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.

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?

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.

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.

Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the chairman of Acteon, a global specialist subsea services company that operates worldwide in offshore wind and oil and gas.

It is good that the Government are investing in UK supply chains. However, whether it is cables, batteries, inverters or critical minerals, the Government’s rush to meet their unrealistic clean power targets will make the UK more dependent on imports, particularly Chinese ones. With all the energy security risks that brings us, the world becomes more dangerous; I will concentrate on that in a moment.

The clean industry bonus provides additional CfD financial reward for offshore wind developers, provided they prioritise investment in regions that are most in demand or in cleaner supply chains—for example, traditional oil and gas. I assume that this also includes ex-industrial areas, ports and coastal towns. Ana Musat, the executive director of policy at RenewableUK, stated:

“The Clean Industry Bonus is a good starting point as part of a wider industrial strategy which the Government is due to unveil in full this summer, and which we hope will be complemented by new policies to support the expansion of UK ports. With larger ports, we could secure even more investment in offshore wind manufacturing and turbine assembly”.


We have already debated ports, particularly in the context of Northern Ireland, over three and a half hours in the Chamber. The reality is that most developments in ports are not going to take place for many years: in Belfast, electrification—the ability to charge—will not happen until 2035, and there is little sign of investment in ports across the United Kingdom. Can the Minister give the Committee greater clarity on exactly what he sees on the time of the rollout to support ports, modernisation and the level of investment?

On my reading, although it is good that the Government are investing in UK supply chains, the current timeline is too onerous on UK supplies; it is that timeline on which we really need to concentrate in the Minister’s response. Take NESO, which has observed that Clean Power 2030 will require more than £60 billion of private investment. It says that

“meeting the target would require the deployment of more supply-side technologies, such as onshore and offshore wind, solar energy and battery storage, on average each year to 2030 than there ever has been in a single year before”,

with

“nearly 1,000 km of onshore”

electricity network infrastructure

“and over 4,500 km of offshore network”.

It goes on to say:

“That is more than double over five years what has been built in total in the last ten”.


This is an issue: the question of timing and the headlong rush towards the target of 2030 are of major concern to my colleagues.

Two other aspects that cause concern have been raised; I hope the Minister will respond to them. The first is the supply chain and the offshore wind fair work charter, which has slipped in via the back door somewhat. In another place, the Minister stated that

“clean industry bonus applicants will need to sign up to the offshore wind fair work charter … The charter builds on forthcoming commitments in the Employment Rights Act 2025, in particular by asking that the offshore wind sector proactively implement voluntary access agreements for trade unions”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/3/26; col. 4.]

We cannot see the final fair work charter that is intended. The draft charter and the draft code of practice for trade union access are still subject to government consultation so, as I understand it, are not final yet. I have certainly not seen the final drafts. It seems the wrong process to have this very important commitment at the centre of the SI without the opportunity for parliamentarians to review what is intended in detail.

We know that the draft code leans towards giving unions practical workplace facilities. It says that, “where practicable”, the employer should “provide a notice board” in a “prominent location”, allowing union material to be displayed without employer veto. Even if the employer or the employees do not want it, that is what is required. When needed, the employer should allow a union official on to the site to display it. It also points to meetings, surgeries and the use of workplace facilities. It even suggests joint meetings and joint notice boards as ways to deliver information.

It limits the employer’s ability to manage around union meetings. The employer should

“avoid the scheduling of other conflicting … events which would draw workers away from the union’s meeting. Unless reasonable in the circumstances, the employer should not offer inducements to workers not to attend”.

The example given is that employers should not tell workers that they can go home early instead of attending the union meeting.

The employer is expected to respond incredibly fast during that negotiation. If it rejects the union proposals, the code says that

“it should offer alternative arrangements … at the earliest opportunity, preferably within three working days of receiving the union’s initial proposals”.

This is probably the closest thing in the draft to the burden of very short notice that people are talking about. Many other aspects of this code are really concerning.

The central point I am making to the Minister is that it is vital to have sight of the final code and for us to be able to debate it. If that code is too onerous on the supply chain, we risk losing good-quality companies in the United Kingdom that could add value to the supply chain and to what the Government are seeking to achieve. We live in a highly competitive global market and, unless there is a reasonable approach towards what employers should and can do, we risk losing investment.

I emphasise to the Minister that the draft code of practice for trade union access is insufficient and, because it is still subject to government consultation, is not in final form yet. It really should have been presented to the House before these regulations were agreed.

My second point is about the security of our energy supplies and suppliers. Recent reports suggest that the Treasury may allow Ming Yang Smart Energy to supply turbines for the Green Volt North Sea wind farm. As I understand it—I look forward to the Minister’s confirmation—Ming Yang is planning £1.5 billion of investment to build the largest offshore wind turbine manufacturing facility, at Ardersier near Inverness. That this is a Chinese firm has led to considerable questioning from UK government officials who, I understand, are currently evaluating the proposal amid warnings from experts of potential security vulnerabilities—such as Chinese-manufactured sensors and potential kill switches in critical energy infrastructure. This comes on top of a series of initiatives that the Government have taken to engage with the Chinese, not least in our civil nuclear programme.

It concerns me that in wind and solar we now have the potential for our supply chain to be significantly impacted by Chinese manufacturers. We know that close to 90% of our solar panels come from China; all include polycrystalline. Of these imports, 45% are understood to come from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, where slave labour is known to have been used in the manufacture of solar panels. Despite the requirements introduced by the Secretary of State in the Great British Energy Act to take full responsibility for the ethical sourcing of solar panels, the Minister’s department has consistently been unable to assure parents, teachers and children alike that their newly installed solar panels have not been made by slave labour.

As I say, the secrecy surrounding the UK-China MoU aroused yet further suspicion on this, since co-operation with China has now been extended to the supply chains to include civil nuclear; charging infrastructure; battery storage; offshore wind; carbon capture, usage and storage; and renewable hydrogen. They are all identified in that MoU. Where are the resilience and security in our own energy sector to be found if we are opening wide the door to the Chinese, who are now setting up a wind turbine business in Ardersier?

I hope the Minister can respond to both those points. The fair work charter is a significant concern, as is the growing prominence of Chinese suppliers to meet the clean energy objectives that the Minister and the Government have set out.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their important contributions to this debate. I did not hear any particular dissent from the idea that this is a good thing that will help British supply chains in offshore wind and, we hope, onshore wind, to develop significantly in the future. That will be done through a process whereby, in future rounds, those bidding for services will put in, as a pre-bid to the AR7, AR8 or AR9 bid itself, a notice of intent about what they will do as far as British supply chains are concerned and how they will source from them. When they get the additional CfD arrangement for doing that, the money will be released only when those commitments have been met. It is not a “money for pie in the sky” arrangement; it is very much a “money for pie firmly affixed to the ground” arrangement for the future.

Of course, one can never be sure exactly what commitments will be made by people putting forward their proposals to get into a particular realm but, certainly in AR7, they have covered all sorts of aspects of the supply chain, including port infrastructure, et cetera. The noble Earl raised the question of port development. A lot of investment is going into ports in general at the moment, and into the ability of ports to provide the sites for fabrication, et cetera, for offshore wind, as well as making sure that the ports are as well equipped as possible for Sea Jack-type erection vessels and so on. The idea is to thoroughly uprate investment in ports to support the offshore wind energy industry of the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was concerned about the fair work charter. I just looked it up: it appears on the government website and seems, pretty substantially, to be a final document. I am sorry not to have got my speech finished before the Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My Lords, votes in this House are tremendously helpful for securing clarity where maybe there was not clarity before in certain aspects. They are particularly helpful half way through a speech, enabling that speech to end on a clearer note than might otherwise have been the case.

I mentioned the offshore wind fair work charter to noble Lords just before we departed to vote this afternoon. It is true that the final offshore wind Fair Work Charter is now complete and live on GOV.UK, which I showed to noble Lords on my phone. However, it is also true to say that the Department for Business and Trade is pursuing a consultation on make work pay, which has many elements of the offshore wind fair work charter in it. That is what is not complete and is being consulted on at the moment. As far as the offshore wind industry is concerned, the charter that I have mentioned is complete and was, as far as I understand, extant before this SI.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. Let me put to him my understanding of where we are at the moment, because this is a really important point. I majored on this so I have looked into it. We have the Fair Work Agency, of course, and we have the overview of what the offshore wind fair work charter will look like. A cornerstone of that charter for the offshore wind sector is the issue of trade union access. That was what I was concentrating on; I gave some examples on the record of the issues that trade union access would raise with companies. It is still a draft code of practice for trade union access. It is not finalised. It is still subject to consultation and, I assume, to an SI that will be brought before Parliament.

My position was therefore that while we were debating the importance of an offshore wind fair work charter, we were unable to be specific about what it would include, particularly on the cornerstone point of access for trade unions to companies in this sector. That is the important point. It has yet to be finalised, and I understand that there will be an SI in due course. My point was that it would have been better for us to look at that in the context of a complete offshore wind fair work charter, so that employers could understand the issues about trade union access, and a final code of practice for that access.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarifying intervention. Essentially—forgive me for putting it quite like this—both of us are more or less right: the charter is there and has been there for a little while. But obviously, once a charter is up on the noticeboard, as it were, there are details of its implementation still before us. One of them is that question of the detail—not the principle—of trade union involvement in the offshore wind industry as a whole, and the requirement that from AR8, the companies involved in bidding sign up to that fair work charter overall.

One important thing to say is that the whole process of the fair work charter has been tripartite throughout, with government, industry and unions all involved in setting up the charter itself and its consequences. It is not that anyone is going to impose anything on anybody; it will be a question of continuing tripartite involvement and interest in the detail of the fair work charter, as well as the charter itself. While I take the noble Lord’s point that in an absolutely ideal world it would have been a good idea if the sub-details of the fair work charter itself had all been worked through, in the real world it is very seldom possible to do that when something comes into place. I think he will appreciate that trying to get this in place so that it runs for AR8 and onwards, for example, is an important process of pace. Therefore, having the principle in place, with everyone clear what they are supposed to sign up to for AR8, is an important move in its own right.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

Indeed, the Minister is right as well. The key point, however, is one of emphasis. To me and to my colleagues, and to companies that may access government funding through this scheme, not to know the detail of what is proposed through the draft code of practice for trade union access negates, to a great extent, the initial tripartite agreement, because that agreement can hold only when all three parties to it know the details.

I am not disagreeing with the Minister’s overview about the Fair Work Agency being in place and the fair work charter being drafted. But I am genuinely concerned that if government money is to be made available to companies in this sector—and we are really looking to encourage UK companies and international companies to come and play an important role in the supply chain—we need to have those details before we trumpet an offshore wind fair work charter without actually seeing them. I do not think that is an unreasonable point to make.

Onshore Wind Farms

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for all her work in this field and for introducing that Bill. As far as getting on with it is concerned, there is nobody who wants to get on with it more than I do. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has drawn attention to the fact that we have probably 10.7 gigawatts or more of onshore wind capacity that could retire between 2027 and 2042, and those onshore farms will be completely lost if they retire without any repowering. So repowering is clearly essential, not only to keep those wind farms going on the same sites but because of the tremendous power gain that could come about by using modern turbine methods and modern blades to increase the output by perhaps up to two-thirds when those existing sites are repowered.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, when considering repowering our intermittent wind energy when, to use the Minister’s words, the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow, does the Minister agree that the main energy policy lesson from the current crisis is that, as a nation, we should prioritise our own firm power energy independence? Does he agree that the best way to achieve this is to reduce our LNG imports from the Gulf and the US by accelerating gas development in the North Sea, and for his department to provide the one piece of paper we are all waiting on—the approval of the Jackdaw gas field to heat 1.6 million British homes this autumn?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

We have been around this path several times before recently. Suddenly introducing lots more gas into the system will make no difference to the resilience of this country against international prices, whereas developing genuinely homegrown power over a period makes all the difference. I should add that homegrown power is not just variable homegrown renewable power; it can be batteries, biomass and so on, which can be firm power in its own right. It is a question of getting the whole picture together to make sure that variable power and firm power on a renewable basis complement each other, so that you have reliable power that is homegrown and secure in the long term.

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.

UK Energy Sources and Cost of Energy

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Lord mentions what is potentially a very effective, long-term and secure method of homegrown energy. As I mentioned in my initial Answer, the long-term way to protect ourselves from these price spikes is to develop homegrown energy. Clearly, tidal range, which has a very stable supply of energy and a not particularly long period of development, could play a role in that process. However, I emphasise that we are very far at the moment from developing tidal range in the way that the noble Lord seeks to promote.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, two days ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that all countries must play their part in boosting oil and gas production. The Energy Secretary demonises and bans drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea. Who is right?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

No, the Energy Secretary does not wish to see drilling for North Sea oil banned. What he is doing, as the noble Lord will know, is developing transitional energy certificates, which will enable tie-backs to take place in existing fields. The noble Lord will know that the existing structure of the North Sea fields largely consists of fields that have not been tapped—small fields that are adjacent to additional fields—and so the tie-back arrangement will ensure both production and drilling for those tie-back fields in association with the existing fields.