Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

18:18

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026.

Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament on 16 December 2025.

The UK Emissions Trading Scheme, or UK ETS, was established—perhaps I should say “re-established”—under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, contributing to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net-zero goal. The scheme is run by the UK ETS Authority, which is a joint body comprising the UK Government and the devolved Governments acting as one. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets.

Under the UK ETS, operators are required to monitor, report on and surrender allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions. Although most allowances are purchased at regularly held auctions, operators in certain sectors at risk of carbon leakage are given a number of allowances for free; there are referred to as “free allocations”. Free allocations reduce the exposure to the carbon price for sectors at risk of carbon leakage and reduce the risk that decarbonisation efforts could be undermined by production and the associated emissions moving to other countries.

Under the UK ETS, an operator is the person or company with control over an installation. Installations are stationary units at which regulated activities take place. Sub-installations represent operations carried out at an installation for which operators that receive free allocation are required to report activity levels for the purposes of the UK ETS.

We have brought forward this statutory instrument to enable important changes and improvements to the scheme. The first change it makes is to enable operators of installations to be able to notify their regulator that they wish their activity data for the 2020 scheme year, or 2020 and 2021 scheme years, to be excluded from the calculation of their historical activity levels for the 2027-30 free allocation period. This is in recognition of the fact that production levels may have been impacted during the Covid-19 pandemic. These operators will be able to notify their regulator during the second stage of the 2027-30 free allocation application, from 1 April 2026 to 30 June 2026, that they wish to exclude their activity data for 2020, or 2020 and 2021.

A legal change to the free allocation regulation is needed because existing legislation would require regulators to calculate historical activity levels using activity data from all five years of the baseline period from 2019 to 2023. So, if amendments are not made, there will be no legal basis for regulators to exclude data from 2020, or 2020 and 2021, from the historical activity level calculation for any applicant. Using activity data for these years could result in historical activity levels that do not reflect normal activity, meaning that operators would receive less free allocation than they would otherwise be entitled to receive.

The second change the instrument makes is to gradually phase out free allocation for sectors covered by the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism—the UK CBAM—starting over the 2027-30 allocation period. This phase-out will be implemented through applying a UK CBAM reduction factor to the calculation of free allocation, and will apply at sub-installation level. To do this, operators will be required to report on which of their sub-installations serve the production of UK CBAM goods. This will enable regulators to apply the UK CBAM reduction factor to the relevant sub-installations.

A legal change is needed as operators currently classify their sub-installations only by a specific benchmark and the corresponding carbon leakage status of that sub-installation. This instrument requires operators also to classify each sub-installation as “UK CBAM” or “not UK CBAM”. Benchmarks are the efficiency standards used to calculate each installation’s free allocation entitlement. Installations closer to their benchmark have a higher proportion of emissions covered by free allocation, rewarding more efficient installations and incentivising decarbonisation.

The third change the instrument makes is to use current benchmarks for the purpose of calculating free allocation for stationary installations for the 2027 scheme year. This instrument also provides for the ability to update the benchmark values used to calculate free allocation for the years 2028, 2029 and 2030 of the 2027-30 allocation period. Maintaining current benchmarks for the 2027 scheme year will allow time for industrial participants to adjust to the changes.

A legal change to the free allocation regulation is necessary because, under existing legislation, there is no provision to update benchmarks during an allocation period. The principal intent is to use the updated ETS phase 4 benchmarks in the 2028, 2029 and 2030 scheme years; this will be decided once the EU benchmark values are available and will be subject to assessment of the impact.

Installations that permanently cease to operate are required to report on their activity in the final year of operation so that free allocation can be recalculated to reflect the cessation of activity. This amendment clarifies that operators must report on their activity levels in instances of permanent cessation or the surrender or revocation of their permit.

These intended changes follow comprehensive engagement and consultation with stakeholders. The UK and devolved Governments carried out consultations that covered the provisions included in this statutory instrument. The free allocation review consultation ran between 18 December 2023 and 11 March 2024, seeking views on proposals to alter the free allocation methodology for UK ETS stationary sectors to better target those most at risk of carbon leakage and ensure that free allocations are fairly distributed. The free allocation review carbon leakage consultation ran between 16 December 2024 and 10 March 2025. It sought views on a draft UK-focused carbon leakage list compiled by applying UK data to the existing carbon leakage list, as well as the trajectory for phasing out free allocations for sectors that will be covered by the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism. The relevant responses to these consultations were summarised in the UK ETS authority’s response.

In conclusion, the changes in the draft order will deliver on commitments made by the UK ETS authority, improve the fairness of the scheme and increase certainty for both regulators and operators. These changes will ensure that free allocation continues to provide meaningful support to UK industry while maintaining the incentive to decarbonise and rewarding efficient installations. The amendments to the UK ETS will support its role as a key pillar of the UK’s climate policy. They demonstrate that we will take action to improve the scheme where necessary. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for so comprehensively outlining the contents of the SI. Once again, I welcome him to the House and his position. We knew each other in the other place over a number of years and I was a great admirer of his during that time. I also welcome my noble friend to his Front Bench position, and I look forward to working with him in that capacity. I congratulate the noble Earl on the Lib Dem Benches for his conversion to a life peerage. We are now equals in that regard.

I will take the opportunity to put a few questions to the Minister. I understand that the year 2026 is a stand-alone year before we proceed to 2027 onwards. Is that of particular significance in regard to the changes that the Minister outlined? I understand from paragraph 11 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report that, in response to a number of concerns that were raised, the department

“emphasised that UK industry and wider stakeholders had ‘repeatedly’ called for linking with the EU ETS”.

The committee went to great pains to say:

“According to the DESNZ, linking does not mean re-joining and is expected to reduce costs for UK businesses by giving them access to a larger, more liquid market”,


and it said that it had published the submission.

Perhaps I ought to say that I am a pro-European Conservative, so it would not bother me if we rejoined the EU ETS. I know that I am in a minority of one in the Conservative Party on this point, but I want to put that on the record. It raises the question of why industry will be concerned. As I understand it, the UK ETS is very ambitious and operates with a stricter emissions cap, initially set at 5%, which I understand is higher than that set by the EU ETS. If that is the case, does the Minister agree that there are very strong arguments that the UK industry would wish to follow the EU ETS in this regard?

18:30

Can the Minister say what the costs will be? He ably represented it as almost technical detail that we need not worry too much about, but I understand, particularly from the debate in the other place, that the pace that has been set is already adding over £100 a year—the equivalent of 12%—to the average cost of a household’s electricity bill. I cannot remember if the further increase would be £108 or £138, in another two, three or five years’ time. So is the cost at the moment an additional £100 a year on our household electricity bills—12% of the average—and is it set to rise? Can the Minister put a figure on that?

Further figures were given in the other place by my right honourable friend Claire Coutinho, who speaks as shadow Secretary of State on these issues. The cost to the wider British economy is an extra £5 billion a year. If that is the case—I do not think these figures were disputed—how can the Minister and the Government argue that this is playing to their growth agenda? I would argue that it is taking money out of the economy and stifling growth in this area.

I cannot remember whether it was for 18 years, but certainly for the 13 years that I was in the other place I represented the York Handmade Brick Company, which is an outstanding company. Obviously, it is a very high energy user, because it uses a furnace to bake bricks. Does the Minister agree that, by setting such a challenging timescale in the original greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, we are not just increasing the cost to households and businesses but, regrettably, making businesses like that less competitive? I do not know how expensive it would be to import bricks from another country—heaven forfend—but China, for example, does not have to meet anything like our energy costs. I think most of the EU has lower energy costs.

I just take this opportunity to ask not just whether it is regrettable how much this is costing us all, in our household bills, and business and industry bills, but whether it is making the country less competitive. With those few remarks, I will be very grateful for the Minister’s response.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome this order but I have some important questions to ask the Minister. My party has long argued that a robust, transparent, high-standard carbon market is a cornerstone of any credible pathway to net zero by 2050. When done well, emissions trading cuts carbon at least cost, drives innovation in clean technologies and gives industry the long-term policy certainty that it needs to invest confidently in the green transition.

This instrument makes a number of sensible technical adjustments, but this update carries more weight than most of the normal updates. We strongly support all the Covid measures; they are sensible, practical and needed.

However, uncertainty persists around our future carbon-market relationship with our closest trading partners. The Government’s own documents show that UK industry has repeatedly called for linking the UK ETS with the EU ETS, which has already been spoken to and which is a step we strongly favour. A stand-alone UK ETS would be smaller and more price volatile, driving up costs for British business compared to the stability and liquidity of a larger linked market. When paired with clean power, deeper market reforms and other measures, a linked system offers real opportunities to cut energy costs, modernise industrial processes and slash emissions.

This order moves us towards dynamic alignment by adopting EU benchmarks from 2028, alongside the phase-down of free allocation for CBAM-exposed sectors and by enabling import levies through the UK CBAM. This is the right direction. We cannot ignore the carbon costs embedded in goods we manufacture or import emissions unchecked, but this complex transition demands adaptability, coherence and close management by the Government as we move forward. We remain in a halfway house, following rules we no longer help to write, without gaining the full benefits of a larger carbon market. I seek clear reassurances that the Government are protecting UK industry, working towards positions where we are rule-makers again and ensuring that our needs are recognised and mitigated during the interregnum.

The impact assessment’s estimate of £9.8 billion net present social value shows gains from effective decarbonisation, yet the £92 million annual cost to business is far from trivial for energy-intensive industries. As free allocation pares down—particularly for cement, fertilisers, iron and steel, aluminium and hydrogen—we must not offset our emissions and jobs to less scrupulous jurisdictions. A carbon price that cleans up British industry is welcome; one that simply relocates it helps neither our targets nor our industrial base.

I therefore have just five questions for the Minister. First, the Minister’s department accepts that EU linking would reduce costs and provide price certainty. Adopting EU benchmarks facilitates that alignment. Can the Minister set out a possible timetable for negotiating a formal linking agreement? Does the Minister tend to think that any conditions might be attached to that? Industry must plan and make investment decisions now, not years ahead, so this certainty is important to it.

Secondly, on parliamentary oversight, concerns remain that dynamic alignment could allow changes to benchmarks and core design features with minimal scrutiny. Can the Minister confirm that any future changes to the 2028-30 benchmarks or material changes from further EU alignment will come by affirmative procedures and be debated in both Houses?

Thirdly, CBAM and ETS reforms help tackle import leakage, but export leakage remains mostly unaddressed. As free allocation withdraws, UK exports may face higher carbon costs than our international competitors do. So what WTO-compatible measures, targeted free allocation, export rebates or other measures are being considered to help protect exporters and strengthen our manufacturing base? On the sectors that are hardest to abate—ceramics were mentioned in the other place, and Ministers are having particular conversations with the ceramics industry—it feels that particular sectors will struggle to abate even if they want to and extra support is needed.

Fourthly, on regional fairness, the impact assessment highlights burdens on industrial clusters, particularly in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England. A lot of these areas have already been hit by processes of post-industrialisation. So how do the ETS reforms integrate with wider decarbonisation strategies, including cluster sequencing, CCUS, hydrogen support and the shared prosperity fund?

Fifthly, obviously SMEs are mostly outside these schemes, but some are captured. Where they are, will tailored support and special consideration be given to their needs?

I have some general questions. How will the Government monitor and report the impacts of these measures, particularly in relation to carbon leakage? What mechanisms will track investment in clean technologies that the Government want to see and expect to happen? What mechanisms will track price changes and the competitiveness of the industries related to those?

My belief is that openness in this sector as we move forward is in everybody’s interests. We support the direction of this order but, without bolder steps toward EU ETS integration, the UK risks drifting—aligning in practice but isolated—and being subscale in market terms. That does not serve our industries, investors or climate objectives. We urge the Government to put linkage firmly on the agenda and give British industry the stable framework that it needs. Our climate and our industry standards cannot afford continued ambiguity.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. He generously banked the good will between the noble Earl, Lord Russell, myself and himself yesterday, and I assure him that he will have no need to draw down on that, because I am sure he will disassociate himself from his colleagues in another place when it comes to this scheme.

For once, this is a policy that is solely conceived by the Labour Government. It is a straightforward decision by DESNZ to increase carbon taxes on major industrial users which depend on hydrocarbons, particularly gas in the UK industrial market. Many industries have no choice but to use gas, and no alternative firm sources of supply; indeed, they face heavy dependence on high electricity prices to stay in business.

The Minister’s speech may sound technical, and it is true that 104 pages covering the order and the Explanatory Memorandum take some digesting, but a reread shows exactly what this statutory instrument does. The good news is that the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, sitting beside the Minister, is a good Lewisham man and he had no difficulty understanding every word of the particular trading scheme order that is before us. He will be able to help the Minister; I see he is already doing so.

What does this order do? It reduces the supply of free allowances—the key point that was made by the Minister—and thus it increases the carbon tax cost to many of the UK’s major energy industries in a highly competitive global market. These free allowances have been the mechanisms used to protect businesses such as ceramics, cement and steel from being undercut by cheaper imported products from countries that do not charge carbon taxes.

Take the very real example, considered and referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which was considered in another place yesterday by Gareth Snell, the Labour MP. He focused on the ceramics industry and said that this sector

“is very difficult to decarbonise”

but that it is

“producing things that are integral to the Government’s missions, whether that be house bricks for our house building programme or advanced ceramics to support our defence industry … because we cannot make steel in this country without ceramics … We are still at huge risk of carbon leakage. We work in an unfair market at the moment, not least because of the way in which non-market economy status countries import into this country … the ceramics sector is desperately trying to do all that it can to reduce its output of greenhouse gases, but that is really difficult when it has to run a kiln at several hundred degrees for many hours to do the bisque and the glaze firing, and run refractories for 12 to 14 hours at 1,500°C. Electrification is not available to many of those businesses at the moment, because the capital to invest … is simply not available; the profit margins on their products do not allow for it … We are wedded to gas for the foreseeable future”.

The sector fears that,

“as we move at pace to meet some of the decarbonisation agendas and reduce the overall cap through the emissions trading scheme, that will mean that the free allowances also have to come down, which will push the ceramics sector into having to buy many more free allowances”,—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 27/1/26; cols. 9-10.]

leading to higher costs.

Even in the Government’s net-zero nirvana of green power plants, gas is the dispatchable power in the system. There is no other choice; nothing else will keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. This SI needlessly imposes a tax that inflates the price of gas to the industry and then passes the additional cost through to the consumer when they have no other choice.

Everybody wants clean rivers, clean energy and an improved environment with a clear commitment to tackle global warming. But these objectives should never purposely lead to deindustrialising the country, negating growth and increasing unemployment in our high labour-intensive, high energy-consuming industries on the altar of net-zero zealotry.

We have among the highest power prices in the world and today we are putting them up again. If you drain free allowances out of the system, energy costs rise yet more in comparison with international competitors. Not surprisingly, international companies will relocate abroad in more competitive markets and accelerate deindustrialisation in the petrochemicals sector, the steel sector, ceramics and refineries. Sadly, this may also apply to data centres in the future, with fewer choosing the UK for the very same reasons.

18:45

Free allowances have been the mechanism that we use to protect businesses, such as cement and steel, from being undercut by cheaper imported products from countries that do not charge carbon taxes. That has meant that those businesses have not faced higher costs from the tax, and therefore neither have consumers. Because of the CBAM, the protection is being moved to a tariff placed on imports at the border, which means that the free allowances in the domestic UK market are being phased out. We should be clear that that means that the carbon tax will now start to be charged on the production of goods produced for the British market that otherwise had been protected by free allowances and British consumers will face higher prices as a result.

The Government make the high-energy users pay a tax for every tonne of carbon they release during production. Naturally, those taxes are passed straight through to consumers and customers in higher prices. Therefore, if the Government increase the carbon tax, they increase the price of basic goods such as electricity and petrol. The Government know that because, in the impact assessment for this legislation, they admit exactly that: higher carbon taxes will be passed through to consumers as higher prices—for those interested, that is in paragraph 18.8. That means higher energy, food and petrol prices.

The Government insist that they need to do this because they have decided to link the UK carbon tax scheme to that of the European Union. That was their decision—it was a political choice—and that alone has doubled our carbon tax since the start of last year. We are not talking about a slight increase; we are talking about a tax that has more than doubled in less than a year because of choices of the Government. Doubling the carbon tax has increased electricity bills alone by £4 billion. In fact, the carbon tax imposed by the Government now accounts for over £100 per year, or over 12% of the average electricity bill. The increase is costing the wider British economy an extra £5 billion a year, as was pointed out by my noble friend, and this legislation will pile more costs on to consumers.

Why are the Government doing this? Who benefits? The Treasury will see an extra £1.8 billion in tax revenue because it has doubled the carbon tax. Through this legislation, by reducing free allowances, it will take even more from ordinary families who are already struggling. That is in fact the entire point: the aim of the carbon tax is to gradually increase costs for British industry until businesses have no choice but to spend hundreds of millions of pounds that they do not have at the moment to decarbonise their production. That is the whole point, otherwise they have to shut down or move abroad. The fact that companies are choosing to do the latter means that there will be no reduction in global emissions, because those businesses are just moving elsewhere. There will be fewer jobs in Britain, certainly, and more businesses in countries that have more polluting regimes—so more carbon in the atmosphere overall.

The Minister is asking us to approve legislation that, by his own colleagues’ assessment, will hurt industry, fuel inflation and make people poorer. To be clear, the Government are imposing a £5 billion tax rise on the economy every year, in the hope of saving just £160 million a year based on the five-year £800 million Frontier Economics projection. That is incoherent to say the least.

Meanwhile, the Minister’s colleagues in another place demonise gas. They say they have no control over domestic gas prices. The Secretary of State consistently repeats that point, blaming petro-dictators for the international price of gas, but of course the Government can change the costs of gas to consumers if they so wish—for example, through the energy profits levy, windfall taxes, petroleum revenue tax, ring-fenced corporation taxes and supplementary charges, not to mention licensing conditions, support for decommissioning, support for allowances when it comes to exploration activity, network price controls and VAT on domestic gas, which can be raised, lowered or net-zero rated.

So, I ask the Minister: what is his assessment of how many jobs will be lost because of higher carbon taxes? How many more domestic industries will be replaced by foreign imports, which we are already seeing in gas, steel, chemicals and refineries? Does the Minister accept that reducing free allowances through this legislation will increase energy bills? Will he publish an assessment of what increase in cost will be added to people’s household bills?

As the Minister has outlined in this debate, the Government remain focused on competitiveness relative to the European Union, but the real challenge facing British industry is global competition from countries with cheap, abundant energy and no carbon costs at all. Ever-closer alignment with the EU ETS will not solve that problem and risks importing even higher carbon prices into the UK system.

Whether we, as Members, are supportive of UKCS gas or not, we will be dependent on it for many years to come. We are the only country in the world that I know of which does not encourage the development of its own resources to deliver affordable energy. We are ill prepared for the supply crunch that is going to happen next month. There is no plan, inadequate storage and no back-up supplies of imported gas. These are the issues we should be considering today.

In closing, I can do no better than to quote Louise Gilmour, the secretary of GMB Scotland—Labour’s third-largest union backer—who suggested that net-zero policies championed by the current Government were causing

“arguably the most destructive industrial calamity in our nation’s history”.

She went on to say:

“The UK will, of course, need oil and gas for years, decades, while continuing to build our renewables capacity … We do not need more fantastic forecasts but just one actual industrial strategy underpinned by realism, ambition, financial support”.

I emphasise “financial support”; she does not say “additional energy costs”. She continued:

“Protect the energy we need today while prioritising what we can build for tomorrow. Reassure producers offshore. Greenlight the Rosebank field. End knee-jerk opposition to new nuclear in Scotland. Strike a balance between oil and gas, sun and wind to spread the risks while making steady, planned and measurable progress to reduce emissions”.

The changes proposed here may be presented as technical, but their effect is clear. The UK already has some of the highest industrial and domestic electricity prices in the world; those high costs are holding back growth, weakening competitiveness and making households poorer. This is the wrong measure for the wrong time. For those reasons, I ask the Government to think again.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which were absolutely up to the rather technical nature of this SI—although I would say that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, managed to take in a large landscape on the whole question of whether a decarbonisation policy is good or not. I suggest that that debate is for another day because we are talking about some specific changes that are being made to a specific policy.

That policy relates, of course, to an overall adjunct to decarbonisation policy in general, which is to secure a good carbon price to underpin moves towards developing a more sustainable, low-carbon, green economy based on making sure that fossil fuels are at the margins of the energy economy, rather than at the centre of it; and that incentives are put in place for that to happen and for the economy to run on low-carbon energy in general.

If the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, considers that a bad idea overall, perhaps he might say so; he has moved a little way along that path. I do not think that the Bank has yet cashed in all its good will, but we need to set one or two things straight about how that relates to this SI. The free allowances that are presently in place for a number of energy-intensive industries that are in danger of carbon leakage as a result of low-carbon policies are being continued for 2026 but are being tapered down—not because the Government think that they are a terrible idea and that we ought to stop giving out free allowances but because we are on the road to CBAM, which is in itself a comprehensive shield against carbon leakage.

Having a series of free allowances running alongside a CBAM arrangement would therefore duplicate the protections that are, and should be, in place. Having a mechanism that enables the CBAM process to come into place, while making sure that the industry has the free allowances it needs to move towards CBAM, seems a very sensible thing to do to keep the overall low-carbon energy show on the road in the longer term. I have not heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, whether he thinks that CBAM is a bad idea; the industry generally thinks that it is a very good idea.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

The Minister has put two points back to me. First, I have no dispute with that; I think that decarbonising the industrial sector over time is a sensible policy. The problem is that, if you try to accelerate that decarbonisation into 2030 and you must raise electricity prices to the level the Government have done through a carbon tax, you make industry uncompetitive. If you make industry uncompetitive on the altar of long-term decarbonisation, you will have serious employment problems; that precise point was made by an MP in another place in speaking on behalf of ceramics.

My issue, therefore, is not with the long-term decarbonisation of industry; I am totally at one with the Minister on that point. My point is that, if you hurry this along on an artificial timescale of three years, you will have to put up carbon taxes and you will put businesses out of business, in effect, from the moment when they must face these carbon taxes, which are not imposed by their competitors around the world; they may, therefore, find themselves uncompetitive.

I am not arguing against CBAM but I am making the obvious point that, if you then remove these allowances—say you have free allowances of 10 out of 100, and you take 10 of those free allowances away—you have to acquire the other 10 allowances from the market. There is a significant additional cost; that is outlined very clearly in the impact assessment before us today. Indeed, paragraph 18.8 of that document states:

“These factors combined can lead to domestic prices being consistently higher than import prices, enabling substantial price pass-through”.


It is right here in the very document that we have been considering today, and it proves my point about an increase in prices—a significant increase from what are already very expensive electricity prices—that must then be passed through. Also, the nature of that pass- through goes even further than what I have said. Paragraph 18.7 of the impact assessment says:

“The results suggest that most sectors could pass about 80-90% of cost increases to consumers”.


It is the consumers who will feel the pain of this measure; that is the Government’s own clear statement on page 70 of the impact assessment.

19:00

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The Government are of course very well aware of the whole question of how energy prices should be kept within reasonable bounds. By the way, the noble Lord went on a bit about gas a moment ago. He should remember his own period in government, when the Government spent something like £70 billion trying to bring prices back down when they had got completely out of control with the spikes in the price of shipped gas coming into the UK, which rose to 600p per therm at one stage in the mid-2020s.

You could say that, because the Government at that time did not control international gas prices in the way that the noble Lord seems to think can be done— I very much doubt that the various measures he is proposing to regulate international shipped gas prices would have the effect on volatility that he thinks they would have—we are still open to that enormous volatility in gas across the world. Indeed, just recently the price spiked quite substantially—probably not to the extent that happened in the early 2020s, but that is a spectre that continues to haunt us with reliance on international gas and not going to a low-carbon economy.

I am on the side of insulating the UK economy from those enormous global changes in gas prices, particularly by moving, broadly speaking, not to a no-gas economy but to a low-gas economy as far as the future is concerned. That will be of tremendous benefit to UK industry and exports, and jobs and industry in general, because we will have a stable energy economy for the future, which will allow us to plan ahead properly without the spikes, volatility and panics that we have seen over the last few years. I think the noble Lord wants me to give way again.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

May I say how flattered I am that the Minister thinks that I was in government on this side of the turn of the century? I must look a lot younger than I thought I did. I have to go back to 1990, to be precise, when I was Minister for Energy and we started the offshore decarbonisation of gas. In fact, we stopped flaring at that time, at the same time as we set up a non-fossil fuel obligation to encourage renewables. We had low domestic and industrial gas prices in the United Kingdom because we encouraged combined-cycle gas turbines. I just wanted to place that on the record, but I say it in a spirit of deep gratitude to the Minister for thinking that I was in government only recently and that I obviously look far too young to have been a Minister in 1990—or perhaps I look far too old.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that correction as far as his status in previous Governments is concerned. I was making a point not about his own distinguished period as an Energy Minister, which I appreciate was much earlier and perhaps in a rather happier energy era than we have today, but about the mangled response from the Conservative Government to the last gas volatility crisis in this country, and what resulted in terms of the money going out of the Exchequer for the attempts to protect domestic consumers and businesses from that spike, since he raised it as one of his concerns about this SI.

I ought to add, by the way, that, in the Government’s industrial strategy—yes, we have an industrial strategy, unlike previous Administrations—we announced additional support for 7,000 energy-intensive firms through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce electricity costs by up to £40 per megawatt-hour. Through the British Energy supercharger, the Government are increasing support for the most energy-intensive firms by covering more of the energy network charges they normally have to pay. From 2026, the discount on these charges—namely, legacy costs, capacity market feed-in tariffs and so on—will be discounted by 90% from their present 60% level. That is a substantial boost to industry, as far as prices are concerned, by the direct actions of the Government under these circumstances.

I am conscious that I have spent rather too long addressing what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has perhaps wound me up to talk about more than I might otherwise have done. I have to now address the questions that were put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering—who I applaud for being, as it were, on the side of these particular measures and ideas from the other side—and the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

I have, to some extent, covered the questions that the noble Baroness put to me. The first allocation period will be extended to 2026 to ensure that the changes implemented from the free allocation review come into force in 2027, to align with the introduction of UK CBAM. On her questions on bills, emissions trading has been a key element of power sector decarbonisation. Therefore, maintaining a strong UK ETS and, dare I say it, aligning it with the much wider market that we can enter into, for the stability of the ETS, will not be a joining of the EU ETS but a linkage of the UK ETS to the EU ETS. The UK ETS will continue. It has been determined following a recent consultation discussion that it will continue until at least 2040.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

I want to press the Minister. We are being more ambitious under his scheme than under the original scheme, the EU ETS to which the UK originally subscribed. We are going for a stricter emissions cap, initially of 5%, and will probably be more ambitious as we go forward. We also have a shorter timeframe in which to subscribe. We are all being clobbered by this. It impacts on the Government’s growth agenda, as I mentioned, and on the cost of living that my noble friend mentioned from the Front Bench. I am honorary president of the warm homes front, and I know that particularly those living in challenging circumstances in heating their homes and in fuel poverty will find this incredibly difficult.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The issue is fairly complex because of the benefits and disbenefits that apply from having a really ambitious carbon pricing target. On the one hand, it drives the decarbonisation of home heating, domestic electricity delivery and all sorts of things like that in a low-carbon way, and, arguably, that is a substantial reducer of the price of household bills in the longer term.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

If it is going up from £100 to £138 per household, when are we going to see the reduction that we were promised in the general election?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The Government recently introduced an average reduction of £150 off electricity bills, through placing legacy bills into Exchequer arrangements rather than putting them back to households through obligations. We will continue to look at that on a wider basis. That is a good start for reducing energy bills, as it changes the nature of how the low- carbon economy works.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked why we are changing these arrangements in a fairly rushed way. Part of the answer is that, if we are to have a good CBAM in place—after all, it is coming in a year after the EU CBAM—we have to get our skates on. We also have to get our skates on in linking the UK ETS with the EU ETS. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is aware that, just six months after the linkage arrangements were agreed in principle at the EU-UK summit last April, the November negotiations and discussions started, and they are still under way at the moment. There are a number of answers on timescale and so on that I cannot give right now, but I assure the noble Earl that these are clearly under way and that there is a clear out from those negotiations.

I am conscious that we have spent a long time on this. I will write to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness on the remaining outstanding issues. I hope that I have been able to give a reasonably reassuring position on the need for this SI and the wider context of the underlying direction of all this policy and why this SI leads to a much better and more stable series of arrangements for both the UK ETS and CBAM, as it comes forward.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

We have had a good debate on this. We may have strayed slightly off the topic into some broader areas, but it is important that these issues are discussed and that, when we disagree, we disagree well. I thank everybody and the Minister for their responses.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 7.14 pm.