Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

[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

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their useful contributions to this short debate. I hope I will be able to provide some of the detail that they were looking for on this measure, and particularly on the enhanced sunset clause that noble Lords are now considering. But, before I do that, I have not yet had an opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, back to his slightly amended place in this House, and to say how delighted I was to see his return. I look forward to the many occasions that are now possible for our convivial and constructive debates across the Chamber on the future of energy policy.

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

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches fully associate ourselves with the opening remarks of my noble friend Lady Hoey following the appalling tragedy in Belfast. I move on from that, with great difficulty, to say that I welcome the fact that she has brought this issue to the attention of the House. She made a characteristically powerful speech, and I take this opportunity to say that in many respects she is right.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made the important point that there is differential treatment between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who I respect very much indeed—I will come back to some additional comments that he made—that I think we underestimate at our peril the importance and depth of emotion that is felt in Northern Ireland when measures are brought forward that have a significant difference in implementation between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Of course, it is important to recognise that that will be the case under various agreements in the past, but the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made, and that I emphasise, is that there has been no debate accorded to this measure in Northern Ireland. That is not something we should be proud of in this House or proud of in the United Kingdom. I think that the point was worthy of being made, and it underpins the depth of emotion that was behind the comments of my noble friend Lady Hoey. She is right: these regulations will impact the lives of many households across the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is also right to say that the operating costs moving forward should lead to savings for households and consumers, but he might have added that the upfront capital costs are quite significant. At a time when there are serious problems in the economy and people are really feeling the effect of high costs in their household budgets, adding significantly to the capital costs is important. It is therefore true that initially, through the capital cost element, these regulations are regressive and they will add further costs to the working men and women of this country, only to see the benefits in between two and four years, depending on whether you take the Which? report or additional reports on the subject, which have been manifold. From just six months’ time, people will be able to buy only heat pump tumble dryers, which are markedly more expensive up front. No wonder that, as a result, there is already a rush to buy the remaining stock of convector and vented tumble dryers. The important point was made that mandated models will work only at ambient temperatures, restricting their use in previously unheated rooms in domestic dwellings, which will then add to the operating costs.

Of course, I say that there has been little respect for Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, because the point has been made very clearly that the Government have already banned shops from buying in any new conventional convectors or vented tumble dryers, on the Government’s preferred altar of EU net-zero legislation. This has already, as we have debated at significant length, increased costs in Northern Ireland, not least because of the increased costs of ferries and goods made in Northern Ireland, without attention to the increased costs imposed on the people and the companies living and operating in Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lady Hoey was completely right when she said that

“it demonstrates how the mistreatment of Northern Ireland is creating pressures, not for this mistreatment to end, which would be great, but for attempts to be made to limit the destructive effects of divergence with the rest of the country”.—[Official Report, 26/3/25; col. 1778.]

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, made the key point about divergence. She touched upon it, and she rightly emphasised that this will be debated in the future. I think the debate this evening is an object lesson in the problems with the Government’s much more ambitious GB dynamic alignment project to avoid divergence with Northern Ireland as set out in the European partnership Bill. My noble friend made the important point that a significant proportion of heat pump tumble dryers do not yet meet the EU minimum condensation efficiency of 80%, which the Northern Ireland tumble dryer regulations now require.

In the short time available, I will pick up on just one or two other points that are relevant to this debate. One is the consistent reference to a more circular, resource-efficient economy. It is misleading—particularly when referenced, I think, four times in the Explanatory Memorandum—to suggest that the circular economy is inherently desirable. Does the Minister agree with me that there are some inherent disadvantages with the circular economy in this instance, including the high initial costs? Businesses often face steep upfront investments to redesign products and implement new technologies. Also, there is the importance of changing consumer behaviour patterns.

Worst of all is the related and critical fact that the Government need, in our view, to bear down on the increasingly high electricity prices, which have now reached historically high levels. These high levels are borne by consumers, and they are key because these dryers are major electricity users. I very much hope that the Minister will take on board that the level of electricity prices in this country has to be addressed.

We on these Benches suggest—this is so important—that the Government would be wise to come forward with measures that address scrapping the carbon tax; axing carbon tax pricing to reduce artificial mark-ups on wholesale electricity prices; abolishing legacy renewable subsidies; temporarily scrapping the 5% VAT on domestic energy bills for three years; and lifting the ban on new oil and gas exploration licences to increase domestic supply and reduce reliance on expensive imported energy. I accept that that would not immediately impact on the price, but it would generate Treasury income, maximise job opportunities—not least in Aberdeen, where 1,000 jobs are being lost every month—and reduce emissions.

The impact assessment points to the relentless justification of central planning:

“The recent increase in electricity prices combined with consideration of pressure on the grid illustrate the need to ensure only the most energy efficient products are available on the market”.


The argument that is being put forward to us tonight is that the energy price increases, a result of the Government’s policies, justify making dryers more expensive—a punitive policy to offset another policy.

In the last 15 seconds, I reinforce strongly from these Benches the importance of the comments that have been made about the differential treatment between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. This is vital, and we should always respect views that are put forward in this House on this important subject.

National Emergency Plan for Fuel

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Moynihan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans, if any, they have to activate the National Emergency Plan for Fuel.

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

The UK benefits from a strong and diverse range of energy supplies, and the physical supply of fuel to the UK is stable. The national emergency plan for fuel, which has been in place for over a decade, sets out a number of levers that can be deployed in a fuel emergency depending on the type of issue being faced, and this is summarised on GOV.UK. We would consider intervention, with a preference always for the least invasive measures first, if it appears that there could be a shortfall of fuel nationally; but, to reiterate, we are not in this situation.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, this morning the CEO of Wizz Air, which carried over 30 million passengers last year, warned that European airlines risk collapse by September if jet fuel prices remain at current record levels. We are starting to learn of flight cancellations taking place to save aviation fuel and passengers being compensated so airlines can make savings now. Businesses are saying that the Government are not prepared. We have seen the closure of two refineries here in the UK in two years and the threatened closure of the remaining four due to carbon taxes and electricity prices four times higher than in the US, which makes the UK particularly vulnerable. Given that President Trump has stated that there is no timeframe for ending the Iran war, when will the Government listen to industry, level openly with the public, be transparent and heed the words of the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, who has admitted that shortages are coming? Now, the Government should publish a national emergency plan for fuel to show how we can shore up our domestic supply of all forms of fuel and allow the public to make considered decisions.

Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out so clearly the warm home discount SI before us today. How confident are the Government that this scheme will both reach the right people in Scotland and, probably more importantly, will spend the full envelope that Parliament is authorising? The Government and my noble friend’s department should be commended for the doubling. I know we are just touching on Scotland here, but across the whole of the warm homes discount, if we get it out to the right families, we are looking at moving from just about 2.7 million households across the UK to nearly 6 million, which is something to be commended.

Turning back to the SI, Scottish Ministers have taken a different approach to eligibility with changes to the core group. Can the Minister set out which additional types of low-income and fuel-poor households in Scotland will now be brought into the scheme? He touched on how many households that represents, which is appreciated, but what estimates have been made of those who will still fall outside the new core group, particularly those in rural, off-gas and high cost of heating homes?

On spending, as the Minister outlined, there is a fixed annual Scottish spending limit running until 2031. What specific mechanisms are in place to avoid underspend in any year? If suppliers are falling short of their Scottish obligations, will there be in-year monitoring and automatic reallocation or flexing of criteria, so that every pound intended for those Scottish households is delivered to Scottish families and not allocated to drift back to suppliers’ margins?

This is a GB-wide framework but, as the Minister said, in practice the Scottish scheme is shaped by the decisions of Scottish Ministers. That makes transparency and joint accountability all the more important. Can the Minister tell the Grand Committee what level of detail we will see in the published data for Scotland, from both the department and Ofgem? For example, will we be able to see take-up broken down by local authority, tenure type, disability status and the main heating fuel, so that this Parliament and the Scottish Government can judge whether the support is reaching those at most risk of fuel poverty?

Finally, given that these regulations run through to 2031, will the Minister commit to a formal mid-period review so that if the evidence shows that the scheme is not fully spending its allocation or is missing key groups, the regulations can be adjusted rather than simply left on autopilot for the rest of the decade? The doubling of the warm home discount is a great Labour Government initiative, but I am sure that all noble Lords will want to ensure that it is spent—and is seen to be spent—wisely

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for bringing forward this SI and explaining it in such detail, especially given the fact that we have already debated this at some length, when my colleague from the Liberal Democrat Benches also participated in certain aspects of it.

The focus on Scotland allows us to look at some specific aspects relevant there and to consider why the Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026 are so important for Scottish households—needed as they are, I might add, because of the high cost of energy and electricity in not only Scotland but the rest of the United Kingdom, because of the doubling down on the policy of building intermittent wind farms far from the grid and energy costs that are sky high relative to international comparisons. With those wind farms operating at some 31% to 40% of their maximum potential capacity, we are required to continue to import gas and to pay for gas-fired CCGTs all year long for the sole purpose of being available when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. For that reason, it is all the more important that this draft warm home discount provision is available—because of the high prices of electricity and the need to protect those most in need in Scotland.

We understand how important this is, since the warm home discount is being immediately offset for so many by rising energy prices, driven by the Government’s own policy choices. It is important to note that suppliers are not funding this support; it is paid for by households through an additional levy. The Government are increasing taxes on working people to fund handouts to others, rather than fixing the problem at source by addressing the issue of making electricity cheap.

In addition, the administration costs will continue to rise. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the administration costs alone are estimated to be about £20 million per annum. It is time the Government addressed the need to cut electricity bills. We hope that during the brief coming recess, DESNZ will have the opportunity to see whether it can axe the carbon tax, scrap renewable subsidies and overturn the North Sea licensing ban. That will provide the greatest benefit to people on low incomes, not least vulnerable Scottish customers.

As the Minister has said, the WHD scheme supports those on low incomes, vulnerable to cold-related illness, or living wholly or mainly in fuel poverty. That is of course right—it is a policy that has been supported by both sides of the Committee. We need to target fuel-poor households, with the highest estimated energy costs identified through data matching, which we covered when we last discussed this important measure in the context of the rest of the United Kingdom.

I welcome the recognition of the Secretary of State being able

“to direct energy suppliers to communicate with ‘matched’ customers identified through automated data matching, and … requiring suppliers to provide information on eligibility, the use of automated decision-making, and where to find the Scheme’s privacy notice”.

We already agreed to that in a previous debate on the application of the WHD extension elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that we should also consider Professor Dieter Helm’s concern that, in not considering the WHD orders in the context of the wider energy policy being pursued by the Government, we are, to use his words, simply “moving the deck chairs”. The most important issue is that the warm homes discount scheme must be judged in the context of the fundamental issue of energy costs, and, most importantly, the high energy costs that make us so lacking in competition, particularly in the UK industrial sector but also in terms of very high domestic costs.

For many of the people concerned, fuel is perhaps the most important and noticeable change in energy prices for low-income households. Only recently, industry chiefs have warned that British electricity costs mean that domestic refineries are struggling to compete, and therefore that Britain will be increasingly reliant, as will Scotland, on imported fuel. Average petrol prices, at 157.62p a litre, are currently 25p higher than at the start of the war, and diesel has risen twice that to 188.9p a litre. Does the Minister recognise that, as the war has proven, it is important for a major economy to be focused on increasing its reliance on domestically generated fuel and not on imported fuel? This issue of security of supply is one I hope that we will return to and that the Minister can also address today.

We still import 60% of our gas, which is around 20% of our national energy demand. I hope that, during the brief Recess, the Secretary of State will reconsider his refusal to allow production at remaining North Sea gas fields, particularly Rosebank and Jackdaw, and that, at least recognising that there may be political motivation behind his decision, he will return to this subject shortly after the 7 May elections. As we know, when we look at Rosebank and Jackdaw, the emissions intensity is substantially lower than imported LNG from the United States. Therefore, on any environmental grounds, it makes great sense to develop our own gas reserves, not to mention the benefit to the Treasury of the revenues that are generated.

In the context of Scotland, we are losing nearly 1,000 jobs a month in Aberdeen—1,000 valuable jobs that are highly regarded around the world. It is so important to recognise that, from Aberdeen to Ardersier, we need to make sure that we protect jobs in Scotland and that this policy of being completely opposed to new licences, and not adjusting the commercial and fiscal terms that would encourage the extension of current production in reservoirs and tie-backs, is very damaging to the economy, puts up prices and, in turn, means that, in future, more people may have to avail themselves of the regulations we are discussing today.

We are approaching a brief break, which is an opportunity to test how popular the Government’s energy policies are in Scotland. I hope that this will allow DESNZ to undertake a comprehensive review of its doubling down on an energy policy that is high-cost—one of the highest in the world—and regrettably more polluting than it needs to be. I gave the example of LNG imports from the US against our own production from, for example, Rosebank and Jackdaw.

We are increasingly highly reliant—I know that the Minister will always expect me to say this—on Chinese solar imports from Uyghur slave labour and coal-fired factories. We are also highly dependent on ever-enlarging warm home discount schemes, which, we both agree, are a fundamental responsibility of parties in government. However, those schemes, which should be welcome because they ease some of the consequences of these policies, do not deter us from the most important issues: addressing the policies and reducing the cost of energy. Ultimately, if we can do those things, such policies will be less necessary because we will have addressed the facts that we need to be more competitive, that energy needs to be more affordable and that we need to protect jobs—not least in Scotland—which are absolutely vital to our economy and our energy mix.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate; I will attempt to address them in the best way I can.

I have got to know the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, well during my time as a Minister in this House. I say to him, with respect, that, although he is unfailingly constructive and courteous and makes important points, I fear that he has today given us a tour d’horizon of all the things we have been discussing over the past few months, wrapped within the carapace of the SI before us, which relates only to the specific Scottish circumstances of the warm home discount scheme. I hope he will forgive me if I do not give a detailed reply to some of his points because they have been discussed on other occasions; perhaps we could, over a drink at the end of the Session, tease out some of these issues between ourselves as we prepare for the proroguing of Parliament.

On the contributions concerning this specific SI, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, for his contribution. His concerns relate to the enormous increase in coverage that has been achieved by these new arrangements. Because the Scottish Government asked the UK Government to set up an SI for a scheme similar, but not identical, to that in the rest of the UK, the benefits of the substantial increase in coverage now relate to Scotland and England just the same. However, there are of course questions relating to the fact that there are, and have been since 2011, considerable differences between some of the detail of the Scottish scheme and the English one. That is partly because of the identification of virtually everybody who is taking part in the expanded scheme in England, but it is not quite so as far as the Scottish scheme is concerned.

In the Scottish scheme, there is a core group and there is a broader group. The broader group is subject to identification by application and is then put into the assistance system by the energy suppliers, but there is a question about whether those energy suppliers are going to do that properly. How will it be ensured that they do, and, if they fall short, how can that be rectified by things such as making sure that industry initiatives are brought up so that the broader group does not suffer in the way that it might otherwise do? It is down to the Scottish Government and Ofgem to make sure it happens, but it is clearly something that we need to keep a close eye on as the scheme develops.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the Government are taking action on energy prices and bearing down on them. As he will know, we have the energy price cap, which has made sure that prices go down by about 7% over the next few months. We have had the transfer of renewables obligation levies and the ending of eco-levy costs to reduce bills. We have an ambition to take considerably more off energy bills in the future using those sorts of devices.

The noble Lord talked about domestically produced fuel. We completely agree on the need to have domestically sourced power in the UK. That is exactly what the Government are doing with increased offshore wind and solar. I have already talked to the noble Lord about how we can increase the amount of domestically produced onshore gas by increasing the biomethane that is injected into the grid—a completely domestic source of gas. The Government are acting on these things.

The noble Lord quoted Dieter Helm, saying that we are only moving the deckchairs. Sometimes moving deckchairs is a good thing, particularly if the deckchairs were previously in the shade and you can bring them out into the sun by the things you are doing. For example, one of the things that we are doing here is to move the effect of the funding from standing charges to individual markers related to the amount of power that is being consumed by particular customers. Instead of that money being taken for these warm home discount schemes from standing charges, they will be a combination of matters now, which will save people something like £39 on standing charges. So yes, we can move the deckchairs. I am conscious that we need to move further and faster—to move more deckchairs more rapidly—and transcending that. If this measure is about moving deckchairs, the deckchairs have been moved very efficiently and we have a good scheme as a result.

Low-carbon Heat Networks

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an excellent point on the need to run the expansion of facilities such as heat networks, and indeed many other green and low-carbon technologies, alongside an assurance that the skills are available to put those into place and the workforce is available to do those things. That is part of the wider government plan to make sure that training and skills are properly matched to the low-carbon future that we have in front of us, rather than training people for, dare I say, obsolete technologies that will have a relatively short life in the future and will be superseded by this widespread series of low-carbon technologies.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, low-carbon heat networks, while commendable, face major disadvantages and risks, including financial risks, technical challenges in retrofitting, and operational challenges such as overheating and service outages. Do the Government really believe that, given local authority financing constraints, councils such as Lewisham—where my former constituency lies—can meet the targets set by government for 2035, and indeed the targets for 2030 set by Lewisham Council?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Yes, the Government believe that those targets can be met, and local authorities up and down the country have shown, by activities in their own areas, that they are very keen to make sure that those targets are met. Following earlier requests for expressions of interest, the applications for heat networks have shown that there is enormous interest in developing heat networks in various parts of the country—interest led not only by local authorities but by various local communities, including possible interest in the Great British Energy plan to develop 1,000 local schemes by the end of this Parliament. The will to do it is there; we need to make sure that there is the support for these new developments as they go forward, so that the schemes can come forward in the best way possible.

Clean Power 2030 Action Plan: Rural Communities

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of Amey, Acteon and Buckthorn Partners, all of which are involved with the energy transition. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nagaraju, who spoke outstandingly well. We look forward to his contributions in future debates; he will be a very welcome Member of this House. I also echo what was said about my noble friend Lady McIntosh, whom I thank very much on behalf of the House for securing this debate. Many of the comments she made, not least about North Sea gas, are exceptionally important.

From our Benches, there can be no case for not developing our reserves to the full and instead looking to increase imports of LNG from Norway and the US, neither of which reinforces our security of supply. To take the example of Norwegian gas, Norwegian gas supplies will be reduced this summer. This is presented as a planned maintenance issue rather than a political decision, but we should not be deaf to the fact that there was a major political debate in Norway on restricting exports, and that would threaten our supplies from that country. Given the high level of dependence, with Norway providing 70% of UK gas imports in some periods, any reduction—even temporary—raises concerns about UK energy security.

The argument often used about developing the North Sea is the environmental impact. We are told by the Government that to encourage new oil exploration, appraisal and production in the North Sea will be an act of “climate vandalism”. Yet the average carbon intensity in the North Sea is 24 kilograms a barrel of oil equivalent; Victory is predicted to be 12 kilograms a barrel of oil equivalent; and Jackdaw, just eight. Norwegian gas through the pipeline is eight kilograms, but imported LNG from the States is 85 kilograms a barrel of oil equivalent in terms of carbon intensity. Surely, that being a major multiple on delivering our own gas from the North Sea is a strong environmental argument to develop our own reserves.

What the Government are saying, or, to be more accurate, what the Secretary of State at DESNZ is saying, which increasingly does not reflect Treasury good sense, is that because the price is set internationally, there is no benefit in maximising our own gas and oil production. Yet the more we develop our own reserves, the more we control our own prices. We need only to look at Henry Hub prices in North America to prove that point. The issue today is whether we are making the best use of our own gas, and obviously the answer is no, we are intent on not using our own gas.

Our energy policy is sequentially driving us to shut down the reserves in the UKCS, first by stopping new licence rounds while allowing limited tie-backs; secondly, by imposing regulatory and environmental policies which deter investment; to which we add a burdensome windfall tax and create a hostile environment to new investment which seeks projects internationally in a highly competitive global market for every investment dollar. This is intellectual folly and I urge the Government to change course or to provide one well-argued reason why we should shut in future North Sea reserves.

The second point I want to raise as a result of this debate is on dependence on the grid. Delivering the Government’s ambitions for clean power would require

“rapid delivery of 80 network and enabling infrastructure projects”,

according to NESO, cited in the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan. The Government said that, by 2030, around twice as many new electricity transmission networks would be needed compared to the number built in the past decade. Installing more renewables weakens the grid. The growth in intermittent renewable generation disrupts system frequency in two ways. Intermittent renewable generation delivers an output that is highly variable in time. Wind speeds are rarely constant, changing in both intensity and direction by the second, Similarly, cloud patterns can create significant instantaneous variations in solar output. Changes in either generation or demand can lead to changes in grid frequency, so highly variable generation patterns make maintaining a stable grid frequency more difficult.

Intermittent renewable generation is increasingly displacing conventional generation in the generation mix, reducing the amount of heavy rotating turbines on the grid and therefore the amount of inertia they provide. The National Grid said:

“Operating the system with low inertia will continue to represent a key operational challenge into the future and we will need to ensure we improve our understanding of the challenges this will bring”.


Is the Minister confident, therefore, that there will be no blackouts during this period of government? If so, on what technical assumptions does he reach that decision?

Electricity: Domestic Pricing

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I cannot stand here and guarantee that that move will be brought forward by one year, as he suggests. It is a very sound idea. The future homes standard, which is now in place, is instead of the net-zero low-carbon standards that should have been implemented about 15 years ago, if the previous Government had not thrown them out. We are catching back up, as far as possible, and making sure we can get that done in good order.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, by our doubling down on intermittent renewable wind and imported Chinese solar, as the Secretary of State announced this morning, does the Minister agree that while the wholesale price link to gas and electricity constitutes, as he said, only some 30% of the consumer price, the main culprits of ever-escalating industrial and domestic prices are the Government’s green levies, the taxes and the system costs, which constitute the remaining 70% and are increasing month by month? When will the Government address these costs?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Of course, the Government have addressed those costs, particularly in the recent move to take elements of the levies away from levy arrangements and into the general Exchequer. That is part of the £150 off energy bills that the Government have recently reported. The noble Lord is absolutely right about the effect of levies on prices, but I hope he will also accept that that is exactly what the Government are doing at the moment: bringing prices down for the consumer by transferring how those levies work for the future.

Data Centres: Energy Demand

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I have lots of reasons to agree with my noble friend about particular Administrations and how they might be replaced. As far as the future of AI nuclear is concerned, it is certainly the case that new nuclear can sit very well alongside, for example, AI growth zones. One example of that is the Wylfa area, where the contract for a new SMR has just been signed, which will also be an AI growth zone where a number of data centres can establish themselves and directly use the power coming from that new SMR on that site.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, given that the environmental footprint is rightly central to the Government’s net zero policy, what is their reason for not opening the North Sea to a new licence round tied to long-term take-or-pay contracts to power new data centres, for example, when the average carbon intensity of the North Sea is 24 kilograms per barrel of oil, Jackdaw is 8 and imported LNG from the United States is 85 kilograms of carbon intensity? What is the Government’s rationale for not developing our own reserves rather than importing LNG, at the expense of energy security, with an environmental impact four times more polluting than developing our reserves in the North Sea?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I am afraid the noble Lord is back on his fairly standard topic. As far as AI is concerned, we ought to bear in mind that clean power already represents 73.7% of GB electricity generation and we are targeting clean power providing at least 95% of that power by 2030 or so. Importing a lot more gas to deal with the introduction of AI does not necessarily follow, because it is really a question of using that clean power in the most optimised way possible to make sure that AI is supported, so his thesis does not quite stack up.

Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2026

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to respond to the Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2026. As we all know, we are at the start of another fossil fuel price crisis, at a time when individuals and the state can least afford it, so bringing down energy bills and speeding up the deployment of renewables must be an absolute national priority. The renewed crisis in the Middle East has once again exposed families and small businesses to the full volatility of the fossil fuel price market. We support the extension of this scheme, but the questions that we want to ask are around its efficiency and its design for the decades ahead. As I said, we welcome the extension of the scheme to 2031 and the improvement in transparency and data sharing that this instrument introduces.

Community matters, as does recognising that fuel poverty remains a persistent, not a temporary, problem. While I appreciate that this scheme was designed and extended before the present crisis, it will need to operate in its aftermath and the continuing process. The regulations fix the core rebate at £150 for the next five years. We all know how dramatically prices can move even in a single winter, let alone over half a decade. Energy markets are in flux at the moment, and these regulations will need to work over a long period of time. What concrete mechanisms will the Government use to review the adequacy of this £150 rebate during the life of the scheme? Are there any circumstances in which Ministers would consider increasing it—for example, if the fuel crisis continues? Without an automatic or at least a clearly defined review process, are we not effectively asking households in fuel poverty to gamble with their warmth in the face of a possible real rise in prices?

Similarly, we welcome the fact that the aggregate non-core spending obligation will rise under this scheme, but it will rise only modestly, from £78 million in 2026 to £84 million by 2030. Taking into account inflation over those years and the levels of fuel poverty at the moment, if the present fuel crisis continues, is there any intention or ability to revisit that non-core spending figure mid-scheme if economic conditions or energy prices continue to accelerate? Do the Government plan to publish an annual assessment of whether the level of support is still adequate in real terms, rather than waiting until 2031, particularly in light of this real change in circumstances?

Both previous noble Lords spoke about energy debt. Many households across the country are carrying unprecedented levels of energy arrears on their accounts. That continuing level of family debt is a real point of contention and a struggle for households. Against that, the industry-wide cap is to write off debts at a mere £6 million, with a £2,000 limit for individual households. That is absolutely welcome, but many families are already beyond those levels. Can more be done, and will there be a review within this programme? How did the Government arrive at £6 million? What assessment was made of the total scale of energy debt and have Ministers considered whether that cap should be more flexible, in case this crisis worsens?

If the Minister will excuse me, I want to go slightly off-piste. I do not like to do that too often, but I really welcome some of the moves in this SI around data and data sharing. A lot more work needs to be done there so that we can target support efficiently and fairly to those who need it most. I have been looking at some of the work that Stonehaven has done. It has been raising arguments about moving from crude, one-size-fits-all interventions to a more nuanced understanding of household vulnerability, looking at income, health, energy use and property characteristics together and setting up a safeguard score for each household, using better data so that help can be better provided. That would mean we could target bill credits, tailored repayment plans and more generous debt relief to those in most severe need.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister that perhaps go a bit beyond this SI. I really encourage the Government to do more work in this area. As they plan for a continuing fuel crisis, improving data sharing between government departments, moving beyond the DWP alone to include HMRC, health agencies and others, would be a really important exercise, particularly for the future.

I note that the Minister said that he is expecting 98% of these payments to be made automatically, but in volume that 2% is still a large number of households that are falling outside the system and bill support. I would like to see the Government doing more on data sharing, particularly multi-agency.

Far too often, people in fuel poverty are also in different kinds of poverty. There really should be a share-once support register, so I would also like the Government to do more on greater working between different utility providers so that, once someone is on a priority register, information can be shared across utilities and people do not have to give the same information over and over again. That is really important and it is something that we should include in Ofgem’s work with suppliers, but it is still a missing piece. Local authorities and charities often know much more about their local residents and households in poverty, so there is much more to do to make this data available and to include local authorities and charities in this process.

I will be brief but, above and beyond this, I think there is a need for more structural reform around these issues. Others have spoken on this, but we need to decouple electricity prices from gas so that consumers feel the full benefits of cheaper, clean power. I really want the Government to look again at the possibility of taking forward a social tariff if the energy crisis continues. We need to do more to support households struggling with energy and fuel poverty.

We welcome this SI. It is good to see these measures extended, as they are really important, but there is so much going on in this space. We welcome this SI as the start of a conversation, not the end of it.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising the important issue of data. As I see it—but I am happy to be corrected by the Minister—this SI focuses on matching customers, and the data analysis is exceptionally important. It brings our approach to data up to date, because it enables the Secretary of State to direct suppliers to communicate with matched customers identified through automated data matching, and requires suppliers to provide information on eligibility, the use of automated decision-making and where to find the scheme’s privacy notice.

It goes further—again, I welcome this—in replacing annual fixed spending targets with annual estimates reflecting the number of eligible households on qualifying means-tested benefits. As I see it, and this is important and welcome, the SI addresses the need to recognise that data interpretation is not always 100% accurate. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the 2%. I hope that was the reason why, under this SI, late rebate notices can be issued after the scheme year in cases where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a customer did not receive the rebate because of an administrative error by a supplier or, indeed, the Government. Data matching is such an important issue and, as it has been raised in the Committee, it would be helpful if the Minister could give us a little more colour on it.

The second point that has come up in conversation today is the question of affordability and whether the £150 warm home discount is sufficient. I was very grateful for my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s comments on that, which I will come to. Maybe the best way to encourage the Minister to respond is to quote from a couple of third-party commentaries that cover this issue. First, the director of policy and influencing at Independent Age, Morgan Vine, stated:

“We welcome the extension of the Warm Home Discount to 2030/31. The older people on low incomes we speak to tell us it is a vital lifeline that goes some way towards keeping their heating on during the coldest months. However, at just £150, the current value of the Warm Home Discount no longer goes far enough, as energy prices remain stubbornly high. We are urging the UK Government to increase the payment to £400 so it better reflects the real cost of heating a home. This increase needs to be delivered via government funding to avoid the cost being put on energy bills”.


I would be grateful if, in his response, the Minister could comment on this statement from Morgan Vine.