Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

As we are all about the same height at this end, we do not need it. We should not worry about that.

Can the noble Lord write to me—I have asked this on more than one occasion—to tell me whether he, the department and the Government are inclined to look into this? From the point of view of household energy bills, that would make a real difference. If we could move away from renewables so that the application for the BESS in Knaresborough and Scotton is not approved next week, that would make the world a safer place, because my niece has been told that she will have to evacuate in the event of a fire. Knowing how highly combustible and flammable these things are, the world would be a safer place. However, with those few remarks, obviously I approve the SI before us this afternoon.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced these regulations. It is almost like double déjà vu because we have considered the Northern Ireland regulations and we considered these ones very recently. We had a good debate on them last time, so I will be incredibly brief on these. I sincerely hope that the Minister stays in post, because I enjoy working opposite him.

On the regulations, the Government need go on seeking these six-month extensions so that they can continue to deliver these savings, which are important at the moment. We have renewed hostility in the Middle East and increased pressures on the cost of energy, so we absolutely recognise the need for this to be done, and these regulations would extend those provisions from 25 October 2026 until 25 April 2027. I therefore recognise that, in the absence of other primary legislation, there is a need continuously to come back with the six-month extensions.

I welcome that the noble Lord said that his department was working on bringing forward a permanent legislative solution so that we do not need to continue doing this. Can we expect that in the energy independence Bill, or is the expectation that it would need to be a stand-alone piece of legislation?

I made all the broader points I need to make on this SI when we debated it previously, so I will not rehearse those again. The Minister knows where I stand on a need to reduce energy costs, and on some of the ideas that I believe in and which my party has put forward. I wanted to ask about the situation in Northern Ireland, on which the Minister kindly updated us. I welcome that his department has been working with the Northern Ireland Executive, and I hear what he says: that has been enabled and has entered into force. If there is anything else on the Northern Ireland situation that the Minister might choose to add, that would be welcome. Other than that, we support these regulations, we will not stand in their way, and I thank the noble Lord.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of both Amey and of Acteon subsea engineering company, which works on offshore wind and oil and gas around the world, and as chairman of Buckthorn Partners, all of which are involved with energy transition.

I am very grateful to the Minister for the introduction of what is, I hope, the last SI before the Recess. I echo the comments made by my colleagues about the way he always handles the Committee with respect and responds to as many questions as he can in the time available.

I hope that the Government will not continue to keep propping up the renewables obligation to the Exchequer with secondary legislation. The point has been made that it is also important that we have proper scrutiny of it through the introduction of primary legislation. I say to my good friend, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is the Liberal Democrat spokesman, that I have no doubt that there will be plenty of room to handle this matter in the so-called energy independence Bill. It is fast becoming a Christmas tree Bill. I would not want to be on that Bill Committee; it must be the worst job in DESNZ at the moment, because it is being written and rewritten. I hope that the clauses about banning licensing in the North Sea have now been removed, in advance of the new government leadership—we will see shortly—but this would be a good opportunity for this specific point to be remedied in primary legislation.

State of Climate and Nature

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as the chair of Amey, the chair of Acteon and the chair of Buckthorn Partners, which are all involved, in different ways, with energy transition both in the UK and around the world. I am grateful to the Minister for answering questions on the Statement made in another place yesterday. There the Defra Minister read the Statement, and the exchanges focused on her responsibility. Today it is the turn of the Minister for DESNZ in this House, so I will concentrate my questions on the aspects of the Statement that focus on the Starmer Government’s record on meeting the objectives set out in the Statement—or, more precisely, the consequences of the tenure of the Secretary of State, Ed Miliband, who is rumoured to be heading to the Treasury at the end of the week.

We all recognise the importance of protecting our climate and restoring nature. The key question is whether the Government have been capable of making progress on both. The Statement notes the introduction of carbon budget 7 and praises it, despite it being regretted in your Lordships’ House. The Government claim to be

“working in partnership with local communities, businesses, conservationists and farmers”.

The Climate Change Committee suggested a 35% reduction in meat and dairy consumption by 2050, a 50% reduction in the number of cattle and sheep, a doubling of tree planting rates by 2030 and a doubling of peatland restoration by 2040. Does the Minister agree with those representing the farmers that they will be forced to uproot their entire business models within a single generation?

Similarly, the Statement informs us that the Government will

“protect and conserve 30% of our land and seas for nature by 2030”.

Yet last week, the Government approved One Earth solar farm, a week after approving Peartree Hill and Dean Moor solar farms. One Earth will cover 3,900 acres and will have a capacity of 740 megawatts. Half the farm will be on best and most versatile—BMV—land. Can the Minister explain how that enhances our natural environment? Does he agree with the Secretary of State, who recently overruled his own planning inspectors to approve this, Britain’s second-largest solar farm, despite their recommendations to refuse the application over concerns about environmental damage and the loss of productive farmland, which this Statement is meant to protect? It is estimated that the site’s 660 hectares could produce around 5,300 tonnes of wheat a year. Does the Minister not agree that the Government are getting the balance wrong? Britain needs affordable, reliable, clean power, but covering productive farmland with vast solar developments while ignoring practical alternatives is not the answer. Ministers should be pursuing an energy strategy that strengthens our energy security without undermining our farmers.

However, I understand that there is some good news coming from the Statement. Will the Minister confirm that Andy Burnham is going to accept the long-running campaign from this side of the House to approve the Jackdaw gas field and will be going to Aberdeen during the recess with this welcome news? Let us hope that this is the beginning of the damascene conversion of Ed Miliband, especially if he is to move to the Treasury, although somehow I doubt it. Given the decision to approve Jackdaw this summer, does the Minister now agree that North Sea gas is four times cleaner in production than imported LNG and that UK energy security is strengthened by reducing reliance on imported gas? Does he agree that this would be a first step to protecting and indeed increasing oil and gas jobs, would grow tax revenues, would secure energy transition and, vitally in the context of this Statement, would reduce the carbon emissions our reliance on gas generates?

When the Secretary of State states that the North Sea is a mature oil and gas province, we agree with him. The primary source rocks were deposited about 150 million years ago, and with the right tax allowance, regulatory and decommissioning regimes, as in Norway, we could be producing a similar 4 million barrels of oil by the time the first new-build nuclear comes into generation in the late 2030s—and that is optimistic, given the Government’s unacceptable delay in enacting the Fingleton recommendations. Will the Minister confirm that the Burnham Government will understand that what we are talking about is global warming and that the UK is not detached from the globe? As such, does he agree that we should count all emissions in all the supply chains that deliver solar panels and offshore wind to the UK if we are to be honest with the public and not just virtue signalling to a world that is not listening but looking with incredulity at the Government’s deindustrialisation, with the cost of electricity to our industrial base being the highest in the OECD and four times higher than in the States?

The Under-Secretary of State for Defra noted during the Q&A exchanges following the Statement that a school in her constituency, Richard Lee Primary School, is installing new solar panels. Is the Minister aware that this school sources its solar panels from JA Solar? The company has a “very high” exposure—the highest rating—to the Xinjiang province in China, and the accusations of Uyghur slave labour in that province are well known to your Lordships’ House. Does he agree that our solar panels are neither homegrown nor clean? The component parts come from China and rely heavily on vast coal-fired factories daily belching out CO₂ into the atmosphere. Does he agree that the total carbon footprint of a finished Chinese panel averages around 490 kilograms of CO₂ equivalent per module, involving extreme furnace temperatures, adding to global warming at an alarming rate, and putting high levels of CO₂ into the atmosphere for polysilicon, ingot and wafer production? Then we have imported Chinese offshore wind farms, where Chinese white asbestos ends up in wind turbines, and imported brake pads and hoist components are sourced from third-party suppliers in China, where the material is not prohibited, and are now installed in service lifts that transport our technicians up turbine towers in the North Sea.

Does the Minister agree with me that all these essential steps in the supply chain must be taken into account when considering CO₂ emissions globally? Offshore wind turbines rely on powerful permanent magnets with neodymium, praseodymium and dysprosium—the supply of the latter being almost exclusively controlled by China. Add the copper and cobalt from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where child labour and high CO₂ emissions mining take place, and pupils, children and teachers at the Richard Lee Primary School might not be so impressed.

Does the Minister not agree that if we were to transport all these vital elements of this massively misnamed “clean” homegrown supply chain, we could have an acreage close to size of the Isle of Wight with CO₂-belching factories and illegal working practices? How would parents, teachers and children at the Richard Lee Primary School regard that? The state of the climate and nature is under threat but, sadly, the Government’s energy response in this Statement is lamentable.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome this Statement. The science is absolutely certain that human-induced climate change is beyond doubt. What has changed is how fast the impacts are arriving on our very own doorsteps. This summer’s heatwaves in May and June caused as many as 2,700 excess deaths; transport systems were strained; over a thousand schools closed; and the London Ambulance Service endured its busiest ever day.

We are on our third heatwave of 2026, and 2026 is the first year the UK has reached 35 degrees in May, June and July consecutively. Excessive heat is putting a strain on every individual citizen, on our economy, on our schools and on our health systems. Europe is now confirmed as the fastest-warming continent on Earth, warming at more than twice the global average.

This Government have been genuinely good on the energy transition, approving renewable projects to power the equivalent of more than 19 million homes. But nature has been the poor relation. Not a single new site of special scientific interest has been designated in England since 2023, and our tree-planting rate remains less than half the annual target. Labour’s messaging on nature has been muddled, its green mission too often undermined from within. Climate and nature are not separate; they are codependent. A Government strong on one and weak on the other will ultimately fail at both.

Our climate is changing more quickly than our policies. The Climate Change Committee’s fourth independent assessment of UK climate risk was stark: on adaption, not a single delivery pathway was rated good. Inaction cannot continue. Three of our five worst harvests on record have occurred since 2020; our food security is threatened. The Green Alliance has today written to Ministers to warn:

“The UK was built for a climate that no longer exists”,


and emergency action is needed. We must do far more, more quickly, on adaption. It is the vulnerable, the elderly, the sick, the poor and the workers who will suffer the most.

These matters are hard when we co-operate, and they become almost impossible when we do not. So, I say with real regret that the Conservative Party’s ever-continuing retreat from reality, rejecting the 2050 net-zero target and now reportedly barring prospective candidates who continue to support it, is a betrayal of its own history and the consensus that this country requires.

To those who say the UK emits only 1% of global emissions so why bother: every major economy could say the same. To those who say net zero is impossible, I ask: what is possible instead? British leadership works only if Britain leads.

The wildfire risks this summer are at extreme levels, endangering lives and devastating habitats, yet the Government’s wildfire strategy is still not ready and we remain completely reliant on commercial aircraft to fight fires. We have had one mega wildfire already last year, and we are not prepared for the next. That must change before next year’s El Niño impacts are felt.

On tipping points, will the Minister say what more the Government will do to strengthen monitoring of the AMOC system? The Government’s nature security assessment warns that every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse. If that is true, as I believe it is, the public and this House deserve to see the full assessment, not merely a summary. I ask the Minister to commit to its publication in full. The 30by30 on Land: Delivery Plan, published yesterday, is welcome but insufficient. It leans too heavily on farmers and land managers volunteering, with no statutory backstop and no guarantee that voluntary schemes will deliver at the scale required.

Labour must stop doing things to people and start doing things with them. Give communities real opportunities to protect nature, launch a national campaign and provide an emergency briefing, because misinformation is filling the gap left by government silence. Fear alone will not sustain the public throughout this crisis. We must offer hope and invest in the young people who will live the longest with the consequences of what we decide.

Finally, our climate and nature laws are out of date. Can the Minister say whether the Government will finally match strong words on climate with equally strong action for nature?

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

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions in responding to this Statement made yesterday in the other place. As noble Lords know, the Statement was about climate and nature, and particularly the extent to which—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, repeatedly reminds us—you cannot disentangle one from the other. Climate change drives nature loss and nature loss drives climate change. If you tackle one but not the other, you will not succeed in tackling the first thing. Making sure that our environment is liveable—that it is a thriving environment for the purposes of both nature extension and recovery—is completely wound up with the actions we take against climate change in general. The Statement set out what actions the Government are taking on that clear link.

Indeed, in the most recent spending round, the Government put aside unprecedented sums for nature development, recovery and restitution. For example, altogether they put forward over £7 billion at the spending review, including £5.9 billion for environmental farming schemes. ELMS began to take place under the previous Government and have been very successful in developing sustainable and low-carbon farming practices and in making sure that farming is about not just production but enhancing and sustaining that production for the future through changes in farming practices. In addition, £816 million has been put aside for tree-planting, with the planting of three large national forests under way, and £85 million pounds for peatland restoration. Those are practical things that tackle some of the key issues around nature degradation in this country. I suggest that the Government are matching their words with a substantial amount of investment in making sure that nature can live and survive in the right way in the future.

I anticipated that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, might concentrate rather more on particular energy and climate change issues. Those areas are very much tied to the balance between nature and climate change. What you absolutely need for a thriving background for nature is clean air, clean energy and clean environmental circumstances under which that energy is produced, as well as an environment that allows nature to thrive. I suggest that solar power, for example, absolutely offers those things, so I do not recognise the noble Lord’s characterisation of the apparently inherent dirtiness of solar panels. The carbon payback of a solar panel is estimated to be just 1.05 years. I agree with the noble Lord that, where a solar panel is made under circumstances in which the production arrangements are a little, shall we say, browner than they are in Europe, the payback will be marginally greater, but it is still only 1.18 years. So I do not recognise the characterisation of solar put forward by the noble Lord. It is an integral part of bringing energy and nature together in how we produce clean energy and clean air at the same time.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked whether, in advance of the new Government being in place, I will predict a number of things they are about to do—which of course I will not do. However, I remind the noble Lord that the Jackdaw field is not a field that has not been explored but a field on which Ministers are presently deciding whether to proceed. I should not pre-empt that decision process, but he can be assured that the decision process is under way.

My final point on the noble Lord’s points about this area is that the production of clean energy and low carbon is not about deindustrialisation. As he will know, the Government have recently invested something like £61 billion and crowded in more than £100 billion of clean, green, low-carbon investment in the process. It is actually value added as much as it is investment. It is reindustrialising the country, albeit on a different level of carbon output, in a way that we can see before us in the British-based requirements for a lot of offshore wind, nuclear and various other such things. That means that a lot of this activity is taking place as industrial processes in the UK and is creating green, low-carbon jobs to replace those brown, high-carbon jobs as a result.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, rightly talks about what is quite evident around us outside this Chamber. This Chamber, mercifully, is reasonably cooled, but outside we are experiencing the hottest year in history, as we will undoubtedly break last year’s records if we go on as we are. We are in an absolute emergency as far as adaptation is concerned. We cannot just think about mitigation for the future. I agree that there is a long way to go in getting that adaptation right for the future, but the Government are on the case. We need to look, for example, at the record sums that have been put in place for flood protection and flood relief and the work that the Government are doing to ensure that building regulations and various other such things are climate change-proof rather than lagging behind—as much of our society is at the moment. I agree that there is a long way to go and I am sure that we will debate how that process is going in the near future. I thank him for his general support for the measures that the Government are taking on climate change and nature and look forward to his continued support in future.

Electricity Capacity (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 14 May. This instrument seeks to make technical improvements and changes to the capacity market, the Government’s main tool for ensuring security of electricity supply in Great Britain. Before I turn to the provisions in detail, I will outline some of the background to the capacity market.

Great Britain’s capacity market was introduced in 2014 and is designed to maintain security of electricity supply by ensuring that sufficient electrical capacity is available to meet future demand predictions. Through auctions held annually one year and four years ahead of delivery, the capacity needed to meet future peak demand under a range of scenarios is secured based on advice from the National Energy System Operator, NESO. Participants secure agreements through these auctions, requiring them to make capacity available at times of system stress. It is a technology-neutral scheme that pays providers for making capacity available when needed, covering generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility and interconnection.

Since its introduction, the capacity market has contributed to investment in around 20 gigawatts of new capacity needed to replace older, less efficient plants as we transition to meet our clean power 2030 target. To ensure that the capacity market continues to function effectively, we regularly amend the implementing legislation based on what is required to best ensure continued security of electricity supply.

This instrument will amend 11 regulations and introduce one new regulation in the Electricity Capacity Regulations 2014, amend two regulations in the Electricity Capacity (Supplier Payment etc.) Regulations 2014 and revoke one chapter of the Electricity Capacity (No. 1) Regulations 2019. The draft instrument will ensure that assets awarded a contract for difference, or CfD, following a direction from the Secretary of State will be allowed to participate in the capacity market until the start of the asset’s CfD support. This will better align the capacity market with our clean power 2030 ambition and ensure a smooth transition from payments under the capacity market to a CfD.

This draft instrument will strengthen delivery assurance by increasing termination fees and credit cover to restore their value broadly in line with 2016 levels in real terms. It will also make several amendments and a revocation to ensure that the legislation delivers on the policy intent. As a result, the Secretary of State and NESO will have the power to extend the pre-qualification deadline for an auction following a major IT outage. It will align the capacity market timetable with the ongoing market-wide half-hourly settlement reforms. Finally, it will also remove obsolete provisions.

Two public consultations were conducted in relation to the measures in this instrument towards the end of 2025. Respondents were broadly supportive of the measures included in the instrument that clarified regulations or enabled participants awarded a direct award CfD to manage their transition off capacity market payments. Responses to the delivery assurance reforms were more mixed, with some respondents raising concerns about the impact of higher termination fees and credit cover. The Government have proceeded on the basis that these increases are necessary to realign delivery incentives and strengthen delivery assurance. The changes are proportionate, aligning fees with their real-terms equivalent values in 2016, and will apply only to participants entering the scheme after the instrument comes into force.

We have also made several technical amendments to the capacity market rules, which support the changes made by these regulations, in the form of the Capacity Market (Amendment) (No.2) Rules 2026 laid before the House on 14 May. A final set of amendments to the capacity market rules will be laid on 13 July.

To conclude, this instrument will enable the continued efficient operation of the capacity market, so that it can deliver on its objectives, improve delivery assurance and ensure that the legislation is as clear as possible for all participants. I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clarity with which the instrument was introduced. The capacity market has served us well, and we welcome this examination and updating of its functionality so that it can continue to do so long into the future.

From these Benches, the Liberal Democrats have long championed a decentralised, resilient and, above all, clean energy system. We recognise the necessity of the capacity market as a mechanism that keeps the light on during periods of high demand and low generation, and we support the broad thrust of these technical reforms. They should improve confidence that providers can deliver on their obligations, increase value for money and help to further integrate low-carbon technologies into the market. These regulations may be highly technical, but it is important that they are looked at closely, so I hope the Minister will forgive me in advance for asking a couple of technical questions from these Benches.

I welcome the Government’s intent to strengthen the delivery assurance. The 30% increase in termination fees, and in initial credit cover from £10,000 to £13,000 per megawatt, rising to £19,500 for new-build units that miss their 11th-month financial commitment milestone, is a reasonable restoration of real-terms value, given that these figures have not moved since 2016. I find it surprising that these instruments, which govern so finely balanced a market, have not been updated for over a decade. As I understand it, even with these new regulations, there is no standing process to ensure that future regular updates are in place. Were such processes contemplated and examined in the work that was done in preparing this? What guarantees do we have that we will continue to see future upgrades to this important marketplace?

The plan to suspend capacity payments the moment an insolvency termination notice is issued is good stewardship of public money, and we do not oppose it. I am, however, concerned that in seeking real-terms parity, these changes may inadvertently raise the drawbridge behind the incumbents already inside the market. A near doubling of credit cover for those who miss a milestone is a serious sum for smaller storage developers or for demand-side responses, even if it is entirely reasonable for a more established or bigger generator. What assessment has been made of the impact of these credit cover changes on the smaller and newer entrants and on the diversity of technologies bidding in future auctions?

On the new provisions in relation to severe IT issues, which would allow the delivery body to extend the pre-qualification window by up to five working days, we generally welcome this flexibility and understand why this has been updated. But what objective threshold defines “severe”? Bidders deserve certainty that such extensions will be applied consistently and transparently and that they will not be left to the delivery body’s unreviewable discretion. I am not asking the Minister to be too specific, but are these changes partly motivated by any broader concerns about the future functioning of or threats to these systems?

On the treatment of contracts for difference, the instrument will allow a generator that receives a CfD via direct Secretary of State award to pre-qualify for the capacity market, provided that there is no overlap in the delivery period, yet auction-allocated CfD holders are not afforded the same route. I ask the Minister to explain the policy rationale for that distinction and confirm that it will not in any way create a two-tier system for low-carbon generators, depending on how they come by their contracts.

On the shift to accelerated reconciliation, cutting the final settlement from 14 months to four to align with the market-wide half-hourly settlement, we support modernisation, but faster reconciliation means less time to correct errors that might have crept in. What support is being offered, particularly to smaller suppliers, which may lack the systems to absorb the increased administrative velocity?

Finally, the instrument confirms that traditional gas-fired generation continues to sit comfortably within the capacity market alongside wind, solar, storage and demand-side response. Indeed, the market remains technologically neutral. It is worth saying clearly that our systems are among the most resilient in the world and these sensible upgrades will help to keep them that way.

I remind the Minister that this instrument, as sensible as it is, is no substitute for the deeper electricity market reforms that this country still needs. We continue to urge the Government to extend contracts for difference from 15 to 25 years. I have previously talked to the Minister about Greenpeace’s Power Shift proposals and the Minister has spoken about the openness of the Government to perhaps looking at a strategic gas reserve outside of the market. Obviously, those are conversations for another day. We are beginning to see signs of the decoupling of the gas and electricity prices, but more must be done. These changes would unlock future investment in renewables, strengthen our energy security and pass on cheaper home-grown power to consumers. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how the Government plan to keep the capacity market under review and reform it further in the future and I look forward to his response.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of Amey, an infrastructure and support service company in the UK, Acteon, a global subsea engineering company with interests in offshore wind and oil and gas production facilities, and Buckthorn Partners, which invests in energy transition companies.

I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations and for broadening our debate to a wider consideration of the capacity market, which allows me to make a few additional comments. As he said, these regulations make technical amendments to the capacity market, so let me address that first. They provide reliable power generators with CMU auctions at either one year, T-1, or four years, T-4, ahead of when they must deliver future electricity capacity. Does he agree that this instrument allows the capacity market delivery body to extend the window for generators to apply to pre-qualify for the capacity market in the event of a severe IT issue? I believe that he does, but I would like him to confirm that.

I ask the Minister to confirm that the changes in these regulations will not be retroactive. Again, I understand that they will not, but it would be good to have that on the record. As I read it, the instrument accelerates the timetable for reconciliation runs in which the CM settlement body must make reconciliation payments to generators, subject to Ofgem approving them to do so. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee when the new timetable is expected to be called into force.

The most recent T-1 auction for 2025-26 secured 7.9 gigawatts of capacity compared with 7.6 gigawatts in 2024. The most recent T-4 auction secured 43.1 gigawatts of capacity compared with 42.8 gigawatts in 2024. Let us be clear and blunt about this: the public are being forced to pay an extra £600 million this year to ensure that there is back-up capacity for the already more expensive renewables that they are subsidising. Conventional forms of power generation from existing generating capacity, including nuclear and gas, were the most common source of capacity in the most recent auction, with 3.6 gigawatts of capacity coming from nuclear and 2.4 gigawatts coming from gas. Electricity supply from gas and overseas interconnectors were the most common source of capacity in the most recent T-4 auction, with 27.3 gigawatts of capacity coming from gas and 6.8 gigawatts coming from interconnectors.

It is self-evident that, despite the Secretary of State’s zealous opposition to gas, this instrument demonstrates that it is still needed and demand for it is actually rising as intermittent renewables increase. It is a function of the need for firm and predictable power when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. When preparing last week for this important debate, I looked at our high level of reliance and dependence on gas. In our generation mix, when I looked at my watch early in the morning, we were just 19% zero carbon as the country woke to turn on the kettles and the lights and to start the day: no solar, 6% wind, 8% biomass, 12% nuclear, 15% imports and 58% gas. That is how dependent we are on gas to provide baseload power, and we will remain dependent on it for many decades to come.

Climate Change Act 2008 (International Aviation and International Shipping) Regulations 2026

Earl Russell Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and all those who have spoken.

Extreme heat records and regret amendments appear to be competing with one another for frequency at the present time. Last week, the UK broke the record for the hottest June day three days in a row, reaching 37.3 degrees Celsius on Friday. Six NHS trusts declared critical incidents, and the London Ambulance Service recorded its busiest day in its entire history, with demand higher than even at the peak of the Covid pandemic. Europe is the fastest-warming continent on earth, and forecasters are warning that future heat events are likely very soon. I find it genuinely difficult to hear arguments that we are doing too much, too fast on climate change.

I will say something about the politics before turning to a couple of comments for the Minister. I want to return to the cross-party consensus on these issues, but I will first challenge the unravelling of our climate policy. When I hear calls from some to repeal the Act, abolish carbon taxes and cut renewable subsidies, with no credible alternative offered in their place, it becomes very hard to sustain the view that opposition to every government climate measure is made in good faith. If the Conservatives challenge settled climate policy, they should expect a response.

The challenge put today, and in our last debate, by both the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Deben, was: if not this then what? The policy assumption underlying these regulations was not made by this Government. It was made, as others have said, in April 2021, by the then Conservative Government, announced personally by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who declared that the UK would set what he called the most ambitious targets to cut emissions in the world. That Government confirmed explicitly that the sixth carbon budget would incorporate the UK’s share of international aviation and shipping emissions as an important part of their decarbonisation efforts. These regulations do no more than formalise that commitment in statute. The Conservative Party supported this policy in government; the question before this House is simply whether to honour it.

I want to be clear about what this instrument does and does not do. It introduces no sector-specific limits, no levies, no charges and no cuts to aviation or shipping. It is an accounting measure. It formulates a framework already assumed in policy since 2021, and we are pleased to see it. If we exclude aviation and shipping from our accounting, we do not make those emissions disappear; we simply allow them to consume a disproportionate share of the UK’s available carbon removals and offsets, at the direct expense of agriculture and heavy industry.

I have two comments for the Minister. First, on methodology, I really appreciate the way the Minister set that out. I recognise the need for international negotiations and that those are also complicated at the moment. I simply seek a reassurance that we will continue to work internationally on these issues, and that the Government will continue to engage with the aviation and shipping industries to give them a formal role in that process. On economic impact, I similarly call on the Government to continue to monitor the impact of this and to continue to work with industry to make sure that this system and these processes are as streamlined as possible.

The honest answer to the noble Lord’s concern, introduced by the noble Baroness, is this: a clear framework actually helps these industries by giving investors the certainty and legal clarity needed, as the Minister said, to back sustainable aviation fuels and green maritime technologies. Uncertainty is the enemy of investment; these regulations reduce it. They fulfil a commitment made by a Conservative Prime Minister, have passed the Commons already and align with our Climate Change Committee’s advice. I support them and I urge the House not to support this regret amendment.

Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of these regulations. Nuclear safeguards and the system for reporting, inspection and verification gives the International Atomic Energy Agency and the wider world the confidence that our civil nuclear material is being used for peaceful purposes and is not being diverted into weapons programmes. Without a credible safeguards regime, we cannot trade in civil nuclear material, operate our existing plants or attract the international partners on whom our nuclear ambitions depend.

The 2019 regulations established our domestic regime post Brexit. This instrument, some seven years on, does several things. It removes transitional provisions that were only ever intended to smooth the exit from Euratom; tightens and clarifies the language operators must work within; introduces new offences to plug enforcement gaps; adjusts reporting timelines to give the Office for Nuclear Regulation more time to scrutinise what it receives; and, most significantly for our international standing, transitions the UK from Euratom-style basic technical characteristic questionnaires to the IAEA’s own design information questionnaire format. It also amends the associated fees regulations to put the ONR’s cost recovery on a clearer statutory footing.

On these Benches, we recognise this as an essential and overdue update to a globally recognised regulatory system, and we support it. We particularly welcome the removal of the Euratom transition provisions and the move to the IAEA’s design information questionnaire format as a sensible step forward towards international harmonisation that will ease collaboration with our partners and materially support the UK, US and global civil industry partnerships.

Our support, however, should not be mistaken for uncritical or entirely enthusiastic support for the wider nuclear policy: we continue to have some concerns about the delivery of large-scale plants. We recognise that nuclear is obviously a crucial part of our energy mix, and we are supportive of the move towards more small modular reactors.

On the detail, I apologise, as I have several questions for the Minister. On the new offences, these regulations introduce criminal liability for non-compliance with particular safeguards provisions and for the failure to declare a change in facility type—corrections to an oversight in the original 2019 regulations. I just want to ask the Minister about this gap, which feels significant in our enforcement regime and why it was allowed to persist for seven years before being addressed here. I further seek assurance that the ONR now has everything that it needs as both legal powers and operational capacity to pursue enforcement action all the way to prosecution, where the gravity of a breach demands it.

On reporting timescales, the Minister has set out the window for operators to declare design information changes, but can he confirm that this tighter window will not place a disproportionate burden on the more than 130 qualifying facilities with limited operations? As he is well aware, we are talking about smaller-scale universities and corporate operations.

On the transition to the new IAEA forms, I welcome the Government’s decision, following consultation feedback, to extend the transition period for adopting the design information questionnaire from two years to three.

I feel that one question did not get sufficient attention in the other place. Are there specific risks during the migration and transition? Moving from one accountancy and control system to another is not just an exercise done on paper. There is a period during any transition when records may exist in two formats simultaneously, when staff are learning new systems and when the potential for gaps or miscategorisation is at its highest. We will also see some new definitions from the SI. What specific guidance will the ONR provide to operators to ensure that no accounting anomalies fall between the two systems and that the integrity of our nuclear accounting records is maintained throughout what will be a difficult transition period?

On record-keeping, this instrument extends the retention period for operating and accounting records from five years to 30. That is a big change. I notice that the costs in the supporting documents were quite low, but keeping computer records for that long is quite a complicated exercise, as computers become obsolete. Is that not putting on too much of a burden? Will the Minister say something about extending computer record-keeping and its security over that long period of time?

Finally, on repurposed facilities, the instrument introduces requirements for operators to notify the ONR 200 days before a change of facility type. Given the Government’s policy ambition to rapidly deploy small modular reactors, are they certain that these regulatory time changes are flexible enough not to impact the rollout and operation of small modular reactors?

We support this instrument. It will strengthen our safeguards regime, bring us more closely into step with our international partners and help guard against the unlawful diversion of civil nuclear material, so we fully support it.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the Committee to introduce these regulations. I am particularly pleased to be opposite him for the first time on these issues. I hope we will have many similar exchanges in the years to come. I am glad to say that, on this occasion, we are in agreement. There is little I can add to the excellent contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

A strong, independent nuclear safeguards regime is vital for our civil nuclear industry to function effectively. However, the Government must support nuclear site operators and other nuclear industry partners to ensure that they are not placing unworkable burdens on the nuclear industry. As the Minister said in his introduction, the instrument will implement most of the recommendations from the post-implementation review in 2019, so it is largely Conservative Party policy.

The Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are the current regime used to demonstrate that civil nuclear material is not unlawfully diverted into military use. Also relevant are the Nuclear Safeguards (Fees) Regulations 2021, which regulate the fees payable by operators to the Office for Nuclear Regulation—ONR. This instrument will amend both to remove regulations related to the transition from Euratom, as both previous speakers have said, which are no longer applicable or do not apply to the UK context. We agree with that.

A new offence corrects an oversight, when the NSR 19 was originally implemented, relating to non-compliance with the requirements of the particular safeguards provisions. We also support that. An offence has been added related to non-compliance, with a new provision requiring operators to declare to ONR where there is a change in the type of facility. It also ensures that the regulator has a sanctions regime for non-compliance.

The main change, as the Minister made clear to the Committee, is to replace Euratom’s basic technical characteristics—BTC—questionnaire, which assesses how nuclear site operators account for their nuclear material, with the IAEA’s design information questionnaire, or DIQ. It also reduces the design information changes reporting time, as the Minister stated, from 30 to 23 days. He also stated that it requires operators to give the ONR more notice of imports, from four to seven days, and of exports, I believe from seven to 13 days. I may have missed that in the Minister’s comments, but I understand that that is the case.

It was interesting to see concerns over some of the changes made by nuclear site operators and other nuclear industry parties who were consulted. This includes changes to notification timings for the import and export of nuclear material, with operators questioning why the ONR needed more time to report this information to the IAEA, and the adequate number of staff needed to fulfil accountancy and control plans for nuclear material, with operators concerned that this was not clear enough, having previously questioned the rationale for the plans. Maybe the Minister will be able to comment on that.

In summary, the impact of the costs on business will be about £200,000 to £300,000. The transition period for changing forms from BTCs to DIQs was lengthened, with the ONR still accepting BTCs for the first year and DIQs for the second year. The notification timings for reporting design change, imports and exports were also amended to give operators more time than originally proposed, while still increasing the time the regulator has to quality assure. This instrument introduces changes largely supported by the consultees and initiated by the previous Government, as I mentioned. Therefore, we thank the Minister and are supportive of the proposals he brought before the Committee.

I have a question related to his portfolio. Events of recent days have suggested that the energy Bill may be delayed. I do not imagine that the Minister can possibly comment on that, but I suggest to him that that would be regrettable because the Fingleton recommendations are really important. It would be helpful to the Committee if he could comment on that, if he is in a position to. I am grateful to the Minister and conclude by reinforcing my support for the recommendations he brought forward.

Carbon Budget Order 2026

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we debate the seventh carbon budget on a day when our warming climate is making itself known. The Conservative Party may feel that fighting climate change is no longer urgent or possible, but the extreme heat begs to differ.

We support the carbon budget and credit limit orders. We express our disappointment at the regret amendments. CB7 is not a discretionary gesture. It is a statutory requirement, setting the path to an 87% emissions reduction by 2040. To waver now, as these amendments invite us to do, is to ignore both scientific certainty and economic opportunity.

Our ever-warming climate is an existential threat. Until recent times, we have all benefited from a cross-party consensus on climate change. It is regrettable to see the Conservative Party’s continued retreat from reality. The Conservative Party introduced the Climate Change Act and implemented half of our carbon reductions to date. In 2013, it introduced the carbon price support, and in 2019 the carbon emissions tax, which, in this very amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, now seems to regret.

There are real issues to debate, but the need to fight climate change is not one of them. To describe this transition as a threat to “industrial sovereignty,” or a cause of “impoverishment” is a serious mischaracterisation of the risks. It is the abandonment of the Climate Change Act, and its implementation, that would put our energy security at risk and strip away the legal certainty that investors in British industry rely on.

On intermittent renewables and higher prices, the evidence does not support the argument. The Climate Change Committee has shown that renewable electricity and electric vehicles are now cheaper than fossil-fuelled equivalents, and that the cost of the path to net zero, every year out to 2050, is less than the cost of a single fossil-fuel price shock. It is fossil fuels that are insecure in supply and volatile in price.

The price of electricity is too high, but that is not the fault of renewables. It is hard to defend a market in which a unit of electricity costs 4.3 times as much as a unit of gas. That is the real barrier holding back heat pumps and EVs, which is why my party continues to call on the Government to break the link between gas and electricity prices, strip policy costs off bills and introduce an essential energy guarantee.

On deindustrialisation, the risk runs precisely opposite to the arguments advanced. CBI Economics has found that failure to transition our car industry to EV manufacturing could cost the economy £34 billion and over 400,000 jobs. The net-zero economy generates over £100 billion a year in value and supports 1.1 million jobs, with nearly half a trillion pounds of investment in the pipeline. Conservative and Reform plans to weaken net-zero targets would pointlessly destroy business confidence, investment and the jobs and growth this country needs.

The regret amendment also misrepresents the credit limit order. It sets a zero limit on the use of overseas carbon units for the fifth budgetary period. This is not a loophole; it is the opposite. We support this order because it sends a clear signal to investors that the UK’s reductions will be delivered through domestic infrastructure and domestic supply chains, not purchased on paper from elsewhere. Support for this order will not obstruct us in pushing the Government further to improve energy security for individuals and business.

It is sensible for the Government to keep open the option of joining the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism. Properly designed, this framework protects British industry from offshoring. Farmers need fair reward. Last year’s harvest was one of the worst on record, costing arable farmers more than £800 million. My party continues to call for an extra £1 billion a year for environmental land management schemes so that farmers can diversify into woodland creation and peatland restoration. The Government have the opportunity to implement a policy reset.

On electrification, around 60% of the emissions reductions required by 2040 will depend on EVs and heat pumps, yet reports suggest that the Government may weaken the ZEV mandate’s 2030 target from 80% down to as little as 50%. That mandate is the single biggest carbon reduction lever that this Government hold, so I hope the Minister can rule that out. UK heat pump sales are the lowest of 19 major European economies because of price.

The nature and climate crises are conjoined. Both tree planting and peatland restoration need to double. More must be done to restore our habitats and fight the growing threat of wildfires. Labour’s airport expansion plans for growth go well beyond the targets. By 2040, aviation will be our single biggest emitting sector. The Government’s plans seem incompatible with the budget. My party opposes all airport expansion in the south-east.

In 2008, this country led the way with the Climate Change Act. Some 76 other countries have since followed. The seventh carbon budget is, in the Climate Change Committee’s own words,

“the most credible and balanced option”

open to us. It will shield households and businesses from price shocks and an increasingly volatile fossil fuel market, as well as strengthening our energy security.

We must not let short-termism undermine the only path to a cleaner, more secure and prosperous Britain. Our message to the Government is, “You need to go further and faster. Don’t do things to people. Work with them. Support them. Help them benefit from community energy. Fight for climate and nature. Adapt. Above all, bring down the cost of electricity; that would do the most to put the transition within reach of every family and business”.

I welcome the citizens’ panel. Its message is clear: this transition must be equitable, affordable and fair. The Government must do more to make it so.

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.

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.