Offshore Wind

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to his position, and I look forward to working with him.

On these Benches, we welcome the results of allocation round 7, which has secured a record 8.4 gigawatts of future offshore wind capacity, including 192.5 megawatts of innovative, floating offshore wind, and seen £22 billion in private investment. This marks an important step forward on our clean power journey and towards our future energy independence—enough clean energy to power the equivalent of some 12 million homes or roughly equivalent to 12% of national energy demand.

This shows that, when properly managed, Britain can lead the world in clean, secure and affordable energy. After the chaos of the previous Government’s failed allocation round 5, which delivered no offshore energy contracts at all, this progress is indeed an enormous relief. This auction confirms what my party has long argued—that offshore wind is the future backbone of our energy electricity system.

Projects such as Berwick Bank in Scotland—set to become the largest offshore wind farm in the world—and the one in Wales, the name of which literally means “sea breeze” and is the first major Welsh project in over a decade, show that progress is being made.

But this is not only about climate targets; it is about our future national energy security. In an increasingly unstable world, every turbine we build reduces our reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets. Securing Britain’s wind power means freeing ourselves from the price shocks of the global gas markets. We should recall that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that the UK’s energy support response for the war in Ukraine, driven by fossil fuel prices, cost us £78.2 billion over 2022-23 and 2023-24. In contrast, CBI figures show that the green economy grew by 10% in 2024, and AR7 secures an important future pipeline of continued and sustained green jobs and green British jobs.

The UK has some of the best wind resources in the world and, when we harness our renewables—wind, solar and tidal—we strengthen our energy independence. Despite what some may claim, wind power remains the most effective long-term way to bring down energy bills. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit reports that, in 2025 alone, wind generation reduced wholesale electricity prices by around one-third. The average strike price in this round, around £91 per megawatt hour, remains extremely competitive. By comparison, building and running a new gas power plant today would cost around £147 per megawatt hour, making wind power roughly 40% cheaper.

However, we must be candid about the challenges that the sector faces: rising bid prices, driven by global supply chain pressures; high interest rates; and soaring material costs, particularly for copper and steel. I therefore ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to address these issues so that our 2030 onshore wind targets remain achievable.

The contracts for difference mechanism protects consumers and secures inward investment. It is a policy that has stood the test of time, but it can still be improved. Is the Minister considering extending CfD contract lengths from 20 to 25 years? This could provide greater certainty, lower financial costs and ultimately deliver cheaper electricity. Similarly, we think that moving older renewable projects from more expensive renewable obligation certificates to new CfD contracts could save typical households up to £200 a year.

More broadly, urgent action is needed to reduce energy costs by other means. Now that the Government have ruled out zonal pricing, I ask the Minister what alternative market reforms are being pursued to drive down energy bills. Despite rising renewable generation, gas still sets the market price around 97% of the time. Are proposals being assessed to move gas plants into a regulated asset base? As has been suggested, this could save some £5.1 billion a year by 2028, according to calculations done by Greenpeace. If we do not urgently upgrade and streamline our transmission systems, this record capacity will remain stuck in connection queues instead of reaching our homes and businesses. Does the Minister agree that a long-term, properly resourced spatial energy plan is now urgent and essential to ensure that these connections happen at speed?

The Liberal Democrats have a clear vision for 90% of the UK’s electricity to be generated from renewables by 2030. AR7 is indeed a welcome step on the road, but more must be done to ensure that we reach our targets, reduce the cost of energy bills and update our transmission systems.

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

I thank the noble Lords for their contributions this evening. They were deeply contrasting in both tone and content: one I substantially agree with; the other I do not at all. We need no guesses as to which is which. I am particularly disappointed by the contribution from the Opposition Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I think I have already welcomed him to his place in Questions, but this may be the first time we have sat across the Benches for a Statement or other debate, so a further welcome would not go amiss. I hope this, as it is shaping up to be, will be the beginning of a good debate between us in the House.

It is worth just reiterating what actually happened in AR7 for the House to judge whether this was the miserable failure that the Opposition Benches appear to suggest it was or the great success that I and, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, think it was.

In AR7, we procured 8.4 gigawatts of new, clean, low-carbon power for this country. That is new capacity over and above what we have at the moment and, indeed, represents no less than 40% of the installed capacity of offshore wind so far. In one round, the amount of wind capacity we have has leapt. That is at a clearing price 20% below the administrative ceiling price—a very competitive auction was undertaken—and that is within the bounds of present energy market prices. In the likely future that we see, it is not only below or around market prices; it is also a stable cost. Whereas, of course, we do not know where gas and other energy prices are going because of the extreme volatility in the world, and of gas prices over the last five years.

Interestingly, between this Statement being read in another place and repeated now, gas prices have leapt by nearly 40%. We are in a volatile gas market. Do not forget, prices went up as high as 600p per therm in the period just after the invasion of Ukraine. Compare the volatile price of gas fuels if we go down the energy route suggested by the Opposition—more purchases of unabated gas-fired power stations. Do not forget that this is not only an auction about energy prices and capacity; it is an auction about low-carbon energy prices and capacity. Among other things, if the Opposition had their way, we would apparently invest in a huge number of unabated natural gas power stations. That means we would be locked into that high-carbon system of generating power for perhaps another 30 to 40 years, which would be completely insupportable in terms of anybody’s energy ambitions.

The noble Lord says that he wants our energy policy to be characterised by security, affordability and clean energy. In this round, we achieved a great step forward for our energy security: this is all homegrown energy, not energy coming in on ships from elsewhere, or that is the responsibility of a dictator or a cabal of overseas energy organisations. This is British home-grown local energy that we have procured, and with it a bright future.

On affordability, the noble Lord referred to the levelised cost of energy, which he said was no longer the way to compare prices. That is a little bit surprising, because that is exactly what the last Government did in previous rounds. In the previous round—AR5—they secured precisely zero low-carbon energy, so compare and contrast, if you will, with what we are talking about today.

It is true, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, says, that the clearing price of this auction ought to be put in the context of what you can do to try to get new capacity on board as far as this country is concerned. You can either buy a series of gas-fired power stations at a cost of £134 per megawatt hour—the levelised cost of energy—or you can procure low-carbon capacity which both meets your climate targets and keeps the prices down on a constant basis of affordability for the future.

The result of the auction is actually good for affordability and for the stability of prices in the future. If we are thinking of building new capacity at £134 per megawatt hour levelised cost of energy as against £91, and we have procured something like five gas-fired power stations-worth of energy output with this auction, as far as we are concerned, there is really no contest.

Finally, as I have said, it is clean energy. This is what I thought we were all committed to for a period in the past. It is extremely disappointing that the Benches opposite appear to have decided to move away from clean energy and go back to gas and dirty energy, which we really cannot sustain as far as our future is concerned.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, for the Green Party I welcome both this Statement and the decisions that it records.

I have a question about a specific area which is going to need vastly more development. The allocation includes two floating offshore wind projects. They have higher prices but there is a clear strategic intent if the Government are going to meet their target for offshore wind. We do not have enough sites for turbines embedded in the seabed and we are going to need these floating turbines.

If the Government are going to move beyond these demonstration-type levels and deliver pipeline depth and cost reductions, this will need to advance very fast. Can the Minister give us a picture and a sense of where the Government see this going in terms of floating offshore wind?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. It gives me an opportunity to confirm the two floating offshore wind projects that have been agreed under this auction round. I might add, by the way, that the auction rounds were not a sort of shoo-in for anybody who wanted to come along and invest, as some people have portrayed them. They were very competitive. The number of entrants to the auction was substantially larger than the number of contracts finally agreed. Among other things, this shows that there is a real appetite for this kind of investment going forward.

That is the case with floating offshore wind. Although the two schemes that were agreed—one in Scotland and one in the Celtic Sea—are not, shall we say, final, full-scale arrays as far as floating is concerned, they represent a tremendous step forward in the development of offshore beyond the continental shelf in the UK. Huge new areas offshore from the UK can be opened up to offshore wind.

Of course, that price is not the same as the price we achieved with the mature, bottom-based offshore wind that we have been talking about, but, if we look at the original administrative strike prices when offshore first took off, they were not dissimilar to the sort of prices that we are now seeing for floating offshore wind. I am confident that, once those arrays get larger, and with the flow of fabrication and assistance which the noble Baroness will probably know is already happening very positively, in the Celtic Sea in particular, the net benefit for Great Britain of floating offshore wind will not just be a large number of jobs and more income coming into different areas of the UK than has been the case for bottom-based offshore at the moment. It will represent a technology that really will allow the whole of the UK to participate in the offshore wind revolution, not just the areas which hitherto have had the main developments in their particular zones.

The Celtic Sea, in particular, is just a taster of what is going to come in the not too distant future—and, by the way, it will be a future in floating offshore wind that will be a British future. Home-grown technology will lead in this particular area, which will not only have an impact in UK but will have a substantial export impact as well.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and his expertise to the Front Bench. He is certainly a very effective parliamentarian, even if I do not agree very much with his narrative. But we will see where we get to there.

I also welcome the Government’s announcement, but it is important that we remember that electricity is only part of this country’s energy need. The other sides are, in particular, transport and heating. I am concerned that, although the Government may remain strong on electricity generation, we are getting whispers of them moving backwards in those other areas, including on electric vehicles, heat pumps and finding alternatives to space heating. I would like reassurance from the Government that that is not the case. I certainly hope it is not. Also, where are we now on the future homes standard? That is absolutely fundamental for how we move forward domestically on energy consumption.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I am afraid the noble Lord will have to wait for about a week before the warm homes plan comes out. That will contain, so I am reliably informed, a great deal of detail about precisely the areas of heat, efficient low-carbon homes, heat pumps—all the sorts of things that are the other side of the energy revolution. We hope they will begin to be combined together into coherent programmes, working with each other to ensure that, among other things, that greatest piece of low-carbon energy—the energy you do not use—is properly incorporated into overall programmes.

I assure the noble Lord that this is uppermost in our minds. We are aiming, as we always have, to develop a comprehensive palette of policies that will deal with all aspects of low-carbon energy, energy security and energy efficiency. Indeed, the noble Lord will note that the AR7 announcement is not complete, inasmuch as there are further pots to be reported on, including solar, tidal, geothermal and various other things, in the next week or so. So I hope we will come back to this Chamber and compare and contrast notes on the picture that we will have when those two things have actually happened. I think the noble Lord will be pretty pleased with what will result from it.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend the Minister on this Statement and welcome it very much. It is a welcome return from the terrible days when you put out an auction and nobody played the game. It really was quite heartbreaking when we had those dreadful doldrum days.

I shall focus on something that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised, which is the increased demand for energy, particularly that caused by data and AI centres. The one thing we must not allow to happen is that we accept that that is a given. We have been fairly effective in keeping the whole concept of energy efficiency alive, and the warm homes standard is going to be a good example of that. The question about the predictions of the energy demand of AI needs to be approached in a different way that says we cannot simply see demand increase but must adopt measures that mean that some of these centres are using not only the most up-to-date modern technologies but are encouraging future technologies in order to reduce their impact on the environment, by not only energy use but water use. I would love to say that photonics is the answer if I only knew what photonics is, but technologies are being talked about that will impact on AI demand. I would appreciate a comforting voice from the Minister that at this very new point in seeing a further increase in demand, we will not lose sight of trying to examine seriously possible technologies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point about the amount of work we still have to do and the extent to which we have to integrate what we are doing into a whole low-carbon system that works. For example, one consequence of the previous Administration’s grievous neglect of grid development and of methods of supporting grid development is that, if we can get grid queues shorter and develop the grid itself and use it more efficiently, a lot of the constraints in the system that we are seeing at the moment will fade away. The system will be used far more efficiently with a greater amount of electricity flowing around it, making much more efficient use of what we have already.

I agree that there are some unprecedented demands coming our way, particularly as far as data centres are concerned, and we need to look at imaginative ways in which we can not only make sure that we are ready for that demand, but start to look at how those data centres can fuel their own requirements, for example, by developing data centres in conjunction with heat sources so that their heat requirements can be dealt with on site. Ways in which local grid systems, outside constraints, can feed into data centre development need to be looked at in the context of a whole system analysis of how an efficient energy system is going to work for the future. We recognise that getting a fabulous result as far as offshore wind is concerned is only part of the issue. It is a much wider issue than that, and one we have got to get right in terms of what we know will be a substantial demand for electricity in the years ahead.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lord, I congratulate my noble and homonymous friend on his new position, which I am sure he will occupy with distinction. The Minister asked a question about dirty energy and how could we possibly promote it. In fact, the truth is the reverse. The Minister is promoting dirty energy. Having deindustrialised this country with impossibly expensive energy, we now buy our steel, our goods and even the solar panels for this renewable energy from China, which makes them using power from energy generation stations fuelled with coal, of which they build one per week. The dirt is going up into the atmosphere and, amazingly, it travels around the world. It does not just hang over China. That is where the dirt is. It is a complete mistake to believe that this side is against clean energy; we are just for sensible energy.

I noticed also that the Minister did not reply to my noble friend’s remark about intermittency and the fact that, right now, we have quite a lot of offshore wind, but it is not being used much because the wind ain’t blowing. Does he think that these new contracts for difference will make any difference to the wind as it decides whether to blow or not? I do not believe so.

I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we can lead the world. We are leading the world in high electricity prices right now. Regardless of whether we have offshore wind, we will need gas, as the noble Lord implied earlier, and we are closing down our gas; we are refusing to build new gas wells in the North Sea. So, what are we doing? We are buying it from the North Sea from Norway. It was announced today that Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, its $2 trillion oil fund, has embarked on a major sell-off of its holdings in London-listed small-cap and mid-cap companies, even as Rachel Reeves hails a new golden age for the City, blah blah.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, “In the bad old days nobody played the game; it is great that now they are playing the game”. Can the Minister confirm that the private equity houses, which are the major financiers of these contracts, agreed this very high price, which will further ruin our economy, only if they got 20 years? Is that why the noble Baroness is able to rejoice that somebody is playing the game now, because they got 20 years in which our economy will be ruined?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I do not recognise the scenario that the noble Lord paints. Not only is this AR7 settlement good for energy prices—indeed renewables and low-carbon energy have reduced overall prices by 25% because of the effect of the merit order and the driving of gas to the margins in terms of prices—but the industrial work that will be undertaken will be enormously good for a large number of jobs with the fabrication and erection of piles, jackets and all sorts of things which go with this. By the way, the Government are producing a clean energy bonus to make sure that that work is in Britain, so it is a major industrial step forward for this country in its own right.

The noble Lord mentioned that I had not said anything about intermittency. I thought that I had dealt with that issue by saying that one thing we have to do as far as our energy is concerned is run the whole system smartly. Wind, both onshore and offshore, has tremendously increased its efficiency—ie, the proportion of time it produces wind—and the issue at the moment is not whether wind collectively produces a large output on a reliable basis. After all, we had over 80 days last year when renewables and low carbon completely fuelled our energy economy. The fact is that intermittency is a problem only if you do not have a smart system to use that energy where you have it in the smartest possible way. That is why, among other things, there has been such a development imperative on batteries and other low-carbon forms of storage that distribute the energy in a much more coherent way from the sources that we have.

It really is not a scenario that I recognise. I do not think the British economy is going to be ruined by this; on the contrary, this is going to be a great leap forward for the British economy. After all, as has been said on a number of occasions, the green economy in Britain is growing three times as fast as the general economy. This is where the growth is going to come from over the next period, and is very much a leading part of that growth and the new industrial future.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to onshore wind. Under previous Governments, we saw onshore wind come to a grinding halt for reasons of apparent short-term political advantage. Onshore wind has the potential to be part of community energy schemes. Offshore wind inevitably tends to involve large multinational companies, but onshore wind gives communities the chance to decide for themselves how to generate their own energy and use local resources. Can the Minister outline where the Government are going with that?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware that one of the first things that the new Labour Government did when we took office was, literally at the stroke of a pen, to remove the ban on onshore wind. We have subsequently made sure that onshore wind enters the allocation rounds. At a local level, Great British Energy will undoubtedly be supporting quite a lot of onshore wind and a number of other community and local renewable resources. The future for onshore is set very fair. After all, it is even cheaper than offshore and just as reliable and long term—indeed, it is marginally better in its overall performance. Onshore is something that we very much want to see as part of the overall package. The noble Baroness will have to wait for about a week before she sees what we have come up with as far as the allocation of further pots is concerned.

COP Climate Negotiations: Cities

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rees of Easton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to respond to the call from C40 Cities to give city representatives a formal role in the COP climate negotiations.

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

My Lords—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend—and, I assume, with his consent— I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the Question. I was so eager to answer that I was up before he asked it.

The Government recognise the essential role that local places, including cities, play in accelerating to net zero and taking climate action. The Government regularly engage with C40 cities and other interested non-governmental and civil society organisations on the international climate negotiations. This engagement helps to inform our negotiating mandate each year for the COP—the Conference of the Parties. The UNFCCC and the governing bodies comprise more than 190 states and the European Union, which are signatories to the respective treaties. As a multinational treaty body process, negotiations are therefore primarily among parties’ government representatives. In giving this Answer, I pay tribute to the immense work that the noble Lord, Lord Rees, has done in this area, in terms of cities within the UK and on an international basis.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I endorse the Minister’s tribute to my noble friend Lord Rees. Does he agree that when it comes to countries such as the US, where the Administration have set their face against policies in relation to both mitigation and adaptation, the role of states, local authorities and businesses in flying the flag for determined progress in relation to climate change is vital and that, as a country, we should therefore engage as much as we can with local authorities in those countries because of the contribution they can make?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I heartily endorse that sentiment, particularly given that there are 14 US cities in the C40 group and over half of US states already have climate change commitments and net-zero mandates within their areas. We can see that even if the United States has decided at the federal level to take its bat home as far as climate change is concerned, there will still be a lot of work done at state and city level. As a country, we should engage fully with all those actors at the various levels of the United States administration.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, following the Office for Environmental Protection’s comments in the last few days that the Government are failing to meet the environmental targets set by the previous Government and are on track to fail to meet the 2030 commitments, does the Minister accept that it will be much harder for the United Kingdom to set a standard internationally if it is not doing it at home?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I do not think the UK can really be determined as failing in its targets at the moment. We will shortly see this Government’s response to legal challenges about the soundness of plans that the Government had put forward recently. We have published a new version of those plans and we are confident that it is robust and will get us to the targets that we need to get to.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, by 2050 we will see both 2 degrees of warming and two-thirds of global populations based in cities. How we adapt our cities to extreme heat and extreme weather events will be at the very centre of humanity’s survival. The Minister has previously talked about encouraging UK cities to become partners in these global processes. Is not the noble Lord’s Question absolutely fundamental and right, and is it not time that the Government took a stronger stand on these matters?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The question of the role of cities in climate change generally is fundamental; by 2050, 80% of people in the world will live in cities. The cities in the C40 group are largely ahead of their respective sovereign Governments on emission reductions. Cities can and should play a central role in that march towards net zero. Certainly, the UK Government, among other things, are helping to fund the C40 cities organisation and are completely committed to making sure that cities play the leading role in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, it is now accepted that the majority of the world live in cities, so they are the victims of climate change more than pretty much anyone else. It seems extraordinary that they do not have proper representation at COP. To declare an interest, I was instrumental in London joining the C40 and I ran the London Food Board; I know what power and influence you can have among cities. Given that “climate change” seem to be words that you are not allowed to say at the moment and that—I use the privilege of the House of Lords to say this—yesterday I was told that the BBC is considering not sending as big a team to the COP this year because people are bored, is it not the Government’s responsibility to make sure that cities have a foot in the door and a loud voice at this table?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware of what the UK Government have done to support cities in the COP negotiations. There are, as we might say, good COPs and bad COPs. COP 28— a particularly good COP—was the occasion of the UK support for, and promotion of, the CHAMP pledge, the Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships, which involves cities centrally in what is happening in COP negotiations in future. The Local Governments and Municipal Authorities Constituency, the LGMA, is the official body as far as COP is concerned, but the UK is committed to making sure that the C40 cities group—which, after all, is led now by the Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan—will play a central role in COP negotiations in the future.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, will there not be greater support for these measures from the citizens of those cities and towns in the UK if they can see the benefit coming through to them in their work? What steps are the Government, and those towns and cities when they are commissioning work, taking to ensure that, whenever possible, the work is sourced from the United Kingdom, unlike so many cities that are, for example, buying buses from China with all the other attendant issues?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I think that is one-all now.

The noble Lord will be well aware that we have founded, among other things, Great British Energy, which has a substantial brief within it to promote low-carbon and community-based energy groups— 100 local projects up and down the country, which will very much relate low-carbon and climate change futures with local populations and, of course, make sure that the contributions that come forth from those projects are UK-based.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, C40 was set up in 2005 by the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone; at that point it was C20, with only 20 cities. Now there are 96 cities, with a quarter of the global economy and a twelfth of the world’s population. They are driving the fight against climate change and deserve a seat at the negotiations. I ask the Government to rethink their decision not to invite them.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness puts forward an accurate picture of how the C40 group was originally founded. I was not going to mention in this Chamber that it was founded by Ken Livingstone because I was worried that some of the responses might not be as positive as the noble Baroness’s. She is right that the original group of 18 has expanded to a huge international co-ordination group of 90-plus cities. That is why, among other things, the UK Government are one of the relatively few sovereign contributors to the C40’s work and its projects, running to multi-million pounds. The UK is very keen to make sure that those groups go forward, but it is a question of how the multilevel representation comes forward within the COP process overall.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as non-executive chair of Amey and Acteon. In returning to the Front Bench, I pay respect to the Minister’s outstanding parliamentary contribution and extensive knowledge of energy and net-zero policies. I have no hesitation in asking him whether he agrees with the Prime Minister’s warning at COP 30 that the “consensus is gone” on fighting climate change? Does the Minister agree that it is now time to pause to reflect that last week, on the bitterly cold day of 5 January when the UK generated 47 gigawatts of electricity, over 52% had to come from gas because the wind was not blowing, and that fully developing our own offshore natural gas reserves, akin to the strategy adopted in Norway, would not only increase our energy security but be environmentally preferable and cheaper for the people living in British cities than relying heavily on imported LNG from the Middle East and the US?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the noble Lord to his place as the opposition spokesperson as far as DESNZ is concerned. He has had a distinguished career in energy, being a former Energy Minister himself, and a distinguished business career in renewables. I look forward to having a very fruitful and constructive dialogue with him over the next period, as the energy discussions move forward.

As far as his question is concerned, I say gently that last year had the highest-ever number of days that were powered completely by renewable energy—more than 80 days—so his concern about particular days being powered by mainly non-renewable power should be set against that overall trajectory, which will continue, particularly with the results of AR7 that have just come out today.

Net Zero: Civil Society and Faith-based Organisations

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to include civil society and faith-based organisations in work to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

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

Our recently published Energising Britain plan sets out how we will work with communities so that everyone can benefit from our clean energy superpower mission. It highlights how we are already engaging people and local organisations to design and deliver climate and nature policies that reflect people’s needs and views. The plan also outlines new ways to collaborate, including an annual “Energising Britain” event and the Youth for Climate and Nature panel.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Gus Speth at Yale said that the real issue in reaching net zero is tackling “selfishness, greed and apathy”. Pope Francis called for an ecological “conversion”. Both civil society and faith-based organisations can provide thought leadership in this sphere. I wonder whether the Minister might share with us his thoughts on how we can build upon that in implementing the strategy that he has just outlined so that these groups can be more engaged in the ongoing dialogue about net zero.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The Energising Britain plan, among many other things, sets out ways in which local communities and faith groups can play a central role not just in the clean energy superpower mission but on the road to net zero. In my experience, working with local communities, covenants and faith groups in various parts of Southampton has proven a tremendous moral driver to that mission. I hope that the Energising Britain plan will take full account of just how much moral and practical leadership can come about as a result of energising those communities and local faith groups.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as there is no scientific evidence that we can change the climate, the right reverend Prelate’s bishop friends are relying for their scientific information on supernatural powers?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be pleased to know that I do not agree with anything that he has said this morning in this Chamber. It is absolutely clear that the science says that we have a severe problem as far as global warming is concerned, and we need to take action to deal with it. That is precisely what we are doing in government at the moment.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, there will be a number of civil society and faith-based organisations in the ex-mining areas of South Yorkshire. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that reaching out to them, perhaps through parish councils, would be an excellent way of explaining the benefits of net zero in creating local jobs? For example—he will not be surprised to hear this from me—Sheffield Forgemasters could play a role in manufacturing small modular reactors and other renewable equipment.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The question of how local communities, particularly those which have previously been involved in the high-carbon economy, can ensure that they are not left behind in the low-carbon economy is very important to us. The question of a just transition to net zero is also very important. My noble friend mentioned Sheffield Forgemasters, which is crucial to the local communities and the areas of Sheffield in which it resides. Ensuring that the content of future low-carbon energy projects is as high as possible within the UK, and preferably comes to those local industries, is an important part of that just transition.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that getting rid of poverty would be one of the greatest ways of achieving net zero?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord that getting to net zero is an ethical and—shall we say?—spiritual concept that involves justice in the process. Justice involves getting rid of poverty, among other things. But I remind the noble Lord that low-carbon activity—for example, cutting substantial money from people’s energy bills as a part of that process—is a substantial way of cutting poverty on the road to net zero.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, three in four of our young people are moderately or extremely concerned about the impact of climate change. What action are the Government taking to include young people much more in decision-making processes to make sure that their voices are heard? Specifically, I ask the Minister: what intention do the Government have to have citizens’ assemblies so that young people’s voices are included in policy-making?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Earl will be aware of the many actions that the Government are undertaking to ensure that young people are committed, involved and energised as far as climate change and net zero are concerned. That is among the reasons why we have developed the Youth for Climate and Nature panel, which is part of our Energising Britain plan. It is also the case that some of the highest commitment to the green transition to low-carbon energy is to be found among young people, and they therefore need to be fundamentally included at both the community and faith level in the work that we are doing.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, notwithstanding the Minister’s original Answer referencing the Government’s Energising Britain plan, the Government’s shortened clean energy objective is disfiguring huge swathes of the countryside and alienating local communities. A 180-kilometre transmission line is being built from Norwich to Tilbury; Carmarthenshire residents have been locked in a battle with authorities over pylons for over two years; and most recently a new 71-acre substation is being proposed in north Cumbria despite opposition from locals. Given that by the time many of these projects are completed undergrounding cables will have become far more affordable—already, comparative costs for undergrounding have plummeted from 10 to four times that of overgrounding—does the Minister believe that this approach is the best way to win the support of rural communities for net zero?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will be well aware of the tremendous amount of work that needs to be done on the infrastructure changes to bring about net-zero energy for the future. Of course, that entails bringing forward new infrastructure—which, by the way, the previous Administration completely fell down on in terms of the green transition—but that needs to be done, in terms of the theme of our discussion today, with the involvement of local communities and local areas in getting that new infrastructure in place in a satisfactory way. The question of undergrounding or otherwise of cables for the future is something that clearly needs to be considered, as does the overall benefit of that new infrastructure for those communities in terms of bringing their bills down, bringing clean energy to their communities and making sure that the green transition is carried forward as best as possible at local level.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for his favourable mention of government/publicly owned Sheffield Forgemasters and its role in the small modular reactor programme. Could he therefore reassure the House that the vessels for the first-in-class modular reactors, which we are funding through Rolls-Royce, will in fact be built at Sheffield Forgemasters and not shipped in from overseas?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

As I think my noble friend will be aware, we are in the process of developing a first modular nuclear reactor with Rolls-Royce. Considerable progress has been made in that development but as yet no decisions have been taken about exactly where the components of that new modular reactor will be built, subject to the general commitment that the highest possible percentage of the components for small nuclear reactors, and other parts of the nuclear programme, will be sourced in the UK. Certainly, it will be the Government’s intention to make sure that that commitment is met to the greatest possible degree.

Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 October and 24 November be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 15 December.

Motions agreed.

Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations.

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

My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 30 October.

Heat networks have a crucial role to play in our decarbonisation ambitions and energy security mission. As proven internationally, they can provide low-cost, low-carbon energy for all, particularly in high-density areas such as our major cities. They are one of the most versatile forms of renewable energy, as they can access heat from a variety of sources, including waste heat from growth sectors such as AI. This potential has fuelled government ambition. By 2050, we aim to grow heat networks from the current 3% of the UK’s heat demand to around 20%.

However, the growth of this sector depends on consumer trust, underpinned by good regulatory foundations. That means we must deliver a fair deal for the nearly half a million households that already rely on a heat network. The current lack of regulation means that many people are experiencing poor customer service, with unreliable heating and a lack of clarity on what makes up a bill. This cannot continue. That is why, for the first time, we are establishing a regulated market framework to protect heat network consumers that supports the case for sector growth.

Earlier this year, when this House approved the Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025, we paved the way for consumers on a heat network to receive protections comparable to those in gas and electricity markets. The powers for the Secretary of State to introduce these regulations were provided by the Energy Act 2023. They will apply across Great Britain. We have also consulted the Scottish Government, as per Section 220 of the Energy Act. I thank them for their support in this matter. These regulations do not apply to Northern Ireland; the Northern Ireland Executive have their own powers to introduce regulation.

The regulations made in March introduced the authorisation regime. This will work in a similar way to the domestic gas and electricity licensing regime. From regulatory commencement, Ofgem will have the powers to investigate and take action in cases of unfair pricing, establish protections for vulnerable customers and require suppliers to put in place robust complaints-handling processes. It will also be a requirement on heat network suppliers to treat their customers fairly. This instrument is therefore the last piece of the puzzle that will enable this market framework to go live from 27 January.

The instrument simply builds on previous regulations by introducing amendments that will expand the authorisation regime that Ofgem will implement. The changes include the provision of powers to Ofgem to assist with the conduct of pricing investigations, which will be essential to protect customers from unfair, high and opaque prices. It will also introduce deemed contracts to ensure that the rights of households and their supply of heat are protected even when no formal contract is in place.

Noble Lords may also note that this statutory instrument includes provisions to protect consumers if a heat network becomes insolvent. A special administration regime, or SAR, will seek to ensure that customers do not experience interruptions to their supply of heating and hot water in the event of a heat network operator or supplier insolvency. The rules for this will be set out in separate statutory instruments that will be put forward to this House in future.

The instrument also makes it clear that air conditioning systems will be explicitly excluded from the scope of these regulations, as we believe that including them would not be proportionate or in the interests of consumers, and air conditioning systems normally stand aside from the heat network itself.

In addition to the above, these amendments include provisions to partially revoke parts of the Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014. This is designed to avoid duplication in legislation, as there are some existing requirements and obligations on heat supplies in the metering and billing regulations that will now be streamlined rather than entirely removed.

Finally, these amendments make changes to the scope of the Energy Ombudsman scheme. The addition of small businesses aims to align the scope for heat networks with the scheme’s application in gas and electricity markets.

I wish to make noble Lords aware, by the way, that there is a slight error in Regulation 10, which would have the effect of applying a different definition for a micro-business from that in gas and electricity markets. Officials will ensure that this error is rectified as soon as possible through the medium of a negative statutory instrument in the very near future.

We have committed to maintain minimum technical standards, which will be a key part of the market framework, and we aim to consult on proposals shortly. However, to be clear, these are not in scope of this statutory instrument and draft regulations will be brought forward to this House in due course.

I understand that four public consultations dating back to February 2020 have informed these regulations, which have helped the department to develop the final market regulation proposals. The detailed Ofgem authorisation conditions and associated guidance are still being consulted on and will be published before the authorisation regime commences on 27 January 2026.

In conclusion, this instrument and the one made in March will enable the Government to do what has never been done before, as we introduce regulation to the heat network sector. The only way to realise the Government’s growth ambition for heat networks is to ensure that customers can trust heat networks to provide safe, reliable and cost-effective heat. These regulations therefore represent a huge step forward, providing heat network consumers with much-needed protection similar to that in other utility markets that already exist. We must get on with the job and introduce the final elements of the market framework that will not only help to drive up consumer standards in this sector but help to promote market growth. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and comprehensive introduction to this SI and I welcome the fact that we are getting this long-overdue regulatory framework for heat networks. I agree with him that they are an important part of our energy future. Based on renewable and low-carbon emissions, they can give people reliable, secure energy supplies to meet their heating needs.

My questions are based on a report from Citizens Advice in July this year, titled System Critical: No Margin for Error in New Heat Network Rules. That “no margin for error” is why we are here interrogating this. As that reports outlines, and as the Minister said, since the rising price of gas after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we have seen serious problems in this sector.

My first question relates to what the Minister said about regulatory commencement on 27 January. The report says that Ofgem

“must outline the standards expected”

from providers, how it will act

“to improve systems and processes”,

and how it will deal with some of the terrible behaviour we have seen from some of the providers. Given that 27 January is not far away at all, my question to the Minister is: how prepared is Ofgem to act on this? We will of course already be in the middle of winter and people will already be accruing bills, which will be a real issue.

My other question relates to my personal experiences, particularly with Camden council estates. We know that many heat networks were installed in the 1960s and 1970s and have lots of problems, including that they are not controllable. People find themselves being heated even when they do not wish to be heated. There are real problems with controls, systems, leakage and all those kinds of issues. I am interested in the Minister’s view of how those issues will be addressed under this framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the purposes of these regulations. We welcome them, so I shall not overburden him with questions beyond those already asked by previous speakers. It is somewhat frustrating that I did not spot the error in the amendments to Regulation 56 in the current Regulation 10; I must do better. These measures represent another step towards the full regulatory framework for heat networks that consumers have waited too long to see. From January 2026, the full authorisation regime and the special administration powers are due to come into effect—a significant milestone that we welcome wholeheartedly.

As the Minister said, we must be clear about the situation facing many people with heat networks. Years of unregulated, decentralised heating have left households paying high and unpredictable costs, receiving confusing bills and unable to switch supplier or seek meaningful redress. Citizens Advice has warned that, for some, bills have doubled or even tripled, which is simply untenable.

Therefore, while we support these regulations, their success will depend entirely on effective implementation. A framework on paper is not enough; consumers need enforceable, practical protections. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, rightly identified, it is essential that Ofgem is fully prepared and properly resourced to take on its new responsibilities from 27 January. It must be able to intervene when prices are unfair, when service standards fall short and when vulnerable households are at risk of disconnection. Clear complaints processes must be in place, and operators must be held to account. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I would be grateful if the Minister can provide assurances today that Ofgem will be ready from day one, with no gaps or uncertainty for existing heat networks customers.

The introduction of a special administrative regime is similarly welcome. But, again, the test will be in its delivery. Consumers must have confidence that, should a provider fail, essential heating will continue uninterrupted, particularly for households in the winter months. The demand and use of heat networks will continue to play an increasingly important role in our energy system, and it is vital that this regulatory framework is implemented swiftly and effectively. Consumers must be able to rely on heat that is affordable, transparent and properly overseen. Without that assurance, the sector will not expand at the scale required.

These regulations take us closer to a regime that commands consumer confidence; the task now is to ensure that the protections set out in the Energy Act are delivered in practice for the half a million households that depend on these networks.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. A number of them go to the heart of why we are doing what we are doing today: the question of the state of many of the older heat networks that exist in this country. They are very far from the sorts of standards that we would expect to bring forward in new heat networks, and they have often operated with very sub-optimal arrangements for many years, to the considerable detriment of customers.

Therefore, the regulatory regime that we are introducing should give an enormous amount of succour to those who have suffered under those heat networks over a long period. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, there are heat networks from the 1960s and the 1970s which simply have not updated what they do, and they will be held accountable for what they do in these networks by the new regime under Ofgem. Ofgem can introduce fines for the systems if they are found wanting and, as a measure of last resort, can ensure that those networks are transferred to the running of another organisation entirely.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also mentioned the report encompassing a number of these issues from Citizens Advice, and that is why its work as a consumer champion is so important. I can assure the noble Baroness that Ofgem will be ready for regulatory commitments. It has raised no questions about its capacity to introduce these regulations and to make sure that they work to maximum capacity from day one. Ofgem will, however, take action such as collecting pricing data and various other things to refine how the regulations may work over the early period of their operation.

I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and all the noble Lords who raised concerns, that Ofgem will therefore be ready for regulatory commencement. Ofgem will be publishing what methodology will be used to determine reasonable pricing. This has recently been consulted on by Ofgem. However, the exact benchmark of what is considered fair pricing will not be published first, so that heat networks do not move their prices to the top of that benchmark.

Overall, therefore, I assure noble Lords that the scheme will work to the best of its design and ability from the word go and will properly encompass all the many and varied types of heat network we have in operation, with a view to bringing them all up to the same standard, rather than down to the same standard, for the future. Indeed, the instrument simply builds on previous regulations by introducing amendments that will expand the authorisation regime that Ofgem will implement. We have also heard mention of deemed contracts, which will be in place to ensure that the rights of households and their supply of heat are protected, even when there is no formal contract in place.

I am sure noble Lords will want to join me in thanking the District Energy Association heat authority, which tried to put a voluntary system into operation to secure compliance and uprating of systems. That has worked for 10 years. In itself, it has worked very well, but it encompasses only part of the heat network arena. This will cover everybody, so it will be a great step forward in that respect.

On the question of consultation, I understand that the four public consultations that have already taken place, dating back to February 2020, have informed the regulations, but the detailed Ofgem authorisation conditions and associated guidance are still being consulted on and will certainly be published before the authorisation regime commences on 27 January.

In conclusion, I consider that these regulations, which will include the most vulnerable, will now make sure that pretty much everybody enjoys statutory protections. Heat networks are indeed the future, and we must do everything we can to support their growth and instil confidence in that growth as it takes place. Sound and proportionate regulation is therefore central to delivering this and I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

One of the responses provided by the Minister provoked a question in my mind; at this point, I should perhaps declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The Minister said that there would be fines for systems—we were talking in particular about those long pre-existing, 1960s and 1970s-type systems—and that they could potentially be transferred to another authority. Of course, many of these systems will be owned and run by either councils or arm’s-length organisations that used to be owned by councils or housing associations. I will understand if the Minister wants to write to me, but are the Government considering the fact that many of these will not be commercial providers?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a good point in relation to what are, as I have said, a huge number of systems of very different quality and status. Making regulations in respect of those sorts of bodies is very difficult, because they are all mini electricity or gas networks in their own right; indeed, they are mini networks that could fall by the wayside if they are regulated in a way that is not sympathetic to their particular arrangements. Noble Lords can see, I think, that these arrangements do not exactly coincide with what is in the existing gas and electricity sectors, but do try to take account of those particular circumstances.

Within that, there is a serious bottom line: these bodies must provide good value for their customers, provide good levels of redress and ensure that they are operating to the best of their capacity. Those are the sorts of things that Ofgem will ensure are looked at and regulated properly, with an eye on the fact that heat networks are not in the same position as electricity and gas networks. That bottom line is there in these regulations and should not be set aside easily. Otherwise, Ofgem will certainly be doing the business of ensuring that those bodies work properly.

I think there is nothing further for me to say, other than that I commend these regulations to the Committee. I hope, by the way, that what I have said this afternoon satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as far as her question is concerned; if she has any further concerns, I will be happy to write to her.

Motion agreed.

Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026.

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

My Lords, these technical regulations were laid before the

As set out in the Energy Act 2023, carbon storage licensees are responsible for complying with various obligations, including the reporting of information and samples obtained through the conduct of licensee authorities to the NSTA. We believe that the wealth of data that carbon storage licensees gather during exploration or storage activities is a national resource and its publication will accelerate the deployment of CCS in the UK. That is why we introduced the Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage) (Retention of Information and Samples) Regulations 2025, which came into force in May 2025. These regulations specify the types of information and samples that carbon storage licensees must retain and the periods for which they must retain them.

The regulations we debate today set out when the NSTA can publicly disclose carbon storage information and samples provided to it by carbon storage licensees, and which types of information and samples may be disclosed. They also amend when the NSTA can publicly disclose information on the drilling or operation of wells under offshore petroleum licences. The timeframe for this was set out in the Oil and Gas Authority (Offshore Petroleum) (Disclosure of Protected Material after Specified Periods) Regulations 2018—try saying that in one breath—and this amendment to the 2018 regulations will bring the NSTA disclosure powers across CCUS and offshore petroleum into alignment.

Information and samples play a very significant role in the UK carbon dioxide storage industry, and access to high-quality data for the NSTA, industry, academia and the public will enable efficient use of the UK’s storage potential. The carbon storage information and samples published will support sharing of knowledge and lessons learned, including best practices and innovation, ultimately leading to cost reductions and advancement of the sector. This includes accelerating the North Sea energy transition. The NSTA helps drive this transition by realising the significant potential of the UK continental shelf as a critical energy and carbon-abatement resource. These regulations will further provide opportunities for the industries based offshore, with the very significant potential that exists for storing carbon dioxide in depleted oil and gas fields and other geological formations in the UK continental shelf.

The NSTA has consulted on both the carbon storage and offshore petroleum aspects of these regulations. The consultation on the amendment of well data confidentiality closed in September 2022 and a response was published in February 2023. The consultation on the proposed regulations for the disclosure of carbon storage information and samples closed in April 2024. That consultation will ensure that the regulations are effectively introduced. A response was published in October 2025. This means that the feedback received from those consultations was positive and has been carefully considered in shaping these regulations to ensure that they reflect industry needs and best practice.

CCS is not optional; it is essential for Britain’s energy security and industrial competitiveness, and for our clean-power future. These regulations may be technical, but their impact is profound. They unlock a wealth of data that will accelerate deployment, drive innovation and maximise the UK’s carbon storage potential. This is about making Britain a clean energy superpower, safeguarding jobs, securing investment and delivering net zero in a way that strengthens our economy. I urge the Committee to approve these regulations without delay.

The regulations reflect extensive consultation and positive engagement with industry and stakeholders. They are practical, robust and future-focused, designed to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of clean energy technology. This is about more than disclosure; it is about delivering on our net-zero commitments, safeguarding energy security and creating opportunities for growth and jobs in the industries of tomorrow. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the regulations and totally agree with my noble friend about the importance of CCUS to meeting our net-zero targets. Only a few weeks ago, the Whitehead review made the same point about GGRs: you cannot achieve net zero without this. I look forward to my noble friend responding to the Whitehead review and no doubt accepting all its recommendations.

These regulations seem to fall within what the review said about regulation. Certainly, I very much agree that this is an important element for market investment and certainty. Paragraph 5.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the UK continental shelf holds

“an estimated 78 billion tonnes of theoretical CO₂ storage capacity”.

Clearly, there is huge potential for the UK. The Explanatory Memorandum mentions that, potentially, there are many countries that we could reach agreement with for storage in the UK continental shelf. So, can my noble friend tell the Committee the extent to which we are now in discussion with some of our European neighbours about the huge potential of storage in the North Sea?

--- Later in debate ---

These regulations are a sensible step, but the broader issues cannot be ignored. If the UK is to deliver a secure, affordable and decarbonised energy system, the offshore sector needs stability, clarity and a long-term strategic direction. On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I too would be interested in hearing about the status of any conversations with nations bordering the continental shelf. In summary, we support the intent of this instrument, and we urge the Government to set it within a clearer, more stable plan for the future of the North Sea.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. I will briefly try to address some of the important points made. First, perhaps I ought to knock on the head the possible suggestion from my noble friend Lord Hunt that I will be marking my own homework when it comes to the review I undertook a little while ago of greenhouse gas removals. I can assure him that others in the department will be doing that, not me. Although I hope that they will take on board the things that are in the review, it is entirely up to them and not me to do so. But I reflect that that report, among other things, was very positive about the role that CCUS can play, particularly in developing our net-negative approach to net zero over the next period.

As the noble Lord mentioned, we ought to think for a moment about what an enormous asset we have in the North Sea as far as CCUS is concerned. An estimated 78 billion tonnes of theoretical CO₂ storage capacity is distributed across the UK continental shelf, and that is one of the largest, if not the largest, potential CO₂ storage capacity in Europe. Therefore, the UK has the opportunity to offer cross-border CO₂ transport and storage services to neighbouring countries. We very much welcome interest from EU and EEA countries, and we are committed to exploring opportunities to overcome the regulatory barriers to cross-border CO₂ transport and storage networks alongside neighbouring countries with common interests. Noble Lords will know what progress the Norwegians have been making in this area, so there is no time to lose with making this work as well as it can.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his questions. I appreciate the detail in his questions. In the interest of accuracy, I think it is best that I write to him, particularly in terms of the NSTA consultation. He will know that NSTA has already consulted very substantially on a number of these aspects, but it is true that some consultations are continuing. I cannot give the exact dates by which they will be concluded, but I am sure he will get a satisfactory answer when I send him a letter to that effect.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, asked about investor confidence in CCUS. This is something we are taking seriously. A lot of this should have been underpinned by what has been happening with the track one cluster investments in CCUS. Very large amounts of money have been committed over the next 25 years to making those investments work fully. Therefore, from the UK Government’s point of view and an investor point of view, both sides should be completely clear that the UK is deadly serious about this. We are prepared to make the long-term investments and have the long-term infrastructure underpinning it to make the whole enterprise as successful as it can be in terms of the emergency we have in front of us for carbon capture and storage.

CCUS will complement our transition to home-grown clean energy. It will safeguard our energy security, and it will decarbonise power and industry in a way that drives growth. It is recognised as a core sector within our industrial strategy, which backs clean energy industries as a priority growth sector and is central to delivering our growth mission. I have mentioned that key to that is ensuring investor certainty in the process as it develops.

I will conclude by reaffirming that these regulations are not just a technical adjustment—very technical though they appear. They are essentially a strategic enabler for the UK’s energy transition. By providing both the public information and some investor security and clarity as the regulations come forth, I think we have got the right balance in making this happen as far as these regulations are concerned.

The Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026 will unlock critical data, strengthen transparency and accelerate the development and deployment of carbon capture, usage and storage across the UK continental shelf. These regulations, as I have underlined, reflect extensive consultation and positive engagement with industry and stakeholders. They are practical, robust, future focused and designed to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of clean energy technologies.

Motion agreed.

Drax

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I have read the report to which the noble Baroness refers with interest, and there are questions both for Drax and for the authors of the report. Compliance with biomass sustainability requirements under Drax’s existing subsidy arrangement is a matter for Ofgem, but we work closely with it to ensure that these arrangements remain fit for purpose. Ofgem’s detailed investigation into Drax in 2024 did not find evidence that unsustainable biomass had been used by Drax, but shortcomings in data governance were identified and Ofgem has required Drax to commission a global supply chain audit, which is currently ongoing.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his reply, which goes a bit further than I expected. Drax specifically claims to stop sourcing from old-growth deferral areas and old-growth management areas in British Columbia, but the majority of old-growth forests fall outside those designations. Will the Minister and the Government suggest to Ofgem that it should not accept Drax’s definition of old growth and perhaps exclude the majority of British Columbia old-growth forests from subsidies?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

There are two points to make in response to the noble Baroness. The report to which she refers talks only circumstantially about old-growth forests and not old-growth forests that are in any way directly sourced by Drax. As regards the new contract for difference for the next four years that the Government have entered into with Drax, the criterion is now 100% sustainability, which obviously excludes old-growth forests.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, why is Drax sourcing sustainable wood from abroad when we now have a very intensive tree-planting growth policy in this country? Also, Yorkshire farmers would benefit if we were to go back to sourcing fast-growing willow coppice trees and miscanthus and sending them to Drax to use. Why did we stop doing that?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know that Drax is the largest single power producer in the UK and is responsible for about 5% of UK power. That means that it uses an enormous amount of biomass in its process, having converted from coal some while ago. The question, then, is where Drax gets its biomass from, bearing in mind that the amount of biomass that is being grown in this country falls far short of the desideratum in terms of sourcing—particularly in view of the length of time that it has taken to grow that biomass. Therefore, sourcing from abroad appears to make some sense, though not necessarily for the long-term future.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister’s own department is consulting on sustainability criteria for biomass as we speak, which will inform future subsidy eligibility and reporting requirements for the rest of the market. In addition, the Financial Conduct Authority is still investigating Drax’s biomass sourcing statements. What safeguards have been built into the new Drax contract that covers 2027-31? Will the results of these two inquiries produce changes to the terms of the recently signed Drax contract?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I cannot assure the noble Baroness that terms will be changed during the new contract. However, the LCCC will be responsible for making sure that the 100% sustainability criteria that have been entered into in the new contract will be strictly observed. That is a substantial step forward from the previous oversight arrangements.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister appears to be completely unaware that “Panorama” proved conclusively two or three years ago that Drax does indeed burn old-growth forests. However, the new agreement that the Government have negotiated with Drax for 2027-31 will require Drax not to burn wood from primary or old-growth forests and to enhance the system for an independent audit to monitor compliance with that obligation. What will the sanctions be if Drax is non-compliant?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

If Drax is non-compliant, the subsidy goes. There is no subsidy in the case of a non-compliant organisation of any kind. If that happens, it will be the end of Drax.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, Drax is under investigation by the FCA regarding its past sustainability claims, which is no small matter. Despite that, the Government decided to put pen to paper to extend Drax’s contract. Why did the Government not choose to wait until the FCA investigation had concluded? What legal advice was taken and what risk assessment was made before the Government chose to extend that contract?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

We did that because the conclusion of a contract for 2027-31 ensures that Drax continues to produce a very large amount of energy, which is very important for the country; that it does so under enhanced sustainability requirements; and that it moves from being a baseline producer to a dispatchable producer, with a top level of 27% of output within that contract. There is also the implied understanding that the contract will pave the way towards moving to CCS on the back of the contract, making Drax a net-negative producer in the long term.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, in 2021, Drax was axed from the S&P green bond index over doubts that its practices were carbon neutral. That decision seemed to be endorsed by that famous “Panorama” programme. I bow to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her detailed knowledge of forestry, but it appears that Drax has been importing wood pellets from old-growth forests, even before accounting for the emissions caused by transporting the biomass here from abroad. Given that this is patently not a green company, does the Minister agree that the subsidies for 27% of Drax’s generation capacity are unwarranted and should be withdrawn? Further, if Drax is found to be non-compliant and closes down, does he also agree that the land and extensive grid connections could be better used in the Government’s SMR programme?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

No, I do not agree that the various connections relating to Drax could be better used for an SMR programme, because of the particular location of Drax within the cluster in the north-east of the country, which is particularly important for carbon capture and storage, and, indeed, hydrogen. Drax plays a part in that process in that area. The noble Baroness perhaps ought to read the report that is before us very carefully, because it does not actually say that Drax has sourced old-forest timber. Timber is sourced from third parties, goes into the Drax pellet facility, and may or may not to Drax’s knowledge include old-forest material—which, by the way, is outlawed by the Government of British Columbia. There are a number of questions to answer, but not necessarily for Drax. There are a number of people who perhaps have questions to answer as well.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, on the subject of questions to be answered, does my noble friend not think it surprising that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, intervened, given that it was the party opposite—the Conservatives—that, in government, signed contracts with Drax? The scale of the subsidies as a result was very large indeed.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very sound point, in that the new contract that has been signed costs taxpayers half as much as the old contract did. It is on more sustainable terms and, as I have said, makes Drax move towards being a dispatchable plant, which is much more in line with the power grid generally, than any of the things that were done under the previous Administration.

Tropical Forest Forever Facility

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what contributions and initiatives they have undertaken in support of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility.

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

My Lords, the UK has had a long-standing role in protecting forests and supporting efforts to halt and reverse deforestation. While the Government did not announce an investment in the Tropical Forest Forever Facility at COP, we very much remain supportive of the TFFF and are proud to have substantially assisted Brazil to develop the initiative. We will continue to provide support to the TFFF, including through co-funding the World Bank trust fund that will operationalise the facility and through the AIM4Forests programme, which will provide critical technical assistance to support delivery of the TFFF.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his new role. It is deeply disappointing that the Government have let down historic allies such as Brazil, Norway and Germany by not investing in the Tropical Forest Forever Facility at COP 30. It is a desperately needed initiative to end tropical deforestation, and it has cross-party and public support. I have two questions for the Minister. First, why will the Treasury not count investment in the TFFF as an asset on its public balance sheet? Secondly, when will the Government implement the long-overdue Schedule 17 due diligence provisions under the Environment Act?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The decision on whether to invest in the TFFF, as it came up, following the intense work that the UK did in developing it with the Brazilian Government, was very much part of the question of our fiscal position around the time of the Budget. That does not mean that this is necessarily gone for ever; it will be under continuing review in the future. I will write to the noble Baroness on the implementation of the schedule that she alluded to, because I am not exactly sure of its status at present.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister may need to write to me too to answer my questions. In the autumn the Joint Intelligence Committee produced a report on the impact on the UK of global biodiversity loss, which the report is believed to say is very significant. Will the Minister please find out what has happened to that report? When will it be published? Will the Government continue to make clear that biodiversity loss, the loss of forests and global deforestation are damaging to us all?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I will indeed have to write to the noble Lord about where exactly that report is at the moment. I remind him that the UK is extremely active on its biodiversity arrangements, particularly its forestry and woodland arrangements. The target for the 16.5% coverage of woodland and forestry in England by 2050 is already being substantially adhered to: 21,000 hectares of new woodland were introduced last year, which is a generational record. The UK will continue to act in that manner on its biodiversity commitments.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to our Secretary of State for DESNZ and his team for their dedication to keep attention on the climate agenda. Does my noble friend agree that, besides finance, the United Kingdom’s organisational support and commitment to encourage deeper participation from other nations are critical to realising effective change?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Yes, I agree with my noble friend. The UK continues to be one of the major donors to forest conservation and restoration, and we expect to deliver on the £1.5 billion of spending on forests pledged at COP 26. The UK is co-chair of the Forest & Climate Leaders’ Partnership, a coalition of more than 30 Governments working together to accelerate delivery of the goal to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030. This played an instrumental role in delivering key commitments for indigenous peoples and local communities —who are, after all, the best stewards of tropical forest development and protection—including a commitment that will regularise land tenure in 160 million hectares of forest, one of the most effective ways to protect forests. We also backed the Belém call for the Congo Basin, which will deepen forest protection in the world’s second-largest rainforest.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the noble Baroness’s Question, is the Minister aware that Ed Miliband said that the TFFF is a key game-changer in reversing the destruction of rainforests and that that is why the Government worked closely with the World Bank and with the Brazilian Government to get this in place? The Minister mentioned that the last Budget was a problem in terms of UK decision-making, but France had similar issues, as did Germany, Malaysia, Singapore and Norway—I could go on—but all those countries came up with hard cash to support this very worthy scheme. Was Ed Miliband overruled?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

No. The particular circumstance surrounding the TFFF itself, as I am sure the noble Lord will be aware, was one of intense UK participation in the setting up of the TFFF. As the noble Lord mentions, we consider it to be an essential and significant initiative as far as the future of forests and biodiversity is concerned across the world. That is why we put so much effort into getting this off the ground and support the continued funding for the operationalisation of that fund. It is just that, at that particular moment, we were not able to produce some additional funding for the TFFF initiative. We very much welcome that other countries have initially put some in. As I have mentioned, it does not mean that the issue is gone and forgotten; it is under continuous review for the future.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, this might as well have been considered a Defra Question, so I offer my sympathies to the Minister. But here we are, and I am always grateful to be able to ask a DESNZ question, my first to the new Minister. In the COP 30 Statement repeat last week and his initial response today, the Minister did not rule out contributing to the TFFF fund in the future. He may not have had the opportunity to read the letter entitled “Nuclear necessities” in yesterday’s Times, signed by 14 senior academics and luminaries in that industry. Given our country’s current economic situation and the need for large capital investment to meet the Government’s own green targets, can the Minister now rule out funding the TFFF and instead guarantee that future funding will, as the letter requests, prioritise re-establishing our critical domestic infrastructure, perhaps including a medical isotopes reactor and a thermal hydraulics facility—preferably in north Wales?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I very much welcome the noble Baroness to her new position on the Front Bench opposite, and I hope we will have constructive discussions in the future. She underlines the question of the different priorities that are ahead of us at the moment in terms of where to put money at particular junctures. I must admit that I am not a habitual reader of the Times, so the noble Baroness is one step ahead of me there, but I will have a good look at that letter. What she says underlines that at the moment this country has a huge number of sometimes not always well-anticipated demands on our funding—nuclear is one of them, and obviously defence is another—and that clearly has an effect on where you put money at particular points, however much your heart tells you that you would like to do so.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned earlier the tree planting that has been going on in the United Kingdom. Is he aware that the biggest threat to those trees reaching maturity and helping with the net-zero calculation is the grey squirrel? Can he give signs of the Government’s determination to deal with the grey squirrel problem and the main research in fertility control going on at the government laboratories at the Animal and Plant Health Agency?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I am not sure I can give the noble Earl the assurance that the Government will go out and shoot large numbers of grey squirrels in the near future. I accept that squirrels, deer and other similar animals are probably the biggest threat to what we plant as a woodland plantation and whether it actually gets to maturity in 50 years so that it can make its impact on reafforestation and carbon emissions reduction. That is one reason why the UK is concentrating its woodland afforestation and forest development efforts on managed plantation woodlands, so that the best protection is available within those woodlands from the sort of predation that the noble Earl mentions as a barrier to the development of mature woodlands and forests.

Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 October be approved.

Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 4 December.

Motion agreed.

Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this is my first appearance before the Grand Committee—and a very welcome one for me. In my previous parliamentary career, I spent a lot of time trying to take statutory instruments apart as a member of the Opposition. I would pick little bits from those statutory instruments into pieces, to try to put the then Minister on his or her toes. I am sure that practice will not be followed in this House for statutory instruments, but I accept that, if it is, I will have only myself to blame for what transpires.

These regulations were laid before the House on 13 October 2025. They seek to establish the legislative basis for creating a statutory open data scheme—fuel finder—which will increase fuel price transparency across all UK petrol filling stations, empowering consumers to compare prices on a near real-time basis.

In recent years we have witnessed the rise in fuel prices and the profound impact that this has had on households, businesses and communities across the UK. Between 2021 and 2022, the price of petrol and diesel rose by over 60p per litre, driven by global supply and demand shocks stemming from the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In 2022, drivers paid an estimated £900 million more at the pumps across major supermarket retailers than the previous year. By 2023, higher fuel margins across the whole market had cost drivers a further £1.6 billion.

The CMA found that price rises for fuel and disparities between prices at a local level were largely driven by major retailers using this volatile backdrop, and the lack of transparency, to unfairly increase their profit margins at the expense of consumers across the UK. That therefore contributed to the cost of living crisis and the hardship that families up and down the country have felt in recent years. That is why we are delivering change to protect consumers, to put an end to unfair pricing practices and to increase transparency in the fuel retail market.

In line with the CMA’s recommendations as part of the road fuel market study, we are rolling out a statutory open data scheme for fuel prices—fuel finder—at the end of this year. These regulations will supersede the CMA’s current voluntary scheme and mark a decisive step in empowering motorists across the UK to compare prices easily and to make informed choices about where they purchase their fuel. Motorists across the UK will have greater visibility on the range of choice available to them, and retailers will be incentivised more than ever to offer more affordable prices in a more competitive market. Perhaps the fuel finder name ought to be “cheaper fuel finder” because that, I hope, will be the inevitable consequence of what these measures will put forward for the motorist.

I turn now to the detail of this instrument. These regulations will require all petrol filling stations in the UK to register and report changes to their fuel prices within 30 minutes of a change. The information will be freely available, and almost in real time. This marks a fundamental step towards restoring competition and fairness in a market that has proved that it will not self-correct without government intervention. By making this information openly available to any third parties that request it, we will enable the market to integrate this data into digital mapping services and vehicle satellite navigation services to help motorists locate the best prices in their area.

We recognise that this represents a change in operations for industry, and because of this we are taking a pragmatic approach. From 2 February, forecourts will need to be registered with fuel finder and begin reporting price changes. For the first three months, until early May, the CMA’s emphasis will be on supporting businesses to comply with the new regime, rather than enforcement. This will allow businesses a chance to adapt smoothly. We want retailers to succeed in meeting these obligations, and we will work with them to make sure that the transition is as straightforward as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument forward. This was indeed a Conservative initiative, started under the previous Government and designed both to increase competition and to benefit consumers; His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are of course pleased that the current Administration are continuing our work.

The need for this measure was made apparent by the excessive profits earned by major retailers due to a sudden rise in fuel prices in the wake of global supply shocks resulting from the Covid pandemic and Russia’s attack on Ukraine. By 2023, higher fuel margins across the whole market were costing drivers a total of £2.5 billion, £900 million of which went to major supermarket retailers as a result of a 60p per litre hike in fuel prices for consumers.

This instrument aims to create a fairer fuel market. Competition is its aim, and competition is best achieved through the transparency of data and information. Artificially increasing margins becomes materially more challenging when the consumer is no longer on the wrong side of asymmetric information and fully knows that he or she can drive just a few minutes down the road to save money. Being aware of pricing is one part of this, but knowing whether margins are fair and whether their past increases were proportionate is another equally important factor.

Although this instrument requires petrol filling stations to report price changes, it does not extend to reporting on the availability of fuel types. We would be most grateful if the Government could address this issue at pace. It cannot be logical that a driver will be able to see a competitive price but then be disappointed by an empty pump when they arrive at their destination. Is the Minister giving consideration to this? Do the Government accept that an individual using a fuel finder app will indeed be disappointed to arrive at the pump only to find that what they want is not available and will, as a consequence, potentially lose faith in the system?

If it occurs within the Government’s timeframe, the launch of the fuel finder will come two years after the CMA’s recommendation and a year later than originally planned. The Chancellor included the fuel finder in her Budget speech, but she failed to mention that it is a continuation of a Conservative policy and avoided saying that the measure was delayed by her own Government. Instead of the Government delaying for a year then, potentially, blaming complexity for not being able to introduce more thorough transparency measures while protecting low-volume providers, can we please have actions, not words? A potential solution would be to create categories of petrol filling stations and to require major retailers to report in more detail. We must ask: why is this out of the Government’s scope?

We are also concerned about the instrument’s timescale. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Consumers confirmed that guidance and training would be published before the rollout of the whole programme, but this will come as little reassurance to petrol filling stations. Both stations and providers need time to adapt, prepare and comply with these new regulations. It will do little to help them if the guidance is released as the regulations come into force. That will potentially happen if the Government leave this too late. Additional last-minute costs will be passed on to the consumer, which is precisely what this instrument aims to prevent.

The Under-Secretary of State said that the scheme is to be launched at the year end, but the full provisions of this instrument will come into force only on 2 February next year. Can the Minister please confirm that the guidance will come out before the end of the year, given that the Member in the other place was slightly less clear as to which date the guidance will be published by?

Despite these reservations, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition welcome the introduction of this measure that we initiated. It will provide a more competitive market and drive the rate of price increases down. Our aim should be to create a more certain and more competitive market for the consumer, bringing costs down for hard-working people. We very much hope the Government will take our suggestions on board and action them accordingly.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and in particular the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his very constructive contribution. As he rightly points out, this proposal originated with the previous Government but, I think, fell at the time of the general election—it had started to go through the House. The present Government have been able to take that original proposal and have some extensive consultations and discussions with industry and various other key actors in this field to make sure that the fuel finder was as streamlined and as effective as it could be. That is the form in which it comes before us today.

In terms of the regulations coming in in February, the aim is to make sure that this proposal comes in by the end of the year but, as the noble Earl will appreciate, there is a large number of technical issues to resolve in order to meet that date. What I can best say today is that there is an aim to do that by the end of the year and we hope that will be possible. I hope the noble Earl will understand that there is a lot of work to get this in place and we hope that will be finished in time for that target date to be achieved.

When the fuel finder was originally introduced, there was some suggestion that availability at the pumps should be included among the things that petrol stations had to provide. However, following substantial consultation and considerations of the practical challenge of reporting fuel unavailability—officials did conduct a thorough analysis—it was decided to postpone that and remove the requirement from the fuel finder scheme. But, as I have emphasised, that is a question of postponing and removing for the time being.

If a number of those really practical difficulties can be resolved, that might be something for the future as far as the scheme is concerned, but what the Government wanted to do was make sure that we could introduce a practically implementable and early actionable scheme so that we could get this running on an open access data arrangement as soon as was conceivably possible. I do, however, understand the noble Earl’s concerns. I happen to have an electric car, so perhaps I am a little outside the considerations in this instrument, but I know the problems of an electric car owner thinking that they have found an electric charge point only to find that someone else has been using it for the past three hours and they cannot get near it. There are measures in the industry to resolve that sort of problem, so this is something worth looking at for the future.

I emphasise that the first three months of those technicalities will be until early May. The CMA’s emphasis, as the enforcer, will be on supporting businesses to comply with the new regime rather than enforcement, as I have said, so there will be a period coming in to make sure that the scheme works well and that everybody is undertaking it properly. This scheme is well founded—I welcome the support that has been given to it by the noble Earl and the party opposite—and I am sure that, with a good wind from everybody in this place, it can be in place as soon as possible, to the benefit of motorists across the country.

Motion agreed.