and faster—to move more deckchairs more rapidly—and transcending that. If this measure is about moving deckchairs, the deckchairs have been moved very efficiently and we have a good scheme as a result.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I listened careful to all the deckchairs moving around, but the Minister’s analogy is incomplete, because the deckchairs that are referred to in the famous aphorism relate to the deckchairs on a sinking ship. That is the pointlessness of some of the things we are looking at. It is important that, rather than rearranging the deckchairs on a sinking ship, where everybody goes down with the vessel, we look at keeping energy prices as low as we can. The high energy prices that this nation is labouring under are de-industrialising our nation, killing our chemical industry and giving everybody the highest energy costs in the industrialised world. That is something we need to bear down upon.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

As I was just saying to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, moving the deckchairs depends on the fact that the ship is not sinking. Of course, this ship is not sinking. That is why we have been able to double the eligibility for people to take part in the scheme and are further doubling down on energy price reductions through the devices that I set out and the further development of clean, domestically produced power to make sure those prices stay low for the future. We are doing other measures, such as de-linking the arrangements between gas-based electricity and renewables-based electricity. The purpose of a number of things might seem to be moving the deckchairs, but certainly not on a sinking ship. The ship has all its deckchairs in the sun now and is steaming forward to a bright energy future.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 5.10 pm.

Low-carbon Heat Networks

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Curran, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)]

The warm homes plan sets a new, ambitious target for heat network growth to meet 7% of heat demand by 2035 and an even greater amount by 2050. This ensures that households and businesses in dense areas can benefit from the cheapest clean heat for them, and that we are maximising the efficiency of our energy system. Alongside our other capital schemes, this Government will invest £1 billion in low-carbon heat networks over this Parliament, including through the green heat network fund and the heat network efficiency scheme. Heat network zoning will fundamentally transform the development of new heat networks in England; it will provide the tools to ensure that they are built in the right places, and give investors and developers the certainty they need to bring forward more ambitious schemes.

[Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister and welcome the warm homes plan, but we need ambition. Only infrastructure heats homes. Clean, low-carbon heat networks can match gas boiler costs. Instead of every house having its own gas boiler, you have one central source of heat—a big heat pump, a river, a disused coal mine or even a data centre—and you pipe that heat through insulated underground pipes to thousands of homes. I ask my noble friend: when do the Government intend to treat heat networks as essential national infrastructure?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right about the importance, cheapness and flexibility of heat networks for the future. Indeed, the Government are taking that flexibility—that essential nature—of heat networks very seriously in their ambitions for them to provide something like 20% of total heat by 2050. Among other things, the Government are doing that through the green heat network fund, to bring forward investment, and to make sure, through the heat network efficiency scheme, that existing heat networks are brought up to scratch with the newer ones that are coming on stream.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the Statement made yesterday by the Energy Secretary that the Government will be working to accelerate the £15 billion warm homes plan. We support the work that the Government are doing on heat networks but, in light of the current energy crisis, what further work will be done to accelerate the rollout of heat networks, particularly for social housing, to ensure that those in fuel poverty get the help that they need as urgently as possible?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Earl is quite right to emphasise how important it is to accelerate the rollout of heat networks, particularly in view of the present gas volatility crisis. As has already been mentioned, heat networks can source their heat from anywhere. For many years Southampton heat network, if I dare mention it, has sourced its heat from geothermal energy. There are many other heat networks that can source heat from waste heat, mine heat and, as has also been mentioned, the future heat from data centres. So the customer greatly benefits from having access to heat that otherwise would not be accessible so far as a home is concerned. That is why we are determined to push forward with heat networks as fast as we can, and to make sure that the target—that is, 20% of heat from networks as a portion of heat overall—is achieved in very good time.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, what risk assessment did the Government undertake before they moved the regulation of social housing landlords’ heating networks from the Housing Ombudsman to Ofgem? The result is that Ofgem can launch unlimited fines based on annual turnover: this will create a push for the big social landlords to take out heat networks, not put them in. At the moment they are controlled by fines levied by the ombudsman, and these are considerably lower than those Ofgem will be able to raise against them.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The regulations came in on 27 January, and this move to properly regulate the heat network field was due to the fact that the system had very little overall regulation before and was dependent on some voluntary heat regulation schemes. In many instances it was not satisfactory so far as consumers were concerned. The emphasis on the regulation was a fair deal for consumers, but it also means a fair deal for those good heat network operators which want to play by the rules and make sure that their heat networks are as good as they can be.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. Like others, I welcome the publication of the Warm Homes Plan and the increased target for the initiation of low-carbon heat networks. But I ask the Minister: what plans do the Government have to ensure that we have a trained and efficient workforce able to carry through these plans? We have had many energy-efficiency and insulation plans in the past that have foundered because we have not had the workforce able to implement them.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an excellent point on the need to run the expansion of facilities such as heat networks, and indeed many other green and low-carbon technologies, alongside an assurance that the skills are available to put those into place and the workforce is available to do those things. That is part of the wider government plan to make sure that training and skills are properly matched to the low-carbon future that we have in front of us, rather than training people for, dare I say, obsolete technologies that will have a relatively short life in the future and will be superseded by this widespread series of low-carbon technologies.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, low-carbon heat networks, while commendable, face major disadvantages and risks, including financial risks, technical challenges in retrofitting, and operational challenges such as overheating and service outages. Do the Government really believe that, given local authority financing constraints, councils such as Lewisham—where my former constituency lies—can meet the targets set by government for 2035, and indeed the targets for 2030 set by Lewisham Council?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Yes, the Government believe that those targets can be met, and local authorities up and down the country have shown, by activities in their own areas, that they are very keen to make sure that those targets are met. Following earlier requests for expressions of interest, the applications for heat networks have shown that there is enormous interest in developing heat networks in various parts of the country—interest led not only by local authorities but by various local communities, including possible interest in the Great British Energy plan to develop 1,000 local schemes by the end of this Parliament. The will to do it is there; we need to make sure that there is the support for these new developments as they go forward, so that the schemes can come forward in the best way possible.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, the decarbonisation of heat remains one of the biggest challenges to achieving net zero, and heat networks are a new growth opportunity. Is it not anomalous that there are no decarbonisation requirements on non-domestic buildings? I agree with my noble friend the Minister and his confidence. Could the public sector take a lead on this, with local authorities being resourced to implement heat network zoning to encourage heat connection and supply to suitable buildings at competitive prices?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The heat network zoning arrangements now in place are not just for purely domestic heat networks. To refer again to a particular heat network I am familiar with, that is a heat network that includes both residential domestic housing and a number of commercial and industrial properties. Ensuring that that heat zoning takes account, as far as it can, of the opportunities for heat networks to operate for commercial and industrial buildings, as well as residential properties, is clearly a substantial part of that move and will shape how heat networks develop in future years.

Clean Power 2030 Action Plan: Rural Communities

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have contributed to this important debate and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for securing it in the first instance. She made a number of important points that go along, I think, with her particular view about the role of renewables but are nevertheless important points that need considering as far as this debate is concerned.

Before proceeding, I want to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Nagaraju, who made his maiden speech this afternoon. I think he will have gathered already from the acclaim around the House for his maiden speech that he will undoubtedly be a tremendous asset to our House in the future.

In her initial contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, listed a number of alternatives to Clean Power 2030. What was striking about the list of alternatives she put forward is that they are mostly things that the Government are doing already. They are not necessarily exactly in the context of the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, although there are many more things in that plan than many noble Lords and others seem to think—for example, there is a substantial role to play for hydrogen in the action plan and on a longer-term basis after 2030.

The noble Baroness mentioned clean power: floating solar, energy from waste and small nuclear. The Government are actively involved in undertaking all these things at the moment. But I emphasise that they are not alternatives to the race or the journey to clean power; they are part of that journey, along with other things, such as offshore and onshore wind, solar, and various other arrangements that we can see blossoming before us.

The action plan is a requirement to get to mostly, or almost wholly, renewable power by 2030, both for reasons of carbon emissions reduction—and the move towards net zero by 2050—and to make sure that the nation has energy independence as far as is possible and that we are not dependent on fossil fuels from around the world dictating how our energy economy works for the future.

Noble Lords have drawn attention to just how hard this work will be to achieve those particular goals, and they are absolutely right: it is very ambitious to ask the energy system to translate itself into a low-carbon system with the speed that we hope will be achieved. But we ought to be clear that the means being put in place to do this are not the bogey mentioned by a number of noble Lords. This is genuinely clean power. It will, certainly for rural communities, enhance their way of life, with cleaner air and much greater community involvement in the power that will be introduced, which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned. Altogether, this will make our society a much cleaner, greener and more liveable place overall.

That does indeed involve certain changes to how we deploy our power in the future. Noble Lords have mentioned that we may use 10% of productive farmland, for example, for solar and similar activities. Reports were mentioned, and the land use framework published by Defra in March 2026, for example, states that renewables are projected to take up approximately 155,000 hectares of England’s utilised agricultural area, which is about 2%, not 10%. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, that is far less than the amount of land taken up by golf courses in this country for the future. So it is not the huge take that some people suggest.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

The noble Lord is selectively quoting from the table, and he may indeed be right on solar, but the land use framework enumerates a whole load of other different types of use. In total, 1.7 million hectares—about a fifth of all the farmland in England—is to be taken from agriculture and applied to other uses. He cannot get away from that: those are the Government’s numbers.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Lord says I am selectively quoting. I am sorry to disagree with him, but I am not selectively quoting; I am quoting. That is what the land use framework says on the best estimates for the land that is being taken. In addition to that, he and other noble Lords will be aware that, in the guidance and arrangements for the development of solar, there is a clear understanding that the best and most versatile land will be excluded from those solar developments and that they should go primarily on brownfield land or less-important agricultural land, so that precisely that best and most versatile land for farming and food use is preserved for that activity. That is what is happening with the solar developments coming forward at the moment.

The other thing I want to mention on rural communities is that, when we are putting forward proposals for grid coverage of the country, as other noble Lords have mentioned—the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for example—that is not just about clean power 2030. Among other things, it is about getting the grid fit for energy for the future in general. Even if clean power 2030 were not in place, it would be necessary to undertake that huge programme of grid renewal and updating, partly because of the extreme neglect of grid uprating that took place during the Conservative Government who immediately preceded this Government. We are not just undertaking a grid for the future but catching up from the past.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am not accusing the Minister in any way of misleading the House, because this is from a different department, but the actual figure that was consulted on by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in January 2025 was that more than 10% of farmland in England was to be diverted towards helping to achieve net zero and protecting wildlife by 2050. That was in the consultation that was the prelude to the land use framework and I understand was in parallel to this net zero policy.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I am happy to write to the noble Baroness to clear up that exact point, but what I quoted from, as I am sure she will know, is the actual land use framework and not the precursors to it. At the final point when it was published by Defra, it came to the conclusion that I have mentioned. It is in table 1 on page 19 of that land use framework, so it can be looked at. I am very happy to write further to the noble Baroness on that particular point.

What is absolutely right, though, as indicated in the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, is that we are basically all in this together. It cannot be the case that we can exempt parts of the country from the energy revolution taking place in front of us. But what we can do is make sure that, where it has effects on those areas, they are mitigated as far as possible: for example, as we are planning at the moment, they will have community benefits coming their way from those changes. Community investment through the discount schemes is also coming forward. A new electricity bill discount scheme will provide £2,500 over the next decade to households living within 500 metres of new and significantly upgraded transmission infrastructure, with the first payments expected in 2027.

We are also looking seriously at community benefit from upcoming changes to grid systems and various things. The SSEN’s upcoming Tealing to Aberdeenshire transmission line, for example, could mean funding of more than £23 million for local communities. There is assistance for communities that are associated with those changes, but also an understanding that, while those changes have to be made very carefully—with full consultation and appreciation of the difficulties that may stand in the way of some of those schemes—where those schemes go ahead, they have done so on the basis of our Planning and Infrastructure Act. That means full scrutiny and consultation, full arrangements for remediation and a full consideration of what, among other things, the cumulative effect on the landscape may turn out to be.

With that, I hope I have addressed the points made by most noble Lords. If I have failed to do that because of time constraints, I am happy to write, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, to go a little further on the question of hydrogen for the future. I can assure him that it plays a very substantial role in the process, along with other non-variable things such as biomethane and biogas, for the future of the energy economy.

Overall, the Government are doing a responsible job in trying to match the requirements of the clean power action plan with quality of life and the future, particularly of rural communities. We will certainly continue to take that very carefully into consideration as the plan develops and, indeed, as clean power goes beyond 2030 and into the next decades.

Electricity: Domestic Pricing

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCabe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the effect of the marginal pricing structure on the cost of electricity for domestic consumers.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)]

Delivering lower bills and a secure energy supply for working families and businesses is at the heart of the Government’s sprint toward homegrown clean energy. Marginal cost pricing has historically incentivised the cheapest forms of energy to provide as much power as possible. That worked well when the competition was between fossil fuel producers, but less well when there are many cheaper bids from renewable sources for power supply but still the price can be set by more expensive and volatile gas. Accelerating the development of renewable generation, as we are now through clean power 2030, will progressively reduce to a residuum the amount of time that gas sets the price.

[Lord McCabe (Lab)]

I am grateful for that Answer and I welcome the direction of travel on energy security and price stability, but do we not need to work harder and faster to decouple gas from electricity prices? Is it not true that gas accounts for about 30% of electricity generating but that the effect of gas on the price mechanism is responsible for the huge bills landing on households and businesses up and down the country?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Although gas accounts for only 30% or so of the market, at the moment it sets the price over 60% of the time with marginal cost pricing arrangements. It is right that we need to go faster and further. Indeed, today the Government have announced plans, among many other things, to ensure that the element of the renewable input into the system—on renewables obligations rather than fixed-price contracts for difference—can be moved over to that latter category as soon as possible, thereby bearing down on the amount of time that gas sets the price in the market.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we cannot afford continued fossil fuel dependency. We welcome the move from legacy contracts to cheaper ones. Indeed, my party proposed similar over a year ago. I support the Greenpeace Power Shift RAB model to remove gas, the most expensive component, from the market. Are Ministers still looking at these proposals, and will they take them forward? If not, why not? Together these proposals fall short, and that is my worry here. Despite the way they have been trailed, they will not deliver the savings we require.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The Government are looking actively at many different ways of going further and faster as far as the green energy revolution is concerned. Indeed, they are actively looking at the Greenpeace and Stonehaven report on not only delinking but strategic reserves for gas in future. My personal view is that what they are proposing is a little early in the cycle but, nevertheless, could be an important element later on, in how the system stabilises itself once it is mainly renewables and low carbon.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Is the quickest way to get energy prices down not to cut some of the rip-off taxes that the Government impose? How does imposing an extra windfall tax help?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Imposing an extra windfall tax, on those elements of the system that are within the renewables orbit but outside the CfD arrangements, takes away the excess profits that those elements make as a result of being aligned with gas in charging those volatile prices. So it is a very sensible thing to do, to make sure that excess profits are not taken from consumers but instead reside with them as lower prices.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

To follow up on that, can the Minister explain how a windfall tax paid to the Treasury ends up reducing people’s bills?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The effect of the windfall tax is, essentially, to start returning some of those excessive bill contributions back to bill payers so that their overall bills are less than they otherwise would be.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that Denmark—where renewables, on which Denmark excels, are highly developed—is the largest producer of oil and gas in the European Union? We will continue to need fossil fuels, in addition to renewables, going forward.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The reference that the noble Baroness makes to Denmark is an interesting one, inasmuch as the Danish system is wholly integrated between renewables, heat and power of different kinds—particularly district heating and various such things, which can be used in conjunction with other forms of energy to provide a balanced overall system. It is true that Denmark continues to produce oil and gas but also that Denmark is, along with the UK, looking at methods of making sure that relates to production for the future rather than exploration.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, this is one aspect of the high cost of electricity in the UK. The wider question it raises is: what plans do the Government have to reduce the cost of electricity? On the electrification of the energy mix of the future, which is among the many answers that my noble friend the Minister may wish to give, do the Government need to consider bringing forward a strategic national plan with a focus on the lessons to be learned from this present crisis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question, because he has, remarkably, just anticipated the development of the strategic spatial energy plan and a reformed national pricing delivery plan, both of which came out this morning. Both plans address exactly the longer-term balance arrangements as far as electricity is concerned, particularly how prices can be the lowest possible for the deployment of electricity and gas resources across the country.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the most effective way of bringing down household energy bills is through the energy efficiency of homes. I welcome the Government’s move to apply the future homes standard, which will bring up energy efficiency, but they are not going to implement it until 2028—before which, some 100,000 or more homes will be built inefficiently. Can the Government please bring this forward, at least to 2027?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I cannot stand here and guarantee that that move will be brought forward by one year, as he suggests. It is a very sound idea. The future homes standard, which is now in place, is instead of the net-zero low-carbon standards that should have been implemented about 15 years ago, if the previous Government had not thrown them out. We are catching back up, as far as possible, and making sure we can get that done in good order.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, by our doubling down on intermittent renewable wind and imported Chinese solar, as the Secretary of State announced this morning, does the Minister agree that while the wholesale price link to gas and electricity constitutes, as he said, only some 30% of the consumer price, the main culprits of ever-escalating industrial and domestic prices are the Government’s green levies, the taxes and the system costs, which constitute the remaining 70% and are increasing month by month? When will the Government address these costs?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Of course, the Government have addressed those costs, particularly in the recent move to take elements of the levies away from levy arrangements and into the general Exchequer. That is part of the £150 off energy bills that the Government have recently reported. The noble Lord is absolutely right about the effect of levies on prices, but I hope he will also accept that that is exactly what the Government are doing at the moment: bringing prices down for the consumer by transferring how those levies work for the future.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, it is good news that the Government have enabled standing charges to be reduced, but should standing charges not be got rid of completely? They are basically daylight robbery.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Earl treads a fine distinction between the possible daylight robbery of standing charges and the fact that some charges need to be levied collectively because of the various fixed costs that the system has, which have to be contributed to in order to deliver the service to individual consumers. How you charge those standing charges is a matter of considerable debate and something that the Government are looking at. Whether, for example, you charge them as an overall fixed sum or as a sum per household, depending on its energy bills, is a matter of considerable debate at the moment. The idea that standing charges should relate more exactly to what standing charges should be for in the first place is a point well made.