Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Redfern Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl, but he will forgive me for having made an introduction, and now I come immediately to the substance, because what we have heard, and it came from the Minister’s mouth, is that this is all about investor confidence. This is about subsidy farming; this is about underwriting the most emitting power station in Britain, Drax, which is responsible for the desecration of huge tracts of forestry on the other side of the world, the shipping costs associated with getting it and its transport to that power station, as if it is somehow renewable. That is a fantasy.

What these regulations underpin is a false economic market that says, “No matter how high the gas price is”, and, my goodness, gas prices are high now, “we’re going to bid up the costs of renewables in an unearned income”. This is financial engineering. We are kidding ourselves that we are doing this for low carbon. We are creating a false market in unproductive assets such as carbon capture and storage. When we invest in carbon capture and storage, and I use the word “invest” advisedly, we are not investing in productive assets that will generate an economic return; we are just burying money, money that we need.

I do not deny that, as a result of this regulation, the authorities—forgive me, there are so many acronyms, I cannot remember them all, the LCCC and so forth—have to be paid for. However, this debate has exposed that it is not just about paying for the authorities, it is about financing a mission creep into all sorts of areas that collectively and cumulatively are driving the cost of our energy. Householders are paying more and industry is paying more—and, candidly, industry is now voting with its feet to go to other parts of the world because it cannot afford all this.

At some stage, we need to draw a line. I am grateful that the Minister has used the word “crisis” to describe the circumstances currently being visited on the Middle East and, by extension, on our own economy. When the facts change, you need to alter your position, and when it comes to this panoply of extra burdens on industry—not least contracts for difference—we need to have a fresh look, because the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the outcome to change. This nation cannot afford it, and neither can our industry or our householders. Clearly, we are going to note this statutory instrument, but at some stage the music needs to stop.

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend and to have the opportunity to speak to this statutory instrument. I support and welcome the update levies to fund operational costs of low carbon and nuclear energy schemes. However, it is the wider context that is my concern: the continued high prices of electricity, which are among the highest in the world for our heavy industry—such as steel, which is truly disadvantaged when having to compete worldwide. Our high-energy intensive industries—not only steel, chemicals and ceramics, which are the industrial base of the UK—are, therefore, left inadequately supported.

We all know that lower electricity costs directly help to retain manufacturing reinvestment and jobs, and support the supply chains, so it is disappointing to see manufacturing jobs moving abroad in the past 12 months. For high-energy intensive industries to compete on a level playing field, confidence must be targeted, building that elusive confidence and bringing the precious private investment into the heavy sector. The Government know they have to develop and go further with serious long-term plans, and possibly introduce a two-way contract for difference to provide a competitive wholesale electricity price to support and restore our British industrial competitiveness for the next decade.

Finally, the Government must support further—rather than undermine—the UK’s wider industrial strategy and growth emissions. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations make technical but necessary changes to the levies that electricity suppliers pay to fund three of the UK’s key energy schemes: the contracts for difference—CfD—scheme, the capacity market and the nuclear regulated asset base, or RAB model.

There is a sense of gravity on these Benches in that we fully recognise the role that CfDs have played, since they were introduced by the Liberal Democrats a long time ago, in helping to fund and secure funding for our energy transition. We recognise that these are necessary updates, and we welcome what the Minister has said to introduce these amendments. We welcome the measures that are being taken to ensure that efficiency savings are gained. Therefore, we fully support this SI.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Baroness Redfern Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for allowing me to speak in the gap and congratulate the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, on his excellent maiden speech. As he said, the Bill is about ambition.

This important piece of legislation will protect two-thirds of the world’s oceans with the jurisdiction of a single nation—the home of precious inhabitants and the ecosystems that provide the delicate health needed. It provides marine protected areas for generations to come. As we all know, our world’s oceans are under significant threat. The Bill incorporates protecting and improving the marine environment in the UK, as well as internationally, to meet the global commitment of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.

Oceans need action now from international communities helping to forge international relationships to ensure that exploitation is curtailed. Bottom-trawl fishing is highly destructive, damages the seabed and is still permitted. I vehemently hope that this practice can and will be halted.

The UK’s attention is drawn to hidden overfishing. Illegal discards and by-catch are unaccounted for in our fishing quotas as we continue to overfish and pollute our oceans, so action is very much needed. In the equation, too, is plastic production and waste, which have doubled in the last 15 to 20 years, to the extent that we now see plastic floating in our oceans. That has to be taken to task in order to breathe life back to protect our vital marine corridors for endangered marine mammals and birds. Oceans matter. They are host to almost 80% of all forms of biodiversity, which transcend our national borders.

It is pleasing that the figure of 60 countries having ratified the treaty was reached in September 2025, when Morocco and Sierra Leone deposited the 60th and 61st instruments of ratification. It will come into force next month, in January 2026, and is a huge step forward.

The Chagos Islands have vast marine protected areas around them and provide a safe corridor for migratory species. If we are to hand over the islands, what assurances have been given by Mauritius for marine protection, with ensured future funding?

The Bill will play a significant part in enabling and protecting our shared blue belt from further irreversible harm to enable healthy oceans for a healthy planet. I support the UK in meeting its international commitments, reinforcing its leadership in global ocean governance and supporting sustainable marine resource use. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.