Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to listen to the Minister. He is the one Minister who, I know, if we asked for a one-and-a-half-hour explanation, he would be able to do it without notes because of his deep knowledge. When I looked at the Explanatory Note, I saw that it said that these regulations concern arrangements for determining whether renewables projects qualify for contracts for difference. I want to address that theme about a specific area.

The Minister mentioned AR5. Of course, AR5 was pretty disastrous, generally, but there was a bright spot in it. It is an area where I have to congratulate the previous Government on a very wise decision in including geothermal energy for the first time. I was privileged, three months ago, to officially open the United Downs geothermal electricity station down in Cornwall, near where I am resident. I have been a proponent of geothermal for some time.

I have a question for the Minister in that area, about determining which renewables qualify for CfD rounds. Obviously, the great by-product of some of this technology is the critical mineral of lithium, which is really important to our future industrial success in this country. Do the Government envisage geothermal continuing to be one of the areas that is ring-fenced as a technology in future rounds?

My second question for the Minister goes back to his past when he was a Member of Parliament in Southampton, where geothermal energy was important for heating. Given the Government’s strong will to broaden the application of CfDs, geothermal in many ways is even more suited for district heating, beyond combined heat and power schemes, which can be CfD related. What is the Minister’s view as to whether the Government see geothermal heating being part of a future CfD round?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction—clearly, this stuff is more complicated than eBay. I also thank my noble friend for raising important questions about geothermal that I hope the Minister will come to answer, but we support the inclusion and further development of that technology within our renewables energy mix.

These regulations are modest but worthwhile technical reforms to the contracts for difference scheme, and they have our support. As we know, auction rounds are the central part of our drive to clean energy, the energy transition 2030 and net zero by 2050. As the Explanatory Note sets out, competition has grown, so it is essential and welcome that, between rounds, the Government are undertaking these fundamental reviews of the way in which these complicated auction rounds work in practice. We welcome the fact that that has happened with stakeholders and that the Government are looking to improve and streamline these systems.

I turn to the reforms themselves, the first of which involves NESO reviewing the process for non-qualification decisions, as the Minister set out. Applicants will now be able to submit new evidence when requesting a review. We welcome this; it is overdue and is clearly a sensible reform. When an applicant has got so far in the process, it would be silly not to do that for the sake of one mistake on the form. As the Minister said, we know that many AR7 applications failed due to very minor omissions, so this is welcome. Allowing corrections at review stage will reduce unnecessary exclusion and improve fairness.

The second reform allows the delivery body to amend non-qualification decisions where the framework permits. This introduces much-needed flexibility into what was previously a perhaps overly rigid process and enables errors to be corrected without needing to process further to costly appeals.

Thirdly, Regulations 7 and 8 strengthen the treatment of pending applications. The definition is extended so that those still within appeal windows can submit sealed bids, while Regulation 8 ensures that those bids cannot be disclosed. This is an important safeguard for the integrity of the auction process. I will not ask the Minister to give us a two-hour explanation.

Taken together, these changes are administrative but meaningful and they will help make the process more streamlined and efficient. They reduce barriers, improve fairness and strengthen confidence in the system. As the Minister said, they come at a significant moment in our transition. As he pointed out, allocation round 7 was a landmark—the largest in European history, with 14.7 gigawatts across 201 projects and over £22 billion of investment, and the largest of our rounds to date. Of course, coming after the problems we had with a previous round, it was extremely welcome that it was successful.

I also welcome the fact that the Government have made the decision to bring AR8 forward to July 2026. That maintains momentum and sends a clear signal of the UK’s commitment to the clean power 2030 ambitions. That is, in turn, good for industry and for showing a clear path to investment in our renewable future.

I have a couple of questions generally, since we are here debating this. On contract length for CfDs, we welcome the fact that the Government have already extended the contracts from 15 to 20 years. The Minister will be aware that it is my party’s policy that we would like to see those CfDs extended further, to 25 years, with the asset lifetime stretching from 25 to 30 years. Are the Government open to and actively considering that? Is it on the agenda?

Obviously, the strike prices at the last auction were above those in previous rounds of auctions. There are several reasons for that, primarily global inflation pressures. There is a need in the next round to make sure that we set a competitive price, one that recognises that inflation is there, so I have a quick question for the Minister about the calculations that the Government are making for AR8, because obviously inflationary pressures are still there—in fact they are exaggerating a bit—while making sure that we get a successful auction at a good price.

It was in the press today, and I presume it is accurate, that the Government have now secured grid connections for half of the projects needed to get us to clean power 2030, so I am pleased to see that the grid reforms are having an impact and that we are making that progress. But we have a lot coming through the system, so I ask for reassurance from the Minister: a lot of projects are bunched together, so I want to be sure that a product of our own success is not that we create bottlenecks in the system.

In the last round, AR7, we actually secured only 1.3 gigawatts of onshore wind. I recognise that the Government have removed the effective planning restrictions that previously existed. To my mind, there is more to do. A bit like my noble friend who raised geothermal, I wanted to ask the Minister a quick question: what more can be done to further kick-start onshore wind and onshore wind investment? In particular, what is the Government’s thinking on AR8?

To conclude, these regulations are sensible and proportionate. The Government have clearly worked with stakeholders and have stakeholder support. We welcome the regulations and are pleased to see that really detailed reviews are happening between these essential and important auction processes.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very kind opening remarks, which I greatly appreciate. It is good to be back for what is, as he says, always a constructive and convivial exchange of views with him. I am sure that that will continue to be the case, even in the very late nights that I anticipate we will spend debating the energy Bill when it comes before the House. In the four or five months that I did this job before leaving the House to come back in a new incarnation, I was deeply grateful to his private office as well for always being highly professional and responding quickly to any requests from this side of the House. I would be grateful if he could pass that on.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, except that I want to correct him on one point, which is very difficult, because his knowledge is as extensive on the subject of energy as the Minister’s. When I was Minister for Energy, back in 1990, we launched the first support for geothermal energy. It was part of the non-fossil fuel obligation, which was a precursor of the current regimes. We had a series of technology bands, and one of them was geothermal. We felt it was very important that it should be recognised as an important part of the renewable energy programme moving forward. It was a long time ago, and it may not have made huge progress in the intervening decades, but nevertheless it was certainly identified as an important part of that work at that time. I echo what he says about its continued importance in the context of renewable energy.

Energy Prices Act 2022 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement, particularly his concluding words acknowledging Northern Ireland’s unique dependence on heating oil and how his department will maintain a vigilant eye.

There are issues of timing around this SI, which I am sure will be debated this evening. There were also issues of timing around the last SI that the Minister introduced, in March. I had substantial doubts about that one, more than I have about this one, but, in both cases, I am mindful of the fact that there has been serious dialogue with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive. Although I was very uneasy about the last SI, which was on greenhouse gases and was introduced in the Chamber, I did not vote against it because the fundamental job of the Government here is to pay close attention to and have a proper dialogue with the Executive in Northern Ireland.

That said, I will say something in favour of this SI, as against the last one. The danger with the last SI on greenhouse gases was that paragraph 51 of the Windsor Framework commits the United Kingdom Government to ensuring that Northern Ireland goods appear in the UK market without any advantage to either Scotland or Wales, on exactly the same equality of treatment. That seemed to be a major problem—an implicit conflict—because the last statutory instrument favoured Scotland. But this one, by and large, is driven by a proper and correct concern with the future of energy supply in Northern Ireland, and I thank the Minister for his introduction to it.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome and support the Energy Prices Act 2022 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026—and particularly the continued effort to ensure that consumers in Northern Ireland receive appropriate protection from the continued volatility of energy costs following the war in the Middle East. I thank the Minister for introducing this.

We are supportive of the Government’s removal of the energy obligations and ECO policies from consumer energy bills that were, in the UK, brought in under the Autumn Budget. Consumers in Northern Ireland should be able to benefit, as consumers in Great Britain have, from these powers. We welcome this SI, but I have some questions for the Minister.

It is ultimately for the Northern Ireland DfE to decide how to use these powers. We welcome the work that is being done to provide it with support in designing that system. That inter-government co-operation is welcome. I note that the exact design of the comparable offer is yet to be finalised, as drafted in the Explanatory Memorandum. I recognise that the Minister might not be able to answer this, but does he have an idea of when the work on this will be completed from the DfE in Northern Ireland? As has been mentioned, it is extremely important that these measures are put in place so that consumers in Northern Ireland can enjoy the same benefits as their counterparts in the rest of the UK.

It is well understood, and the Minister mentioned, that some 61% of households in Northern Ireland are dependent on oil central heating as their primary source. Those figures are from 2024 or 2025. I recognise some of the work that the Government have done since the conflict in the Middle East on trying to prevent price gouging. The Minister has mentioned the £53 million support package that has been provided. We welcome that package, but the Minister will recognise that there is more to be done there. Knowing that Northern Ireland is dependent on this fuel oil and that those prices have been particularly hard hit because of the conflict, will some of these measures help to deal with those problems?

More generally, what further consideration is being given by the DfE in Northern Ireland and GB Energy, as a community energy scheme, to replacing those outdated heating systems and moving to more cost-effective and efficient heat pump technology? Is that perhaps a project for GB Energy, a community energy project? Has any consideration been given to that in government? Also, can the Government outline how long these amended measures are intended for? Is it expected that they will remain in force until 2030, as is possible under the SI? What criteria will determine whether they are withdrawn or extended? We support this instrument and have no objection to it.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, this instrument underpins the measures that we have already debated. It creates no new powers and His Majesty’s Opposition are supportive of it. More broadly, as the Minister knows, we do not believe that the Government can lower the structural cost of energy for families and businesses in Britain simply by moving policy costs around from energy bills on to tax bills. But I accept that we have debated the content of the RO and the policy context in which this SI has been brought forward at some length already.

This measure is very specific to Northern Ireland. It is something of a surprise because it extends by six years from a date that has already passed, 3 April. So we are in an unusual position whereby this does not apply but is going to apply retrospectively. I regret that; it should have been brought back at a much earlier stage.

The questions asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, just now were very relevant. The Explanatory Memorandum specifically states:

“The UK Government is working with the Northern Ireland Executive as they consider developing a comparable offer”—


at least they know that that is what is intended—

“to the RO to Exchequer policy, and the exact design of this comparable offer has not yet been finalised”.

That makes it clear that we are pretty close to it. We are just short of the exact design.

It is useful for the Committee, I think, to hear from the Minister a bit more detail on the status of the discussions and the status of the project that is being proposed so that we are not simply writing a blank cheque. I accept that, elsewhere in the SI, there is an important recognition that this is clearly a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly, but, given that they have used the words “exact design”, it is incumbent on the Minister and the Government to provide details to Members of the Committee—not least Members from Northern Ireland—so that they can study them following this debate.

I appreciate that the EM goes on to say that this is an enabling measure and

“does not itself provide financial support or determine the design, timing or announcement of any scheme in Northern Ireland”.

However, we are already well on the road to a final proposal. My noble friend Lord Bew and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, focused on the timing and how long it will take. Given that we now know that the exact design of the comparable offer is yet to be finalised —we are clearly making very good progress—are we talking about six weeks or six months? Are we talking about a year? Why are we talking about six years, rather than three or 16, in the SI?

I would be very grateful if the Minister could give us clarity on the status of the negotiations with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive and on what the Northern Ireland Executive are thinking about in this context; after all, they have known about this since the Budget. I ask him to provide as much detail as possible so that Members who are interested in matters relating to Northern Ireland are well briefed. I say that with renewed emphasis today. Regrettably, yesterday evening, we had a debate in the Chamber in which there was real concern from Members from Northern Ireland—or Members with a particular interest in Northern Ireland; they happened to be from Northern Ireland as well. They were worried that Northern Ireland was a sort of afterthought and that the policy had not been properly designed in recognition of the fact that Northern Ireland is absolutely an inherent and important part of the United Kingdom.

There is a danger of a similar interpretation with this measure. Quickly coming to the House with an SI that recognises that the timing has now lapsed and that we need a new extension does not look good unless the Minister can demonstrate clearly that there has been detailed discussion of what exactly this policy is going to look like, with information about the design of the comparable offer given to the Committee and the House; I hope that the Minister will now be able to give that.

I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI. I hope that he will be able to provide much further information on it either today, in this Committee, or in writing.

Offshore Oil and Gas: Venting and Flaring

Earl Russell Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in reducing emissions and wasted gas via venting and flaring on offshore oil and gas infrastructure.

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

UK oil and gas has one of the lowest upstream methane emission intensities globally. Industry and the Government have committed to the World Bank’s zero routine flaring by 2030 initiative and have gone beyond it with venting. The UK industry achieved the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative’s 2025 target for 0.2% methane intensity five years early, reaching 0.18% intensity by 2020. The NSTA projects that this will have decreased to 0.12% in the 2024 results, due to be published in autumn 2026.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the Green Alliance has found that North Sea operators are still wasting gas worth £300 million a year—enough to heat around 570,000 homes. That lost gas is nearly a third of Jackdaw’s projected peak output. Why are the Government tolerating such inefficiencies? Will the Minister commit to banning routine flaring and venting in law, through the energy independence Bill, bringing the deadline forward to 2028 and directing regulators to accelerating enforcement before new drilling is approved?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The Government are not tolerating the wastage of gas in the way the noble Earl suggested. The target that we have set, which the industry is adhering to, is for zero upstream flaring and zero upstream venting by 2030. As I have set out, the intensities that go with that are reducing ahead of the target and will certainly be met by 2030.

King’s Speech

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, it is an honour to speak in this debate on energy security. I look forward to the maiden speeches of all the new noble Lords and noble Baronesses, and I wish them well in their time here.

If a week is a long time in politics, the period since the last parliamentary Session feels like an eternity. Our world continues to be ever more dangerous and unstable. Families and businesses are feeling the reality in their bills and their shopping baskets and have a sense that something is wrong with the way we are managing our affairs. If there is one lesson we need to draw from the turbulent events of recent months, it is that what we need now is not internal party politics and leadership battles but a change of policy backed by renewed ambition, upscaled delivery and a clear national commitment to cut dependence on volatile and unreliable fossil fuels.

I thank the Minister and his officials for the work they have continued to do, quietly and diligently, through a period of considerable turbulence. My gratitude is genuine, but it is not a substitute for greater urgency. There will be shocks ahead and we must be ready for them and honest about their impacts. The International Energy Agency has been clear that this global energy crisis is among the most severe. Global energy stocks are being depleted at record pace. There is a quality to this moment. Rather like watching an explosion at a distance, the flash has already occurred, the light has reached us, but the destructive pressure wave has yet to arrive. Our task is to prepare for what is coming, not to persuade ourselves that it will pass us by.

This crisis is not simply a question of oil and gas prices, uncomfortable as those are; it cascades through the whole economy, into jet and heating oil, diesel, fertiliser, food production, and supply chains of every kind. It will increase government borrowing costs in many economies, triggering recessions. The United Kingdom, with some of the most expensive domestic energy bills in the G7, is particularly exposed.

The longer we remain dependent on fossil fuels, the longer we remain price takers and not price makers, subject to decisions made in foreign capitals and boardrooms over which we have little influence. The cost of dependency is tangible. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has calculated that the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels led to direct economic impacts of £183 billion in the four years following the invasion of Ukraine. To put that figure in perspective, it exceeds the entire annual budget of NHS England in 2024-25. These are not ideological arguments; they are arguments of economic necessity.

America, once our closest ally, now pursues a National Security Strategy that speaks explicitly of global energy dominance, backed by a denial of climate change—a belief that is contrary to responsible energy policy. The consequences are only beginning to impact us now and resolution of the Iran conflict is not imminent. In this context, or any other, it would be a “delusional fantasy”, as Ed Davey put it, to suggest that North Sea oil offers any serious answers to our energy insecurity. It does not, and the Official Opposition should stop pretending that anything else is the case.

The answer lies in what Carbon Brief has already demonstrated in hard figures: since the Iran conflict began, Britain’s existing renewables have shielded us from some £1.7 billion in additional gas import costs. That is hard evidence that clean power is already working and saving us money. The Climate Change Committee has also made it clear that the total cost of another fossil-fuel crisis of this kind would exceed the total cost of reaching net zero. This is the most powerful argument for added urgency.

I am genuinely pleased that the Government are moving at speed and scale towards the achievement of Clean Power 2030. Renewable projects to power the equivalent of 23 million homes have already been secured. We want Labour to succeed in this endeavour, not from any partisan generosity but because, if it does not, the days ahead will be considerably darker.

We therefore broadly welcome the energy independence Bill, and we will engage with it constructively, but we will press for a ban on fracking that contains no loopholes: one that cannot be quietly unpicked by future political pressure. We will seek to require solar panels on suitable new warehouses and car parks as a matter of standard practice. We also want communities to be genuine participants in the energy transition, not merely its hosts. People who live alongside new infrastructure ought to share in the benefits it generates. That means a right to sell electricity, restored funding for Great British Energy, directed in part towards community coastal onshore wind, and better access to local generation and storage. On market reform, we are clear: more levies must come off electricity bills, the system must properly reward clean power and a social tariff must be introduced for households that cannot absorb repeated bill shocks. These proposals are not radical; they are proportionate and compassionate.

Brexit has left us poorer, less secure and more energy vulnerable than we need to be. Our future lies in closer energy ties to our nearest neighbours. Rejoining the EU internal energy market and linking our emissions trading schemes, where that is practicable, will reduce costs and strengthen resilience. In a modern energy system, isolation is just inefficiency by another name.

On the nuclear regulation Bill, we recognise the case for faster delivery and for streamlining where it is genuinely warranted, but we will scrutinise the detail carefully. Public confidence in the safety and accountability of nuclear power is not a luxury; it is a precondition for its success and should be treated as such. Nuclear power requirements cannot override our nature protections. If Labour is backing a renaissance of nuclear power, it must extend to greater efforts to deal with the legacy of nuclear waste and ensure that those costs do not spiral.

The electricity generation levy Bill implements the pot-zero proposals that my party called for over a year ago. While we support them, these matters are rightly complex. Persuading companies to negotiate new contracts will also be complex and take time, while the savings may be slower than anticipated. Beyond this, more must be done to further fundamentally reform our outdated energy market arrangements. We call on the Government to develop proposals for a strategic reserve for gas-fired power stations outside the market, as we move towards a more wholly renewable energy market.

I turn finally to a matter that troubles me. I checked the gracious Address carefully. The word “nature” does not appear in it and the phrase “climate change” appears only once. We do not wish to see Labour following the Green Party’s latest example, so we call on the Government not to ignore climate and nature in their discourses. This omission reflects our real concern about the current limits of the Government’s vision and ambition. Energy security—any security—cannot be meaningfully separated from the climate and nature crisis. They are, as my party has long argued, two intertwined aspects of the same emergency.

Britain is one of the most nature-depleted countries. That matters for our food, our water, our health and our long-term resilience. Since 2020, we have had five of our worst harvests. Last year was the worst year for burning from wildfires. The real consequences of an ever-warming climate are a national security issue and must be treated as such. Our adaption pathways are, by any assessment, inadequate for the climate impacts already under way. We need a proper national strategy for nature and adaption: properly funded, integrated into policy-making and treated as a matter of national security rather than an afterthought.

I ask the Conservative Benches to return to the cross-party consensus on climate and nature that this country once led and that many of them helped to build. I ask the Government to stop treating nature as something that can be omitted from their legislative programme. This Government should lead the world on climate change and must provide adaption and support for those less fortunate who live on the front line of climate impacts.

The Liberal Democrats will support this Government where they act in the national interests and we will hold them to account, courteously but firmly, where they fall short. We stand ready to work co-operatively on the difficult decisions ahead, because on these matters co-operation makes the near impossible merely difficult and its absence makes the merely difficult impossible. The clean energy transition is not simply the right thing to do; it is the affordable thing, the secure thing and the only thing that seriously answers the crisis we are in. The opportunity is before us; let us not waste it.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we move on to the Back Benches, we have over 70 speakers taking part in the debate, including four maiden speakers, and I know that noble Lords are looking forward to well-informed and concise speeches. I encourage noble Lords to stick to the four-minute advisory time limit, so that we can finish at a reasonable time and give respect to other speakers in the debate. Whips are a kind and generous group of people, so please excuse us if one of my number needs to get up during the debate to remind people of the four-minute limit.

Climate Change: Government Action

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will know, a report on adaptation will be coming out shortly. I accept that this is an essential part of a two-legged approach to climate change: we must be aware of what we need to do to adapt to climate change as well as to mitigate it. Farmers retaining water is a very important part of that adaptation process. I hope that we can respond positively to what they are doing in this respect.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, our understanding of climate change is fundamentally reliant on international global science, which is under threat. I implore this Government to do more to support international climate science. What specific actions are the Government taking to monitor the cumulative impact of that reduction in science, and what steps are we taking at the international level to support this work going forward?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The Government are completely guided by the science as far as climate change action is concerned. I share the noble Earl’s concern that in terms of the climate change debate in this country we appear to be moving away from the science—which is the underpinning of everything that we need to hold on for future action. The particular issue as far as retaining the science is concerned is continued support for and understanding of the work of the Committee on Climate Change and how it is interpreting the science to make sure that its recommendations are absolutely with the science. The noble Earl will know that the seventh carbon budget that has come from the Committee on Climate Change is up for consideration by the Government by the end of next month. That will underpin its work in this respect.

National Emergency Plan for Fuel

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Lord conflates a number of different sources of fuel into one in his question. It is certainly the case, as far as petrol, diesel and other similar fuels are concerned, that supplies in the UK are stable. The UK as a refiner of petrol actually exports petrol from the UK, so there is no question of supply problems there. Only 1% of the crude oil that goes into petrol refining comes from the Middle East and only 7% of diesel comes from the Middle East so UK fuel supply is generally stable and secure. Jet fuel is slightly different as a higher percentage of it comes from the Middle East, but the airlines in the UK are clear that they are not currently seeing a shortage of jet fuel. Indeed, aviation fuel is typically bought in advance, and airports and their suppliers keep stocks of bunkered fuel to support their resilience.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the double blockade of the strait is still in place and shows no signs of easing. The national fuel emergency plan was last updated in April 2024, yet current pressures across aviation fuel, diesel and fertilisers are unique and complex. What consideration is being given to updating and stress-testing the plan? How will the Government balance timely information with avoiding panic? What steps are being taken to support early economy-wide fuel efficiency measures?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Earl is absolutely right to point to the complexity of the situation at the moment, not just in terms of particular kinds of fuel supply but the knock-on effects of, for example, a lack of supply in the Middle East as a result of some refineries being bombed and long-term supply questions across the world about certain other fuels. The national emergency plan for fuel, however, is a plan for shortages of fuels, of which there are none at the moment in the UK.

The wider question is: what will happen as far as prices are concerned as this crisis develops, since we have no means of determining exactly when it will finish? That is not an issue for the national emergency plan for fuel, but it is one for the question of stabilising prices for consumers and ensuring that businesses are not at risk from those prices getting out of control. Indeed, as the noble Earl knows, the Government have already started taking initiatives in this respect. For example, £53 million has been distributed to cushion the effects of price rises in home heating fuel, which are particularly suffered by people who are off grid.

Clean Power 2030 Action Plan: Rural Communities

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, in discussing these various means of producing energy and transmitting it and whether it is best to do it in the sea, agriculture or somewhere else. Then, of course, we have this debate about whether we should have pylons or hydrogen. Nobody has yet invented a sky-hook, which would sort out all the problems.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Nagaraju on a really interesting maiden speech. He did not have very long for it, but I can see that in future he is going to give us some really useful tips and thoughts about how we can improve what we do on these issues, including on access to rural communities. I hope he will take it upon himself to challenge the Government, the Opposition and everyone with whom he may have an issue, because the more experience we get here, the better it will be for everyone.

We have had many debates on rural communities and the need for special fuels to fuel people’s boilers, so I will not repeat them. I really welcome the boiler upgrade scheme of £9,000 for off-grid households that the Government recently announced, but it is worth noting that there are still uncovered costs of some significance in installing heat pumps. It is not a question of just having them delivered off the back of a lorry and plugging them in. They work well, but they take a lot of time and are quite expensive. In the past we have debated some communities, especially people in Cornwall, where I live, who have got together and saved quite a lot of money and made efficiencies by working with one supplier to create the right amount of power at a reasonable cost.

I have a question or two for my noble friend, because there are some issues that may need a little more thought. There is the cost of electricity, which we can go on debating, but putting in a heat pump can mean a problem with building regulations, and it is not always possible. If something goes wrong and you have to revert to what you had before, which is probably an oil burner, and you suddenly find that the building regulations do not allow you to replace it, what are you going to do?

I am quite sure it will work most of the time, but can my noble friend the Minister tell the House—now or, if necessary, in writing—whether, if an off-grid consumer finds that heat pumps are inadequate or unaffordable, with very high running costs, there are any measures in place to give them a bit more protection? In other words, what can the rural communities who rely on oil do to help themselves?

One of the big debates we have had in the last few months concerns the balance in demand between the new fuels to be used in the air sector and the fuels to be used in our heat pumps. When my noble friend the Minister comes to respond, I hope he will confirm that government policy does not give either of those two options strong priority over the other, or suggest that it is more important for people to fly than to stay warm. That would be a very dangerous attitude to take and I do not think my noble friend is taking it, but it would offer some comfort if, when the subsidy comes, we look to do our bit for the rural communities as well as trying to fly.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nagaraju, on a fine maiden speech, and I recognise his work in the field of AI. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for bringing this debate, and I thank her and others for their contributions.

I have listened to the concerns—there are real concerns; we are going through a real energy transition. However, there is a danger of framing clean power as somehow inherently anti-rural or of treating net zero as a threat to our countryside. The evidence and public opinion do not support either of those two stances. The DESNZ public attitudes tracker shows that 68% of people support government actions to reduce the impacts of climate change, and over 60% support our 2050 net-zero goals. The clean power action plan is the backbone of our energy transition to get 95% of our power from clean sources from 2030, and it involves major investment in flexibility and necessary grid infrastructure.

I recognise the concerns. We have heard concerns about the loss of agricultural land from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, although I did not recognise the figures given. Concerns about food security were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and about visual amenity by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. We also heard worries about possible large-scale battery fires from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and fears that infrastructure is being imposed on communities. These are legitimate concerns, and those on this side who support renewable energy need to answer them, but I want to make the other case for renewables as well. The fact that I support renewables does not mean I do not recognise that they will have impacts. It is important that we discuss what those impacts are and how we can best limit them as far as possible.

Electricity demand is expected to more than double by 2050, so major investment is not an option—it is essential. It would have been easier if we had started earlier, but this must be done with our communities and not to them, and with proper regard to the visual amenity of our landscape, proximity to people’s homes and communities, and compensation where it is necessary. We should look at the figures. At the moment, only 0.3% of the UK’s land is used for large-scale solar, and the Government’s land use framework indicates that just 1% of England’s land will be needed for renewables by 2050. This is still less than the land taken and used by golf courses, yet I have not heard them mentioned today as a threat to our future.

I support floating offshore solar. It would be good to hear something from the Minister about that. There is a lot of misinformation in this space; there was a newspaper article last week comparing solar to Chernobyl. The implication is that every solar project is a blight on the countryside, but that is simply not true. Solar can have low visual impacts, increase biodiversity gains and bring meaningful community benefit. Agrivoltaics can help farmers to transition to help to improve crop yields in the face of rising temperatures.

The real threat to our countryside is not from clean power but from the cost of inaction. It is from the rise of fossil fuel markets, escalating bills and the growing damage caused by climate change itself. Our rural communities are more susceptible because they have less well-insulated homes, they need to drive more and they are subject to the impacts of climate change, whether from declining harvests, rising temperatures or increased flooding. The UK has warmed already by 1.2 degrees Celsius since 1884. We have had the five worst harvests since 2000. Inaction on climate change threatens our food security far more than any solar panel ever could.

I want to look at the opportunities to get this right and at what more can be done. We need to use rooftop solar first. I ask the Government what more they are doing to make use of warehouses, car parks and public buildings. Planning is also crucial, so I ask the Minister about the strategic spatial energy strategy. My understanding is that it is coming by autumn 2027. I push the Minister as well on community energy, which has also been mentioned, because people in the countryside should be able to benefit from the energy that they host. I ask the Minister about the community right to generate and what more is going to happen to push onshore wind.

However, the idea that the renewables transition is inherently anti our rural communities and our way of life is simply not true.

Low-carbon Heat Networks

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right about the importance, cheapness and flexibility of heat networks for the future. Indeed, the Government are taking that flexibility—that essential nature—of heat networks very seriously in their ambitions for them to provide something like 20% of total heat by 2050. Among other things, the Government are doing that through the green heat network fund, to bring forward investment, and to make sure, through the heat network efficiency scheme, that existing heat networks are brought up to scratch with the newer ones that are coming on stream.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the Statement made yesterday by the Energy Secretary that the Government will be working to accelerate the £15 billion warm homes plan. We support the work that the Government are doing on heat networks but, in light of the current energy crisis, what further work will be done to accelerate the rollout of heat networks, particularly for social housing, to ensure that those in fuel poverty get the help that they need as urgently as possible?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Earl is quite right to emphasise how important it is to accelerate the rollout of heat networks, particularly in view of the present gas volatility crisis. As has already been mentioned, heat networks can source their heat from anywhere. For many years Southampton heat network, if I dare mention it, has sourced its heat from geothermal energy. There are many other heat networks that can source heat from waste heat, mine heat and, as has also been mentioned, the future heat from data centres. So the customer greatly benefits from having access to heat that otherwise would not be accessible so far as a home is concerned. That is why we are determined to push forward with heat networks as fast as we can, and to make sure that the target—that is, 20% of heat from networks as a portion of heat overall—is achieved in very good time.

Electricity: Domestic Pricing

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Although gas accounts for only 30% or so of the market, at the moment it sets the price over 60% of the time with marginal cost pricing arrangements. It is right that we need to go faster and further. Indeed, today the Government have announced plans, among many other things, to ensure that the element of the renewable input into the system—on renewables obligations rather than fixed-price contracts for difference—can be moved over to that latter category as soon as possible, thereby bearing down on the amount of time that gas sets the price in the market.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we cannot afford continued fossil fuel dependency. We welcome the move from legacy contracts to cheaper ones. Indeed, my party proposed similar over a year ago. I support the Greenpeace Power Shift RAB model to remove gas, the most expensive component, from the market. Are Ministers still looking at these proposals, and will they take them forward? If not, why not? Together these proposals fall short, and that is my worry here. Despite the way they have been trailed, they will not deliver the savings we require.

Data Centres: Energy Demand

Earl Russell Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that projected increases in energy demand from data centres do not compromise the achievement of their targets for clean power by 2030 and for net zero by 2050.

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

My Lords, the Government recognise that Great British electricity demand is expected to grow significantly, driven in part by advances in AI. We are clear that this growth must not prevent delivery of clean power by 2030 and net zero by 2050. The Government are working to ensure data centre energy demand supports a flexible, resilient and increasingly low-carbon electricity system, including through smarter siting, improved use of existing clean generation and more efficient use of power. Importantly, evidence has shown that AI will support emissions reduction across the economy through improved efficiency and system optimisation, potentially outweighing additional electricity demand.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, with Ofgem warning that proposed data centres are seeking 50 gigawatts, exceeding our current peak demand, my view is that, as yet, inadequate assessments have been made by government and regulators of AI’s climate impacts. Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable merely to believe that this demand is compatible with clean power and our net-zero targets? I ask the Minister to commit to a NESO standing forecast for AI’s electricity use and to ongoing direct contact between government and the Climate Change Committee on data centres.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I completely agree with the noble Earl that merely believing that it is all going to be okay and that we can easily absorb all these additional demands on the energy sector without doing anything else is, at least, a folly. That is why the Government are taking substantial steps, for example through the AI growth zones, to make sure that we plan where data centres will be and make sure that those data centres are as closely aligned as possible with sources of either optimised electricity or constrained electricity or with new sources of energy production, so that the AI data centre development is not a burden on the system but an addition to it.