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

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, begin by sending our thoughts to the victim and his family in north Belfast. I believe we have an Urgent Question on this matter tomorrow, and we will be able to express our thoughts more fully at that time.

I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for allowing us to have this debate today. As I have said in previous such debates, it is very important that Parliament has an opportunity to debate these matters. However, I also welcome the introduction of speaking lists for regret Motions. Although it is important that we debate these matters, it is equally important that the time allocated to them is proportionate and representative of a cross-section of views from across this House.

These regulations seek to ensure that in future, tumble dryers are more energy-efficient heat pump models, and that consumers have better information about the tumble dryers they are purchasing. More energy-efficient machines will result in lower running costs for the consumer. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has not put his name down to speak today, but I think he would have wanted to ask a question about the additional costs for colder parts of the UK, including my original home country of Scotland, as well as Northern Ireland.

I note that heat pump dryers have been available in the UK since 2010 and that, by the time these regulations were being developed, three-quarters of new tumble dryers sold in the UK were already heat pump models. From these Benches, we support these measures as a step in the right direction—although, as my noble friend Lady Miller has just made clear in her speech, for many people these measures do not go quite far enough.

The regret Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, raises two points of concern: on the process, that is to say, the fact that Great Britain is aligning itself with the EU’s legislation on tumble dryers, and on the substance of the statutory instrument itself, which she has said will cost consumers more. I shall take each of these points in turn, starting with the substance of the regulations.

Tumble dryers consume around 9% of domestic energy consumption, so a reduction of energy usage will have a substantial impact. Heat pump dryers are not only more energy efficient but have a longer lifespan, as others have said, potentially saving the consumer more than £900 in terms of energy usage across the machine’s lifespan. I hope that the Minister will confirm these figures in his closing remarks. Any additional upfront costs of purchasing these new, more energy-efficient machines should be offset against the savings to the consumer in energy consumption.

I have to say that I have never understood why people are against progress towards using less energy at a time when energy is becoming increasingly expensive. It should also be noted that these measures apply only for future purchases. People can continue to use and repair their current tumble dryers until they need new ones. I am somebody who has lived in flats and apartments for the last 30 years and I have had to use tumble dryers as outside drying options are not available: drying clothes on balconies is frequently prohibited and drying spaces in shared garden spaces, as my noble friend Lady Miller has said, are often just not available. People who rent flats are usually going to be much more concerned about the running costs than about the purchasing costs of tumble dryers.

I welcome the detailed impact assessment carried out on these regulations last year, but we query why the consultation took place between 17 July and 14 August last summer. Can the Minister say why they chose a time when many people might have been on their summer holiday? Can he say a little more about the consultation process, including whether consultation took place with representatives across the whole of the United Kingdom?

Tumble dryers can be a major cause of house fires. Can the Minister give reassurances that the heat pump household tumble dryers are less likely to be a fire hazard than older types of machine, such as gas, air vented or condenser models? It is not strictly to do with this statutory instrument, but I would also be very interested if the Minister could say a little about recycling measures for old domestic tumble dryers.

Although these regulations are not covered by the three policy areas of dynamic alignment, as such, they are an example of the kinds of issues we will face if and when we align more closely with the EU. That brings me to the second point in the regret Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey: namely, the process of aligning on these matters with the EU. In previous regret Motions, many colleagues from Northern Ireland have understandably expressed their concern about Northern Ireland being treated differently from the rest of the UK through the Northern Ireland protocol and then the Windsor Framework, and about creating a border in effect across the Irish Sea.

Speaking to the Conservative Post about the regulations we are debating this evening, Jim Allister MP, a firm opponent of the Windsor Framework, said in April this year:

“Although the tumble dryer legislation is not formally part of the Reset, it reflects its underlying logic, bringing Great Britain into alignment with EU law, partly to prevent divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain”.


In that sense, I agree with my noble friend Lady Miller that it is not entirely clear why those who oppose the Windsor Framework should not welcome these provisions. The whole UK will be following these EU proposals, which will reduce energy consumption by our citizens.

As we move towards greater dynamic alignment, I believe it is increasingly important that both your Lordships’ House and the House of Commons have a role in decision-shaping, as well as parliamentary oversight of the Government, in this process. When we were still in the EU, we had a direct role in decision-shaping, through our participation in the EU institutions. These are, no doubt, matters which we shall return to—over many hours, I am sure—in the EU partnership Bill, but it would be very useful to hear from the Minister what progress is being made in his department on how we can feed more effectively into the decision-shaping process as we align more with the European Union.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I too share the disquiet—without, I have to say, any knowledge of the subject—of most noble Lords who have spoken so far, but I, like others, will be voting so I have three questions for the Minister. First, what was said to the other House? Apparently, the other House was told that CBAM was irrelevant. Today we are told that CBAM is entirely relevant. Is it really appropriate for both Houses to have a statutory instrument put to them on different bases? I find that very unattractive.

Secondly, we are told that misinformation, or false information, has been given to other parts of the United Kingdom. That seems to me a serious allegation, one which the Minister needs to answer. Thirdly—I will not dwell on it, because it has been dwelt on—there is an obvious element of discrimination between Scotland and Northern Ireland. That really needs a sensible, understandable answer.

[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.

Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce Review

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. I wondered how long it would take for fish to come up, and it has come up very quickly. It is important to note the burden of regulation on the nuclear industry in this country is far greater than in any other country. It is more expensive to build things here and it takes longer. For example, the environmental impact assessment for Hinkley Point was 31,401 pages; for Sizewell C, it was 44,260 pages. I understand the point my noble friend is making about the fish. The task force is one that recognises clearly that environmental processes are important. It does not aim to dilute them, but to ensure that decisions are faster, more predictable and proportionate. I would of course be happy to meet my noble friend to discuss any concerns she has about the specifics.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, the task force estimates tens of billions of pounds of potential savings, especially in the area of decommissioning. If savings are made, will the Minister commit to reinvest those funds into a safe disposal facility for our most highly radioactive waste?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will know, we have a very large nuclear waste store in this country. There are ongoing discussions about geological disposal facilities, which is a very key area. I will keep the House updated as we progress that.