Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 February be approved.

Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 April.

Motion agreed.

Data Centres: Energy Demand

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell]

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

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

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

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

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, remounting my favourite hobby horse, can I ask: when will the Government give increased support for tidal power, which, unlike wind and solar, never runs out?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I welcome that question from the noble Lord. This is an issue that is quite close to my heart, and I recently visited the Liverpool tidal barrage scheme to see how it is doing. I personally am committed to developing tidal power, both tidal stream and tidal range, but there is still some way to go in working out how that can be value for money and can be supported through various longer-term methods of support because of the long life that tidal range in particular has in front of it.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the most economic way of meeting such peak demand from clean sources is rapidly to accelerate the programme for building hydro pump storage schemes? There are a number that are ready to go in Wales and Scotland. They are clearly economic, using electricity generated cheaply at night to augment peak availability, so please, please, please will the Government get on with it?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord that pumped hydro schemes are one method of ensuring that electricity is used as efficiently as it can be in terms of taking it in at some stages of the cycle and releasing it at others. A number of other arrangements can do that, such as batteries and other forms of long-term storage—compressed air, for example—all of which will be a substantial part of the battery of systems to optimise the electricity production of the country as AI develops.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, when the Minister last answered on this question, he was good enough to talk about the problem of using Uyghur slave labour in the manufacture of solar panels. He promised to write to me, and I am grateful to him for following up that promise. In that letter, he said that he would inform the Joint Committee on Human Rights by July of the measures that Great British Energy is taking to eliminate the use of slave labour. Will he comment on what he said about the need for a review of the 2015 modern slavery legislation that the noble Baroness, Lady May, who introduced that legislation, has called for, not least Section 56 of the 2015 Act, and how he intends the review of that legislation, which he mentions in the letter, to take place?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I have a feeling that the noble Lord will shortly be in receipt of a further letter from me on this subject. It is the case that the Modern Slavery Act, particularly in terms of a number of the concerns that have been raised about the more offset arrangements as far as modern slavery is concerned, needs some uprating. That is being considered, but as to some of his further points, I think I will need to write to him further.

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

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that new nuclear is important, in terms of both data centres and our clean energy programme? Will he confirm that the only way we can get new nuclear at places such as Hunterston in East Lothian, where we currently have a nuclear power station, which is much needed in Scotland, is if on 7 May we get rid of the incompetent SNP Administration?

[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.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, what requirements will be put in place to ensure that energy efficiency and waste heat recovery measures are implemented?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness mentions waste heat and electricity waste, and that is precisely the sort of area that needs to be optimised in terms of making sure that we can deal with this growth in AI without building huge new resources. It is by optimising the system that we can get quite a lot of this new requirement over the line. For example, the introduction—interestingly, using AI—of dynamic line rating allows cables to work at a much higher rate much closer to their thermal capacity because of the ability of AI to predict what that line is going to do as opposed to the lower rating that they are on at the moment. That could produce up to a 50% gain in capacity for those lines. The same goes with a lot of things concerning waste heat.

Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 23 February and consist of an extremely short SI—six lines altogether—and a very slight amendment of a date from 25 April 2026 to 25 October 2026. I am sure noble Lords will be eager to know why that change of date is being undertaken. On 1 April, typical household energy bills reduced by more than £100, thanks to action this Government took following the Budget. Energy bills are lower than they were in March because of the choices made by the Chancellor last year. They will remain capped at this level until July.

I want to be clear what lies behind the reduction in energy bills from 1 April. First, we have taken the considered decision to bring the energy company obligation scheme to a close, removing its costs from bills and instead funding future energy efficiency home upgrades via public investment in the warm homes plan. Secondly, we are moving 75% of the cost of the renewables obligation scheme attributable to domestic energy supply to the Exchequer. These principled reforms shift the balance from levies on bills to public spending. These regulations support that reduction in energy bills by ensuring that the Government retain the necessary power for the renewables obligation cost transfer.

The renewables obligation scheme exists to incentivise UK renewable energy generation through a system of tradeable certificates. The scheme closed to new applications in 2017, but existing sites can continue to receive support until the scheme ends in 2037. The scheme has been instrumental in taking a nascent renewable energy sector to where it is today, with the scheme supporting around 30% of total UK electricity generation. The core of the renewables obligation scheme is a process in which electricity suppliers purchase certificates from renewable generators. This process continues unchanged.

However, previously, suppliers ultimately recovered the cost of complying with their renewable obligations from customers via energy bills. Ofgem considered these costs when setting the quarterly price cap for domestic consumers in Great Britain. From 1 April, the Government are instead providing grant funding to electricity suppliers to cover 75% of the cost of these obligations attributable to domestic energy supply in GB. We have given a legal direction to electricity suppliers, requiring them to pass these savings on to domestic consumers. Ofgem has also reflected the reduced cost in the lower price cap from 1 April. At the Budget, we committed to keep these costs off bills until 31 March 2029.

I hope noble Lords will agree that these are good things to do concerning energy price costs and the reduction of customers’ bills. But, of course, there must be a legislative basis for those changes. The legislative basis for the grant funding that enables the energy bill reductions I have mentioned is currently set to expire on 25 April this year. These regulations, as I have mentioned, extend this time limit to ensure that the removal of costs from electricity bills can continue. We can extend the time limit on the legislation—the Energy Prices Act 2022—by only six months at a time. The extension in these regulations is until 25 October, when the Bill is in effect re-sunsetted.

I therefore expect to return to the House in October to seek a further extension on that sunset clause, but I assure noble Lords that the department is working on primary legislation to provide a more permanent solution, which will be taken forward when parliamentary time allows.

The position is slightly different in Northern Ireland, where energy costs are a transferred matter for the Executive, and the Northern Ireland renewables obligation forms a smaller cost on electricity bills. The department has been supporting colleagues in Northern Ireland as they develop an offer comparable to the policy in Great Britain. Following a request from the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland, we laid separate regulations in March to support their delivery, which I hope to bring before your Lordships shortly.

In concluding, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for noting these regulations as of interest in the context of events in the Middle East, which the department continues to closely monitor.

Energy company obligation costs and 75% of renewables obligation costs have been removed from average domestic energy bills and will stay off bills for at least the next three years. Whatever challenges lie ahead, the Government will prioritise supporting working people with the cost of living. These regulations are ultimately a simple time-limit extension to underpin the removal of these renewables obligation costs from bills. I beg to move.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, the Energy Prices Act 2022 was brought forward in circumstances that were, by any measure, extraordinary. It was a moment of acute global volatility, when Governments across Europe were forced to act at speed to shield households and businesses from unprecedented shocks. Those conditions justified exceptional paths but, as we move further away from that crisis moment, it is right to ask whether repeated extensions of emergency measures remain the most appropriate long-term course.

Energy security today is defined not only by the balance of supply and demand over the year but by the system’s resilience at moments of stress. The Government’s own modelling makes clear that peak day gas demand remains high, even as overall annual consumption gradually declines. It is those peaks, on the coldest days, typically when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, and the tightest margins that test the system most severely.

In 2024, gas provided 36% of the UK’s energy needs. It is used not only in generating electricity but, importantly, in domestic and industrial heating. Domestic gas production remains a critical component of the UK energy system. In 2024, the UK continental shelf provided 43% of the UK supply, imports of liquid natural gas provided 14% and the balance was imported from Norway. It is more reliable than imported alternatives, which can always be diverted elsewhere—even the Norwegian imports—as Europe becomes ever hungrier for the same molecules. Domestic gas goes into the extensive UK network at significantly lower carbon-emissions intensity—some three times lower—than liquid natural gas, which predominantly comes from the United States, and it is far less exposed to geopolitical risk or global bidding cycles. LNG will remain an important source of flexibility, but it cannot substitute for domestic supply, particularly given the UK’s very limited gas storage capacity.

Maintaining a stable level of domestic production also sustains the essential infrastructure on which the whole system depends: the pipelines, terminals and onshore hubs that provide flexibility, resilience, affordability and, critically at this current time, jobs. Once the infrastructure and experience are lost, they will not easily be rebuilt.

More broadly, there is a strong case for moving from crisis area interventions towards stable, rule-based arrangements. Such an approach would continue to protect consumers when prices spike, while giving investors the confidence needed to support the system in more normal times. That balance between consumer protection and long-term stability is essential if we are to secure an orderly transition and a resilient energy system for the years ahead.

With these points in mind, I would like to pose four questions to the Minister. First, can he outline a clear pathway from the continued use of emergency powers under the Energy Prices Act towards a permanent, price-responsive framework that supports investment and resilience? Secondly, how do the Government intend to ensure that critical gas infrastructure remains viable if domestic production continues to decline? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the risks associated with greater reliance on LNG imports, particularly in light of the UK’s limited gas storage and exposure to global market volatility? Finally, have the Government considered the carbon implications of increased LNG reliance, given its significantly higher life-cycle emissions compared with UK gas produced here?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this statutory instrument, which introduces a minor amendment to the Energy Prices Act 2022 by extending the Secretary of State’s power to grant renewables obligation certificate funding by six months.

His Majesty’s Opposition do not oppose this instrument in principle. It is right that the Government’s efforts should be focused on the controllable—namely, policy costs. Indeed, it is welcome that the renewables obligation to Exchequer policy demonstrates the Government’s understanding that their choices have a direct impact on people’s bills; that is why the scheme is being advertised as proof of the £150 that the Government promised to take off energy bills.

However, reducing energy bills by shifting the costs from household bills on to general taxation is a rather disingenuous way of achieving government policy. Whether it is the Government or energy suppliers who pay the upfront fee to Ofgem, the cost of ROCs will still be borne by the public and the cost of renewables will continue to apply. Every time the sun shines, solar farms will receive one or two ROCs per megawatt hour, earning them up to double the wholesale price. Every time the wind blows, offshore wind farms will get almost three times the wholesale price, or £240 per megawatt hour. When these farms are forced to turn off due to insufficient grid capacity, they are in receipt of high-constraint payments of more than £200 per megawatt hour.

The renewables obligation deal will last for another 11 years. These costs are going nowhere, and nobody but the British public is going to fund them. The only result of the RO is to Exchequer policy, and this instrument will mean that the public are made less conscious of what they are funding. Absorbing costs into general government spending may make the cost of the renewables programme more discrete, but it will not save the public purse any money.

The upshot of this is that the renewable transition must be underpinned by a cheaper and more reliable source of energy. The immediate way of achieving this is through oil and gas, which we already manage by importing LNG from Norway and the Middle East. I completely agree with the substance and sentiment of my noble friend Lord Ashcombe’s contribution to this short debate. I am aware that this is not the topic of today’s debate, so I will brief, but the intermittent nature of renewables and our current capacity issues mean that we still need to rely on oil and gas. Even during the current war and the subsequent international spike in oil and gas prices, those prices are still cheaper than subsidised renewables. We have the opportunity to divorce ourselves from the vicissitudes of international affairs by exploiting our North Sea reserves, yet the Secretary of State remains as dogmatic as ever. He seemed to toy with the idea of domestic production over the Easter break but, as we sit here today, production at Jackdaw is still yet to commence.

This is in the Government’s control. If they really are committed to reducing energy bills, then, along with subsidising renewables in the long term, they should allow us to produce our own oil and gas in the short term. I hope that the Minister will at least agree with that sentiment; I look forward to his response, in particular to the four intelligent questions posed by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. I will try to respond to their concerns—including those of the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, who went a bit beyond this particular SI but nevertheless made important points and asked questions that deserve a response.

The noble Lord’s first concern was about whether I can outline a pathway towards permanent legislation here. I agree with him that permanent legislation is always better than re-sunsetting an original sunset clause from previous legislation, as he mentioned. Of course, the Energy Prices Act 2022 was put in place at a time of high crisis as far as energy bills were concerned—not completely dissimilar issues to the ones we face today, but rather more concerned with gas than with oil and fuel generally. Nevertheless, it is a piece of legislation that was designed at least in part to be sunsetted. In essence, what we are doing in this present crisis is re-sunsetting an Act that was originally intended to be sunsetted in the first place. It is quite right that we should bring that sunset request back to the House when we are making it.

Nevertheless, it is a much better idea to have legislation that properly fits the bill in the long term, which is the Government’s intention right now. I mentioned that we will probably want to come back one more time with a sunset extension, in order to make sure that these changes work properly in the long term, but, after that, there should be legislation in place to make a permanent arrangement that is properly workable for the future. Of course, the phrase “when legislative time permits” has a variety of interpretations attached to it, but it is basically a question of finding out to which bit of legislation you can attach this permanent version of a sunset clause. It might be the EIB, but there may be other legislation—we will have to see as we go forward. However, I can give an absolute commitment that we are dedicated to making sure that this happens in the not-too-distant future in order to regularise the circumstances over the longer term.

The noble Lord asked what we are doing to make sure that critical gas infrastructure remains viable. This is a subset of the understanding that, although the use of gas is declining substantially in Great Britain and will continue to do so, the overhead costs and infrastructure issues will remain. It is essential, therefore, that we make sure that the infrastructure is as viable as it can be in the long term and that the whole system does not fall down because we have a lower amount of gas going into and out of it. The Government are actively involved in undertaking that.

By the way, I might add that the increasing amount of biomethane and biogas going into the system—at present, it is about 7% of the total system—will go some way towards assisting the viability of long-term infrastructure. It is certainly this Government’s intention to increase, where possible, the amount of biomethane and biogas going into the system. That gives some indication of where we are on LNG imports, which, as the noble Lord mentioned, have a higher carbon footprint than natural gas, which in turn has a much higher footprint than biogas. At the moment, about 14% of our gas supplies are coming in via LNG. One of the advantages of an increased amount of biogas in the system is that it directly removes the need for LNG to come into the system. All other things considered, something like a 2% increase in biomethane going into the system would be the equivalent of turning around six LNG tankers and them not coming to UK shores at all.

On energy imports in general, the UK has a diverse supply. The noble Lord mentioned the substantial element of supply played by the Norwegian gas fields, some of which are landable only in the UK and not in Norway itself. There is also the continuing supply from the North Sea. I have mentioned LNG, which comes from diverse sources; at the moment, only 1% comes from sources in the Middle East, so that issue will not overturn the security of the gas system in the near future. I hope that I have given fair thought to the noble Lord’s valuable contribution.

I turn to the supportive and helpful contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He is right to add that this is the right thing to do right now, bearing in mind that we very much want to make sure that, in a time of such volatility, domestic and commercial bills are pressed downwards as far as is possible. The two measures I have mentioned rearrange the ways in which bills are charged to some extent, but they nevertheless have the real effect of bringing those bills down considerably. He is quite right to seek an assurance that that is not just a temporary fix for the time being but will be put on a more permanent basis; we are looking to secure legislation to make sure that that happens.

The noble Earl rightly mentioned information sharing on these measures and other measures that are likely coming forward to push down bills. He should be aware of the Utilities Act 2000 (Amendment of Section 105) Order, which has enabled the sharing of more detailed data than DESNZ currently holds between the department and Ofgem. The aim of that order is to ensure that more detailed data is properly safeguarded and is used for the intended purposes, not others. I hope that the noble Earl can be reassured on that basis.

I turn to the valuable contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. It is true that these measures shift the burden of the legislation from particular consumers to more general taxation purposes. That is a fair thing to do, in terms of generally sharing the burden of increased electricity prices, but I accept that the Government are very much involved in making sure that, by changing the way the electricity market works, prices are much lower over a longer period of time.

Fuel Supplies: War in Iran

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord John of Southwark]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure the continuity of fuel supplies in the light of the war in Iran.

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

The UK benefits from a strong and diverse fuel supply. The fuel supply industry has been clear that fuel production and imports continue as usual. The Government continue to monitor the situation closely and will act if necessary. The essential lesson of this conflict, however, is that while we are dependent on fossil fuel markets, we are exposed to volatile prices. The answer must be to go further and faster towards homegrown clean power that we control.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Two matters prompted my Question: first, reports that 20% of the world’s oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz, and, secondly, reports at the weekend and since that the UK has only four weeks of fuel supplies in reserve. Given that, can he tell me how much of the UK’s supply is dependent on the oil that passes through the Strait of Hormuz? If current disruptions to worldwide oil supplies continue, how long will it be before the Government are forced to introduce restrictions on or rationing of fuel supplies?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. His first statistic is correct. His second statistic, not that it is necessarily one that has his support, is categorically untrue—it is categorically untrue that there are only four weeks of fuel supply in the UK. However, the Government are closely monitoring the situation to ensure that supplies remain resilient. The UK remains a net exporter of petrol, with domestic capacity sufficiently filling this demand, while diesel volumes are met mostly by domestic production and imports from trusted partners. Only a small percentage is obtained from the Middle East. The majority of crude oil used for UK production comes from the United States and Norway, with just 1% from the Middle East. The UK obtains a proportion of jet fuel from the Middle East, but the fuel supply industry has been clear that fuel production imports are continuing across the UK as usual.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as part of a consultancy that provides geopolitics analysis to the Government of Qatar. Does the Minister agree that the continuity of fuel supplies may involve negotiations with those who have de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz rather than with those whom we wish had control of the Strait of Hormuz?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The issue of fuel supply through the Strait of Hormuz is relative to world supply and world prices; that is, because the UK obtains only a very small proportion of its supplies from the Middle East, the effect is more likely to be on prices across the world as other people seek to make up their supplies from different sources. The noble Lord is right that how we clear the Strait of Hormuz for those supplies has to be a question of disengagement, détente in the present conflict, and negotiation not in an ideal world but with those with whom we find ourselves in a negotiating position.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, do the Government understand that they have already presided over the closure of two of our oil refineries with their high-carbon taxes and unfriendly energy policy? Will they take urgent action to avoid the closure of the remaining ones, which would leave us without domestic supply and with shortages?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with his analysis of why the two refineries that have closed in the UK have done so, but the four refineries that we have in the UK are all producing well and in a robust condition. The Government will continue to monitor that process, but there is no reason to believe that further refineries are likely to close in the near future.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the conflict with Iran has driven up oil and gas prices, this is not currently a fuel supply crisis, and motorists and households should therefore continue to purchase fuel and gas as usual? If the conflict persists and international supplies are further disrupted, what steps are being considered to safeguard aviation fuel supply and to prevent significant increases in aviation fuel prices in the longer term as we head towards the summer?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Earl is right; this is currently, in essence, a price crisis and not a supply crisis. That will remain the case for quite a long time, depending on how long the war continues. If the war continues for a very long time, there obviously will be issues not necessarily of supply to the UK but offset issues relating to other people trying to eat the UK’s lunch, as it were, in their quest for supplies elsewhere in the world. The Government have already taken action in terms of taking part in the IEA’s release of substantial amounts of oil to make sure that that does not happen in the medium term and co-ordinating with efforts internationally to make sure that jet fuel, for example, is available on a world basis. Aircraft and other companies in that field hedge their supplies very long in advance, and therefore this is not an issue for the immediate future.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest as declared in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. It is not just oil that passes through the Strait of Hormuz. A third of global trade in fertiliser passes through the strait. I appreciate that this is not immediately within my noble friend the Minister’s portfolio, so if he does not have the information in his folder, perhaps he can write to me and place a copy in the Library, but what consideration is being given across government to the implications for farmers in this country but more particularly for global farming and long-term food supplies if this disruption continues?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that this does not fall within my brief particularly, but I do know a bit about the subject he is raising, which is synthetic ammonia supplies from the Middle East. We do not have ammonia production in this country at the moment, so there is potentially a long-term issue of ammonia supplies coming into the UK and into a lot of other countries across the world, as my noble friend mentioned. Part of the solution is to go for different sources of ammonia which are not synthetic, particularly green ammonia and other forms of fertiliser such as digestate, which can fulfil substantially the role played by ammonia in the farming cycle.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure that any of the figures we have heard in the last few minutes are correct or substantial. In fact, there is a huge amount around the world of spare oil capacity and oil production potential which can be and is being brought into play. There is the vast boost in American shale, obviously, from which we get a lot already. There are the reserves which have been released under the scheme which I chaired in 1979 at the IEA, and those reserves are only a small part of more reserves that can be developed at any time we wish. There are pipelines which bypass the Strait of Hormuz. All I am saying is that the situation can be overexcited by an ill-informed media. Does the Minister agree that we should be careful not to excite these dangers and realise that this is a manageable situation if we take a strong line on what can be done to reopen the Strait of Hormuz when we can and in the meantime do not get so worked up that everyone starts talking about rationing and other idiotic ideas?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord does not consider that the figures and other facts that I have presented this afternoon are all erroneous, because I assure him that they are not, but he is right to say that this is not a question just of whether stuff goes through the Strait of Hormuz or nothing. There are a great many other ways in which oil, petroleum products, gas and so on can be taken from their source to where they want to go without going through the Strait of Hormuz. For example, pipelines across Arabia are already beginning to take some of the oil that otherwise would go through the Strait of Hormuz out to port, and the same is true with gas supplies. It is not all about LNG coming in vessels going through the Strait of Hormuz. I totally agree with the noble Lord that we should not be too taken up by overexcitable, ill-informed press speculation but should concentrate on the real facts and the real opportunities that there are to gather ourselves a sustainable oil and gas supply, which also includes making sure that as much as possible of our energy supply comes from home sources in the medium and long term.

Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2026

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 and 5 February be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 23 March.

Motions agreed.

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

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026.

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

My Lords, after all that, noble Lords have me all over again for this next one. We had a very interesting and absorbing debate on the last SI, with some very good points made, but I hope that this debate can move to a conclusion with reasonable alacrity. I will make a brief opening statement. These regulations were laid before the other place on 5 February 2026. I remind noble Lords that they still carry the legacy name of the policy, but it is now known as the clean industry bonus.

I will cover three points: first, the purpose and direction of the clean industry bonus in the next rounds of bidding for offshore and onshore wind, AR7, AR8 and AR9; secondly, how the regulations will support the continued evolution of the contracts for difference scheme; and, thirdly, why the clean industry bonus funding for offshore wind will now be conditional on applicants signing up to an offshore wind fair work charter and how we are using the policy to help drive a more strategic approach to skills.

I turn first to the scheme. Contracts for difference remain the Government’s principal mechanism for supporting new low-carbon electricity generation. The CfD has a strong track record in deploying renewables at pace while protecting consumers through competitive allocation. But as the offshore wind sector has matured, it has become increasingly clear that delivering clean power at the lowest cost is not on its own enough. We must also secure the industrial capability and resilient supply chains needed to build and maintain that infrastructure here in the UK.

That is the purpose of the clean industry bonus. It will provide additional CfD revenue support for offshore wind developers that commit to investing in UK supply chains, such as factories and ports, or those that invest in cleaner supply chains overall. Funding is allocated through a competitive process run ahead of the main CfD allocation round, with awards made on the basis of value for money and payments released only when commitments are delivered. The record of this is that, in allocation round 7, £204 million was allocated through the clean industry bonus, crowding in up to £3.4 billion of private investment into offshore wind factories, ports and supply chains across the UK. The scale of investment represents a significant vote of confidence in the UK’s supply chain and a strong return on public funding.

I now turn to the evolution of the scheme. These regulations will make targeted, practical improvements to allocation round 8—the next one coming up—simplifying the process for applicants, clarifying rules on budgets and ensuring that the scheme operates smoothly. In particular, the changes will speed up and streamline elements of the application process, reduce administrative burdens, provide a clearer legislative basis for how budgets can be set and communicated, and clarify the position where delivery is disrupted by events outside an applicant’s reasonable control. In addition, the regulations will update the scheme’s sunset arrangements so that the clean industry bonus may be applied only to a round established before 31 December 2028, unless Parliament wishes to prolong it. It is for AR7, AR8 and AR9. The Government also intend to extend the clean industry bonus to onshore wind from allocation round 9, providing a sensible lead-in period for that smaller industry to prepare.

My third and final point is on fair work and skills. The most significant change for allocation round 8 is that clean industry bonus applicants will need to sign up to the offshore wind fair work charter, a tripartite agreement between unions, business and government that aims to raise the standard of job quality in offshore wind and make jobs in the sector more attractive. The charter builds on forthcoming commitments in the Employment Rights Act 2025, in particular by asking that the offshore wind sector proactively implements voluntary access agreements for trade unions. It also includes a commitment to strive for best-practice health and safety standards that go beyond legal minima.

Our commitment to good jobs through the clean industry bonus does not stop at the fair work charter. We are pressing ahead with a skills investment fund that will help develop the skills needed for the clean energy transition. The idea is that offshore wind developers will pool together skills funding and initiatives rather than relying on individual projects trying to address short-term needs. The Government and the offshore wind industry have agreed that they will work together to set it up by 2027 and that it will be funded by existing developer contributions to the supply chain, not by asking for more money. Once that skills investment fund is up and running in 2027, developers will be asked to contribute to it as a condition of taking part in the CIB.

In conclusion, these regulations build on the foundations laid in allocation round 7. The success of that foundation is in front of us. They strengthen and supply the operation of the scheme and introduce provisions of fair work and skills. I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I note at the outset that on these Benches we welcome the direction of travel as set out in this SI. These regulations aim to modernise the contracts for difference scheme and strengthen the clean industry bonus, previously the sustainable industry rewards, ensuring that our transition to net zero is not only greener but fairer and more locally grounded. We note the figures the Minister gave in his speech about just how much funding this SI can help levy into our green industry and our local green economies.

The Liberal Democrats have long championed the principle of clean industry growth that benefits and serves our communities, so we see the extension of the clean industry bonus framework to all CfD allocation rounds before December 2028 as a welcome and sensible move. Likewise, providing greater flexibility in budgets through new minima and maxima can, if well managed, encourage dynamism and adaptability in fast-changing energy markets. But that flexibility must be balanced, and we must make sure that obscurity does not creep in with that.

The move to express CfD budgets in total sums rather than pounds per gigawatt raises a question for us. How will Parliament and the public track whether these funds are allocated efficiently or indeed equitably between technologies and different technologies in different regions? If the Secretary of State can now set sub-budgets for different technologies, will there be transparent reporting mechanisms showing how these powerfully restrictive levers are used and on what evidence they are used?

The Government’s stated aim is to reward clean energy responsibility and community-based industry practices, and we support that wholeheartedly. Yet these regulations also compress the consultation window for future framework revisions from the original 30 days, I think it was, down to just 10. Are officials satisfied that the timescale is adequate, that it will not push out smaller-scale contractors and that they will genuinely be able to compete on a fair and level playing field?

The introduction of fair work standards for developers seeking the clean industry bonus is also welcome. If the green economy is to deliver social renewal alongside decarbonisation, it must be built on fair pay and secure conditions, with workers having a voice in their workplace. Requiring developers to adhere to the fair work charter negotiated with trade unions is overdue but is a very important and welcome reform. Can the Minister give me a sentence or two about how, when these measures come in, the Government plan to monitor and verify that they are being met? What reporting and monitoring mechanisms will exist, and how can the public have confidence in that?

Turning to the force majeure provision, I recognise why the Government have that clause in the contract, but it raises a question. Who makes judgments on that, and what are the objective criteria for making those judgments? Obviously, the Government want clear safeguards, as do we. We want to make sure this clause does not become a loophole through which binding supply chain commitments can quietly evaporate because of unforeseen circumstances.

The extension of the scheme’s life plan to the end of 2028 feels pragmatic, but it is also modest given that 2028 is not that far away. What are the Government doing to look beyond that 2028 framework, which is only three years away? Also, are they considering putting the clean industry bonus on a statutory footing and extending that timeline?

We welcome these commitments. Although we have a couple of questions, we very much welcome the direction of travel set out in this SI.

[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.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that point, which confirms that we are both substantially rightish. In some subtexts of the overall charter, there are still some things to be sorted out, but not the charter itself. It should be pretty clear to companies what they are signing up for and what they will be required to undertake once they have signed up for it. The question of how that then works out in detail over the period is a live issue, but it is not an issue that overthrows the charter and its clarity. I am not sure we can take that any further today, but I am happy to engage with the noble Lord offline if he needs clarification on any further points.

The noble Lord also mentioned something we have discussed on several occasions: work practices in the supply of some components for low-carbon industry. He mentioned solar panels, obviously, but that issue potentially applies to other things as well. I can only repeat the points about the Government’s efforts to ensure that slave labour is not used in components that are coming to the UK, but I add a further qualification in that the money for which companies bid as they go into allocation rounds allows, among other things, for those companies to use not necessarily the cheapest tender but the tender that is most suitable for the development of both the UK supply chain and good, ethical working practices in the industry, which are part of the fair work charter. So one would expect those companies to be actively engaged in ensuring that what they are committing themselves to, as far as UK supply chains are concerned, includes the sorts of consideration that the noble Lord mentioned. Indeed, supply chains that one can absolutely say are not engaged in slave labour, because they are based in the UK, will be a substantial underpinning of this whole process.

We have exhausted pretty much all the available avenues on this SI, but I will briefly address the questions asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He was very supportive of this measure but was particularly concerned about whether it should be a permanent part of the process. He questioned why there is a sunset clause in the Bill for 2028. Of course, that sunset clause encompasses three allocation rounds, and I hope an awful lot of investment will have been secured in those three rounds, but the Government wanted to make sure that, for the long term, that remains the right thing to do. There may well be, in future allocation rounds—if they have been a great success in the earlier rounds—better uses for those particular commitments than are in this SI today.

It is important that we learn from what happened in AR7. We will see what happens in AR8. That, hopefully, will culminate in AR9, at which point we can review and decide the long-term future of this mechanism and, indeed, whether it can be used for different and wider purposes in the future, as mentioned by some noble Lords today.

The overall welcome by noble Lords for this measure is certainly very welcome. On that basis, I hope the SI will secure unanimous support.

Motion agreed.

Onshore Wind Farms

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to facilitate the repowering of onshore wind farms.

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

The Government recognise the importance of repowering to maximise the benefits from our existing fleet of turbines. We are working to remove barriers in the planning system to accelerate repowering and undertaking updates to planning policy in England. In addition, the Government have announced changes to enable repowered onshore wind projects that meet eligibility criteria to bid into the contracts for difference scheme from allocation round 7 onwards.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s positive reply. There are some 200 wind farm sites coming up for operational termination by 2030—some 3 megawatts of power. If we managed to repower those, we could have an additional 2 gigawatts without having new sites. That clearly makes sense. Will the Government strengthen the planning guidance for repowering, as the Minister has indicated, because that gets in the way, and will he integrate repowering into the strategic energy spatial plan? It is obvious—come on, let’s do it.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The Government are already undertaking changes to planning arrangements to make sure that schemes can proceed faster and more immediately. In the case of repowering, that is obviously the difference between having to treat a scheme as a brand new development and one that can proceed very quickly, with the necessary consents in place.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will the Government consider very carefully the cumulative impact of the repowering of overhead powerlines in conjunction with onshore wind farms? Does the Minister not see that it is creeping urbanisation of the countryside, which should be avoided at all costs? At the very least, we should use the electricity generated in that way locally, so that it is not transmitted the length of the country through overhead power lines.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I had thought that I was talking this afternoon about the repowering of wind turbines—that is, turbines that have completed their life in terms of their original blades and mountings, and which are out of the renewable obligation certificate period. The question for those sites is whether they repower, go merchant or close down. That is what the Question was about, but obviously, the issue of cable repowering is more about ensuring that the cables we have across the country can carry the new loads that we hope will be within their capability for the future. That is really a question of making sure that it is done in the most environmentally friendly way possible, but at the same time moving at considerable speed by changing the planning regulations as fast as possible.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

The planning presumption during the Tories’ 14 years in power was that if a single objector objected to an onshore power plant, it was rejected automatically. Can the noble Lord say whether the planning presumption will change in favour of onshore power plants rather than against them?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Well indeed. The first thing, literally, that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero did upon the Labour Government taking office was to remove the ban on onshore wind and make sure that it could in future play a full part in the development of UK wind, as we have begun to see in the allocation rounds. It is a crying shame that onshore was effectively banned for such a long time and is only now recovering.

[Lord Morse (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the deep anger and enduring resentment felt about the way in which the heritage coast of Suffolk, an area of outstanding natural beauty, is being laid waste by the enormous mess of both rebuilding Sizewell and bringing onshore a series of ill-reconciled offshore programmes? This annoyance is added to by the dismissal of many of the points being made in consultation as nimbyism. Are we going to have a similar performance with onshore power?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I am sure we will not, because onshore power, like offshore power and all other forms of renewable power, has to abide by planning guidelines and guidance and has to fit in well with all the environmental considerations that are being put forward. There will be no change in that requirement; it is just that with the speeding up of some of those processes, onshore wind, where it is requested and where it fits all those requirements, can proceed very quickly.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, why are the Government so steadfast in their refusal to have a proper, open debate about the relative benefits, environmental and otherwise, of burying power lines as opposed to having overhead power lines? This is not an argument that is going to go away. It is about time the Government fessed up on this and stopped relying on hugely inflated figures provided by the national grid.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I am slightly puzzled by the noble Lord’s enunciation of that question, in that renewable wind and overhead power lines go closely together, because the overhead power lines have to deliver the power that is being generated by the renewable power sources. As for the requirement that that variable output be matched by various other sources of energy when, for example, the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, that is well taken care of by the back-up that is already in the system—due, I might add, to a number of renewable sources also being non-variable.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, in asking this Question, about the increased productivity of onshore wind when it is a replacement for existing infrastructure, is it not time that the Government did as he said and got on with it? I remind the Minister that the urgency of coming to conclusions on repowering existing onshore wind was included in the Private Member’s Bill that I introduced in your Lordships’ House some five years ago.

[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 Whitehead Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2026.

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 2 February 2026. The warm home discount scheme has been a key policy in the Government’s approach to tackling fuel poverty and reducing the energy costs of low-income and vulnerable households, ever since its inception in 2011. Last year the Government expanded the scheme, removing the high cost to heat threshold to ensure that around an additional 2.7 million of the poorest households across Great Britain received a £150 rebate off their energy bills this winter, with nearly 6 million households now eligible. The current scheme period ends on 31 March 2026, and new regulations are required to continue the scheme beyond this date.

In September we consulted on continuing the warm home discount scheme up to and including the winter of 2030-31. The consultation respondents, including consumer and advocacy groups, charities and industry, strongly supported proposals to continue the scheme, and to continue to provide rebates via automatic data matching. Today we are discussing these regulations, as well as some additional changes to the scheme, which allow eligible households across England and Wales in or at risk of fuel poverty to continue to receive the rebate for the rest of this decade.

These regulations will extend the scheme in England and Wales for five more years from 2026, until they expire in 2031. The regulations will continue to oblige energy suppliers with more than 1,000 domestic accounts to participate in the scheme. These regulations will ensure that, as is the case currently, energy suppliers with fewer than 1,000 domestic accounts can choose to participate voluntarily in the scheme.

Under the scheme, participating energy suppliers are obliged to provide support to eligible households through a rebate provided directly to their energy bill, valued at £150. Eligibility for the rebate will continue to be set out by the Secretary of State with an eligibility statement, which is published for each scheme year. Following the removal of the high cost to heat threshold and the expansion of the scheme in 2025-26, the Government have committed to maintaining the current eligibility for the rebate in England and Wales, based on receipt of means-tested benefits, for a further five years.

Eligibility for the scheme remains unchanged but these regulations introduce a more streamlined approach to administration, without impacting eligibility. The existing core group 1 and core group 2 will be merged into one core group in England and Wales, with a view to enabling clearer communication and messaging to potentially eligible households. This change was broadly supported by consultation respondents.

We put out a range of communications ahead of and during each scheme year to eligible households, and will continue to do so for the next scheme period. The automatic data-matching process for the core group in England and Wales will continue, using data held and processed by the Department for Work and Pensions, with the majority of eligible households—typically around 96%—expected to be automatically data-matched, meaning that they will receive the rebate without taking any further action.

These regulations set out a range of permitted activities, overseen by Ofgem, through which energy suppliers can deliver towards their non-core obligation of supporting eligible households in fuel poverty or in a group that are at risk of fuel poverty. Permitted activities within industry initiatives include benefit entitlement checks, energy-efficiency measures, energy advice, debt relief and financial assistance payments of £150. Scheme energy suppliers can also choose to dedicate non-core spend towards the park home scheme, which provides eligible households with £150 of support towards their energy bill.

The regulations also introduce changes to the administration of the scheme and enhance consumer protections for eligible households. They include a new provision to enable the Secretary of State to direct suppliers to communicate directly with their own successfully data-matched customers to provide further information about the scheme, including information related to automated decision-making. In addition, the regulations will replace fixed spending targets with annual estimates, based on the number of eligible households expected to benefit from a rebate each winter, to better predict scheme costs.

Tackling fuel poverty is a priority for this Government. We recognise that too many people cannot afford to heat their homes at a reasonable cost. That is why in January we published our new fuel poverty strategy, alongside our Warm Homes Plan, to ensure that many more fuel-poor households are protected by 2030. Through these regulations, the warm home discount scheme will continue to provide vital support for eligible households each winter at the coldest time of year when support is most needed. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, which I broadly support. I declare my interest as the honorary president of National Energy Action, from which I am delighted to have had a written briefing.

I have a question for clarification at the outset. A piece on the Government’s website titled “Help with the cost of living in 2026” talks of

“an average of £150 off the costs of energy bills”.

It goes on to say:

“This support is on top of the Warm Home Discount Scheme—a one-off £150 discount off your electricity bill—a total package of £300”.


Do people have to apply separately for the £150 off the cost of living and for the £150 from the warm home discount scheme? The figure cited in the regulations, by the Minister and on the GOV.UK webpage is £150. From memory, I thought the figure for the warm home discount scheme was £350. If that is the case, £350 to help those most in need because they are suffering the most from fuel poverty will obviously go a lot further than £150. I do not know whether that is an erroneous memory on my part, but that is what I remember.

The NEA is concerned—this is my wording, not the NEA’s—about one potential consequence of the regulations. The idea is to lift 1 million homes out of fuel poverty, setting new standards for landlords to meet to help do so. However, as we saw with a recent Bill, whose name I forget, under which landlords were meant to improve housing, in fact they sold it because they simply did not have the means to upgrade it. Does the Minister share my concern that instead of rented properties being upgraded at the cost of the landlord or, potentially, with the help of the Government, the landlords may not have the means to do so and therefore the rented properties will go off the market? That is a very real concern.

Is any attention being focused on rural areas? My experience, having been in the European Parliament and represented two separate constituencies in the House of Commons, is that homes in rural areas tend to be less well insulated and more isolated. It is more expensive to heat a house than a flat. Is any particular attention being given to rural areas in that regard? That could make a real difference to reducing fuel poverty.

National Energy Action has a good record on giving advice and doing what it calls hand-holding to guide people through the system; I commend it for doing this. I like to think that I am moderately intelligent but, if I have difficulty in understanding the system, I can understand how tenants and others who wish to apply for the scheme may need help. Have the Government considered offering such help to those who are hopeful of benefiting from the warm home discount—and, indeed, from the cost of living reduction?

Are the Government planning to address the vexed issue of standing charges on energy bills? I know that this is a great theme of the energy champion, Martin Lewis. I never manage to watch his programme because we always seem to be voting here when it is on, but in my experience this is the only utility where the customer is paying up front for the infrastructure to be put in place. Normally, with telecoms and broadband, the customer pays for the infrastructure after it is in place.

The point that I would like the Government to consider is this: all of us can, as consumers, control our unit costs by using less power—that is, less electricity and less gas—and reducing our consumption in that way, but we have absolutely no control over the standing charge. When I go on to Uswitch, I see that it is creeping up: it was 40p per day last year but, this year, it is 50p or 60p per day. We have seen that energy bills are projected to come down from April for three months, but, given the backdrop of the Middle East, there is now an expectation that, if not from July then certainly from the next increase in September or October, people will face the very real issue of finding that they cannot control their household bills.

Finally, National Energy Action refers to the debt mountain. A growing number of households are averaging debt balances exceeding £1,200 a year. This is posing real problems for them. They are paying for last year’s electricity use before they have even saved up for next year’s electricity use. In the words of the NEA, many are trapped in a cycle of paying for last winter’s energy alongside current usage, often with no formal repayment arrangement in place. Are the Government looking at the possibility of trying to address this issue?

In conclusion, as I say when I have already used up all my “finally”s, can the Minister use his good offices to ensure that the warm homes plan is embedded not just in his department’s work but in the 10-year health plan, to make sure that this issue is reflected in health—older people can become unwell if they are not able to heat their houses properly—as well as in the new child poverty strategy, to make sure that there is completely joined-up government at this level? Otherwise, I like the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

For many low-income households, the £150 WHD is, regrettably, being immediately offset by rising energy bills, driven by many of the Government’s policy choices. We therefore need to recognise that while the scheme is welcome inasmuch as it supports those on a low income, those vulnerable to cold-related illness or those living wholly or mainly in fuel poverty, there is a real problem at the moment with the cost of electricity and the cost of energy. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to those comments and to the excellent points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their valuable and apposite contributions to this debate. They were quite extensive. I will do my best to respond to them, but if I miss anything I will be happy to write to noble Lords.

One particularly important element of this scheme, alluded to by a number of noble Lords, was data and data matching. One of the good things about this programme is that with data matching now as efficient as it is—as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned—probably 90% of an expanded group of potential recipients can be automatically data-matched. That is, they will not have to do anything more to receive their rebates because they have fallen into a matched category automatically. But 2% is not an insignificant amount. The Government are determined to continue to notify people who are deemed unmatched to contact the warm home discount helpline to determine their eligibility.

On data matching in general, with the actions that the Government are taking in some different areas, it is likely that data matching will become even more efficient. Indeed, the Government are actively pursuing a programme called Kickstarter to analyse how data matching across departments could become more efficient and effective in future.

Noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about what money counts as what for this relief. The £150 targeted as coming off energy bills—not that energy bills will not rise but that they will be £150 less than they might otherwise be—has been substantially discharged as far as the changes to legacy charges from levies to the Treasury, causing a £117 reduction in average energy bills next year. That is in addition to the £150 that will automatically go to 6 million households now through this measure. Of course, the funding that has recently gone into the cost of heating oil, particularly in rural areas and off-grid properties, is in addition to all that as well. These are not cross-cutting reductions or rebates: they are all piling up on top of each other.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I hear what the Minister says, but £117 is obviously not £150. The Cabinet Office’s website—not that of the Minister’s own department—is clearly inaccurate because it leads you to believe that you might get £150 plus another £150, making a total of £300. I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to explain that that is no longer the case, but I believe that web page should be updated.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I am delighted to tell the noble Baroness that I cannot speak for the Cabinet Office’s website, but I take her point that these things need to be clarified as much as possible.

The noble Baroness also asked about standing charges, both generally and in relation to this particular measure. She will be pleased to know that we have announced our intention to move warm home discount costs from the standing charge to the unit rate; Ofgem has confirmed that this charge will be included in the price cap from 1 April 2026. That will offer a cleaner and more accurate basis of cost recovery while addressing widely raised concerns around standing charges. It does not overcome the overall question of whether standing charges should exist at all. Obviously, that is a wider question for review of standing charges and how they impact on the costs of energy in general.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also mentioned debt. That is an important issue, because each consumer pays around £52 a year towards the cost of managing and writing off debt. If the debt were to become unsustainable, it would place an even higher cost on consumers, so we are working urgently with Ofgem to drive debt out of the energy system alongside delivering reforms that put people first. Ofgem has published an updated debt strategy, setting out its near-term actions and priorities to support suppliers to reduce the level of debt in the sector and subsequently lower the cost of managing this for consumers, lowering that £52 a year that is being paid. That includes proposals for a debt relief scheme to tackle debt built up by some consumers during the energy crisis.

Noble Lords mentioned the disproportionate impact of fuel poverty in rural areas and asked whether any additional measures were being looked at on that. This issue is very pertinent in Wales, as a larger number of people are off-grid and in fuel poverty than in England. I am pleased to inform noble Lords that about 300,000 Welsh households will benefit from this expanded scheme, a substantial increase from previously. As far as rural fuel poverty is concerned, some of the additional measures that can be undertaken by energy firms as part of the overall scheme are relevant to making sure that people who are in fuel poverty and in rural areas, and who have higher costs, are adequately addressed.

Noble Lords also asked about the adequacy of the £150. Certainly, the Government will keep that under close review, but we have taken the view that it is £150 for 2026-27, partly because of the substantial expansion of the scheme, how that indirectly falls on customers as a levy and how that can be sustained. The suggestions put forward this afternoon have certainly been heard and are well received, and we will keep those issues under close review.

I hope I have covered most of noble Lords’ points but, as I said, if I get back to my office and realise that I have completely missed a key point, I will try to make up for it by communicating with the particular noble Lord or noble Baroness at the earliest opportunity.

Tackling fuel poverty is a priority for this Government and the views expressed underline how critical it is that we continue to tackle it.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

Did I hear the Minister answer the question on paragraph 5.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum about automated data matching and privacy?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Lord. I am afraid I did not address that question directly, but the privacy notice for the warm home discount is published on the GOV.UK website, where it can be easily accessed. That privacy notice is in line with those from other areas of government with regard to the privacy of people whose data is being shared.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

When this used to be debated next door, there was a real issue of the DWP not being able to share data, so that those potentially most at risk of fuel poverty could not be identified. Has that problem been resolved now? If the noble Lord is not familiar with it, could he take this issue away and let us know? That would be very helpful.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Yes, I am happy to take that away. I am aware that, although great strides have been taken in recent years in allowing data sharing to work efficiently across different departments and make sure that people do not keep filling in the same form over and over again, there are still deficiencies in this area. Indeed, the noble Baroness will recall that, when she and I were Members of Parliament many years ago, it seemed virtually impossible that this problem would ever be resolved. We have come a long way in making sure that it works properly now, with the right safeguards in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I will have to write to the noble Lord on that because I do not have paragraph 5.3 in front of me. I will certainly send him a letter to that effect.

In essence, this SI is a method of making sure that a much larger group of people receives the discount than has hitherto been the case, which is vital at this time of very high energy prices. It is about making a real impact on fuel poverty and continuing to expand that impact with the measures in the new scheme. It will be done on an affordable and manageable basis and in conjunction with the Warm Homes Plan, which, as the noble Baroness will know, is about driving down bills through energy efficiency and various other measures in homes. Together with those measures, this will make a real impact on fuel poverty over the next period. I urge noble Lords to support the new scheme, which we will have at least until 2030, subject to review. I hope we will see a substantial uptick in people’s warmth and energy welfare in that period, thanks to what is before us this afternoon.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am happy that the Minister will write to us, but I do not think he replied to one question. Does he share my concern that many landlords may feel that they cannot afford to do what we are asking them to do with the warm home discount and in the Warm Homes Plan, so they will sell their properties, which will then come off the market?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

What we are asking landlords to do under the Warm Homes Plan is an extension of some of the work done to uprate properties from band E, whereby landlords could put some money, with some exemptions, into improving their properties for rent. The limit that landlords can put in before being exempted is, I think, about £10,000, but it means a higher level of warmth and efficiency in the home. There is no evidence that large numbers of landlords went out of business or sold their homes under the last scheme in operation, and we are confident that that will not be the case on this occasion.

Motion agreed.

Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 2 February be approved.

Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 March.

Motions agreed.

UK Energy Sources and Cost of Energy

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the recent military strikes in Iran and Qatar, what steps they are taking to secure UK energy sources and reduce the cost of energy for UK citizens.

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

I thank the noble Earl for his Question. The UK benefits from a strong and diverse range of energy supplies. The physical supply of fuel to the UK is stable. The only way to protect ourselves from these and future potential price spikes in the longer term is to get off international fossil fuel markets controlled by the actions of petrostates and dictators. That is what our clean energy mission for homegrown power that we control is all about.

[The Earl of Effingham]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Last night’s escalation proved that we should not be dependent on imported oil and gas and that the UK must make use of its domestic energy supplies. Given this and the fact that, by autumn, we could be producing enough gas to heat 1.6 million homes by simply approving production at the Jackdaw gas field, will the Minister today commit to approving Jackdaw for gas production?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Earl will be aware that the present crisis is essentially a price crisis rather than a supply crisis. I emphasise again that the UK has a strong and diverse range of energy supplies and that the physical supply of fuel to the UK is stable. However, the Government have not been idle in this respect. Among other things, the Government have introduced transitional energy certificates for North Sea and associated producing fields that allow producers to engage in tie-backs, which is the development of fields additional to fields that are already in production. That is completely in line with IEA recommendations on how production can be increased in the not too distant future.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the measures that the Government have already taken, particularly around reducing the cost of heating oil. Does the Minister agree that it is important that we work with allies and partners to encourage all involved to stop targeting energy infrastructure?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Earl is absolutely right that one of the key issues in the recent escalation has been the targeting by both sides of oil and gas installations. Clearly, this brings into a further spotlight the need to seek an urgent de-escalation of hostilities and the resolution of this crisis by negotiation rather than continued bombing of everyone’s oil and gas facilities.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in the light of the Times report earlier this week on energy links between the United Kingdom and Xinjiang, has the Minister read the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on supply chain transparency and modern-day slavery? Will he say when he last discussed with Great British Energy its compliance with Section 3(2)(e) of the Great British Energy Act, which was added following an all-party amendment in your Lordships’ House and prohibits the use of products, such as solar panels, made by slave labour?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I will have to write to the noble Lord on the specifics he mentioned. He should know that the UK Government are pursuing very robust measures to ensure that the supply of products such as solar panels is not the product of modern slavery. Efforts are under way on the diversification of supply and on the certification of panels to ensure they are not subject to modern slavery. The noble Lord will of course appreciate the difficulty of getting exact information on the sourcing of particular products, but the British Government are doing everything they can to ensure that they are not from the sources that the noble Lord is so concerned about.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, does the current crisis and the vulnerabilities that have been exposed lead the Government to re-examine the case for tidal power in the UK?

[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.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. Given what the Minister said about this being, in essence, a price security issue, what progress have the Government made on the issue of decoupling the price of other forms of generation from the price of gas? As we know, that is hugely volatile and has an enormous impact on both domestic and industrial consumers.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is exactly right. As she will know, part of the price increases that are being suffered at the moment go into the market-making price of gas that secures the general price of electricity, for example, in our markets by marginal cost pricing. Certainly, the renewed and continuing volatility in international markets is likely to be a substantial driver of high price levels and price increases in the future. Therefore, the Government are actively looking at measures that could decouple the UK energy market, where it is green and low carbon, from that marginal cost pricing arrangement, which is still driven by gas in about 65% of settlements at the moment. That will be part of the UK’s drive for clean energy sources for the future.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, surely the issue is one of supply, and it is not the Government’s fault. However, there is one thing that is the Government’s fault: we do not have a single ship in the Persian Gulf that can assist with guarding the Strait of Hormuz. Does the Minister share my disappointment that we do not have anything in the Gulf that can assist?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that we do have quite a presence in the Gulf, not of ships but of other defence capacity which can play some part as far as the Strait of Hormuz is concerned. He will also know that the US has already indicated that it does not wish to have the UK and other NATO countries’ assistance in undertaking the clearance of the Strait of Hormuz. Nevertheless, we regard the opening of that strait as imperative as far as fuel supplies are concerned. As far as UK fuel supplies are concerned, only about 1% currently comes from sources relevant to passage through the Strait of Hormuz—for example, Qatar. We are not as internationally exposed to those supplies as a number of other countries.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, following up on the question from my noble friend Lord Russell, who mentioned support for domestic users in particular of heating oil, my question is on highly energy-intensive industries, particularly steel. What support, if any, are the Government thinking of providing, particularly if this war continues for weeks and months rather than just ending in days, as we hope, for the steel industries in south Wales, Scunthorpe and South Yorkshire?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The Government are open to all eventualities as far as this crisis is concerned and are keeping the position under review on a very regular basis. The noble Lord will know that immediate support has been for heating oil, particularly for those customers who are off grid in the UK. The Government recently announced over for supplies of heating oil, with particular reference to Northern Ireland, where a substantial proportion of the population are dependent on oil for heating. Of that £50 million-odd, £17 million has gone to Northern Ireland for that purpose.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that the cleanest, greenest, cheapest and most secure energy is the energy that you do not need to use. France, for example, is far ahead of us in avoiding wasteful use of energy, with measures such as switching off the lighting for shops, ensuring that offices switch off lights during the night and taking measures to stop wasting energy, such as with video screens with advertising. What steps are the Government taking to reduce the wastage of energy, which will make us all more secure?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The first issue is, as the noble Baroness suggests, the efficient use of energy by more intelligent means and planning how that energy is deployed on a highly intelligent basis. That is activity that the Government are advanced on as far as the management of our energy system is concerned. The second point is, as the noble Baroness mentions, the energy security from energy that is not used. The Warm Homes Plan that the Government have recently introduced—a multi-billion programme over a number of years to increase the energy efficiency and resilience of people’s homes, particularly those in fuel poverty—will produce not only a win for fuel poverty but a substantial win for the efficiency with which energy is used and the amount of energy that is used in the domestic sphere.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the crisis is immediate. What assessment have the Government made about the essential products that rely on gas—ammonia, CO₂, aniline, soda ash, ethylene and sulphuric acid—without which a modern economy cannot exist and without which factories will close?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that we have recently engaged in an extensive conversation in corridors about the question of ammonia in the UK economy. This is related to the energy crisis, in as much as we do not have ammonia manufacturing sites in the UK and the manufacture of ammonia is highly energy dependent. One of the ways forward on that is to produce green ammonia, which he will know was a subject of our discussion just recently. That is one way to secure the future of ammonia supplies in the UK without resorting to high levels of fossil fuel in the process.