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

Debate between Lord Whitehead and Lord Frost

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Frost (Non-Afl)]

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

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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