Gwyndod Project

Baroness Curran Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Gwyndod Project on civil nuclear employment in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Baroness Curran) (Lab)]

Great British Energy-Nuclear is continuing to drive forward Gwyndod, the UK’s first small modular reactor project. Great British Energy-Nuclear and Rolls-Royce SMR entered contract earlier this year and are now undertaking design work to progress the Gwyndod SMR project on Anglesey in north Wales. The project, which represents the most significant industrial investment in north Wales for a generation, will support up to 3,000 skilled jobs on site at peak construction, and thousands more across the supply chain.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. Project Gwyndod indeed presents a unique opportunity to create thousands of skilled jobs, to transform local communities and to help Wales become a world leader in nuclear technology and its supply chain, but to achieve that ambition, we must also invest in the infrastructure and connectivity of that region, including an upgrade to the A55. What steps are the Government planning to take to ensure that this project is not held back by the current deficiencies in infrastructure?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

Of course infrastructure is vital, and I recognise the point the noble Baroness makes about Wales becoming a world leader and her commitment to Wales. This Government support the development of infrastructure very strongly, as has been evidenced on many occasions. The Government will work in partnership with the Welsh Government to deliver better transport in north Wales. This was demonstrated by Transport for Wales increasing the number of trains on the north Wales coastline by about half in May. In its planning for the delivery of the Gwyndod project, Great British Energy-Nuclear will consider the infrastructure required.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, we have in the NHS a network of cyclotrons, which produce loaded medical isotopes. What we do not have is reactor-based production of isotopes, so we import 80% to 90% of those isotopes from abroad, with supply chains often precarious. This means that our patients, particularly cancer patients, have delays in getting their treatment. The Welsh Government produced a good business plan for reactor-based production of isotopes in Wales, at a cost of £400 million and lasting 70 years. If Wales is not an ideal place, maybe the Government will consider Scotland—but when are we going to have such reactor-based production?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

The noble Lord has raised a very important point. I would always support the performance of devolved Governments in the UK, and I note the point he makes. I understand there have been discussions on the Project ARTHUR proposal with the Department of Health and Social Care, though there has not been any formal commitment to a specific project. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are committed to ensuring resilient medical radioisotope supplies and making use of diverse international supply chains, alongside greater UK manufacturing capability. Wider funding, including through the £520 million life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, has been made available to support UK manufacturing. However, I note the point he has made about Scotland and his other points, and I will ensure they are communicated to the relevant departments, because if it is raised in Parliament in this manner, it matters to departments and they should pay attention to it.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, in Scotland, as my noble friend knows, Hunterston and Torness are coming to the end of their lives shortly, yet new nuclear in Scotland is opposed by the Scottish Government. I know that the UK Government do not want to upset the Scottish Government. However, since energy is a reserved area, is this not exactly an area in which we should use our sovereign powers and overrule the Scottish Government?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

That was interesting and challenging, as ever, from the noble Lord. I do not know how well people know this, but I am not really on record as being frightened to upset the Scottish Government—I do not think they would have that view, either.

The noble Lord raises a very serious point. There have been discussions about nuclear power in Scotland. The Green Party had a debate at their conference, and it has resisted it, unfortunately, and the SNP has stood against it. They have missed huge opportunities to contribute to the development of clean energy in Scotland and across the UK. They are also turning their back on huge opportunities for investment and infrastructure development, and the development of skills. Of course, we have high standards of safety and security, overseen by independent regulators, and we have made enormous progress on this. The SNP has been very backward in its attitude, so I will use every opportunity I can to pursue this issue with the SNP Government—and I am not frightened to do so.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we very much welcome the progress that has been made on this important project at Gwyndod. I ask the Minister to give some further information on the skills pipeline needed. We recognise that there is the opportunity of 300 apprenticeships and 3,000 jobs, but what action are the Government taking to ensure that local Welsh residents, including Welsh speakers, are able and empowered to apply for these jobs and that they turn into long-lasting opportunities?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

It is really important to make the point, too, that Wales must be part of this. Often, we have seen projects in the past that have not emphasised that connection to the local community, and we must take those opportunities to do that—so I agree with noble Earl’s emphasis on that. Also, as the Chancellor, John Healey, said yesterday, we must make investment work twice, and we need to make sure we do that in the energy department too, so we get a skills bonus as well as a delivery bonus. We agree that it must represent the most significant industrial investment in the region in Wales for a generation. As I have said, it will support 3,000 jobs. There is a nuclear skills plan, focused not simply on growing the nuclear workforce but on creating a strong, sustainable pipeline of skills, and it is something we will keep under close attention.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is absolutely right that the Scottish Nationalist Government have been a blocker of nuclear power—but they are not the only Luddites in our political system. It was of course Nick Clegg, as Deputy Prime Minister, who stood in the way of new nuclear, and this Government face opposition from regulators who use legacy EU rules to stop new nuclear power. Fish protection measures have already cost more than £700 million in the development of Hinkley Point. The government-commissioned Fingleton review pointed out how we could deal with these measures, but the Government have refused to implement—

[Lord Gove (Con)]

—recommendations 11, 12 and 19. Why?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My goodness, there was a lot in that, and I am not sure I heard it all with some of the demands for a question out of it, but I can assure the noble Lord that I would never deny that there have been challenges in delivering our nuclear policy. We have had challenges in planning. It has been far too slow, which is why the Fingleton review was undertaken. We have committed to implementing the 47 recommendations of the Fingleton review and we are implementing some of them already. There will be lots of opportunities to discuss this matter further, when perhaps we can have a more detailed discussion as we take forward the legislation. I suspect the notion of Brexit and the EU will be a continuing matter for discussion in this House.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

As someone who grew up on Ynys Môn, many of my friends had to leave the island to get a job. After 15 years of a Conservative Government in London and many years of a Labour Government in Cardiff, that has been an economic disaster for Wales. So, can the Minister commit to recruiting locally for this project, so we do not have another generation that has to leave the island just for a job?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

Again, that is a very serious question and a matter that demands close attention. I would need to look at the details of the particular island rather than give the noble Baroness guarantees, but I can assure her that the principle of local employment, ensuring local communities benefit from infrastructure development, is at the centre of what we do. We will keep it closely monitored and ensure there is a skills pipeline coming through, because a range of jobs are associated with nuclear projects, from the very highly skilled through to apprenticeships, which are vital. Overall, our commitment is to growth in every postcode: economic regeneration for all the UK. It was a model between the Plaid Cymru Government and the UK Government to develop this project. Michael Shanks was there last week with the Welsh Government Minister, and they were seen delivering together. That is a constructive approach. We have our differences, but on employment regeneration, we can work together.

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

My Lords, while I welcome the employment opportunities expected from the Gwyndod project, does my noble friend the Minister agree that success should be measured not simply by the number of jobs created but by whether they are secure, high-paid, union-recognised jobs, filled by local people? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that this ambitious project creates a sustainable pipeline of engineers, technicians and skilled tradespeople, not just in north Wales but nationwide, supporting both this initiative and the UK’s future nuclear programme as a whole?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

That is another vital dimension of this. I should have said earlier that the nuclear skills hubs include the Wales hub. They are a UK-wide approach that brings employers, training providers and partners together to address local skills needs and strengthen that pipeline of talent needed to support the sector’s future. The plan is also to strengthen apprenticeships, graduate programmes, doctoral research and technical career paths, to develop the engineers, technicians and skilled workforce needed to support the UK’s current and future nuclear ambitions. We all know that, economically, that has a read-across to other industries and skills, as well as knock-on effects for suppliers. We want to release this money, to make it work twice and to make sure we have high-level, well-paid jobs that, of course, are unionised too.

Rosebank Oil Field

Baroness Curran Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the exploration of the Rosebank oil field, following its development being accounted for in the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook published on 28 October 2026.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Curran) (Lab)]

The OBR makes assumptions about future oil and gas production in order to forecast tax receipts. It uses the North Sea Transition Authority’s projections, which include potential production from potential new fields, including Rosebank, and future discoveries. It is therefore normal for the Government’s future revenue forecasts to include both current and potential future oil and gas projects. Rosebank, for example, has been included since at least 2019. This in no way reflects the Energy Secretary’s independent decision on the project, which will be made through a quasi-judicial process, taking into account all relevant factors in the case. It will not surprise the noble Lord to hear me say that I am unable to comment further on individual projects and that the Energy Secretary will be making a decision on whether to grant consent or not in due course, in the normal way.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of Amey, Acteon and Buckthorn. The legislation governing the OBR gives it an explicit, legally binding right to access information and seek assistance from government departments. When it is uncertain, it says so. However, what it says on pages 93 and 94 is as clear as crystal. The projection for oil and gas receipts,

“includes production from currently producing fields (including Jackdaw), and the NSTA’s estimate of production from development of new fields, which includes Rosebank”—

so there is no prevarication and no rider, and it is specifically named.

At today’s oil prices and with current reserve estimates, it is likely that the tax take could be north of £10 billion for the life of the field. Can the Minister say why it has taken over a year for the Government to announce the decision to produce Rosebank, with the Secretary of State stating to the Guardian that she is “leaning towards” refusing Rosebank when the words of the Chancellor this morning in the context of Jackdaw were:

“I really welcome the decision … It’s common sense. It’s practical. It adds to our energy security. It produces revenue”—

all of which are equally applicable to Rosebank?

Does the Minister agree that if these figures are wrong, then the OBR, despite its right to consult DESNZ, should bin its projections and rewrite them? Alternatively, should not Parliament be informed first when the Government make an announcement, especially when backing the Conservative campaign to approve Rosebank and back Scottish workers—indeed, over 1,000 Scottish workers and their families?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a number of points. In terms of what he says about the OBR, I have to re-emphasise the points that I have made, that it is a normal process for the Government’s future revenue forecast to include both current and potential oil and gas receipts, and it has been included since 2019. However, the noble Lord went on to make a number of other points.

The Chancellor indeed said that Jackdaw was common sense—I think I used that very phrase myself when I was at the Dispatch Box earlier this week. I have to emphasise that we have had a legal challenge through this process—the noble Lord’s former Government will understand that, because the Court of Session said that scope 3 emissions had to be taken into account, so we have had to revisit that. I want to be as clear as I can be that this is quasi-judicial and I do not wish to jeopardise that in any way whatever. I take the point the noble Lord made; I am under no illusions about the Conservative Party’s view on this is—it has been pointed out to me on countless occasions. I want to just leave it at that. I am sure as the questions develop, we may go into a bit of a party-political debate, but at the moment I just want to emphasise the quasi-judicial nature of the Rosebank decision.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, further to that point, will my noble friend confirm that, if this decision is made on a political basis and not on the facts for and against going ahead, there could be another legal challenge, which would delay it for a further two years and which would certainly not be of any benefit to the people of Scotland?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

That was very well said, for once—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I do not mean that disrespectfully. I mean more that my noble friend usually challenges me in his questions, not that he does not put his case well; humble apologies for that if it was inappropriate. My noble friend makes the point very well that the decision is quasi-judicial and all the factors will be—and must be—taken into account. If not, they are bound to be legally challenged. We know that there are stakeholders with great interest on all sides of this decision. I counsel those who are against and those who are for Rosebank to think about that, because it may jeopardise the future if we do not get the legal process right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I have to make the same point again: I cannot be tempted into making any comment about that. The noble Earl made his point and it is on the record. I heard some challenges to him and some support for him; that is on the record.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, did not the Chancellor really give the game away yesterday when he referred to Jackdaw and accidentally let the truth out, which was that the Energy Secretary was opposed to it, but the Prime Minister and the Chancellor said yes? Is not that exactly what we are going to see with the Rosebank decision? The Energy Secretary is against it, but the Prime Minister and the Chancellor know it is the right thing to do, that is what the Government are going to do, and if they do the right thing, we will support them.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I understand the process and I understand politics. I understand why the noble Lord is making that point. But I have to say that it is quasi-judicial, and I can absolutely guarantee, because I know the Energy Secretary very well, that she has not made the decision, she will make the decision on the facts, and the Government will stand by that decision.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that this process occurred under previous Conservative governments and that that really is not important in this discussion? She is quite right, of course, to say that the Secretary of State will make the decision in her own time, exactly as a previous Conservative Secretary of State would do. All I would say to her is that I hope the Secretary of State realises how important it is for Britain not to encourage other people to extend the exploitation of oil, because we are fighting a battle against climate change which is crucially important for our children and grandchildren.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I never thought I would ever find myself saying this, but I have listened to the noble Lord’s speeches on climate change and have had a very positive response to them. I think he makes very significant contributions on climate change and pay tribute to the work that he has done. I will reference the Jackdaw decision because I do not want to reference the Rosebank decision, but the Government are very clear that we are maintaining our commitment to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster. It is entirely consistent with our commitment to building clean energy, and we remain committed to understanding and explaining to the British people the threat of climate change and the way that it will impact on their lives. It is happening now. We need to adapt, we need to mitigate now and we need to get off the fossil fuel roller coaster. I recognise the arguments that the noble Lord has put so well in this Chamber about that.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

The Minister has kept saying, as have the Government, that this issue is quasi-judicial. Would she explain why? A judicial decision was made in the Scottish courts about a year ago. The duty of the Government is to make a factual decision, taking into account a judicial decision already made. That cannot be regarded as quasi-judicial.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I answer the noble Lord with some degree of trepidation, because I know of his great expertise in this matter. My understanding is, and I have been told categorically by officials, that it is quasi-judicial because, given the range of factors that the Secretary of State has to take into account on this, it could be opened up to a court challenge. I am happy to further explore this matter so that in future I give a more adequate legal answer to the noble Lord.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I ask a very simple question of the Minister. Given what my noble friend Lord Moynihan said about what the OBR has stated, can she confirm therefore that if Rosebank does not go ahead, the Government’s fiscal headroom will be much reduced?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

The OBR will have to republish the figures if Rosebank does not go ahead, and that will need to be addressed.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that perhaps noble Lords opposite should be a little more careful and a little nuanced in their interpretation of the OBR report? It did indeed, for the reasons that the Minister set out, include both Rosebank and Jackdaw in those assessments, but the overall assessment was that receipts from North Sea oil revenues and taxation would decline, as they have over the last 20 years, in the next five years to zero. Is it not really important that we concentrate on the future, and could the Minister tell me what progress we are making—it was mentioned in the Budget papers—on that important issue that would save consumers money, delinking the price of electricity from the price of gas?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for pointing out that that is what the OBR actually says about that.

[Noble Lords]

It is not.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

Well, there is a discussion going on across the Benches at the moment, and we will return to that, no doubt, if there is disagreement about it. I share that understanding with the noble Baroness, and that is what I have been briefed. She is absolutely right about the importance of delinking, because, fundamentally, we all know that the North Sea is a declining basin and that that is something we have to come to terms with. I understand the politics of what the Conservative Party is trying to do here, but as I have often said at this Dispatch Box, the Tory Party is in utter denial about what we face in terms of climate change, and as a country we have to come to terms with it.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I just point out that there are some nodding on the Conservative Benches who agree with that. The Conservative Party is in utter denial and broken the consensus on that. I said before that I think it is a dereliction of duty not to address the interests of the British people on that matter. That is why our move to clean energy and delinking is so important. As I said earlier, the price of electricity was determined at 90% and it is 60% today. The Chancellor yesterday referenced the contracts for difference process that will keep us maintaining that momentum to delinking. It is fundamental to our policy going forward.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, a lot of the focus on the Rosebank decision has been on climate change, naturally, but this is a development at a depth of over one kilometre, the deepest ever proposed on the UK continental shelf. The remote location, depth and harsh Atlantic conditions make it a very difficult site. A major oil spill could have serious impact on at least 16 UK marine protected areas. Can the Minister reassure me that that is really seriously being taken into account?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint the noble Baroness, because I just do not want to be dragged into any detail about the decision. I will absolutely assert that when the Secretary of State makes her decision, she will be given a range of information that I know that she will read and study carefully. She will make the decision in the round and will address that. As I said to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, those issues are on the record in this House.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I do not know about other noble Lords, but I would welcome a little bit of financial context on this, following the question by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. When I look at the OBR document, it is very hard to understand what the financial difference is. It refers to, with Rosebank, a 10% decline in revenues over the period and, without it, a 14% decline over the period. What does that mean in terms of pounds and pence over the financial forecast period?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I was going to say thank you for that question, but I do not know if I do, to be honest. The OBR does not actually make forecasts. It recognises the potential tax receipts for Rosebank, but it does not actually give pounds and pence forecasts for it.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, this quasi-judicial nature has been shown to be a quasi-excuse. I can assure the Minister, having taken quasi-judicial decisions, that they do not need to take a year. If the Government decide that it is illegal under the present law to go ahead with Rosebank, why do not they change the law, and as soon as possible?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I can only assert what I have already stated. It is our understanding—my understanding, certainly—that this is quasi-judicial. I need to understand some of the points being made in greater depth. It was raised at the Court of Session. We do not want to go through another legal process again. We have to give it proper consideration. That means that these decisions take time, and we want to be absolutely clear that when a decision is made, it is the final decision and does not end up in the courts again.

Jackdaw Gas Field

Baroness Curran Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we recognise the logic of this decision, but approving a new gas field in a climate crisis is proof that Britain has not moved nearly fast enough to cut demand for gas in our homes and transport. Jackdaw was licensed decades ago. The decision is late because the Conservative Government failed to do the necessary preparations, and North Sea workers in the industry have paid the cost ever since. We accept that gas will be needed for decades during the transition, but burning fossil fuels causes climate change, and this summer’s wildfires and heat waves show us the true cost.

Although we could have properly invested in our transition towards cleaner, cheaper and more efficient energy, successive Governments—some more than others —have instead left the UK in a state of energy insecurity. By scrapping insulation schemes, the Conservatives built around 1.6 million homes to lower efficiency standards, costing families in those homes an extra £5 billion in bills between 2017 and 2025. The Conservatives also blocked onshore wind and cancelled zero-carbon homes, leaving us far more exposed to ever-rising global gas prices.

The Conservatives and Reform still talk about the North Sea as though it were a magic lamp. The fact is that it is a basin in terminal decline. The Conservatives’ latest so-called evidence is the Onward report, which Carbon Brief’s fact check found assumes that gas prices will fall back to pre-war levels and stay there for 20 years. One Imperial College professor said that the modelling

“has more holes than a Swiss cheese”.

Even on its own terms, it would mean an extra 524 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide and slower electrification. The Climate Change Committee estimates that a single fossil fuel gas spike on the scale of 2022 could cost as much as the net additional cost of reaching net zero across every year to 2050.

Jackdaw will not bring energy bills down. It can only add to the margins of our energy security. Jackdaw can play a short-term role only if it displaces the most polluting LNG and if it leads to more technological green investment. What guarantees are there that this will happen? Will the Government publish the evidence and report on it each year?

Rosebank, on the other hand, is different. The vast majority of it is oil and is sold on the international market, so it will not lower our bills, and the evidence shows that it fails the climate test. We await that decision and we will hold the Government to account.

The Government have also said that tax revenues will go into the new energy wealth fund to invest in green technology, which we welcome. However, the OBR forecasts North Sea tax receipts falling from £4.1 billion in 2025-26 to just £100 million by 2030-31—a 98% drop that Jackdaw cannot reverse. How will Parliament know how this money is spent?

The real answer to energy security is having homegrown renewable power the price of which we control and electrifying everything at speed. This Government are slipping ever further behind. Labour cannot argue that we need more gas because we failed to transition at speed while slowing their own electrification ambitions. The vehicle mandate requires 80% of new cars to be electric by 2030. Reports suggest that Ministers are leaning towards cutting that target to 60%. Does the Minister accept that this would be a disaster, sending the wrong signal to manufacturers, charge point investors and drivers? I ask the Minister to rule out any weakening of the 2030 target and to say when the review will report.

The target for heat pumps has been cut from 600,000 a year by 2028 to 450,000 by 2030. We are among the slowest in Europe because electricity costs are so much higher than gas. On insulation, the warm homes local grant has upgraded just 5,470 homes as of July—0.1% of the 5 million target by 2030. The Government must commit to a national electrification strategy and to a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation for the lowest-income households.

I welcome the commitment in the Statement to take levies off electricity bills, but Ministers have committed to remove only two-thirds of the renewable obligation and for just three years. We must remove it fully and decouple the price of electricity from that of gas.

I am concerned that new North Sea production, airport expansion and new data centres are adding emissions, while developing the grid, electric vehicles and heat pumps are falling behind. When will the Government receive the Climate Change Committee’s advice and will they commission a fundamental new assessment of our carbon budgets? The just transition is not delivering for North Sea workers and their communities. Labour should establish the just transition commission that we have called for.

Jackdaw must be the very last. This may be a pragmatic decision, but it must not become a precedent. The only lasting route to security and human survival is to enable the end of our addiction to oil and gas.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Baroness Curran) (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for those substantial contributions, and I will do my best to address them as much as I can. I am sure we will have countless opportunities to address them again.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, began by mentioning a number of other North Sea oil and gas projects. As noble Lords will know, I cannot comment on other projects as they are undergoing relevant quasi-judicial processes. However, I lodge the general point that he made, and I am sure it is one that we will continue to discuss.

On Sea Lion, as the Government have said in this Chamber before, the Government maintain a consistent position on the right of the Falkland Islands to develop its natural resources. This is integral to its right of self-determination, which is grounded in international law. UK oil and gas licensing policy does not apply in the Falkland Islands.

I turn to some of the noble Lord’s general points, and I want to be absolutely clear. He began on quite a positive note. I did get some congratulations, so I register my appreciation of that, even if it did not last very long. The North Sea remains a vital asset. It supports jobs, communities and our energy security. Even on the path to net zero, the UK will still require oil and gas for decades to come as we make the clean energy transition.

I think the fundamental disagreement between our positions today is that—I return to the challenge that the noble Lord has given me—he failed to mention the challenge of climate change. After the summer that we have had and all the signs that surround us, I think that is a dereliction of duty. We cannot look at just the production of gas and how we consume gas. We have to look at our carbon emissions, and we have to have a plan to deal with that. That is why this plan, this decision, is vital.

Jackdaw will start supplying gas to British homes and businesses in the coming weeks. At its peak, it is expected to increase UK domestic gas production by around 6%. It is a meaningful production, but it is still in line with our climate change commitments. Those climate change commitments are central to the policy of this Government, which is why our approach to the North Sea goes hand in hand with our ambitions for a managed, orderly and prosperous energy transition. As confirmed by the Prime Minister, who I agree with—and noble Lords should wait until the Prime Minister or any Minister makes formal decisions—this Government will hold to the target of reaching net zero by 2050 to meet the climate challenge and transition from fossil fuels to renewables and nuclear.

Let us be clear that the Jackdaw project will not prevent the UK being able to meet its legally binding limits on carbon emissions or achieving net zero by 2050, but, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, indicated, Britain is a price taker, not a price maker. The price we pay for gas is determined ultimately by international markets, so while domestic production supports our energy security, producing more gas cannot, by itself, protect British consumers from volatile international prices. That is the charge I return to the noble Lord. He talked about the challenge of relying on renewables, but he does not take responsibility for the impact that volatile gas prices and their knock-on effects have had on British consumers.

We talk about developing the North Sea and continuing to do so. I remind the noble Lord that under the previous Tory Government 70,000 jobs in the North Sea were lost, which indicates that there are challenges there. Just increasing production there cannot be seen as a solution.

I turn to some of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I appreciated his introduction to his questions, which was quite interesting. We have heard very little from the Conservatives about the Onward report, and very little about their cheap energy plan. These have been questioned quite significantly in relation to the thinking and the figures behind them, but I am happy to return to that discussion if the noble Earl wishes to do so. He indicated some very useful stats in relation to that.

The noble Earl mentioned the energy wealth fund, which was announced alongside the Jackdaw decision. Its purpose is to use Britain’s energy wealth today to invest in the clean energy industries of the future. It will invest in renewable and low-carbon energy infrastructure across the UK, helping to unlock growth and supporting the low-carbon economy.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also talked about the zero-emissions vehicles mandate. On 14 August, the Government launched the mandate review consultation, which sought views from the public and stakeholders to consider the ZEV mandate and ensure that it is fit for purpose. The consultation forms an important part of the long-committed mandate review and has just closed. As your Lordships know, the Government have a long-standing commitment to publish that review to ensure that we are taking a pragmatic and balanced approach to the transition for transport. The Government launched the consultation so that views from stakeholders and the public could properly inform the review. No policy decisions have yet been made, but I assure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to the zero-emissions vehicle mandate.

The noble Earl also mentioned the warm homes plan. The warm homes plan represents the biggest ever programme of home upgrades in history and is already helping households to cut their energy bills, through solar panels, batteries, heat pumps and insulation. On heat pumps, to which he referred specifically, under the boiler upgrade scheme, the Government have supported over 90,000 heat pump installations and issued over £600 million in grant funding to homes in England and Wales.

I take the general point the noble Earl made about the renewables obligation, the work that we have done on that and the de-linking that we need to undertake in this country. Britain has already moved from gas setting the price of electricity for about 90% of the time in the early 2020s to around 60% today. So we are on that journey, and it is a journey that we want to continue to be on. Through the Government’s clean energy mission, it is estimated that gas will set the wholesale price for around half the time in 2030.

I return to the general point about the decision itself. The Jackdaw decision is fundamental to the decisions that we are making as a Government. It does not affect prices, but it will help with production and give a small but meaningful contribution to energy security. I re-emphasise that Britain has a secure gas system that has consistently met demand, including during periods of global market disruption, and will continue to do so this winter. We have also emphasised the economic benefits to Britain. The developer estimates that Jackdaw will support nearly 300 jobs and contribute around £2.9 billion to the UK economy. I am very pleased that most noble Lords have welcomed the decision today, for which I thank them.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, the Statement includes a proposal that there should be a North Sea energy wealth fund, which will put £2 billion into further development of some kind. I am proud of the way in which, under both parties, we developed the North Sea in an amazing way and at an amazing speed in the last century. I give full credit to Tony Benn, who got it going, although his methods were slightly different from those of some of us on the other side.

We now have the North Sea wealth fund, Great British Energy, the North Sea Transition Authority and the GB nuclear authority. That is before we come to any of the decommissioning authorities or other authorities developing the energy transition. Is this not overegging the pudding? It seems to me that we are creating more carbon emissions with all this bureaucracy than will be saved by anything else. Could the Minister assure us that someone has an eye on keeping this bureaucracy under control? We should let the basic forces of good regulation and innovation lead to more jobs for this country and even more jobs for the supply chains all over the world. Can she reassure us this is being kept under watch and not running out of control?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that very interesting question, and I pay tribute to him and recognise his great experience in this field over—being respectful—many decades. He raises a very interesting point about the carbon emissions of bureaucracy; that is quite an interesting question I could ask in the department. Challenging bureaucracy, looking at costs, driving down duplication and always making sure that you are driven by outcomes are very good principles of government. I take the point that he raises very seriously, and it is something that I and the department will keep in the forefront of our minds. When we are creating the necessary infrastructure to implement our decision-making, it is vital that we do not bureaucratise or duplicate. We should have a carbon emissions assessment of that too. In the spirit of the partnership that he began with, I think we can say that the commitment to the North Sea remains because it will play a great part in our energy mix for decades to come.

[Baroness Gill (Lab)]

My Lords, could my noble friend the Minister inform the House about the Government’s plans for the energy wealth fund. How will it impact household bills and jobs?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. The energy wealth fund is an important part of the announcement that was made on the same day that the decision was made on Jackdaw. For once, we must acknowledge that we should make use of the receipts that we receive, and we want to feed that back into the clean energy transition. It will be beneficial because it will be clear where that money is being spent. It will help fund a clean transition, as I said; it can help with many parts of the infrastructure that we need to facilitate clean infrastructure. While there will not be a direct read across to bills, it will certainly help in the long term as we establish our energy security and get off the fossil-fuel rollercoaster, because that will help protect affordability in the long run. That kind of investment, focused in that way, will help us develop the clean energy industries of the future. As we know, there is growing investment in that field; I think there is £110 billion of private investment in the clean energy sector. That, of course, will have a read over to jobs. Many of them are skilled, high-paying jobs, which is vital to my nation of Scotland but also vital, as we now know, throughout the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, at COP 30 in Belém, the UK led an international statement on fossil fuels calling for robust monitoring of methane emissions and the elimination of routine venting and flaring. We have heard again today the demonstrably wrong statement about the comparative level of emissions intensity of imports versus our own gas. The overwhelming majority of UK gas imports—69% last year—come from Norway, where the gas production is almost four times less polluting. One of the key reasons for this is that Norway long ago banned emergency flaring of gas and has far less leakage. Given the Jackdaw decision, are the Government treating the reduction in methane emissions and gas flaring from all UK gas production as a matter of urgency? What practical steps are they taking to ensure these are not just voluntary rules for the industry but genuine, enforced rules?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

Does it not make a change to hear the Greens actually talk about environmental issues? Being Scottish, I would emphasise that point. The noble Baroness mentioned methane. The North Sea oil and gas sector has one of the lowest methane emission intensities globally. The industry is already taking action to cut its methane emissions by stopping leaks and reducing the use of venting and flaring to deliberately release gas. This saw the industry reach its 2025 methane intensity target of 0.2% five years early in 2020, meaning that, for every 1,000 units of gas sold, no more than two units should be released as methane.

I will take the opportunity to address the noble Baroness on this issue, because I have not had the opportunity before. She properly and understandably presses this Government on their climate commitments and the need to build new renewables infrastructure. I plead with her to talk to some of the Green Party’s Members of Parliament and ask them to please stop objecting to renewables development in their own constituencies, because that might help us move forward on this agenda.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, the National Energy System Operator—NESO—has four future energy scenarios. Two things are true about these four scenarios: first, the different scenarios will require different amounts of fossil fuel in 2050; and, secondly, the decision about which of these paths the Government wish to follow has to be made now, because each of the scenarios will have long-term implications for investment in infrastructure. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have decided to follow one of NESO’s future energy scenarios? If they have not decided, when will they decide which one they want to choose?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I was warned about questions from the Cross-Benchers: that they are always very thorough and demanding, and so it has come to pass. I know of NESO and some of that work, but I cannot list the four scenarios. I can say that we are looking at the combination and at the demands we will need to have met by 2050 to make sure that we have a robust and absolute energy supply. I know that NESO, despite the current investigations that are under way, has emphatically said that we are on that course. I guarantee the noble Lord that this Government will never take a decision that undermines a robust energy supply, but we are also very cognisant of climate change, because that has a knock-on effect on our energy supply. We believe that strikes the right balance and takes us on the journey we need to be on. Having said that, I do not want to be dismissive of the substance of the noble Lord’s question; it is something we should always be alert to. I will look at the different models and perhaps have a further discussion with the noble Lord.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, these questions give me the unusual pleasure of congratulating the Minister on her announcement. Will she now make my day by announcing the Government’s permission for the Rosebank field to go ahead? There can be no remaining objections, given that, within the Government, the most extreme and fanatical opponent of developing oil fields, the Foreign Secretary—and former Energy Secretary—has given approval for the Sea Lion field in the Falklands. Can the Minister explain why it could possibly be right there and wrong here, and why there should be a day’s delay in giving Rosebank approval?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question, which was not terribly surprising. I do not quite comprehend the Opposition Benches’ obsession with Ed Miliband, but I suppose it is something I will have to learn to live with. The noble Lord knows full well that the Rosebank decision is a quasi-judicial decision. While I acknowledge the interest in it, I cannot be tempted into making any direct comment on it. The decision on Jackdaw does not prejudge Rosebank or any other application. Each decision is made on its merits, and all the evidence will be looked at and thoroughly investigated. It will be a robust decision, based on the evidence.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the comments from the Minister on challenging the bureaucracy. It is a shame that her predecessors in the Conservative Government and the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition did not challenge it to ensure a much greater British content in renewable energy, and that we have become so dependent on foreign manufacturers. I urge her to challenge the presumption that there is nothing we can do about gas prices and security, either through storage or—as Australia is doing—by mandating that a percentage of gas be produced for the domestic market. We are not passive in this, and we should become an active Government. That message needs to get back into Whitehall.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I believe in proactive government, and I am very happy to take a message back to Whitehall to say that we need to be much more assertive and proactive in defending not just our energy interests but the general interests of the country. I am happy to take that energy back—if I can. The Australian model is interesting and is something I want to look at.

Storage has been raised here a number of times. I have gone back to the department constantly to ask questions about storage and have had reassurance about that, but it is something I will continue to look at. The noble Lord is right: we need to look after the interests of British workers and industries, making sure we can extract every possible opportunity from that. Every penny the Government spend should be considered within that frame, and I will go back and pursue that. I do not know whether my team will always agree with me, but I am happy to challenge bureaucracy at all times.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, right now the economy of Aberdeen, in the north-east of Scotland, is hurting badly. The decision on Jackdaw has been welcomed and will be extremely helpful to the situation. By the way, I was an early supporter of targets for net zero, which I support 100%, and I am very concerned that the Conservatives have now abandoned that, because they are creating confusion in the markets for both retail and investment. We need to ensure that we deliver net zero, which is not incompatible with developing oil and gas reserves. My plea for Rosebank is: yes, it will have emissions, but those emissions will happen whether the oil is produced here or elsewhere. The logic is to produce it here at lower carbon and get the benefit of investment, jobs and taxes. I know the Minister cannot answer the question, but it is important that this is put on record as a legitimate reason for considering it positively.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

Yes, and of course the noble Lord will take the opportunity to put such matters on the record, because he knows that Jackdaw did not prejudge any other application and it will be looked at on its merits. I agree with his fundamental assertion and the generality that it is possible to still extract gas from the North Sea but also maintain our climate commitments, and we should not lose our energy on tackling the climate crisis. We have a responsibility here to tell the British public about what is happening and the potential difficulties and challenges that we face after this summer—we should all be alert to that. I share the noble Lord’s challenge to the Conservatives, who I think we are just about to hear from.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

It was a great decision on Jackdaw. I see in the Statement that the Government want to decommission existing facilities at speed. Would it not be better to keep them and work with the industry to get more of our oil and gas out? That would be much lower CO₂, particularly than importing LNG.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

Decommissioning is an important issue to raise. The noble Lord will know that we have asked Shell to submit its decommissioning programme for the Energy Secretary to consider. The next stage of the Brent decommissioning process has been under review since 2017. A final decision will be made only once all relevant evidence, representations and legal requirements have been considered, so we are taking pragmatic steps to unblock long-standing decision processes such as this—but the noble Lord makes an important point about the importance of decommissioning.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has made clear that this decision, understandable as it is within the context of the current circumstances, in no way detracts from the overall priorities and mission of the Government regarding net zero. She also made clear that it does not in any way affect the prices of gas for consumers in this country. It is said that the new North Sea energy wealth fund will support plans to delink gas and electricity over the course of this Parliament. Again and again we have raised the issue of how gas prices actually make things much more expensive for electricity consumers. On what timetable are the Government going to make some progress on this important issue?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I am not sure I can give her a precise timetable, in all sincerity, because there is a series of decisions linked to it and it does not lend itself to a given timetable. We have made progress from 90% to 60% over the course of this decade. We want to keep the pace going on that and we will continue. Of course, it is contingent on a variety of issues, but I am happy to keep that issue on the agenda and at the forefront of our minds.

The noble Baroness mentioned climate change, and I emphasise how important this is. We have COP coming up. We regard ourselves as international leaders on climate change and we want to keep that position. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister will be attending COP, which is an indication of the significance we give to it. This will be an ongoing conversation that I am happy to discuss in Parliament and with the noble Baroness.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, as a former accountant of a major international oil company, I am highly sceptical of the tax numbers floated in this debate and generally. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that profits from Jackdaw are not shifted from the UK to a low or no-tax jurisdiction through transfer pricing strategies, which are already failing the tax authorities? Shell, which is a part-owner of Jackdaw, is an absolute master of shifting profits from the UK to elsewhere and thereby dodging UK taxes. What assurances can the Minister offer the House that this would be curbed?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

You do not get challenging questions only from the Cross-Benchers. As an accounting professor, the noble Lord knows quite a lot about this. Of course, we would not want to see excessive profit, manipulation or improper activity within this field. We will be trying to ensure that investment is properly managed.

The noble Lord just put on the record the behaviour of certain companies and the consequences of that. I am not personally versed in that, but it is something I will look at. Obviously, there are limits to what we can do with private companies. When I was at the Dispatch Box last week, the Tories and the noble Lord were in unison and in one voice; I suspect that on this question they are not. I will come back to the noble Lord.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Does the Minister not accept that heat pumps are very inefficient? To heat water and the house, you also need solar panels and battery storage units. Can the Minister take that into consideration on heat pumps?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

Of course, we would want to understand any practical difficulties and challenges. My understanding is that heat pumps have become very useful to people, who value them and find that they make a useful contribution. I would always wish to be guided by the evidence, but we are seeing that they are regarded as an important part of the infrastructure for a renewable future. That is the evidence that I have seen.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that a case can be made for the Jackdaw field because it displaces higher-carbon LPG coming into the country with UK natural gas, which has lower emissions? That case cannot be made for oil permissions—where the oil has been explored but not yet produced—because oil is 30% higher in emissions than even LPG. Does my noble friend agree with me that the best way we can proceed is to go along with the International Energy Agency’s view that we already have enough explored but not yet produced oil across the world to bust our climate change targets three times over and that the best thing to do is to leave it in the ground?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I suspect that my noble friend knows what I will say in response to that: I cannot prejudge any decision. The decision on Rosebank will be quasi-judicial and I cannot comment on it. Like my response to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I say to my noble friend that he has got his point on the record.

Boiler Upgrade Scheme (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2026

Baroness Curran Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Curran]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2026.

[Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Baroness Curran) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before Parliament on 13 July 2026. The boiler upgrade scheme is the Government’s flagship scheme for supporting the decarbonisation of heat in homes and small non-domestic buildings across England and Wales. The scheme provides grants towards the installation of eligible low-carbon heating technologies, primarily heat pumps, helping households overcome the upfront costs associated with transitioning away from fossil fuel heating systems.

In 2025, the Government consulted on expanding the range of technologies supported through the scheme, including the potential introduction of heat batteries. Heat batteries are a type of thermal energy storage system that can use low-carbon electricity to generate and store heat, and release that energy when required. Following consideration of the consultation responses, the Government confirmed their intention to support heat batteries through the scheme once the appropriate standards are in place. The amendments made by these regulations are an important step towards implementing that decision. The Government are supporting the future inclusion of heat batteries in the boiler upgrade scheme to increase consumer choice, as they have the potential to provide an alternative low-carbon heating solution for consumers in homes where heat pump installation may not be appropriate.

These regulations amend the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish schemes to facilitate and encourage the renewable generation of heat in England and Wales. These schemes can be established only in relation to the listed sources of energy and technologies. These regulations add thermal energy storage systems to the list of those sources of energy and technologies. This amendment provides the necessary statutory basis for thermal energy storage systems to be supported through government schemes that derive their powers from Section 100 of the Energy Act, such as the boiler upgrade scheme. Subject to Parliament approving these regulations, the Government intend to bring forward a statutory instrument to amend the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England and Wales) Regulations 2022 and to enable support for eligible heat batteries through the scheme.

The regulations also amend Regulation 22 of the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England and Wales) Regulations 2022. This is a technical amendment that clarifies the powers available to the scheme administrator where an installer has received an ineligible payment. The change will enable the scheme administrator, Ofgem, to recover any amount owed through a combination of repayment and offsetting against future grant payments to that installer, improving the administration of the scheme and the protection of public money.

The changes made by these regulations will ensure that the legislative powers underpinning the boiler upgrade scheme can accommodate heat batteries. In doing so, they deliver an important step towards the Government’s commitments to support heat batteries through the scheme, to increase consumer choice and to help more homeowners across England and Wales decarbonise their properties. I beg to move.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument.

The passage of time points to the boiler upgrade scheme’s own record. Regrettably, there have been years of missed installation targets: the original goal was 600,000 a year by 2028, but barely a tenth of that figure has been met. It is now self-evident that expanding the scheme’s budget and eligibility in 2026 will escalate spend on a mechanism that has structurally underperformed without any intention to reform it coming from either the Government or the Liberal Democrat Benches. At this point, I should declare my interest as the chairman of Buckthorn, Acteon and Amey.

The clearest recent articulation of this comes from the shadow Business Secretary and former shadow Secretary of State for Energy, Claire Coutinho, fronting a report from the think tank Onward. It argued that UK electricity prices are too high and that cheap power itself, achieved partly by using more gas and cutting green levies, will do more to drive heat pump and EV uptake than continued subsidy and mandates.

It is compelling economic sense, and it is the belief on this side of the Committee that this approach would make electrification more attractive, while delivering prosperity and a better environment. In other words, no one is arguing that heat pumps are bad, but we believe that a BUS-style subsidy is now proven to be the wrong lever and that removing green levies from bills would achieve similar ends without state spending.

Moreover, my colleagues in another place have consistently pressed Ministers about the stronger evidence that costs associated with the wider agenda for the decarbonisation of heat, including mechanisms such as the clean heat market mechanism boiler tax on manufacturers, are being passed to consumers via higher gas boiler prices. In other words, the current approach taxes conventional boiler households to subsidise heat pump adopters, and this is regressive.

There are a number of specific points, and I am grateful to the Minister for having raised them. The first was a constitutional process concern. This SI amends primary legislation via secondary legislation. That is not unusual but, because it touches Section 100 of the Energy Act 2008, it requires the affirmative procedure. Regulation 2 modifies the list of sources of energy and technologies as set out in Section 100(4) of the 2008 Act to include “thermal energy storage systems” and, as stated:

“By virtue of section 105(3A) and (3B), these Regulations attract the affirmative procedure”.


Instruments that amend an Act of Parliament rather than just delegated regulations routinely draw scrutiny from committees such as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee or the JCSI over the appropriateness of using a Henry VIII-style power for what is a fairly narrow technical expansion.

A related 2026 BUS amendment instrument, SI 2026/390, had to be reissued because the original published version did not reflect the version signed by the Minister and had to be removed and replaced. That is not this specific SI, but it illustrates the concerns about drafting quality that Members of Parliament in the other place and committees have been raising about the pace of legislation on the boiler upgrade scheme.

My second point—I am grateful again to the Minister for raising this—relates to the question of heat batteries or thermal storage. This came out clearly in the Government’s consultation on the eligibility of expanding the BUS, which took place in November last year and which underpins this SI. I would be grateful if the Minister, in responding, could update the Committee on whether any product standards yet exist. Currently, as I understand it—and things may have moved on since November—there are no product standards for the thermal energy storage performance of heat batteries. These technologies will become eligible for scheme funding only once the relevant standards have come into force, which means that the law will permit funding for a technology category that cannot actually be certified or verified yet.

On efficiency and running costs, some respondents raised concerns about direct electric heating’s lower efficiency relative to a heat pump, its running costs and a lack of evidence on the performance and suitability of the various technologies. Some respondents preferred excluding the heat battery category altogether, arguing that funding should stay focused on technologies with proven carbon savings rather than diluting the budget across less tested electric heating options.

The Minister rightly pointed out the importance of the Regulation 22 payment offset amendment, which is a much more mundane and fairly straightforward change clarifying that the administrator may take one or a combination of the actions available to recover payments, provided that the total does not exceed the sum of payments due. As I understand it, it has not attracted any public objections, but it is worth flagging and I am grateful the Minister did; it is a tidying-up clause that gives Ofgem a somewhat broader discretion to recover overpayments and clawbacks. A point that scrutiny committees sometimes probe is whether it expands administrative power beyond what was originally debated, but, as the Minister said in her opening remarks, that would not be the case on this occasion.

I believe that the Government should stop increasing the cost of gas boilers for families through their boiler tax and stop wasting money forcing people into buying heat pumps that they do not want to make marginal reductions to our already limited contribution to global emissions. The Government must, above all, make electricity cheaper and back consumer choice, if they truly want families to adopt electric heating technologies instead of simply forcing people into changing the way that they live their lives to meet their self-imposed, unachievable net-zero targets.

That is why we have called for the scraping of the boiler upgrade scheme along with the clean heat market mechanism that places an obligation on gas and oil boiler manufacturers to install a minimum number of heat pumps at an estimated cost of £340 million in the first year. This goes far further than the boiler upgrade scheme introduced in 2022 under the Energy Act 2008, which encouraged the use of renewable heat by providing financial support for families to install heat pumps to replace fossil fuel boilers. As the Minister said, this instrument amends that Act to extend financial support eligibility to heat batteries, electric heating tech and thermal energy storage systems.

Many of us on this side of the Committee who have studied this consider it to be a case of excessive government intervention and cost to ease the effects of other government interventions. Energy prices are currently high, not despite our transition to renewable sources and green policies but because of them. The Government have acknowledged the fact that policies are to blame by removing VAT from energy bills. Similarly, their focus on renewables, inextricably linked to firm power—oil and gas—has caused the cost of using gas-fired power plants to rise, as they are forced to operate on an ad hoc basis dependent on the weather and are thus far less efficient and very expensive.

Taxes and renewables are the two core policies that have led to the increase in energy bills, which are now the highest of any IEA member country, both including and excluding taxes, for industrial and domestic bills. The Government should not be subsidising the cost of renewables by promoting higher bills for some instead of bringing them down for all through more systemic changes, which will be a subject we will return to, no doubt, on the long overdue introduction of the supremely misnamed energy independence Bill, which will increase energy dependence on imports and not decrease them. That said, on a personal note, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for this SI and look forward to further debates and discussions with her.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that contribution, and on that very note I welcome his remarks. We debated some of these issues on my very first outing at the Dispatch Box on the Floor of the House, and I think we will debate some of the fundamental points that he made about the direction of energy policy. He is right to contextualise this within that wider debate about energy policy. It is perhaps one of the great debates of our time and will dominate our thinking and discussions in the time ahead. I am tempted to go into a very long discussion about that; I am sure we will have lively debates going forward. He will know, as I said on the Floor of the House, that the Onward report faced some criticism and there were some arguments from the sector about the report’s premises, but I will leave that because I am sure that we will return to it. At the end of my contribution today, I will comment on the general policy of our approach.

I will now address the boiler upgrade scheme. I put on record that I recognise and respect the noble Lord’s detailed points about it and will pay great attention to the arguments that he is putting forward. It is an argument that this Government want to win, and we believe we can win it, but we will do that only by paying attention to the substance of what he said—and I recognise that substance. I will go through the points that he raised. I will not repeat that the boiler upgrade scheme remains the Government’s flagship scheme for supporting the decarbonisation of heat in homes and small non-domestic buildings across England and Wales, because we see decarbonisation as fundamental to the challenges facing the country and as offering solutions to some of the great issues around climate change and its consequences. I will return to that.

I shall focus on the points raised by the noble Lord and the detail of what he said. He acknowledged that the boiler upgrade scheme is directly funded by the Exchequer. It does not put any direct costs on consumers’ bills. Furthermore, our scheme evaluation data shows that people who have received grants from the boiler upgrade scheme most commonly find that their energy bills decrease as a result. Some 50% of boiler upgrade scheme grant recipients reported that their total energy bills decreased when replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump, compared with just 15% who reported an increase. As he acknowledged, eligible low-carbon heating installations currently benefit from 0% VAT, which further reduces costs for consumers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

Can I return to a question that I raised, which the Minister has answered? She seems to be in agreement but it is a real concern. Without product standards for the thermal energy storage performance of heat batteries, these technologies will become eligible for the scheme but the law will permit funding for a technology category that has yet to be certified or verified. I know the Minister said in response that she hoped that it would be done in the near future. I know she would agree that there are significant safety risks associated with this, and consumers and the industry are very worried about it. Recent incidents have highlighted critical gaps in safety standards, indicating that certification alone does not guarantee safety under real-world conditions. That makes the importance of certification and having product standards all the more important for the safety. Can she write to me at the time when the Government are likely to approve these product standards, and therefore introduce into effect what we are considering in the SI today?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that, and of course I commit to write to him and always to keep him as informed as I possibly can. He raises an interesting point, which was exactly the point that I asked during my three or four briefings with the team to prepare myself for today’s statutory instrument. I asked specifically about where we were with safety regulations and product standards. I have to say that I was concerned about the timing of it, because I want to make sure we move forward in this, but we also talked in some depth about the safety measures around that. I cannot recall in detail offhand every single step they took me through at the moment, but they explained to me the rigorous process that it goes through, which sometimes means it takes that bit longer. One example they cited was that you have to ensure that, as with a driver’s test, the installer must be observed by a senior person to get their certification. I can assure the noble Lord that we have this in hand, but I will of course write to him and keep him appraised of our process in that regard.

Motion agreed.

Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields

Baroness Curran Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of Buckthorn, Amey and Acteon. I warmly welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, who was a highly knowledgeable and impressive Minister.

Given the Government’s outright opposition to new drilling in the North Sea, does the Minister nevertheless agree that there is no reason not to approve Jackdaw and Rosebank, which have already had drilling activity, with Jackdaw now ready for production? In contrast to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, to the Private Notice Question just now, given that the Government themselves have the final sign-off on Falkland Islands production licences dating back to the early 1990s, when both Tim Eggar and I were ministerially involved, what is the Government’s position on the Falkland Islands Government’s pro-oil and gas position on the Sea Lion oilfield, which is at the centre of the diplomatic row with Argentina? Is it consistent with the department’s position on the North Sea—in other words, outright opposition to new drilling and new offshore oil and gas infrastructure? If not, what is the difference?

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Curran) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his warm welcome. We know each other, and I know that we both welcome robust discussion—which is just as well because I think we will have a few disagreements along the way. He made reference to the enormous contribution of my noble friend Lord Whitehead to this portfolio and the work that he has done. I have learned a lot, and will continue to learn a lot, from my noble friend.

On the substance of the issue the noble Lord raises, he will know that the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields are each subject to a live regulatory process. The public notice period is closing on 10 and 17 August respectively. We are part of that regulatory process. The Secretary of State will consider the representations received and make separate decisions on each project in due course. It would be inappropriate to comment further on either project because it is important to maintain the robustness of the process and not pre-empt or predetermine the decisions.

I note the detail of what the noble Lord asked me in relation to the Falklands. I refer him back to the comments of my noble friend Lady Winterton, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on that.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness on her appointment, and I look forward to working opposite her. I also pay tribute to the outgoing noble Lord, Lord Whitehead.

I know the Minister is unable to comment before the decision, so instead I ask if she agrees with me that the Onward report, through which the Conservative Party has argued that we should abandon our net zero targets and could save £320 billion, is not worth the paper it is written on, as it is based on an incorrect underlying assumption that future gas prices will be low and stable and would result in an extra 524 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for that question and for his welcome, and I pay tribute to his work on this issue in the House. Again, I have learned a great deal and will continue to do so from listening to his speeches. I recognise and appreciate the point being made about the Rosebank and Jackdaw decisions. I recognise the interest in them, but I cannot be drawn on that.

On his wider point, the noble Earl is right about the Onward report, the general disappointment people feel at the breaking of the consensus we have seen from the Conservative Party over recent months, and how significant that is. He will know that climate scientists and energy industry bodies have overwhelmingly challenged the report’s methodology and logic as applied to grid and infrastructure costs, and how it has costed the high volatility of gas along with its political and economic costs.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would confirm that under the Conservatives, production in the North Sea reduced by half between 2010 and 2024—which is no surprise because it is a super-mature basin—and that giving consent to these two oilfields, which I know my noble friend cannot comment on at the moment, would have a minimal effect either on achieving net zero targets or on prices. The reality is that what the Government need to do, whatever the decision on these oilfields, is stick to the policy of going as fast as possible towards clean energy.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. I pay tribute to the work he has done in this field and to the very significant contribution he made as a Minister, particularly within the nuclear field. I cannot be drawn on the points he raises but I can assure him that the North Sea and oil and gas will play a vital role in our energy mix for years to come. He noted that under the Conservatives, by the end of 2016 more than 120,000 UK oil and gas jobs had gone. It is a changing basin, but we see it as part of the mix. We understand that the North Sea not only has an oil and gas sector but can play a vital role in a clean energy economy. That will make an enormous contribution not only to the north-east of Scotland but to the wider UK economy.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness back to her position on the Front Bench. Does she agree that a major issue underlying the decisions—which I know she cannot talk about—is the widespread concern about the cost of energy in this country? Does she further agree that the important thing is to make some progress on decoupling the price of gas from the price of energy and electricity generally? When are the Government going to make some progress in separating off those two strands?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome and for that question. I recognise the work that she does and, as a former member, I hope I can continue to engage with Peers for the Planet. She makes a central point underlying the work that we do. The cost of energy is central to the Prime Minister’s mission in tackling these issues, and he has said that affordability will be at the centre of what he tries to do. She is also right to emphasise the de-linking of electricity and gas, and that will remain a priority of our work. I look forward to meeting her to discuss that and to continuing these debates in the House. I can assure her that that is a priority for our work going forward, as is affordability.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Why do the Government wish to increase world CO₂, and why do they wish to pay taxes to foreign companies and countries rather than to British ones by insisting on importing LNG rather than getting our own gas out of a pipe, which generates much less CO₂?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question, but I cannot be tempted to answer it directly, as I perhaps would wish to, because of the implications of what I might say. I ask noble Lords to really appreciate the significance of this decision; we cannot jeopardise it by any loose words. I obviously do not accept some of the assumptions behind his question. This Government are committed to ensuring that all companies pay due tax and regenerate the economy. We will work with businesses in the North Sea and across Scotland to make sure that they are thriving. I plead with him to understand that the work this Labour Government are doing is contributing to a thriving clean energy sector as well, and that that performs competitively in the economy. No doubt that will be something we will discuss in the future.

[Lord Boyd of Duncansby (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, my erstwhile friend in the Scottish Cabinet, to her place on the Front Bench. Whatever decision is taken on Jackdaw and Rosebank, can she confirm that clean energy, whether developed by solar, wind or other means, will remain at the heart of British energy policy? It not only provides the scope for decarbonisation of our economy, but also for new jobs.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend and colleague for that question. He knows that I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament and a Minister in the Scottish Government. In that capacity, I met the oil and gas sector many times and worked very closely with them. I understand the contribution they have made and will continue to make, but there is no avoiding the fact that we live in challenging times in terms of climate change. Clean energy is not only necessary but is a huge opportunity for economic development. It will help us meet the challenge of our times through reducing carbon emissions, electrifying our economy and creating opportunities for people in the United Kingdom.

Climate Change: Government Action

Baroness Curran Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Curran]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to tackle climate change.

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

Since coming to office, the Government have taken decisive action to tackle climate change by accelerating the transition from volatile fossil fuels to homegrown clean energy. Indeed, as we face the second fossil fuel shock in less than five years, every solar panel we have put up, every heat pump we have installed and every electric car on the road has made our country more secure and has helped us to tackle climate change while protecting bill payers and creating good jobs.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will he join me in sending warmest wishes to Sir David Attenborough on his 100th birthday? I am sure that all in this House would pay tribute to the extraordinary contribution of Sir David to our understanding of the natural world, but he also tells us what we stand to lose if we do not take urgent action to address the threat of climate change, and he is absolutely clear about the devastating consequences. Does my noble friend agree that the energy independence Bill in the King’s Speech is of critical and central importance, not only to the energy security that he references but to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, which is essential in combating the consequences of climate change?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

First, I am delighted to join my noble friend in paying tribute to Sir David Attenborough, not only for being 100 years old but for the increasing work he has done in recent years not only in talking about the natural world but in bringing public consciousness to bear on the costs of not doing anything about climate change and on how our natural world will change irrevocably if we do not. The energy Bill in the King’s Speech is a crucial part of the next stage of countering climate change in this country, and, in conjunction with the carbon budget and growth delivery plan, it will enable us to meet our next carbon budgets coming up.

King’s Speech

Baroness Curran Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords, I must admit that when I saw my name so far down the speakers’ list, I hesitated and thought, “I’ll have so many speeches I have to listen to”, but I am so glad that I have spent the afternoon and early evening here, because as an ordinary but avid consumer of the arts, I have a whole new level of motivation. My learning has increased, especially listening to the impressive maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hobby and Lord Blackwater, and the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman. I anticipate that my learning will continue further.

I want to focus my remarks this evening on energy policy. I would argue that the starting point for energy policy has to be the stark realities of climate change, as has been mentioned much earlier in this debate. The Climate Change Committee confirms that we are already experiencing more frequent heatwaves, heavier rainfall and conditions conducive to wildfires. These are not distant risks; they are happening now, and the UK, we have to be honest, is not adequately prepared. We see the consequences immediately, at first hand. As my noble friend Lord Harris said earlier at Questions, in 2022, extreme heat contributed to over 3,000 deaths and disrupted vital infrastructure. In 2024, the UK faced 50 consecutive days of rain and a number of named storms. Across the globe, extreme weather is intensifying, with enormous consequences. The evidence is all around us and the science is clear: we face not isolated incidents but cascading and compounding shocks across sectors, with threats to national infrastructure and global supply chains’ disruption and fragility. I do not have time to begin to list all the consequences that we face, but let us listen, as of course we should, to Sir David Attenborough, who reminds us that what happens over the next 50 years will determine the fate of all on the planet.

We know what we need to do, and what happens next is up to us. That is why the legislation in the King’s Speech is so important and makes it clear that it is time to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and accelerate our transition to clean energy. The energy independence Bill is central to the ambition of change. It will strengthen our energy security at a time of global instability. We have experienced two major energy shocks in just five years, and in fact we have been experiencing energy shocks since the 1970s, with increasing costs to families and businesses. It will help build national resilience—and I too sit on the National Resilience Committee. We need to reform markets, improve planning and produce better regulatory frameworks.

I also welcome the nuclear regulation Bill, because it will play a vital role in delivering reliable, low-carbon power. We must acknowledge the challenges in delivering nuclear power. Delivery is too slow and costs remain too high.

But all in all, we need absolutely to accept the need for urgent action. Energy policy has rightly been a central focus of government action and it must remain so. We stand at a defining moment. The Government must keep their nerve and focus with these measures in the King’s Speech. We must act to protect lives, livelihoods and the foundations of our economy. Inaction is the costliest choice. Now is the time for leadership, ambition and enduring commitment. We must not back off.

Low-carbon Heat Networks

Baroness Curran Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Baroness Curran]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support the rollout of low carbon heat networks.

[Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Curran, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

Scotland: New Nuclear Power Generation

Baroness Curran Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think it is the case that we should reopen the devolution settlement, and the noble Lord would not really expect me from the Dispatch Box to say that we should. I think it is clear that, overall, new nuclear has a huge role to play, in the baseload that it can provide and in clean power. The move towards the final investment decision on Sizewell, progress on Hinkley Point C, the SMR programme and the potential of advanced modular reactors will give us a hugely important foundation for clean power for Great Britain as a whole.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak as a former planning Minister in the Scottish Government. Does the Minister agree that the best way to address this case is not more conflict with the Scottish Government but promoting the argument for nuclear power in a positive way—and, perhaps, working hard so that Anas Sarwar becomes First Minister of Scotland and we can resolve this problem?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, those are very wise words from my noble friend.