Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026
Lord Whitehead Excerpts(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, after all that, noble Lords have me all over again for this next one. We had a very interesting and absorbing debate on the last SI, with some very good points made, but I hope that this debate can move to a conclusion with reasonable alacrity. I will make a brief opening statement. These regulations were laid before the other place on 5 February 2026. I remind noble Lords that they still carry the legacy name of the policy, but it is now known as the clean industry bonus.
I will cover three points: first, the purpose and direction of the clean industry bonus in the next rounds of bidding for offshore and onshore wind, AR7, AR8 and AR9; secondly, how the regulations will support the continued evolution of the contracts for difference scheme; and, thirdly, why the clean industry bonus funding for offshore wind will now be conditional on applicants signing up to an offshore wind fair work charter and how we are using the policy to help drive a more strategic approach to skills.
I turn first to the scheme. Contracts for difference remain the Government’s principal mechanism for supporting new low-carbon electricity generation. The CfD has a strong track record in deploying renewables at pace while protecting consumers through competitive allocation. But as the offshore wind sector has matured, it has become increasingly clear that delivering clean power at the lowest cost is not on its own enough. We must also secure the industrial capability and resilient supply chains needed to build and maintain that infrastructure here in the UK.
That is the purpose of the clean industry bonus. It will provide additional CfD revenue support for offshore wind developers that commit to investing in UK supply chains, such as factories and ports, or those that invest in cleaner supply chains overall. Funding is allocated through a competitive process run ahead of the main CfD allocation round, with awards made on the basis of value for money and payments released only when commitments are delivered. The record of this is that, in allocation round 7, £204 million was allocated through the clean industry bonus, crowding in up to £3.4 billion of private investment into offshore wind factories, ports and supply chains across the UK. The scale of investment represents a significant vote of confidence in the UK’s supply chain and a strong return on public funding.
I now turn to the evolution of the scheme. These regulations will make targeted, practical improvements to allocation round 8—the next one coming up—simplifying the process for applicants, clarifying rules on budgets and ensuring that the scheme operates smoothly. In particular, the changes will speed up and streamline elements of the application process, reduce administrative burdens, provide a clearer legislative basis for how budgets can be set and communicated, and clarify the position where delivery is disrupted by events outside an applicant’s reasonable control. In addition, the regulations will update the scheme’s sunset arrangements so that the clean industry bonus may be applied only to a round established before 31 December 2028, unless Parliament wishes to prolong it. It is for AR7, AR8 and AR9. The Government also intend to extend the clean industry bonus to onshore wind from allocation round 9, providing a sensible lead-in period for that smaller industry to prepare.
My third and final point is on fair work and skills. The most significant change for allocation round 8 is that clean industry bonus applicants will need to sign up to the offshore wind fair work charter, a tripartite agreement between unions, business and government that aims to raise the standard of job quality in offshore wind and make jobs in the sector more attractive. The charter builds on forthcoming commitments in the Employment Rights Act 2025, in particular by asking that the offshore wind sector proactively implements voluntary access agreements for trade unions. It also includes a commitment to strive for best-practice health and safety standards that go beyond legal minima.
Our commitment to good jobs through the clean industry bonus does not stop at the fair work charter. We are pressing ahead with a skills investment fund that will help develop the skills needed for the clean energy transition. The idea is that offshore wind developers will pool together skills funding and initiatives rather than relying on individual projects trying to address short-term needs. The Government and the offshore wind industry have agreed that they will work together to set it up by 2027 and that it will be funded by existing developer contributions to the supply chain, not by asking for more money. Once that skills investment fund is up and running in 2027, developers will be asked to contribute to it as a condition of taking part in the CIB.
In conclusion, these regulations build on the foundations laid in allocation round 7. The success of that foundation is in front of us. They strengthen and supply the operation of the scheme and introduce provisions of fair work and skills. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I note at the outset that on these Benches we welcome the direction of travel as set out in this SI. These regulations aim to modernise the contracts for difference scheme and strengthen the clean industry bonus, previously the sustainable industry rewards, ensuring that our transition to net zero is not only greener but fairer and more locally grounded. We note the figures the Minister gave in his speech about just how much funding this SI can help levy into our green industry and our local green economies.
The Liberal Democrats have long championed the principle of clean industry growth that benefits and serves our communities, so we see the extension of the clean industry bonus framework to all CfD allocation rounds before December 2028 as a welcome and sensible move. Likewise, providing greater flexibility in budgets through new minima and maxima can, if well managed, encourage dynamism and adaptability in fast-changing energy markets. But that flexibility must be balanced, and we must make sure that obscurity does not creep in with that.
The move to express CfD budgets in total sums rather than pounds per gigawatt raises a question for us. How will Parliament and the public track whether these funds are allocated efficiently or indeed equitably between technologies and different technologies in different regions? If the Secretary of State can now set sub-budgets for different technologies, will there be transparent reporting mechanisms showing how these powerfully restrictive levers are used and on what evidence they are used?
The Government’s stated aim is to reward clean energy responsibility and community-based industry practices, and we support that wholeheartedly. Yet these regulations also compress the consultation window for future framework revisions from the original 30 days, I think it was, down to just 10. Are officials satisfied that the timescale is adequate, that it will not push out smaller-scale contractors and that they will genuinely be able to compete on a fair and level playing field?
The introduction of fair work standards for developers seeking the clean industry bonus is also welcome. If the green economy is to deliver social renewal alongside decarbonisation, it must be built on fair pay and secure conditions, with workers having a voice in their workplace. Requiring developers to adhere to the fair work charter negotiated with trade unions is overdue but is a very important and welcome reform. Can the Minister give me a sentence or two about how, when these measures come in, the Government plan to monitor and verify that they are being met? What reporting and monitoring mechanisms will exist, and how can the public have confidence in that?
Turning to the force majeure provision, I recognise why the Government have that clause in the contract, but it raises a question. Who makes judgments on that, and what are the objective criteria for making those judgments? Obviously, the Government want clear safeguards, as do we. We want to make sure this clause does not become a loophole through which binding supply chain commitments can quietly evaporate because of unforeseen circumstances.
The extension of the scheme’s life plan to the end of 2028 feels pragmatic, but it is also modest given that 2028 is not that far away. What are the Government doing to look beyond that 2028 framework, which is only three years away? Also, are they considering putting the clean industry bonus on a statutory footing and extending that timeline?
We welcome these commitments. Although we have a couple of questions, we very much welcome the direction of travel set out in this SI.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chairman of Acteon, a global specialist subsea services company that operates worldwide in offshore wind and oil and gas.
It is good that the Government are investing in UK supply chains. However, whether it is cables, batteries, inverters or critical minerals, the Government’s rush to meet their unrealistic clean power targets will make the UK more dependent on imports, particularly Chinese ones. With all the energy security risks that brings us, the world becomes more dangerous; I will concentrate on that in a moment.
The clean industry bonus provides additional CfD financial reward for offshore wind developers, provided they prioritise investment in regions that are most in demand or in cleaner supply chains—for example, traditional oil and gas. I assume that this also includes ex-industrial areas, ports and coastal towns. Ana Musat, the executive director of policy at RenewableUK, stated:
“The Clean Industry Bonus is a good starting point as part of a wider industrial strategy which the Government is due to unveil in full this summer, and which we hope will be complemented by new policies to support the expansion of UK ports. With larger ports, we could secure even more investment in offshore wind manufacturing and turbine assembly”.
We have already debated ports, particularly in the context of Northern Ireland, over three and a half hours in the Chamber. The reality is that most developments in ports are not going to take place for many years: in Belfast, electrification—the ability to charge—will not happen until 2035, and there is little sign of investment in ports across the United Kingdom. Can the Minister give the Committee greater clarity on exactly what he sees on the time of the rollout to support ports, modernisation and the level of investment?
On my reading, although it is good that the Government are investing in UK supply chains, the current timeline is too onerous on UK supplies; it is that timeline on which we really need to concentrate in the Minister’s response. Take NESO, which has observed that Clean Power 2030 will require more than £60 billion of private investment. It says that
“meeting the target would require the deployment of more supply-side technologies, such as onshore and offshore wind, solar energy and battery storage, on average each year to 2030 than there ever has been in a single year before”,
with
“nearly 1,000 km of onshore”
electricity network infrastructure
“and over 4,500 km of offshore network”.
It goes on to say:
“That is more than double over five years what has been built in total in the last ten”.
This is an issue: the question of timing and the headlong rush towards the target of 2030 are of major concern to my colleagues.
Two other aspects that cause concern have been raised; I hope the Minister will respond to them. The first is the supply chain and the offshore wind fair work charter, which has slipped in via the back door somewhat. In another place, the Minister stated that
“clean industry bonus applicants will need to sign up to the offshore wind fair work charter … The charter builds on forthcoming commitments in the Employment Rights Act 2025, in particular by asking that the offshore wind sector proactively implement voluntary access agreements for trade unions”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/3/26; col. 4.]
We cannot see the final fair work charter that is intended. The draft charter and the draft code of practice for trade union access are still subject to government consultation so, as I understand it, are not final yet. I have certainly not seen the final drafts. It seems the wrong process to have this very important commitment at the centre of the SI without the opportunity for parliamentarians to review what is intended in detail.
We know that the draft code leans towards giving unions practical workplace facilities. It says that, “where practicable”, the employer should “provide a notice board” in a “prominent location”, allowing union material to be displayed without employer veto. Even if the employer or the employees do not want it, that is what is required. When needed, the employer should allow a union official on to the site to display it. It also points to meetings, surgeries and the use of workplace facilities. It even suggests joint meetings and joint notice boards as ways to deliver information.
It limits the employer’s ability to manage around union meetings. The employer should
“avoid the scheduling of other conflicting … events which would draw workers away from the union’s meeting. Unless reasonable in the circumstances, the employer should not offer inducements to workers not to attend”.
The example given is that employers should not tell workers that they can go home early instead of attending the union meeting.
The employer is expected to respond incredibly fast during that negotiation. If it rejects the union proposals, the code says that
“it should offer alternative arrangements … at the earliest opportunity, preferably within three working days of receiving the union’s initial proposals”.
This is probably the closest thing in the draft to the burden of very short notice that people are talking about. Many other aspects of this code are really concerning.
The central point I am making to the Minister is that it is vital to have sight of the final code and for us to be able to debate it. If that code is too onerous on the supply chain, we risk losing good-quality companies in the United Kingdom that could add value to the supply chain and to what the Government are seeking to achieve. We live in a highly competitive global market and, unless there is a reasonable approach towards what employers should and can do, we risk losing investment.
I emphasise to the Minister that the draft code of practice for trade union access is insufficient and, because it is still subject to government consultation, is not in final form yet. It really should have been presented to the House before these regulations were agreed.
My second point is about the security of our energy supplies and suppliers. Recent reports suggest that the Treasury may allow Ming Yang Smart Energy to supply turbines for the Green Volt North Sea wind farm. As I understand it—I look forward to the Minister’s confirmation—Ming Yang is planning £1.5 billion of investment to build the largest offshore wind turbine manufacturing facility, at Ardersier near Inverness. That this is a Chinese firm has led to considerable questioning from UK government officials who, I understand, are currently evaluating the proposal amid warnings from experts of potential security vulnerabilities—such as Chinese-manufactured sensors and potential kill switches in critical energy infrastructure. This comes on top of a series of initiatives that the Government have taken to engage with the Chinese, not least in our civil nuclear programme.
It concerns me that in wind and solar we now have the potential for our supply chain to be significantly impacted by Chinese manufacturers. We know that close to 90% of our solar panels come from China; all include polycrystalline. Of these imports, 45% are understood to come from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, where slave labour is known to have been used in the manufacture of solar panels. Despite the requirements introduced by the Secretary of State in the Great British Energy Act to take full responsibility for the ethical sourcing of solar panels, the Minister’s department has consistently been unable to assure parents, teachers and children alike that their newly installed solar panels have not been made by slave labour.
As I say, the secrecy surrounding the UK-China MoU aroused yet further suspicion on this, since co-operation with China has now been extended to the supply chains to include civil nuclear; charging infrastructure; battery storage; offshore wind; carbon capture, usage and storage; and renewable hydrogen. They are all identified in that MoU. Where are the resilience and security in our own energy sector to be found if we are opening wide the door to the Chinese, who are now setting up a wind turbine business in Ardersier?
I hope the Minister can respond to both those points. The fair work charter is a significant concern, as is the growing prominence of Chinese suppliers to meet the clean energy objectives that the Minister and the Government have set out.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their important contributions to this debate. I did not hear any particular dissent from the idea that this is a good thing that will help British supply chains in offshore wind and, we hope, onshore wind, to develop significantly in the future. That will be done through a process whereby, in future rounds, those bidding for services will put in, as a pre-bid to the AR7, AR8 or AR9 bid itself, a notice of intent about what they will do as far as British supply chains are concerned and how they will source from them. When they get the additional CfD arrangement for doing that, the money will be released only when those commitments have been met. It is not a “money for pie in the sky” arrangement; it is very much a “money for pie firmly affixed to the ground” arrangement for the future.
Of course, one can never be sure exactly what commitments will be made by people putting forward their proposals to get into a particular realm but, certainly in AR7, they have covered all sorts of aspects of the supply chain, including port infrastructure, et cetera. The noble Earl raised the question of port development. A lot of investment is going into ports in general at the moment, and into the ability of ports to provide the sites for fabrication, et cetera, for offshore wind, as well as making sure that the ports are as well equipped as possible for Sea Jack-type erection vessels and so on. The idea is to thoroughly uprate investment in ports to support the offshore wind energy industry of the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was concerned about the fair work charter. I just looked it up: it appears on the government website and seems, pretty substantially, to be a final document. I am sorry not to have got my speech finished before the Division.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My Lords, votes in this House are tremendously helpful for securing clarity where maybe there was not clarity before in certain aspects. They are particularly helpful half way through a speech, enabling that speech to end on a clearer note than might otherwise have been the case.
I mentioned the offshore wind fair work charter to noble Lords just before we departed to vote this afternoon. It is true that the final offshore wind Fair Work Charter is now complete and live on GOV.UK, which I showed to noble Lords on my phone. However, it is also true to say that the Department for Business and Trade is pursuing a consultation on make work pay, which has many elements of the offshore wind fair work charter in it. That is what is not complete and is being consulted on at the moment. As far as the offshore wind industry is concerned, the charter that I have mentioned is complete and was, as far as I understand, extant before this SI.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. Let me put to him my understanding of where we are at the moment, because this is a really important point. I majored on this so I have looked into it. We have the Fair Work Agency, of course, and we have the overview of what the offshore wind fair work charter will look like. A cornerstone of that charter for the offshore wind sector is the issue of trade union access. That was what I was concentrating on; I gave some examples on the record of the issues that trade union access would raise with companies. It is still a draft code of practice for trade union access. It is not finalised. It is still subject to consultation and, I assume, to an SI that will be brought before Parliament.
My position was therefore that while we were debating the importance of an offshore wind fair work charter, we were unable to be specific about what it would include, particularly on the cornerstone point of access for trade unions to companies in this sector. That is the important point. It has yet to be finalised, and I understand that there will be an SI in due course. My point was that it would have been better for us to look at that in the context of a complete offshore wind fair work charter, so that employers could understand the issues about trade union access, and a final code of practice for that access.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarifying intervention. Essentially—forgive me for putting it quite like this—both of us are more or less right: the charter is there and has been there for a little while. But obviously, once a charter is up on the noticeboard, as it were, there are details of its implementation still before us. One of them is that question of the detail—not the principle—of trade union involvement in the offshore wind industry as a whole, and the requirement that from AR8, the companies involved in bidding sign up to that fair work charter overall.
One important thing to say is that the whole process of the fair work charter has been tripartite throughout, with government, industry and unions all involved in setting up the charter itself and its consequences. It is not that anyone is going to impose anything on anybody; it will be a question of continuing tripartite involvement and interest in the detail of the fair work charter, as well as the charter itself. While I take the noble Lord’s point that in an absolutely ideal world it would have been a good idea if the sub-details of the fair work charter itself had all been worked through, in the real world it is very seldom possible to do that when something comes into place. I think he will appreciate that trying to get this in place so that it runs for AR8 and onwards, for example, is an important process of pace. Therefore, having the principle in place, with everyone clear what they are supposed to sign up to for AR8, is an important move in its own right.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
Indeed, the Minister is right as well. The key point, however, is one of emphasis. To me and to my colleagues, and to companies that may access government funding through this scheme, not to know the detail of what is proposed through the draft code of practice for trade union access negates, to a great extent, the initial tripartite agreement, because that agreement can hold only when all three parties to it know the details.
I am not disagreeing with the Minister’s overview about the Fair Work Agency being in place and the fair work charter being drafted. But I am genuinely concerned that if government money is to be made available to companies in this sector—and we are really looking to encourage UK companies and international companies to come and play an important role in the supply chain—we need to have those details before we trumpet an offshore wind fair work charter without actually seeing them. I do not think that is an unreasonable point to make.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that point, which confirms that we are both substantially rightish. In some subtexts of the overall charter, there are still some things to be sorted out, but not the charter itself. It should be pretty clear to companies what they are signing up for and what they will be required to undertake once they have signed up for it. The question of how that then works out in detail over the period is a live issue, but it is not an issue that overthrows the charter and its clarity. I am not sure we can take that any further today, but I am happy to engage with the noble Lord offline if he needs clarification on any further points.
The noble Lord also mentioned something we have discussed on several occasions: work practices in the supply of some components for low-carbon industry. He mentioned solar panels, obviously, but that issue potentially applies to other things as well. I can only repeat the points about the Government’s efforts to ensure that slave labour is not used in components that are coming to the UK, but I add a further qualification in that the money for which companies bid as they go into allocation rounds allows, among other things, for those companies to use not necessarily the cheapest tender but the tender that is most suitable for the development of both the UK supply chain and good, ethical working practices in the industry, which are part of the fair work charter. So one would expect those companies to be actively engaged in ensuring that what they are committing themselves to, as far as UK supply chains are concerned, includes the sorts of consideration that the noble Lord mentioned. Indeed, supply chains that one can absolutely say are not engaged in slave labour, because they are based in the UK, will be a substantial underpinning of this whole process.
We have exhausted pretty much all the available avenues on this SI, but I will briefly address the questions asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He was very supportive of this measure but was particularly concerned about whether it should be a permanent part of the process. He questioned why there is a sunset clause in the Bill for 2028. Of course, that sunset clause encompasses three allocation rounds, and I hope an awful lot of investment will have been secured in those three rounds, but the Government wanted to make sure that, for the long term, that remains the right thing to do. There may well be, in future allocation rounds—if they have been a great success in the earlier rounds—better uses for those particular commitments than are in this SI today.
It is important that we learn from what happened in AR7. We will see what happens in AR8. That, hopefully, will culminate in AR9, at which point we can review and decide the long-term future of this mechanism and, indeed, whether it can be used for different and wider purposes in the future, as mentioned by some noble Lords today.
The overall welcome by noble Lords for this measure is certainly very welcome. On that basis, I hope the SI will secure unanimous support.
Onshore Wind Farms
Lord Whitehead Excerpts(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to facilitate the repowering of onshore wind farms.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
The Government recognise the importance of repowering to maximise the benefits from our existing fleet of turbines. We are working to remove barriers in the planning system to accelerate repowering and undertaking updates to planning policy in England. In addition, the Government have announced changes to enable repowered onshore wind projects that meet eligibility criteria to bid into the contracts for difference scheme from allocation round 7 onwards.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s positive reply. There are some 200 wind farm sites coming up for operational termination by 2030—some 3 megawatts of power. If we managed to repower those, we could have an additional 2 gigawatts without having new sites. That clearly makes sense. Will the Government strengthen the planning guidance for repowering, as the Minister has indicated, because that gets in the way, and will he integrate repowering into the strategic energy spatial plan? It is obvious—come on, let’s do it.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The Government are already undertaking changes to planning arrangements to make sure that schemes can proceed faster and more immediately. In the case of repowering, that is obviously the difference between having to treat a scheme as a brand new development and one that can proceed very quickly, with the necessary consents in place.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will the Government consider very carefully the cumulative impact of the repowering of overhead powerlines in conjunction with onshore wind farms? Does the Minister not see that it is creeping urbanisation of the countryside, which should be avoided at all costs? At the very least, we should use the electricity generated in that way locally, so that it is not transmitted the length of the country through overhead power lines.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I had thought that I was talking this afternoon about the repowering of wind turbines—that is, turbines that have completed their life in terms of their original blades and mountings, and which are out of the renewable obligation certificate period. The question for those sites is whether they repower, go merchant or close down. That is what the Question was about, but obviously, the issue of cable repowering is more about ensuring that the cables we have across the country can carry the new loads that we hope will be within their capability for the future. That is really a question of making sure that it is done in the most environmentally friendly way possible, but at the same time moving at considerable speed by changing the planning regulations as fast as possible.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
The planning presumption during the Tories’ 14 years in power was that if a single objector objected to an onshore power plant, it was rejected automatically. Can the noble Lord say whether the planning presumption will change in favour of onshore power plants rather than against them?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Well indeed. The first thing, literally, that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero did upon the Labour Government taking office was to remove the ban on onshore wind and make sure that it could in future play a full part in the development of UK wind, as we have begun to see in the allocation rounds. It is a crying shame that onshore was effectively banned for such a long time and is only now recovering.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the deep anger and enduring resentment felt about the way in which the heritage coast of Suffolk, an area of outstanding natural beauty, is being laid waste by the enormous mess of both rebuilding Sizewell and bringing onshore a series of ill-reconciled offshore programmes? This annoyance is added to by the dismissal of many of the points being made in consultation as nimbyism. Are we going to have a similar performance with onshore power?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I am sure we will not, because onshore power, like offshore power and all other forms of renewable power, has to abide by planning guidelines and guidance and has to fit in well with all the environmental considerations that are being put forward. There will be no change in that requirement; it is just that with the speeding up of some of those processes, onshore wind, where it is requested and where it fits all those requirements, can proceed very quickly.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, why are the Government so steadfast in their refusal to have a proper, open debate about the relative benefits, environmental and otherwise, of burying power lines as opposed to having overhead power lines? This is not an argument that is going to go away. It is about time the Government fessed up on this and stopped relying on hugely inflated figures provided by the national grid.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I am slightly puzzled by the noble Lord’s enunciation of that question, in that renewable wind and overhead power lines go closely together, because the overhead power lines have to deliver the power that is being generated by the renewable power sources. As for the requirement that that variable output be matched by various other sources of energy when, for example, the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, that is well taken care of by the back-up that is already in the system—due, I might add, to a number of renewable sources also being non-variable.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, in asking this Question, about the increased productivity of onshore wind when it is a replacement for existing infrastructure, is it not time that the Government did as he said and got on with it? I remind the Minister that the urgency of coming to conclusions on repowering existing onshore wind was included in the Private Member’s Bill that I introduced in your Lordships’ House some five years ago.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for all her work in this field and for introducing that Bill. As far as getting on with it is concerned, there is nobody who wants to get on with it more than I do. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has drawn attention to the fact that we have probably 10.7 gigawatts or more of onshore wind capacity that could retire between 2027 and 2042, and those onshore farms will be completely lost if they retire without any repowering. So repowering is clearly essential, not only to keep those wind farms going on the same sites but because of the tremendous power gain that could come about by using modern turbine methods and modern blades to increase the output by perhaps up to two-thirds when those existing sites are repowered.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, when considering repowering our intermittent wind energy when, to use the Minister’s words, the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow, does the Minister agree that the main energy policy lesson from the current crisis is that, as a nation, we should prioritise our own firm power energy independence? Does he agree that the best way to achieve this is to reduce our LNG imports from the Gulf and the US by accelerating gas development in the North Sea, and for his department to provide the one piece of paper we are all waiting on—the approval of the Jackdaw gas field to heat 1.6 million British homes this autumn?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
We have been around this path several times before recently. Suddenly introducing lots more gas into the system will make no difference to the resilience of this country against international prices, whereas developing genuinely homegrown power over a period makes all the difference. I should add that homegrown power is not just variable homegrown renewable power; it can be batteries, biomass and so on, which can be firm power in its own right. It is a question of getting the whole picture together to make sure that variable power and firm power on a renewable basis complement each other, so that you have reliable power that is homegrown and secure in the long term.
Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2026
Lord Whitehead Excerpts(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 2 February 2026. The warm home discount scheme has been a key policy in the Government’s approach to tackling fuel poverty and reducing the energy costs of low-income and vulnerable households, ever since its inception in 2011. Last year the Government expanded the scheme, removing the high cost to heat threshold to ensure that around an additional 2.7 million of the poorest households across Great Britain received a £150 rebate off their energy bills this winter, with nearly 6 million households now eligible. The current scheme period ends on 31 March 2026, and new regulations are required to continue the scheme beyond this date.
In September we consulted on continuing the warm home discount scheme up to and including the winter of 2030-31. The consultation respondents, including consumer and advocacy groups, charities and industry, strongly supported proposals to continue the scheme, and to continue to provide rebates via automatic data matching. Today we are discussing these regulations, as well as some additional changes to the scheme, which allow eligible households across England and Wales in or at risk of fuel poverty to continue to receive the rebate for the rest of this decade.
These regulations will extend the scheme in England and Wales for five more years from 2026, until they expire in 2031. The regulations will continue to oblige energy suppliers with more than 1,000 domestic accounts to participate in the scheme. These regulations will ensure that, as is the case currently, energy suppliers with fewer than 1,000 domestic accounts can choose to participate voluntarily in the scheme.
Under the scheme, participating energy suppliers are obliged to provide support to eligible households through a rebate provided directly to their energy bill, valued at £150. Eligibility for the rebate will continue to be set out by the Secretary of State with an eligibility statement, which is published for each scheme year. Following the removal of the high cost to heat threshold and the expansion of the scheme in 2025-26, the Government have committed to maintaining the current eligibility for the rebate in England and Wales, based on receipt of means-tested benefits, for a further five years.
Eligibility for the scheme remains unchanged but these regulations introduce a more streamlined approach to administration, without impacting eligibility. The existing core group 1 and core group 2 will be merged into one core group in England and Wales, with a view to enabling clearer communication and messaging to potentially eligible households. This change was broadly supported by consultation respondents.
We put out a range of communications ahead of and during each scheme year to eligible households, and will continue to do so for the next scheme period. The automatic data-matching process for the core group in England and Wales will continue, using data held and processed by the Department for Work and Pensions, with the majority of eligible households—typically around 96%—expected to be automatically data-matched, meaning that they will receive the rebate without taking any further action.
These regulations set out a range of permitted activities, overseen by Ofgem, through which energy suppliers can deliver towards their non-core obligation of supporting eligible households in fuel poverty or in a group that are at risk of fuel poverty. Permitted activities within industry initiatives include benefit entitlement checks, energy-efficiency measures, energy advice, debt relief and financial assistance payments of £150. Scheme energy suppliers can also choose to dedicate non-core spend towards the park home scheme, which provides eligible households with £150 of support towards their energy bill.
The regulations also introduce changes to the administration of the scheme and enhance consumer protections for eligible households. They include a new provision to enable the Secretary of State to direct suppliers to communicate directly with their own successfully data-matched customers to provide further information about the scheme, including information related to automated decision-making. In addition, the regulations will replace fixed spending targets with annual estimates, based on the number of eligible households expected to benefit from a rebate each winter, to better predict scheme costs.
Tackling fuel poverty is a priority for this Government. We recognise that too many people cannot afford to heat their homes at a reasonable cost. That is why in January we published our new fuel poverty strategy, alongside our Warm Homes Plan, to ensure that many more fuel-poor households are protected by 2030. Through these regulations, the warm home discount scheme will continue to provide vital support for eligible households each winter at the coldest time of year when support is most needed. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, which I broadly support. I declare my interest as the honorary president of National Energy Action, from which I am delighted to have had a written briefing.
I have a question for clarification at the outset. A piece on the Government’s website titled “Help with the cost of living in 2026” talks of
“an average of £150 off the costs of energy bills”.
It goes on to say:
“This support is on top of the Warm Home Discount Scheme—a one-off £150 discount off your electricity bill—a total package of £300”.
Do people have to apply separately for the £150 off the cost of living and for the £150 from the warm home discount scheme? The figure cited in the regulations, by the Minister and on the GOV.UK webpage is £150. From memory, I thought the figure for the warm home discount scheme was £350. If that is the case, £350 to help those most in need because they are suffering the most from fuel poverty will obviously go a lot further than £150. I do not know whether that is an erroneous memory on my part, but that is what I remember.
The NEA is concerned—this is my wording, not the NEA’s—about one potential consequence of the regulations. The idea is to lift 1 million homes out of fuel poverty, setting new standards for landlords to meet to help do so. However, as we saw with a recent Bill, whose name I forget, under which landlords were meant to improve housing, in fact they sold it because they simply did not have the means to upgrade it. Does the Minister share my concern that instead of rented properties being upgraded at the cost of the landlord or, potentially, with the help of the Government, the landlords may not have the means to do so and therefore the rented properties will go off the market? That is a very real concern.
Is any attention being focused on rural areas? My experience, having been in the European Parliament and represented two separate constituencies in the House of Commons, is that homes in rural areas tend to be less well insulated and more isolated. It is more expensive to heat a house than a flat. Is any particular attention being given to rural areas in that regard? That could make a real difference to reducing fuel poverty.
National Energy Action has a good record on giving advice and doing what it calls hand-holding to guide people through the system; I commend it for doing this. I like to think that I am moderately intelligent but, if I have difficulty in understanding the system, I can understand how tenants and others who wish to apply for the scheme may need help. Have the Government considered offering such help to those who are hopeful of benefiting from the warm home discount—and, indeed, from the cost of living reduction?
Are the Government planning to address the vexed issue of standing charges on energy bills? I know that this is a great theme of the energy champion, Martin Lewis. I never manage to watch his programme because we always seem to be voting here when it is on, but in my experience this is the only utility where the customer is paying up front for the infrastructure to be put in place. Normally, with telecoms and broadband, the customer pays for the infrastructure after it is in place.
The point that I would like the Government to consider is this: all of us can, as consumers, control our unit costs by using less power—that is, less electricity and less gas—and reducing our consumption in that way, but we have absolutely no control over the standing charge. When I go on to Uswitch, I see that it is creeping up: it was 40p per day last year but, this year, it is 50p or 60p per day. We have seen that energy bills are projected to come down from April for three months, but, given the backdrop of the Middle East, there is now an expectation that, if not from July then certainly from the next increase in September or October, people will face the very real issue of finding that they cannot control their household bills.
Finally, National Energy Action refers to the debt mountain. A growing number of households are averaging debt balances exceeding £1,200 a year. This is posing real problems for them. They are paying for last year’s electricity use before they have even saved up for next year’s electricity use. In the words of the NEA, many are trapped in a cycle of paying for last winter’s energy alongside current usage, often with no formal repayment arrangement in place. Are the Government looking at the possibility of trying to address this issue?
In conclusion, as I say when I have already used up all my “finally”s, can the Minister use his good offices to ensure that the warm homes plan is embedded not just in his department’s work but in the 10-year health plan, to make sure that this issue is reflected in health—older people can become unwell if they are not able to heat their houses properly—as well as in the new child poverty strategy, to make sure that there is completely joined-up government at this level? Otherwise, I like the regulations.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their valuable and apposite contributions to this debate. They were quite extensive. I will do my best to respond to them, but if I miss anything I will be happy to write to noble Lords.
One particularly important element of this scheme, alluded to by a number of noble Lords, was data and data matching. One of the good things about this programme is that with data matching now as efficient as it is—as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned—probably 90% of an expanded group of potential recipients can be automatically data-matched. That is, they will not have to do anything more to receive their rebates because they have fallen into a matched category automatically. But 2% is not an insignificant amount. The Government are determined to continue to notify people who are deemed unmatched to contact the warm home discount helpline to determine their eligibility.
On data matching in general, with the actions that the Government are taking in some different areas, it is likely that data matching will become even more efficient. Indeed, the Government are actively pursuing a programme called Kickstarter to analyse how data matching across departments could become more efficient and effective in future.
Noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about what money counts as what for this relief. The £150 targeted as coming off energy bills—not that energy bills will not rise but that they will be £150 less than they might otherwise be—has been substantially discharged as far as the changes to legacy charges from levies to the Treasury, causing a £117 reduction in average energy bills next year. That is in addition to the £150 that will automatically go to 6 million households now through this measure. Of course, the funding that has recently gone into the cost of heating oil, particularly in rural areas and off-grid properties, is in addition to all that as well. These are not cross-cutting reductions or rebates: they are all piling up on top of each other.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I hear what the Minister says, but £117 is obviously not £150. The Cabinet Office’s website—not that of the Minister’s own department—is clearly inaccurate because it leads you to believe that you might get £150 plus another £150, making a total of £300. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to explain that that is no longer the case, but I believe that web page should be updated.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I am delighted to tell the noble Baroness that I cannot speak for the Cabinet Office’s website, but I take her point that these things need to be clarified as much as possible.
The noble Baroness also asked about standing charges, both generally and in relation to this particular measure. She will be pleased to know that we have announced our intention to move warm home discount costs from the standing charge to the unit rate; Ofgem has confirmed that this charge will be included in the price cap from 1 April 2026. That will offer a cleaner and more accurate basis of cost recovery while addressing widely raised concerns around standing charges. It does not overcome the overall question of whether standing charges should exist at all. Obviously, that is a wider question for review of standing charges and how they impact on the costs of energy in general.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also mentioned debt. That is an important issue, because each consumer pays around £52 a year towards the cost of managing and writing off debt. If the debt were to become unsustainable, it would place an even higher cost on consumers, so we are working urgently with Ofgem to drive debt out of the energy system alongside delivering reforms that put people first. Ofgem has published an updated debt strategy, setting out its near-term actions and priorities to support suppliers to reduce the level of debt in the sector and subsequently lower the cost of managing this for consumers, lowering that £52 a year that is being paid. That includes proposals for a debt relief scheme to tackle debt built up by some consumers during the energy crisis.
Noble Lords mentioned the disproportionate impact of fuel poverty in rural areas and asked whether any additional measures were being looked at on that. This issue is very pertinent in Wales, as a larger number of people are off-grid and in fuel poverty than in England. I am pleased to inform noble Lords that about 300,000 Welsh households will benefit from this expanded scheme, a substantial increase from previously. As far as rural fuel poverty is concerned, some of the additional measures that can be undertaken by energy firms as part of the overall scheme are relevant to making sure that people who are in fuel poverty and in rural areas, and who have higher costs, are adequately addressed.
Noble Lords also asked about the adequacy of the £150. Certainly, the Government will keep that under close review, but we have taken the view that it is £150 for 2026-27, partly because of the substantial expansion of the scheme, how that indirectly falls on customers as a levy and how that can be sustained. The suggestions put forward this afternoon have certainly been heard and are well received, and we will keep those issues under close review.
I hope I have covered most of noble Lords’ points but, as I said, if I get back to my office and realise that I have completely missed a key point, I will try to make up for it by communicating with the particular noble Lord or noble Baroness at the earliest opportunity.
Tackling fuel poverty is a priority for this Government and the views expressed underline how critical it is that we continue to tackle it.
Lord Jones (Lab)
Did I hear the Minister answer the question on paragraph 5.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum about automated data matching and privacy?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Lord. I am afraid I did not address that question directly, but the privacy notice for the warm home discount is published on the GOV.UK website, where it can be easily accessed. That privacy notice is in line with those from other areas of government with regard to the privacy of people whose data is being shared.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
When this used to be debated next door, there was a real issue of the DWP not being able to share data, so that those potentially most at risk of fuel poverty could not be identified. Has that problem been resolved now? If the noble Lord is not familiar with it, could he take this issue away and let us know? That would be very helpful.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Yes, I am happy to take that away. I am aware that, although great strides have been taken in recent years in allowing data sharing to work efficiently across different departments and make sure that people do not keep filling in the same form over and over again, there are still deficiencies in this area. Indeed, the noble Baroness will recall that, when she and I were Members of Parliament many years ago, it seemed virtually impossible that this problem would ever be resolved. We have come a long way in making sure that it works properly now, with the right safeguards in place.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I will have to write to the noble Lord on that because I do not have paragraph 5.3 in front of me. I will certainly send him a letter to that effect.
In essence, this SI is a method of making sure that a much larger group of people receives the discount than has hitherto been the case, which is vital at this time of very high energy prices. It is about making a real impact on fuel poverty and continuing to expand that impact with the measures in the new scheme. It will be done on an affordable and manageable basis and in conjunction with the Warm Homes Plan, which, as the noble Baroness will know, is about driving down bills through energy efficiency and various other measures in homes. Together with those measures, this will make a real impact on fuel poverty over the next period. I urge noble Lords to support the new scheme, which we will have at least until 2030, subject to review. I hope we will see a substantial uptick in people’s warmth and energy welfare in that period, thanks to what is before us this afternoon.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am happy that the Minister will write to us, but I do not think he replied to one question. Does he share my concern that many landlords may feel that they cannot afford to do what we are asking them to do with the warm home discount and in the Warm Homes Plan, so they will sell their properties, which will then come off the market?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
What we are asking landlords to do under the Warm Homes Plan is an extension of some of the work done to uprate properties from band E, whereby landlords could put some money, with some exemptions, into improving their properties for rent. The limit that landlords can put in before being exempted is, I think, about £10,000, but it means a higher level of warmth and efficiency in the home. There is no evidence that large numbers of landlords went out of business or sold their homes under the last scheme in operation, and we are confident that that will not be the case on this occasion.
Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2026
Lord Whitehead Excerpts(5 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 2 February be approved.
Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 March.
UK Energy Sources and Cost of Energy
Lord Whitehead Excerpts(5 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Effingham
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the recent military strikes in Iran and Qatar, what steps they are taking to secure UK energy sources and reduce the cost of energy for UK citizens.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for his Question. The UK benefits from a strong and diverse range of energy supplies. The physical supply of fuel to the UK is stable. The only way to protect ourselves from these and future potential price spikes in the longer term is to get off international fossil fuel markets controlled by the actions of petrostates and dictators. That is what our clean energy mission for homegrown power that we control is all about.
The Earl of Effingham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Last night’s escalation proved that we should not be dependent on imported oil and gas and that the UK must make use of its domestic energy supplies. Given this and the fact that, by autumn, we could be producing enough gas to heat 1.6 million homes by simply approving production at the Jackdaw gas field, will the Minister today commit to approving Jackdaw for gas production?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Earl will be aware that the present crisis is essentially a price crisis rather than a supply crisis. I emphasise again that the UK has a strong and diverse range of energy supplies and that the physical supply of fuel to the UK is stable. However, the Government have not been idle in this respect. Among other things, the Government have introduced transitional energy certificates for North Sea and associated producing fields that allow producers to engage in tie-backs, which is the development of fields additional to fields that are already in production. That is completely in line with IEA recommendations on how production can be increased in the not too distant future.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the measures that the Government have already taken, particularly around reducing the cost of heating oil. Does the Minister agree that it is important that we work with allies and partners to encourage all involved to stop targeting energy infrastructure?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Earl is absolutely right that one of the key issues in the recent escalation has been the targeting by both sides of oil and gas installations. Clearly, this brings into a further spotlight the need to seek an urgent de-escalation of hostilities and the resolution of this crisis by negotiation rather than continued bombing of everyone’s oil and gas facilities.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in the light of the Times report earlier this week on energy links between the United Kingdom and Xinjiang, has the Minister read the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on supply chain transparency and modern-day slavery? Will he say when he last discussed with Great British Energy its compliance with Section 3(2)(e) of the Great British Energy Act, which was added following an all-party amendment in your Lordships’ House and prohibits the use of products, such as solar panels, made by slave labour?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I will have to write to the noble Lord on the specifics he mentioned. He should know that the UK Government are pursuing very robust measures to ensure that the supply of products such as solar panels is not the product of modern slavery. Efforts are under way on the diversification of supply and on the certification of panels to ensure they are not subject to modern slavery. The noble Lord will of course appreciate the difficulty of getting exact information on the sourcing of particular products, but the British Government are doing everything they can to ensure that they are not from the sources that the noble Lord is so concerned about.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, does the current crisis and the vulnerabilities that have been exposed lead the Government to re-examine the case for tidal power in the UK?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Lord mentions what is potentially a very effective, long-term and secure method of homegrown energy. As I mentioned in my initial Answer, the long-term way to protect ourselves from these price spikes is to develop homegrown energy. Clearly, tidal range, which has a very stable supply of energy and a not particularly long period of development, could play a role in that process. However, I emphasise that we are very far at the moment from developing tidal range in the way that the noble Lord seeks to promote.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, two days ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that all countries must play their part in boosting oil and gas production. The Energy Secretary demonises and bans drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea. Who is right?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
No, the Energy Secretary does not wish to see drilling for North Sea oil banned. What he is doing, as the noble Lord will know, is developing transitional energy certificates, which will enable tie-backs to take place in existing fields. The noble Lord will know that the existing structure of the North Sea fields largely consists of fields that have not been tapped—small fields that are adjacent to additional fields—and so the tie-back arrangement will ensure both production and drilling for those tie-back fields in association with the existing fields.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. Given what the Minister said about this being, in essence, a price security issue, what progress have the Government made on the issue of decoupling the price of other forms of generation from the price of gas? As we know, that is hugely volatile and has an enormous impact on both domestic and industrial consumers.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Baroness is exactly right. As she will know, part of the price increases that are being suffered at the moment go into the market-making price of gas that secures the general price of electricity, for example, in our markets by marginal cost pricing. Certainly, the renewed and continuing volatility in international markets is likely to be a substantial driver of high price levels and price increases in the future. Therefore, the Government are actively looking at measures that could decouple the UK energy market, where it is green and low carbon, from that marginal cost pricing arrangement, which is still driven by gas in about 65% of settlements at the moment. That will be part of the UK’s drive for clean energy sources for the future.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, surely the issue is one of supply, and it is not the Government’s fault. However, there is one thing that is the Government’s fault: we do not have a single ship in the Persian Gulf that can assist with guarding the Strait of Hormuz. Does the Minister share my disappointment that we do not have anything in the Gulf that can assist?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that we do have quite a presence in the Gulf, not of ships but of other defence capacity which can play some part as far as the Strait of Hormuz is concerned. He will also know that the US has already indicated that it does not wish to have the UK and other NATO countries’ assistance in undertaking the clearance of the Strait of Hormuz. Nevertheless, we regard the opening of that strait as imperative as far as fuel supplies are concerned. As far as UK fuel supplies are concerned, only about 1% currently comes from sources relevant to passage through the Strait of Hormuz—for example, Qatar. We are not as internationally exposed to those supplies as a number of other countries.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, following up on the question from my noble friend Lord Russell, who mentioned support for domestic users in particular of heating oil, my question is on highly energy-intensive industries, particularly steel. What support, if any, are the Government thinking of providing, particularly if this war continues for weeks and months rather than just ending in days, as we hope, for the steel industries in south Wales, Scunthorpe and South Yorkshire?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The Government are open to all eventualities as far as this crisis is concerned and are keeping the position under review on a very regular basis. The noble Lord will know that immediate support has been for heating oil, particularly for those customers who are off grid in the UK. The Government recently announced over for supplies of heating oil, with particular reference to Northern Ireland, where a substantial proportion of the population are dependent on oil for heating. Of that £50 million-odd, £17 million has gone to Northern Ireland for that purpose.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that the cleanest, greenest, cheapest and most secure energy is the energy that you do not need to use. France, for example, is far ahead of us in avoiding wasteful use of energy, with measures such as switching off the lighting for shops, ensuring that offices switch off lights during the night and taking measures to stop wasting energy, such as with video screens with advertising. What steps are the Government taking to reduce the wastage of energy, which will make us all more secure?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The first issue is, as the noble Baroness suggests, the efficient use of energy by more intelligent means and planning how that energy is deployed on a highly intelligent basis. That is activity that the Government are advanced on as far as the management of our energy system is concerned. The second point is, as the noble Baroness mentions, the energy security from energy that is not used. The Warm Homes Plan that the Government have recently introduced—a multi-billion programme over a number of years to increase the energy efficiency and resilience of people’s homes, particularly those in fuel poverty—will produce not only a win for fuel poverty but a substantial win for the efficiency with which energy is used and the amount of energy that is used in the domestic sphere.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, the crisis is immediate. What assessment have the Government made about the essential products that rely on gas—ammonia, CO2, aniline, soda ash, ethylene and sulphuric acid—without which a modern economy cannot exist and without which factories will close?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that we have recently engaged in an extensive conversation in corridors about the question of ammonia in the UK economy. This is related to the energy crisis, in as much as we do not have ammonia manufacturing sites in the UK and the manufacture of ammonia is highly energy dependent. One of the ways forward on that is to produce green ammonia, which he will know was a subject of our discussion just recently. That is one way to secure the future of ammonia supplies in the UK without resorting to high levels of fossil fuel in the process.
Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lord Whitehead Excerpts(1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, you have got me again. These draft regulations were laid before the House on 2 February 2026. I trust that since they are very technical in their nature and very modest in their effect, they will be agreed, because they are an essential element of making sure that our supplier payments and supplier collection work well for the future; they are an integral part of how the system works, so I hope that they will meet with general agreement.
This statutory instrument amends regulations concerning the levies used to fund the operational cost budgets for the Low Carbon Contracts Company and the Electricity Settlements Company. Before I proceed, I apologise to the Committee for the enormous number of acronyms that will no doubt emerge during this debate and in my speech. Let me start with the LCCC and the ESC, which I have already explained.
The LCCC administers the contracts for difference scheme on behalf of the Government under the Energy Act 2013. Under that Act, the LCCC also administers schemes modelled on the contracts for difference, including the dispatchable power agreement, the DPA, and the low-carbon dispatchable contracts for difference, or LCD contracts for difference. The LCCC also acts as the revenue collection counterparty for the regulated asset base for new nuclear under the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022.
It is anticipated, subject to future policy decisions and the will of Parliament, that the LCCC will conduct additional work to support government energy objectives under the Energy Act 2013. This includes work on a new scheme supporting the deployment of large-scale power bioenergy with carbon capture and storage electricity generators, work relating to DESNZ’s proposals to support nuclear generation, and work relating to DESNZ’s proposals to potentially support landfill gas generation.
The ESC administers the capacity market scheme. Those schemes will incentivise the significant investment required in our energy infrastructure to keep costs affordable for consumers and help to deliver our clean power mission, while keeping our energy supply secure.
Contracts for difference—CfDs—provide long-term price stabilisation to low-carbon generators, allowing investment to come forward at a lower cost of capital and therefore at a lower cost for consumers. AR7, the most recent CfD auction and the seventh to date, secured a record 14.7 gigawatts of new clean energy capacity across Great Britain, making it the largest round ever delivered. It brought forward a diverse range of renewable technologies while delivering a good deal for bill payers. The LCCC is currently signing 197 CfDs with projects that were successful in this auction.
Dispatchable power agreements—DPAs—under the Energy Act 2013 are agreements modelled on CfDs. They have been designed to instil confidence among investors in power carbon capture and storage projects and incentivise the availability of low-carbon, non-weather dependent dispatchable generation capacity. The LCCC signed its first DPA on 19 November 2024 for the Net Zero Teesside Power project. This pioneering project in the north-east aims to build the world’s first commercial-scale gas-fired power station with carbon capture and storage.
Over the next three years, the LCCC is expected to sign additional DPAs, which will drive the private sector investment required to bring forward further power carbon capture and storage projects by the mid-2030s. The LCCC will be the counterparty for these DPAs, as it was originally for CfDs, and funds have been included within the budgets to support this role.
The LCCC also signed its first low-carbon dispatchable CfD—LCD CfD—with Drax Power Ltd on 4 November 2025. This agreement will ensure that Drax generates electricity when needed between 2027 and 2031, thus bolstering our energy security. It is also a good agreement for consumers, saving them around £6 per year on their household bills compared to previous arrangements.
The Government also agreed heads of terms with EP Lynemouth Ltd on 6 February 2026 for an additional LCD CfD. If a full contract is concluded in the following month, this will further bolster our energy security by ensuring that Lynemouth continues to generate when needed between 2027 and 2031. Funds have been included in the budgets to support the LCCC’s role as the intended counterparty for this LCD CfD, as well as its role as counterparty for the existing contract with Drax Power Ltd.
The revenue collection contract with Sizewell C Ltd, the first project to use the regulated asset base—RAB—model for new nuclear, became effective on 4 November 2025, and funds have been included in the budget to cover the LCCC’s operational costs as a revenue collection counterparty for the RAB. As noble Lords can see, this all amounts to a large amount of additional work and activity for the LCCC, which is important in terms of this particular SI.
Turning to the ESC, the capacity market is tried and tested and is the most cost-effective way of ensuring that we have the electricity capacity we need now and in the future. It provides all forms of capacity and the right incentives to be on the system, delivering capacity when needed by increasing generation or by turning down electricity demand in return for guaranteed payments. The capacity auctions held to date have secured the capacity we need to meet the forecast peak demand out to 2028-29. A T-1 auction is currently ongoing and a T-4 auction will take place next week, securing most of the capacity we need out to 2029-30. In both the CfD and capacity market schemes, participants bid for support via a competitive auction that ensures that costs for consumers are minimised.
In the DPA, agreements are allocated through a process involving competitive assessment, followed by shortlisting then a final stage of bilateral negotiations between project developers and DESNZ. In the LCD CfD, contracts are agreed following a structured negotiation process between DESNZ and the generator. This process ensures that only those contracts are signed that offer value for money for consumers and include strict sustainability criteria.
Revenue collection contracts under the RAB model are agreed through a structured process involving DESNZ, Ofgem and the LCCC. These contracts provide a stable, regulated revenue stream to projects during construction and operation. In turn, we expect the RAB to lower the cost of financing for nuclear, one of the biggest drivers of new project costs, resulting in better value for money to consumers.
The LCCC and ESC’s effective administration of the CfD, the capacity market and other schemes to date has demonstrated their ability to deliver such schemes at least cost to consumers. It is in part for this reason that the LCCC has been working with DESNZ and other departments to develop new schemes for incentivising deployment of more low-carbon technologies. For example, the LCCC has supported DESNZ in the development of incentives for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Although this has not been confirmed, contracts for such projects could potentially be entered into following a process established under the Energy Act 2013. Were DESNZ to move forward with this option, the LCCC would need to undertake activity to prepare for acting as the counterparty in the next three years. Consequently, funds have been included within the budget for this purpose.
The LCCC and ESC are mindful of the need to deliver value for money, as their guiding principle is to maintain investor confidence in the schemes they deliver while minimising costs to consumers. They have taken a number of actions to date to reduce costs, such as bringing expertise in-house rather than relying on more expensive outside consultants. It is because of actions like that that CfD operational costs per contract are expected to fall by 27.3% per CfD across the budget period, despite the growing size of the CfD portfolio. It is a similar narrative for the ESC, which expects the number of capacity market electricity meters to exceed 1.2 million over the budget period, a 450% increase on current meter numbers. It estimates that costs per meter will fall by 23% over 2025-26 to 2028-29. The operational cost budgets for both companies were subject to consultation, which gave stakeholders the opportunity to scrutinise and test the key assumptions in the budgets and, importantly, ensure that they represent value for money. Subsequently, the budgets remain unchanged.
In conclusion, to summarise this rather detailed and technical narrative, the LCCC has done a great job in managing as the counterparty for taking money in for contracts, giving money out and balancing between the two—and, indeed, when it runs a surplus it gives it back to the companies that are paying the money back in. Its activities have changed very substantially over the years, and the levy that goes into those companies has not changed since 2022. Therefore, it is right that the levy coming into the LCCC and the ESC for the expanded work that they do is reviewed, which is what the Government have done, to make sure that the LCCC can cover its costs for the relevant financial years up to 2029-30.
I assure the Committee that the Government are also mindful of the uncertainties involved in setting a budget for the next three years, such as world events impacting energy demand and policy decisions on new schemes that have not yet been taken. Consequently, DESNZ will keep the companies’ budgets under careful review throughout the budget period to ensure that costs to consumers are minimised. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for, as I have said on previous occasions, their valuable, extensive and wide-ranging contributions to the debate. I am similarly tempted to follow the wide-ranging comments that have been made—some of which I agree with and a lot of which I do not—but I do not think that this is the place to undertake that particular debate.
As noble Lords have reflected on, this SI is, in essence, about a practical and straightforward measure to ensure that the body that administers the working of the CfDs and an increasing amount of further contracts—acting as the counterparty and the proper regulatory body to make sure that there is value in all directions from the money that is collected—simply has the wherewithal to make sure that it can do that job. As I have said, the levels of that wherewithal were set in 2022 and have not been revised since then. They really need to be revised so that we are not in a position where the taxpayer has to come in and bail out the LCCC or similar bodies, come 2028-29, if they do not have sufficient funds to administer the contracts in the way they should.
Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2026
Lord Whitehead Excerpts(1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, the renewables obligation scheme has incentivised UK renewable electricity generation through a system of tradeable certificates called renewable obligation certificates. Three separate but complementary renewables obligation schemes cover the UK: the RO and the renewables obligation Scotland—ROS—were introduced in 2002, and the Northern Ireland renewables obligation —NIRO—was introduced in 2005. The UK Government are responsible for RO legislation in England and Wales. The Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive are responsible for the legislation of their respective schemes. Ofgem administers all schemes across the UK. The scheme is now closed to new applications—indeed, it was closed in 2017—but existing sites continue to receive support until the scheme ends in 2037. The scheme has been instrumental in taking a nascent renewable energy sector to where it is today, with the scheme supporting around 30% of total UK electricity generation.
Electricity suppliers are required each year to present a set number of renewables obligation certificates to Ofgem reflecting the amount of electricity they supply. Where a supplier does not present enough certificates, it must instead pay a buy-out price for each missing certificate. Those buy-out payments are then recycled back to suppliers that have complied, which supports the overall value of certificates and ensures the scheme operates in a fair and predictable way.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
First, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. The Government have listened carefully to the concerns expressed, particularly in relation to investor confidence, which I will come back to in a moment, to policy stability and to the long-term credibility of the UK’s renewable support schemes.
In considering the valuable and detailed contributions from noble Lords, I must say one thing to start with. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is tempting me into a widespread debate about energy changes, energy prices and so on, but I kindly suggest that that is not the subject of our discussion this afternoon. The points that he makes are certainly ones that need replying to, and I hope that replies are being undertaken—but of course we are undertaking those replies at a time of energy crisis, and indeed a period of great volatility and uncertainty. That perhaps underlines why it is a better idea for the long term to have homegrown sources of energy that are not volatile and which can actually inform what is happening in the domestic market without inevitable consequences on the international market. The move towards renewables and low-carbon energy sourced from within the UK is a very effective way of doing that in the long term.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I absolutely do not want to start a debate this afternoon, because we will unquestionably have plenty of opportunities in the future to cover this ground, but there is nothing more secure, in terms of our security of supply, nothing that creates more firm power, than our natural gas in the UKCS, which is much cheaper and far less polluting than importing gas from Qatar or liquefied natural gas from the United States. That reserve is critical, and if there is one lesson that comes out of this crisis, it is that we should maximise that reserve for our own country, for our own people, in exactly the same way as the Norwegians are doing at the moment for their people—unless the Minister thinks that the Norwegians are hopelessly wrong and should have shut in their basin, which he may wish to say. I think that our differences on this subject are worthy of future debate, but I think it is important to place them on the record.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for placing that on the record. The Norwegian basin, of course, is far less mature than the UK basin, and indeed the Norwegian system works on substantially the same basis of international pricing as the UK system as far as gas is concerned.
The noble Lord has used the word “incredible” on several occasions. It was incredible, over the years, how much gas we were exporting from UK fields, even at a time when it was absolutely necessary to have the maximum supplies bought and used in the UK. Indeed, even during the Ukraine invasion crisis, there were still substantial exports on to the international market of gas that had come into the UK in the first instance. It is also the case, of course, that as far as marginal cost pricing is concerned, gas still makes the market over 65% of the time, so the whole market is still informed by international gas prices and international gas market-making in a way that is inimical to the stable, homegrown future energy that we need to import so that those positions are no longer taken.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
To place it firmly on the record, Norway and ourselves share the same basin in the northern North Sea, delineated by a median line. Geology does not recognise a median line, which is why in 1990 we were, broadly speaking, producing about 2 million barrels a day each, and in 2010 we were, broadly speaking, producing about 4 million barrels a day each. Today, we have gone right down to 400,000 barrels, and the Government are driving it down lower, while the Norwegians are going north of 4 million barrels.
My second point is that yes, the Minister is absolutely right that the Norwegians are exporting it to the international market. They do that because they can satisfy their domestic demand from hydroelectricity. As a result of that, however, they have managed to set up a sovereign wealth fund that assists their healthcare and their social security. The money they are earning is fundamentally important to the success of their economy. If we had done the same thing, we would have been in a far stronger financial position and would be able to take significant tax receipts to the Treasury to assist us with the many other challenges that the Government face.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Lord is exactly right about a sovereign wealth fund, and it is our joint regret that the UK did not pursue that path many years ago. However, that is not the fault of the current Labour Government, as those actions were taken many years ago. He is right to point out that we would be in a much better position had that path been taken, but we did not take that path. We are where we are and we need to move on from that in terms of homegrown energy of a different form.
I am anxious to make progress with the business in hand, and I am pleased to see the overall welcome for these measures from both sides of the House. I will very briefly deal with one or two concerns that were raised. For example, on the concern about the effect of these measures on investor confidence, the future investment is of course not going to be carried out through the renewables obligation. As I mentioned, the renewables obligation is a sunset measure: indeed, it closed to new entrants in 2017. We are therefore talking about the remaining years of this measure, not the years in front of us of future and present measures, which we are undertaking in order to expand and stabilise the renewables and low-carbon world. Investor confidence will, therefore, be determined by how those measures are working.
In any event, the path that was taken to not freeze the RO, but to relate it to CPI rather than RPI, actually continues to allow RO to grow, albeit at a slightly lower indexed case. Therefore, in terms of the returns that those historic companies thought they were getting as far as the RO is concerned, there is not a great deal of difference—especially since we are so far past the point at which new entrants were accepted to the scheme.
As for legal challenges, we have been very scrupulous in making sure that we have received full advice, and that we are well entitled to make these changes. It is difficult to see how a legal challenge on the basis of not liking the changes very much might succeed, as opposed to a legal challenge on the basis of making the changes in the first place.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether there could be a more comprehensive measure as far as future ROs are concerned, and this is something I have been quite interested in doing myself. It would involve trying to move RO recipients on to a CfD contract, which can be done in various ways. I suggest that if we did that forcibly, it would probably result in a legal challenge, but there are other ways of making the change.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026
Lord Whitehead Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Order laid before the House on 13 January be approved.
Relevant document: 49th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the House for its consideration of this draft order, which was laid before the House on 13 January.
The UK Emissions Trading Scheme was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme contributing to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net-zero goal. The scheme was established to increase the climate ambition of the UK’s carbon pricing policy while protecting the competitiveness of UK businesses.
The scheme is run by the UK ETS Authority, a joint body comprising the UK Government and the devolved Governments acting together. A cap is set on the total amount of certain greenhouse gases that can be emitted by sectors covered by the scheme, and the cap is reduced over time so that total emissions must fall. Under the UK ETS, operators participating in the scheme are required to monitor, report on and surrender allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions. The scope of the UK ETS is being expanded to maritime activities as part of the Government’s strategy of decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy to meet our net-zero target by 2050. It is an effective lever to reduce emissions and delivers on a key commitment in the UK’s maritime decarbonisation strategy. We expect this to help overcome key barriers to maritime decarbonisation by incentivising low-carbon fuels and fuel-efficient technologies and operating practices. Last week, the Government also brought forward £271 million of funding to help industry with the changes to vessels, fuelling and infrastructure required for maritime decarbonisation.
This statutory instrument makes amendments to the legislation that gives effect to the UK ETS. It expands the scheme’s scope to include coverage of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide from domestic voyages and in-port activities in the UK, effective from 1 July 2026. The instrument amends the legislation to require maritime operators to participate in the scheme, and to allow them to bid at auction for UK allowances. It will apply to ships of 5,000 gross tonnage and above, but a small number of exemptions apply, such as for government ships, including military and law enforcement ships, and ferries operating services to Scotland’s islands and peninsulas. Ferries serving Rathlin Island and the Isles of Scilly are out of scope of the instrument as they are below the 5,000 gross tonnage threshold. We consulted on the potential inclusion of Crown dependencies and overseas territories in the recent international maritime consultation, but they are not in scope of this instrument, which expands the scheme to domestic maritime emissions only.
The provisions set out in the instrument require the maritime operator of a ship, either its registered owner or the company responsible for its compliance with the International Safety Management Code, to obtain an emissions monitoring plan. This plan will document the processes used to ascertain its ships’ emissions. For each scheme year, maritime operators will then be expected to monitor, independently verify and report their maritime emissions to the relevant regulator, and surrender an equivalent level of allowances. The instrument also introduces the concept of “surrender deductions”, reducing by 50% the number of allowances for surrender in respect of voyages between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to deliver equivalence in carbon-pricing coverage on routes across the Irish Sea. Operators will be assigned to a UK ETS regulator based on the location of their registered office or place of residence. This is the same approach that applies to aircraft operators.
One emissions monitoring plan will cover all the ships for which the maritime operator is responsible, and emissions must be monitored using one of the four methods prescribed in the instrument. Maritime operators will be required to report emissions from all ships for which they are responsible through an annual emissions report, which must be submitted to the regulator on or before 31 March in the year following the scheme year to which it relates. Maritime operators have an obligation to verify their annual emissions report. The verification must be carried out by an impartial and accredited verifier, independent from the maritime operator. If satisfied, the verifier will draft a verification report, which will be submitted to the regulator alongside the annual emissions report.
Maritime operators will also be required to surrender a level of allowances equivalent to their emissions by 30 April in the year following the scheme year. However, the instrument introduces the concept of a “double surrender”, whereby the date by which allowances must be surrendered in relation to the first scheme year—2026—is 30 April 2028 and not 30 April 2027, as would otherwise be the case.
Neither the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, CBAM, nor its EU equivalent applies to maritime emissions, and this instrument does not introduce any CBAM obligations for maritime operators.
These changes follow comprehensive engagement and consultation with stakeholders. The UK and devolved Governments carried out a consultation in 2022 which was concerned with the development of the UK ETS, including whether to include maritime activities in the scheme. A second consultation ran between 28 November 2024 and 23 January 2025 and sought views on the details of how maritime would be incorporated into the ETS from 2026. The relevant responses to this consultation were summarised in the interim and main authority responses, published in July and November 2025 respectively.
I recognise the fatal and non-fatal amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for our discussion today. I wish to ensure that noble Lords in attendance today are aware that this legislation was approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly two days ago. This is of particular importance, as the amendments tabled identify potential issues with respect to Northern Ireland. I hope that this provides the noble Baroness and the noble Lord with some reassurance as to their concerns. Noble Lords will be aware that this instrument needs to be approved by all the UK legislatures. That has now been the case with the approval of this instrument by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Further, I urge noble Lords to consider the importance of this legislation for our wider relationship with Europe, in particular in enabling a link with the EU ETS, which includes these emissions and will provide for a mutual exemption from CBAM. This exemption will protect UK businesses from charges on £7 billion-worth of goods and services. Linkage of our emissions trading systems, combined with the sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—measures, is set to add nearly £9 billion to the UK economy by 2040. I strongly urge my fellow noble Lords to consider these benefits, and the costs they would be placing on UK businesses today should they vote in favour of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness and noble Lord.
In conclusion, the expansion of the UK ETS to cover maritime activities will support its role as a fundamental pillar of the UK’s climate policy. It plays a key part in the Government’s strategy of decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy to meet our net-zero target by 2050. It also delivers on a key commitment within our maritime decarbonisation strategy. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, this has been a characteristically impassioned debate, which is perhaps not surprising given the subjects of EU alignment, devolution and greenhouse gas emissions. It is inevitable that people are going to feel very strongly about this subject. If the noble Lord, Lord Empey, expressed his concern for the Minister in trying to reply to this debate, I would add that it is slightly difficult, as the only Scot who has so far spoken in this debate. In well over two hours, I think I am only the fourth person to vaguely talk in favour of this statutory instrument. I thank the Minister for both his time, when he gave us a briefing, and his introduction to these regulations. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for tabling this fatal amendment—even though we will not be supporting it—because it is incredibly important that we get the time to debate these matters.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said, it is incredibly important that this Parliament has a chance to debate these issues, not least because we are going to see an increasing number of them as we approach dynamic alignment with the European Union on ETS, as well as potential agreements on SPS and the electricity market. We have to find a way to allow this Chamber and those at the other end of the building to debate these things properly. I hope that the Government are giving some considerable thought to how effective parliamentary oversight on these matters can and will take place if and when these additional agreements are made later this year.
These regulations, it should be recalled, stem from regulations introduced by the Conservative Government in 2021 and the creation of the UK ETS following our departure from the EU ETS after Brexit. As these issues are devolved, they have had to be decided by the four parts of the United Kingdom. In answer to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I am the only Scot speaking here today, but it was the Scottish Government who effectively campaigned for the exemption for the Scottish islands. They are not my party, but they obviously campaigned very successfully on this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, who is no longer in her place, was right when she said that these regulations stem from regulations introduced in the Scottish Parliament in 2018.
It is important to note that these regulations were agreed last month by both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd, and this week by the Northern Ireland Assembly, notwithstanding the comments from noble Lords about that process. It was voted for by the Northern Ireland Assembly by 44 votes to 23 this Tuesday. As I said, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, was quite right. My understanding is that the exemption for Scottish ferries is not a general maritime exemption; it stems from the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament eight years ago to protect specific lifeline services for small, isolated island communities. Clearly, protection for small island communities is very important. Will the Minister confirm that this Scottish exemption for island ferries will form part of the review in 2028? I feel it is important for us to know.
I also thank the Minister for clarifying that ferries to small island communities in Northern Ireland are already exempt from these regulations, as they do not involve vessels of over 5,000 cubic tonnes. As my noble friend Lord Russell clearly set out, we on these Benches strongly support measures to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases produced by maritime activities, but we none the less believe that these must be accompanied by port upgrades or cleaner fuel infrastructure, as well as by encouraging innovation and economic development in a cleaner maritime sector. I note, in passing, that those who constantly oppose measures to reduce climate change never seem to factor in the cost of non-action. We also support the general principle of aligning as closely as possible with the EU ETS to minimise friction on trade.
It is important to bear in mind, however, the impact that other noble Lords have set out on the economy of Northern Ireland and on the cost of living in these increasingly challenging times for the global economy, not least in terms of energy because of the war in the Gulf. It is also important to allow a full and transparent review of how the scheme works in practice and to correct any unintended consequences once it is introduced later this year. Given that the Government’s own impact assessment states that Northern Ireland
“could face disproportionate administrative burdens”,
it is important that we continue to monitor the situation extremely closely. Can the Minister say whether they intend to give regular reports to this Parliament, as well as to the devolved parliaments, on how the regulations are working in practice once they are introduced? Can he confirm that they will continue to consult closely the maritime sector, businesses and consumer organisations?
As there is currently a distinct lack of viable low-carbon alternatives for many maritime routes serving Northern Ireland, have the Government carried out any analysis regarding the extent to which additional ETS-related costs could be passed on to consumers by shipping operators and retailers? The EU ETS currently covers 50% of emissions from international voyages starting or ending in an EU member state, which, for example, currently includes container ships travelling from GB to the Republic of Ireland. It is therefore welcome that there is a 50% deduction for GB-NI routes, as it provides for a level playing field with Irish ports. However, if and when there is increasing—or indeed eventually full—alignment with the EU ETS, can the Minister say whether he expects this 50% deduction for both the Republic of Ireland and GB-NI routes to be removed? I appreciate that might be a rather complicated question, but I would very much appreciate his answer. Can he also say what measures the Government intend to put in place to avoid a cliff edge following the review of these regulations in 2028?
In conclusion, we support these regulations as we welcome the move towards greater alignment with the EU ETS, and we do not support either the regret amendment or the fatal amendment. None the less, we recognise the need for proportionality as well as strong transitional and review measures. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their valued, valuable and very wide-ranging contributions to this debate this afternoon. I am, I think, a fairly plain and straightforward person, but I have at times in the debate failed to get to grips with exactly what it is supposed to be about. It is about the decarbonisation of the UK economy, how the emissions trading scheme is probably the most efficient way of ensuring decarbonisation in our economy, and what should and should not be in that emissions trading scheme. We have also heard in the discussion how that trading scheme might be more widely based so that its decarbonisation effect is improved.
A part of that is of course the entry into the ETS of the maritime sector. For those who say that this statutory instrument is very rushed, I might have to go down a brief historical byway and mention that one can trace back this particular SI to a 2022 consultation on whether the maritime sector should be included in the ETS—a consultation under the previous Government, not this Government, I might add. The response to that consultation was a strong indication that, yes, the maritime sector should be in the emissions trading scheme. Since then, there has been a series of consultations with the maritime industry and many other people about exactly how that should be done, what part the maritime industry should play in its own decarbonisation and how it can contribute substantially to the UK overall trading emissions picture. I have to say that the UK maritime industry has done very well in its contribution so far to making that transition as effective as it can be.
Taken in that context, I am a little surprised at the regret amendment that has been tabled, because essentially this is a past Government regretting their own actions. Yes, there is plenty to regret about the previous Government, but to have the previous Government regretting themselves seems to be a step further forward than was previously the case.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
We have a problem with the Isle of Wight. One of the vessels has done everything that it could possibly do to decarbonise. It has no option to go anywhere else because the power is not there. It is a fully hybrid boat, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, pointed out with a great deal more technical ability than I have. These vessels cannot go anywhere else, so this is a straight tax that will end up primarily on the residents of the Isle of Wight.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a strong point about the power supply to the Isle of Wight. This is also the case with some other ports. Other noble Lords have said this in their interventions, including the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for whom I have a great deal of respect and admiration, through our long relationship with the Maritime and Ports Group in another place. He speaks with great authority and considerable knowledge and wisdom on this subject.
Shore power and an electrical supply to ports to enable decarbonisation to take place is a serious question. Both the port of Portsmouth and, in parallel, the port of Southampton suffer from particular cable connections from the substations in their area, which could, at a sub-national grid level, provide sufficient shore power and power for the electrical hybrid ships that may visit these ports. That can be effected by what is called a reopener of the arrangements for distributed network operations to ensure that this power can come forward at an early date. This is what Southampton has done. The power is likely to be forthcoming long before the 2037 date that the noble Lord mentioned. If Portsmouth has not done this yet, I would suggest that it does so. The power is there and readily available to get to the ports. It is a question of putting it in early, rather than later, to make sure that this transition can take place. That is part of a wider problem about grids and grid power in the country as a whole, which this Government are addressing urgently to make sure that we have the power to get ourselves across the transition in the way that we want.
Because of the time available, I will have to address some of the issues by writing to a number of Peers. In this debate, I want to emphasise that this is not a conspiracy to do anybody down or to try to isolate particular communities. Nor is it aimed at undermining the economic prosperity of the country. It is a decarbonisation measure that has to happen as part of our general decarbonisation route to net zero. It would be anomalous if the maritime sector were to be excluded from that decarbonisation route and if we were not to take measures, which I have known about for a long while, to make sure that that decarbonisation route is as effective as it can be in how it aligns with the EU ETS and eventually with the CBAM process. At present there is some problem of alignment because the EU CBAM process is proceeding earlier than the UK CBAM process. These need to be aligned in the longer term. As has been mentioned in this debate, the prize for that alignment is a substantial bonus for UK trade—£9 billion or so over a longer period. It would be remiss of this Government if they did not have that largely in view in what they are undertaking as far as this SI is concerned. Indeed, the Government do have this in view.
I can certainly say to noble Lords that the effect of this SI will be seriously reviewed in 2028. It is likely that, should everything come into proper alignment with CBAM and the EU, some of those shorter-term exemptions and changes will come jointly into alignment for the net benefit of everybody, including Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the UK. That alignment will mean a joint overall benefit all round.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
It is not an impossibility for the next 15 years. Getting an accurate picture of trade always involves a range of calculations—you cannot get it exactly right. However, so far the impact of this proposed order has been assessed at below 1% of those costs; the Government do not recognise the figure of 6% put out by some parts of the industry. That is set against the gain that could come from those bodies being in the ETS, the alignment with CBAM in future and so on.
I might add that, although the product of this particular entry into the ETS has not and will not be hypothecated—indeed, no British Government have ever hypothecated anything that has come into their coffers—what we need to judge it by is how much money has already gone out. Just last week, £271 million went out to further support the maritime industry in its transition to a low-carbon basis. The SHORE fund has several hundred million in it, including £18 million that has already gone to Northern Ireland. All of these are paying back the money that is going into the fund in the future, for the benefit of the maritime industry and its transition.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, at the beginning of this debate, when I was being nice to the Minister and thanked him for the meeting he asked for with me, I said that I did not want to spoil his career prospects and that I thought that, if it had been his decision, he might have chosen to withdraw the SI at the beginning. Now, by the end of this debate, perhaps he would have been even more keen to withdraw it.
This has been an extremely good and wide-ranging debate, as the Minister said. It has brought together two or three key issues—I will not go over them again. It is the first time I have had an SI dealing with not only Northern Ireland but other parts of the United Kingdom, and it has been very good to see so many of the Government Benches full. If one benefit of tabling a fatal amendment is to get a lot of Labour Peers to come here and listen, it is probably worth it.
I thank in particular those Peers who do not normally speak on issues related to Northern Ireland. My fatal amendment is very much geared to the inequality of Northern Ireland and the way it is treated differently from Scotland. It was particularly good to hear from the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Ashcombe, on the wider aspects of the SI in relation to the Isle of Wight and the Scilly Isles. It was also good to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Mountevans and Lord Greenway—I am very sorry if this might well have been his last speech in the House—who brought their genuine experience of shipping.
If there is any lesson to learn today about speeches, it is that we should all, including me, follow the example of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who, in her two very short interventions, hit the nail right on the head about how this issue has been handled. Despite the meetings on this side, what happened over the past few days in Northern Ireland was a very bad way for government to be working. The way that the Northern Ireland Office has completely ignored the wishes and needs of Northern Ireland, in terms of business opportunities and what will happen with this carbon tax, has been quite deplorable. Worst of all, as has been said by a number of Peers, was the way the statutory instrument was dealt with in the other place: absolutely different information was given right up to the very last minute. The MLAs were cajoled, blackmailed and treated by the Government as if they were pretty stupid and would not understand that they were being told things that were different from what had been said in the other place.
I thank all Members who have spoken. Of course, all the Northern Ireland Members know the issue and how strongly people will feel its effects. The unfairness to part of the United Kingdom, which comes up over and over again in this place, is becoming ridiculous and quite unsustainable if we care about the union and equality between all parts of the union. Having said all that, I really do not want to waste people’s time when they have sat through and listened. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) (Specified Period) Order 2026
Lord Whitehead Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Order laid before the House on 26 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) (Specified Period) Order 2026
Lord Whitehead Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) (Specified Period) Order 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, this draft order was laid before Parliament on 26 January 2026. This Government remain fully committed to ensuring that households, particularly those on low incomes or at risk of fuel poverty, can live in warmer, more energy-efficient homes that are affordable to heat. At the heart of this endeavour lies the new warm homes plan, a comprehensive and long-term strategy to reduce energy bills, alleviate fuel poverty and enhance energy security. We have committed to investing £15 billion—the biggest-ever public investment to upgrade British homes and cut energy bills. Of this amount, £5 billion is allocated to support low-income households.
The energy company obligation—ECO—has played a key part in helping households to reduce their energy bills. The energy company obligation was first launched in 2013. Since its launch in 2022, ECO4 has delivered slightly over 1 million energy-saving measures to approximately 300,000 households. The scheme places an obligation on the larger energy suppliers to deliver energy-efficiency improvements to vulnerable and fuel-poor households that result in measurable bill savings.
While ECO4 has delivered a significant volume of home energy-efficiency improvements, it has not been without challenges, as set out recently by the National Audit Office, among others. There have been widespread, systemic issues in the delivery of solid- wall insulation, which we have taken urgent steps to tackle. We are bringing forward comprehensive reforms to the retrofit consumer protection system to make it stronger, more transparent and more accountable so that this cannot happen again. We expect all installers to ensure that households receive timely and high-quality remediation of any non-compliance identified.
Given these systemic issues and inflation that is still too high, we have taken the considered decision not to replace ECO4, therefore easing pressure on household energy bills. This, in combination with the Government funding 75% of the domestic cost of the legacy renewables obligation, will remove around £117 of costs on average from household energy bills across Great Britain.
This statutory instrument introduces a small and necessary change to the existing scheme by extending the end date of ECO4 by nine months from 31 March to 31 December 2026. This extension provides obligated suppliers with additional time to meet their existing targets and, most importantly, it allows them time to focus on remediation of non-compliant installations. I emphasise that the instrument does not change targets, impose new obligations, or increase supplier costs or consumer bills.
As I conclude, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of this instrument and for not drawing it to the special attention of the House. The changes made by this instrument, which is in essence a very simple one, are limited but important. By extending ECO4, we are ensuring a stable period of delivery and an orderly closure to the scheme, and are safeguarding consumers. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will respond on the Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) (Specified Period) Order. While appearing to be only a minor adjustment today, this SI is important, as it involves the need to protect the most vulnerable in our society from poorly insulated homes and fuel poverty.
The ECO4 scheme has been a fundamental component of our national strategy to address the dual crisis of fuel poverty and the climate emergency. We have always supported its ambition to reduce the costs of heating for low-income households. This amendment seeks to extend the scheme’s duration by nine months to 31 December 2026. The reasons for doing this require a little bit of scrutiny. The Government say that this extension is necessary for the remediation of non-compliant installations and to ensure the orderly closure of the scheme.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the Minister for his introduction of this statutory instrument. This order extends the energy company obligation end date by nine months to ensure an orderly transition for consumers and suppliers to help meet existing targets. This extension was determined following consultation and following the calls of business. On that basis, we on these Benches support the order.
The ECO was established to help households reduce energy consumption and lower heating costs. Since it was launched in 2013, around 4.4 million measures have been installed in 2.6 million properties, up to the end of September 2025. ECO4 is the latest version of that scheme, beginning in 2022. It has meant that approximately 949,800 measures have been installed in around 281,000 households.
It is of course right that, where there were non-compliant installations, installers fund the repair work, overseen by Ofgem and insured by further on-site audits. We have already committed to working cross-party to ensure that affected households receive the remediation they deserve. We understand that the Government now seek to end this scheme and replace it with their warm homes plan to provide loans and grants to households instead; indeed, they have claimed that this will result in a £150 cut from the average household bill.
However, although the end of the ECO scheme means that households will no longer pay the levy through their energy bills, the new plan will be funded through taxation. There is no clarity, therefore, that this will end up saving taxpayers money in the long term; indeed, the new taxpayer funding initiative, coupled with rising energy costs—particularly now—and already high installation costs, mean that it looks increasingly unlikely that the Government will be replacing the ECO with an improvement. Have the Government made any assessment of how much taxpayers will save overall? To what extent are these projections reliant on projected energy costs, which will now be redundant? Oil prices are already 50% higher than in the OBR’s projection last week.
I appreciate that these questions are about issues that are outside the Minister’s control, but they have ramifications for the Government’s policy. Is it really wise to push forward with tax-and-spend green policies, which will likely do little to reduce costs, at a time of global instability? I understand that these are also developing events and that they do not directly relate to the functioning of the ECO.
Returning to that, it would be helpful to clarify how much money taxpayers will now be expected to pay to cover the cost of this new extension period. As I have stated, I support the extension to ensure an orderly transition, but the public must know what they will pay. I restate our support for this order to help consumers and suppliers but, more broadly, we remain concerned that the Government’s plan will, ultimately, not save taxpayers money. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their constructive contributions to this afternoon’s debate; I hope to respond to their points in a similarly crisp and succinct fashion.
First, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, asked how much taxpayers will pay for the extension of the ECO. The answer is: nothing. The ECO will continue exactly as it has previously, except it will be extended by nine months. There will be no new obligations, only the continuation of obligations that are already in place. Of course, there will be an opportunity to make sure that the remediation that will be necessary for a number of treatments is carried out in good time, and will be sorted out and finished by the time the ECO comes to an end.
Of course, the ending of ECO4 will in itself save bill payers a considerable amount of money. Indeed, as the noble Baroness knows, ECO4 is, in effect, an obligation on energy companies, which they passed on to customers in the form of bills. Alongside the cost of some other legacy obligations, such as the renewable obligation, the removal of that obligation and the end of ECO4 will remove, as I said, around £117 of costs on average from household energy bills across Great Britain.
It is true that the new warm homes plan is underwritten from general taxation, but it is a substantial transfer from direct customer bills to general taxation, with the resulting saving that I have outlined. The warm home scheme is a far more far-reaching programme over a longer period, with a substantial investment of up to £15 billion in it. In the long term, that will be judged by the difference between what has been put in it and what has resulted from the energy savings coming about as a result of the warm homes plan— this will, obviously, be further savings to customers’ bills—as well as by the efficiency with which the warm homes plan is put into place.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the arrangements for remediation in properties that the Government consider should be undertaken during the period of the extension of the ECO4 programme for nine months. As I am sure he will know, the NAO report considered that almost all of the external wall insulation measures had major issues requiring remediation; to put that into context, that is about 40,000 treatments, as compared with the 1 million-plus treatments that there were in ECO4 overall, but external wall insulation was a particular problem for the scheme. To a lesser extent, that applies also to internal wall insulation: 29% had major issues requiring remediation, and the NAO considered that a smaller number of treatments had possibly falsified claims attached to them.
Part of the task of this extension is to ensure that those remediations, which are down to the installers to put right, can be done during the period of the ECO extension. The noble Earl raised the possible issue of what the position is if we have got to the end of the period of extension and some of the remediations have not been done. I emphasise that these remediations are being done by obligated installers, first, but also under a strengthened trust mark arrangement for oversight, with increasing audits, site inspections and various other things as regards non-compliance detection and enforcement. So, the people who have to do that remediation will be known about, clearly, and Ofgem has taken the action of writing to all of the people who are possibly in a position where they can have remediation undertaken in order to offer them the opportunity to go on a register for remediation.
This is driven to some extent by installers and to some extent by customer demand for that remediation, and it is backed up by a strong code that makes sure that it gets done. Even if that strays beyond the end of the extension of ECO, it is not the end of the story as far as that remediation is concerned. It will be done. If it is in danger of life and limb it has to be done immediately, but if it is less serious, as it were, it has to be done during the course of that extension.
We think the Government have a good belt-and-braces position as far as those remediations are concerned, and that ECO can come to an end in an orderly fashion. That is quite important in terms of the issues that both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness mentioned about whether there is a cliff edge between what is happening with the end of ECO4 and the beginning of the warm homes plan. Among other things, this extension will mean that there is less of a cliff edge. Indeed, in conjunction with industry, the Government are active in holding round tables to enhance the ability of industry that has invested in ECO4 to transition to activity under the warm homes plan. I hope that it will not be such a cliff edge as the noble Earl mentioned and will run reasonably smoothly—if not necessarily entirely smoothly—into the warm homes plan itself, and therefore a lot of the investment that various companies have put into ECO4 can be realised through the warm homes plan.