Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 October and 24 November be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 15 December.

Motions agreed.

Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations.

[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 30 October.

Heat networks have a crucial role to play in our decarbonisation ambitions and energy security mission. As proven internationally, they can provide low-cost, low-carbon energy for all, particularly in high-density areas such as our major cities. They are one of the most versatile forms of renewable energy, as they can access heat from a variety of sources, including waste heat from growth sectors such as AI. This potential has fuelled government ambition. By 2050, we aim to grow heat networks from the current 3% of the UK’s heat demand to around 20%.

However, the growth of this sector depends on consumer trust, underpinned by good regulatory foundations. That means we must deliver a fair deal for the nearly half a million households that already rely on a heat network. The current lack of regulation means that many people are experiencing poor customer service, with unreliable heating and a lack of clarity on what makes up a bill. This cannot continue. That is why, for the first time, we are establishing a regulated market framework to protect heat network consumers that supports the case for sector growth.

Earlier this year, when this House approved the Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025, we paved the way for consumers on a heat network to receive protections comparable to those in gas and electricity markets. The powers for the Secretary of State to introduce these regulations were provided by the Energy Act 2023. They will apply across Great Britain. We have also consulted the Scottish Government, as per Section 220 of the Energy Act. I thank them for their support in this matter. These regulations do not apply to Northern Ireland; the Northern Ireland Executive have their own powers to introduce regulation.

The regulations made in March introduced the authorisation regime. This will work in a similar way to the domestic gas and electricity licensing regime. From regulatory commencement, Ofgem will have the powers to investigate and take action in cases of unfair pricing, establish protections for vulnerable customers and require suppliers to put in place robust complaints-handling processes. It will also be a requirement on heat network suppliers to treat their customers fairly. This instrument is therefore the last piece of the puzzle that will enable this market framework to go live from 27 January.

The instrument simply builds on previous regulations by introducing amendments that will expand the authorisation regime that Ofgem will implement. The changes include the provision of powers to Ofgem to assist with the conduct of pricing investigations, which will be essential to protect customers from unfair, high and opaque prices. It will also introduce deemed contracts to ensure that the rights of households and their supply of heat are protected even when no formal contract is in place.

Noble Lords may also note that this statutory instrument includes provisions to protect consumers if a heat network becomes insolvent. A special administration regime, or SAR, will seek to ensure that customers do not experience interruptions to their supply of heating and hot water in the event of a heat network operator or supplier insolvency. The rules for this will be set out in separate statutory instruments that will be put forward to this House in future.

The instrument also makes it clear that air conditioning systems will be explicitly excluded from the scope of these regulations, as we believe that including them would not be proportionate or in the interests of consumers, and air conditioning systems normally stand aside from the heat network itself.

In addition to the above, these amendments include provisions to partially revoke parts of the Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014. This is designed to avoid duplication in legislation, as there are some existing requirements and obligations on heat supplies in the metering and billing regulations that will now be streamlined rather than entirely removed.

Finally, these amendments make changes to the scope of the Energy Ombudsman scheme. The addition of small businesses aims to align the scope for heat networks with the scheme’s application in gas and electricity markets.

I wish to make noble Lords aware, by the way, that there is a slight error in Regulation 10, which would have the effect of applying a different definition for a micro-business from that in gas and electricity markets. Officials will ensure that this error is rectified as soon as possible through the medium of a negative statutory instrument in the very near future.

We have committed to maintain minimum technical standards, which will be a key part of the market framework, and we aim to consult on proposals shortly. However, to be clear, these are not in scope of this statutory instrument and draft regulations will be brought forward to this House in due course.

I understand that four public consultations dating back to February 2020 have informed these regulations, which have helped the department to develop the final market regulation proposals. The detailed Ofgem authorisation conditions and associated guidance are still being consulted on and will be published before the authorisation regime commences on 27 January 2026.

In conclusion, this instrument and the one made in March will enable the Government to do what has never been done before, as we introduce regulation to the heat network sector. The only way to realise the Government’s growth ambition for heat networks is to ensure that customers can trust heat networks to provide safe, reliable and cost-effective heat. These regulations therefore represent a huge step forward, providing heat network consumers with much-needed protection similar to that in other utility markets that already exist. We must get on with the job and introduce the final elements of the market framework that will not only help to drive up consumer standards in this sector but help to promote market growth. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and comprehensive introduction to this SI and I welcome the fact that we are getting this long-overdue regulatory framework for heat networks. I agree with him that they are an important part of our energy future. Based on renewable and low-carbon emissions, they can give people reliable, secure energy supplies to meet their heating needs.

My questions are based on a report from Citizens Advice in July this year, titled System Critical: No Margin for Error in New Heat Network Rules. That “no margin for error” is why we are here interrogating this. As that reports outlines, and as the Minister said, since the rising price of gas after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we have seen serious problems in this sector.

My first question relates to what the Minister said about regulatory commencement on 27 January. The report says that Ofgem

“must outline the standards expected”

from providers, how it will act

“to improve systems and processes”,

and how it will deal with some of the terrible behaviour we have seen from some of the providers. Given that 27 January is not far away at all, my question to the Minister is: how prepared is Ofgem to act on this? We will of course already be in the middle of winter and people will already be accruing bills, which will be a real issue.

My other question relates to my personal experiences, particularly with Camden council estates. We know that many heat networks were installed in the 1960s and 1970s and have lots of problems, including that they are not controllable. People find themselves being heated even when they do not wish to be heated. There are real problems with controls, systems, leakage and all those kinds of issues. I am interested in the Minister’s view of how those issues will be addressed under this framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the purposes of these regulations. We welcome them, so I shall not overburden him with questions beyond those already asked by previous speakers. It is somewhat frustrating that I did not spot the error in the amendments to Regulation 56 in the current Regulation 10; I must do better. These measures represent another step towards the full regulatory framework for heat networks that consumers have waited too long to see. From January 2026, the full authorisation regime and the special administration powers are due to come into effect—a significant milestone that we welcome wholeheartedly.

As the Minister said, we must be clear about the situation facing many people with heat networks. Years of unregulated, decentralised heating have left households paying high and unpredictable costs, receiving confusing bills and unable to switch supplier or seek meaningful redress. Citizens Advice has warned that, for some, bills have doubled or even tripled, which is simply untenable.

Therefore, while we support these regulations, their success will depend entirely on effective implementation. A framework on paper is not enough; consumers need enforceable, practical protections. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, rightly identified, it is essential that Ofgem is fully prepared and properly resourced to take on its new responsibilities from 27 January. It must be able to intervene when prices are unfair, when service standards fall short and when vulnerable households are at risk of disconnection. Clear complaints processes must be in place, and operators must be held to account. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I would be grateful if the Minister can provide assurances today that Ofgem will be ready from day one, with no gaps or uncertainty for existing heat networks customers.

The introduction of a special administrative regime is similarly welcome. But, again, the test will be in its delivery. Consumers must have confidence that, should a provider fail, essential heating will continue uninterrupted, particularly for households in the winter months. The demand and use of heat networks will continue to play an increasingly important role in our energy system, and it is vital that this regulatory framework is implemented swiftly and effectively. Consumers must be able to rely on heat that is affordable, transparent and properly overseen. Without that assurance, the sector will not expand at the scale required.

These regulations take us closer to a regime that commands consumer confidence; the task now is to ensure that the protections set out in the Energy Act are delivered in practice for the half a million households that depend on these networks.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. A number of them go to the heart of why we are doing what we are doing today: the question of the state of many of the older heat networks that exist in this country. They are very far from the sorts of standards that we would expect to bring forward in new heat networks, and they have often operated with very sub-optimal arrangements for many years, to the considerable detriment of customers.

Therefore, the regulatory regime that we are introducing should give an enormous amount of succour to those who have suffered under those heat networks over a long period. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, there are heat networks from the 1960s and the 1970s which simply have not updated what they do, and they will be held accountable for what they do in these networks by the new regime under Ofgem. Ofgem can introduce fines for the systems if they are found wanting and, as a measure of last resort, can ensure that those networks are transferred to the running of another organisation entirely.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also mentioned the report encompassing a number of these issues from Citizens Advice, and that is why its work as a consumer champion is so important. I can assure the noble Baroness that Ofgem will be ready for regulatory commitments. It has raised no questions about its capacity to introduce these regulations and to make sure that they work to maximum capacity from day one. Ofgem will, however, take action such as collecting pricing data and various other things to refine how the regulations may work over the early period of their operation.

I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and all the noble Lords who raised concerns, that Ofgem will therefore be ready for regulatory commencement. Ofgem will be publishing what methodology will be used to determine reasonable pricing. This has recently been consulted on by Ofgem. However, the exact benchmark of what is considered fair pricing will not be published first, so that heat networks do not move their prices to the top of that benchmark.

Overall, therefore, I assure noble Lords that the scheme will work to the best of its design and ability from the word go and will properly encompass all the many and varied types of heat network we have in operation, with a view to bringing them all up to the same standard, rather than down to the same standard, for the future. Indeed, the instrument simply builds on previous regulations by introducing amendments that will expand the authorisation regime that Ofgem will implement. We have also heard mention of deemed contracts, which will be in place to ensure that the rights of households and their supply of heat are protected, even when there is no formal contract in place.

I am sure noble Lords will want to join me in thanking the District Energy Association heat authority, which tried to put a voluntary system into operation to secure compliance and uprating of systems. That has worked for 10 years. In itself, it has worked very well, but it encompasses only part of the heat network arena. This will cover everybody, so it will be a great step forward in that respect.

On the question of consultation, I understand that the four public consultations that have already taken place, dating back to February 2020, have informed the regulations, but the detailed Ofgem authorisation conditions and associated guidance are still being consulted on and will certainly be published before the authorisation regime commences on 27 January.

In conclusion, I consider that these regulations, which will include the most vulnerable, will now make sure that pretty much everybody enjoys statutory protections. Heat networks are indeed the future, and we must do everything we can to support their growth and instil confidence in that growth as it takes place. Sound and proportionate regulation is therefore central to delivering this and I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

One of the responses provided by the Minister provoked a question in my mind; at this point, I should perhaps declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The Minister said that there would be fines for systems—we were talking in particular about those long pre-existing, 1960s and 1970s-type systems—and that they could potentially be transferred to another authority. Of course, many of these systems will be owned and run by either councils or arm’s-length organisations that used to be owned by councils or housing associations. I will understand if the Minister wants to write to me, but are the Government considering the fact that many of these will not be commercial providers?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a good point in relation to what are, as I have said, a huge number of systems of very different quality and status. Making regulations in respect of those sorts of bodies is very difficult, because they are all mini electricity or gas networks in their own right; indeed, they are mini networks that could fall by the wayside if they are regulated in a way that is not sympathetic to their particular arrangements. Noble Lords can see, I think, that these arrangements do not exactly coincide with what is in the existing gas and electricity sectors, but do try to take account of those particular circumstances.

Within that, there is a serious bottom line: these bodies must provide good value for their customers, provide good levels of redress and ensure that they are operating to the best of their capacity. Those are the sorts of things that Ofgem will ensure are looked at and regulated properly, with an eye on the fact that heat networks are not in the same position as electricity and gas networks. That bottom line is there in these regulations and should not be set aside easily. Otherwise, Ofgem will certainly be doing the business of ensuring that those bodies work properly.

I think there is nothing further for me to say, other than that I commend these regulations to the Committee. I hope, by the way, that what I have said this afternoon satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as far as her question is concerned; if she has any further concerns, I will be happy to write to her.

Motion agreed.

Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026.

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

My Lords, these technical regulations were laid before the

As set out in the Energy Act 2023, carbon storage licensees are responsible for complying with various obligations, including the reporting of information and samples obtained through the conduct of licensee authorities to the NSTA. We believe that the wealth of data that carbon storage licensees gather during exploration or storage activities is a national resource and its publication will accelerate the deployment of CCS in the UK. That is why we introduced the Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage) (Retention of Information and Samples) Regulations 2025, which came into force in May 2025. These regulations specify the types of information and samples that carbon storage licensees must retain and the periods for which they must retain them.

The regulations we debate today set out when the NSTA can publicly disclose carbon storage information and samples provided to it by carbon storage licensees, and which types of information and samples may be disclosed. They also amend when the NSTA can publicly disclose information on the drilling or operation of wells under offshore petroleum licences. The timeframe for this was set out in the Oil and Gas Authority (Offshore Petroleum) (Disclosure of Protected Material after Specified Periods) Regulations 2018—try saying that in one breath—and this amendment to the 2018 regulations will bring the NSTA disclosure powers across CCUS and offshore petroleum into alignment.

Information and samples play a very significant role in the UK carbon dioxide storage industry, and access to high-quality data for the NSTA, industry, academia and the public will enable efficient use of the UK’s storage potential. The carbon storage information and samples published will support sharing of knowledge and lessons learned, including best practices and innovation, ultimately leading to cost reductions and advancement of the sector. This includes accelerating the North Sea energy transition. The NSTA helps drive this transition by realising the significant potential of the UK continental shelf as a critical energy and carbon-abatement resource. These regulations will further provide opportunities for the industries based offshore, with the very significant potential that exists for storing carbon dioxide in depleted oil and gas fields and other geological formations in the UK continental shelf.

The NSTA has consulted on both the carbon storage and offshore petroleum aspects of these regulations. The consultation on the amendment of well data confidentiality closed in September 2022 and a response was published in February 2023. The consultation on the proposed regulations for the disclosure of carbon storage information and samples closed in April 2024. That consultation will ensure that the regulations are effectively introduced. A response was published in October 2025. This means that the feedback received from those consultations was positive and has been carefully considered in shaping these regulations to ensure that they reflect industry needs and best practice.

CCS is not optional; it is essential for Britain’s energy security and industrial competitiveness, and for our clean-power future. These regulations may be technical, but their impact is profound. They unlock a wealth of data that will accelerate deployment, drive innovation and maximise the UK’s carbon storage potential. This is about making Britain a clean energy superpower, safeguarding jobs, securing investment and delivering net zero in a way that strengthens our economy. I urge the Committee to approve these regulations without delay.

The regulations reflect extensive consultation and positive engagement with industry and stakeholders. They are practical, robust and future-focused, designed to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of clean energy technology. This is about more than disclosure; it is about delivering on our net-zero commitments, safeguarding energy security and creating opportunities for growth and jobs in the industries of tomorrow. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the regulations and totally agree with my noble friend about the importance of CCUS to meeting our net-zero targets. Only a few weeks ago, the Whitehead review made the same point about GGRs: you cannot achieve net zero without this. I look forward to my noble friend responding to the Whitehead review and no doubt accepting all its recommendations.

These regulations seem to fall within what the review said about regulation. Certainly, I very much agree that this is an important element for market investment and certainty. Paragraph 5.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the UK continental shelf holds

“an estimated 78 billion tonnes of theoretical CO₂ storage capacity”.

Clearly, there is huge potential for the UK. The Explanatory Memorandum mentions that, potentially, there are many countries that we could reach agreement with for storage in the UK continental shelf. So, can my noble friend tell the Committee the extent to which we are now in discussion with some of our European neighbours about the huge potential of storage in the North Sea?

--- Later in debate ---

These regulations are a sensible step, but the broader issues cannot be ignored. If the UK is to deliver a secure, affordable and decarbonised energy system, the offshore sector needs stability, clarity and a long-term strategic direction. On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I too would be interested in hearing about the status of any conversations with nations bordering the continental shelf. In summary, we support the intent of this instrument, and we urge the Government to set it within a clearer, more stable plan for the future of the North Sea.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. I will briefly try to address some of the important points made. First, perhaps I ought to knock on the head the possible suggestion from my noble friend Lord Hunt that I will be marking my own homework when it comes to the review I undertook a little while ago of greenhouse gas removals. I can assure him that others in the department will be doing that, not me. Although I hope that they will take on board the things that are in the review, it is entirely up to them and not me to do so. But I reflect that that report, among other things, was very positive about the role that CCUS can play, particularly in developing our net-negative approach to net zero over the next period.

As the noble Lord mentioned, we ought to think for a moment about what an enormous asset we have in the North Sea as far as CCUS is concerned. An estimated 78 billion tonnes of theoretical CO₂ storage capacity is distributed across the UK continental shelf, and that is one of the largest, if not the largest, potential CO₂ storage capacity in Europe. Therefore, the UK has the opportunity to offer cross-border CO₂ transport and storage services to neighbouring countries. We very much welcome interest from EU and EEA countries, and we are committed to exploring opportunities to overcome the regulatory barriers to cross-border CO₂ transport and storage networks alongside neighbouring countries with common interests. Noble Lords will know what progress the Norwegians have been making in this area, so there is no time to lose with making this work as well as it can.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his questions. I appreciate the detail in his questions. In the interest of accuracy, I think it is best that I write to him, particularly in terms of the NSTA consultation. He will know that NSTA has already consulted very substantially on a number of these aspects, but it is true that some consultations are continuing. I cannot give the exact dates by which they will be concluded, but I am sure he will get a satisfactory answer when I send him a letter to that effect.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, asked about investor confidence in CCUS. This is something we are taking seriously. A lot of this should have been underpinned by what has been happening with the track one cluster investments in CCUS. Very large amounts of money have been committed over the next 25 years to making those investments work fully. Therefore, from the UK Government’s point of view and an investor point of view, both sides should be completely clear that the UK is deadly serious about this. We are prepared to make the long-term investments and have the long-term infrastructure underpinning it to make the whole enterprise as successful as it can be in terms of the emergency we have in front of us for carbon capture and storage.

CCUS will complement our transition to home-grown clean energy. It will safeguard our energy security, and it will decarbonise power and industry in a way that drives growth. It is recognised as a core sector within our industrial strategy, which backs clean energy industries as a priority growth sector and is central to delivering our growth mission. I have mentioned that key to that is ensuring investor certainty in the process as it develops.

I will conclude by reaffirming that these regulations are not just a technical adjustment—very technical though they appear. They are essentially a strategic enabler for the UK’s energy transition. By providing both the public information and some investor security and clarity as the regulations come forth, I think we have got the right balance in making this happen as far as these regulations are concerned.

The Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026 will unlock critical data, strengthen transparency and accelerate the development and deployment of carbon capture, usage and storage across the UK continental shelf. These regulations, as I have underlined, reflect extensive consultation and positive engagement with industry and stakeholders. They are practical, robust, future focused and designed to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of clean energy technologies.

Motion agreed.

Drax

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I have read the report to which the noble Baroness refers with interest, and there are questions both for Drax and for the authors of the report. Compliance with biomass sustainability requirements under Drax’s existing subsidy arrangement is a matter for Ofgem, but we work closely with it to ensure that these arrangements remain fit for purpose. Ofgem’s detailed investigation into Drax in 2024 did not find evidence that unsustainable biomass had been used by Drax, but shortcomings in data governance were identified and Ofgem has required Drax to commission a global supply chain audit, which is currently ongoing.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his reply, which goes a bit further than I expected. Drax specifically claims to stop sourcing from old-growth deferral areas and old-growth management areas in British Columbia, but the majority of old-growth forests fall outside those designations. Will the Minister and the Government suggest to Ofgem that it should not accept Drax’s definition of old growth and perhaps exclude the majority of British Columbia old-growth forests from subsidies?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

There are two points to make in response to the noble Baroness. The report to which she refers talks only circumstantially about old-growth forests and not old-growth forests that are in any way directly sourced by Drax. As regards the new contract for difference for the next four years that the Government have entered into with Drax, the criterion is now 100% sustainability, which obviously excludes old-growth forests.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, why is Drax sourcing sustainable wood from abroad when we now have a very intensive tree-planting growth policy in this country? Also, Yorkshire farmers would benefit if we were to go back to sourcing fast-growing willow coppice trees and miscanthus and sending them to Drax to use. Why did we stop doing that?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know that Drax is the largest single power producer in the UK and is responsible for about 5% of UK power. That means that it uses an enormous amount of biomass in its process, having converted from coal some while ago. The question, then, is where Drax gets its biomass from, bearing in mind that the amount of biomass that is being grown in this country falls far short of the desideratum in terms of sourcing—particularly in view of the length of time that it has taken to grow that biomass. Therefore, sourcing from abroad appears to make some sense, though not necessarily for the long-term future.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister’s own department is consulting on sustainability criteria for biomass as we speak, which will inform future subsidy eligibility and reporting requirements for the rest of the market. In addition, the Financial Conduct Authority is still investigating Drax’s biomass sourcing statements. What safeguards have been built into the new Drax contract that covers 2027-31? Will the results of these two inquiries produce changes to the terms of the recently signed Drax contract?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I cannot assure the noble Baroness that terms will be changed during the new contract. However, the LCCC will be responsible for making sure that the 100% sustainability criteria that have been entered into in the new contract will be strictly observed. That is a substantial step forward from the previous oversight arrangements.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister appears to be completely unaware that “Panorama” proved conclusively two or three years ago that Drax does indeed burn old-growth forests. However, the new agreement that the Government have negotiated with Drax for 2027-31 will require Drax not to burn wood from primary or old-growth forests and to enhance the system for an independent audit to monitor compliance with that obligation. What will the sanctions be if Drax is non-compliant?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

If Drax is non-compliant, the subsidy goes. There is no subsidy in the case of a non-compliant organisation of any kind. If that happens, it will be the end of Drax.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, Drax is under investigation by the FCA regarding its past sustainability claims, which is no small matter. Despite that, the Government decided to put pen to paper to extend Drax’s contract. Why did the Government not choose to wait until the FCA investigation had concluded? What legal advice was taken and what risk assessment was made before the Government chose to extend that contract?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

We did that because the conclusion of a contract for 2027-31 ensures that Drax continues to produce a very large amount of energy, which is very important for the country; that it does so under enhanced sustainability requirements; and that it moves from being a baseline producer to a dispatchable producer, with a top level of 27% of output within that contract. There is also the implied understanding that the contract will pave the way towards moving to CCS on the back of the contract, making Drax a net-negative producer in the long term.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, in 2021, Drax was axed from the S&P green bond index over doubts that its practices were carbon neutral. That decision seemed to be endorsed by that famous “Panorama” programme. I bow to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her detailed knowledge of forestry, but it appears that Drax has been importing wood pellets from old-growth forests, even before accounting for the emissions caused by transporting the biomass here from abroad. Given that this is patently not a green company, does the Minister agree that the subsidies for 27% of Drax’s generation capacity are unwarranted and should be withdrawn? Further, if Drax is found to be non-compliant and closes down, does he also agree that the land and extensive grid connections could be better used in the Government’s SMR programme?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

No, I do not agree that the various connections relating to Drax could be better used for an SMR programme, because of the particular location of Drax within the cluster in the north-east of the country, which is particularly important for carbon capture and storage, and, indeed, hydrogen. Drax plays a part in that process in that area. The noble Baroness perhaps ought to read the report that is before us very carefully, because it does not actually say that Drax has sourced old-forest timber. Timber is sourced from third parties, goes into the Drax pellet facility, and may or may not to Drax’s knowledge include old-forest material—which, by the way, is outlawed by the Government of British Columbia. There are a number of questions to answer, but not necessarily for Drax. There are a number of people who perhaps have questions to answer as well.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, on the subject of questions to be answered, does my noble friend not think it surprising that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, intervened, given that it was the party opposite—the Conservatives—that, in government, signed contracts with Drax? The scale of the subsidies as a result was very large indeed.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very sound point, in that the new contract that has been signed costs taxpayers half as much as the old contract did. It is on more sustainable terms and, as I have said, makes Drax move towards being a dispatchable plant, which is much more in line with the power grid generally, than any of the things that were done under the previous Administration.

Tropical Forest Forever Facility

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what contributions and initiatives they have undertaken in support of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility.

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

My Lords, the UK has had a long-standing role in protecting forests and supporting efforts to halt and reverse deforestation. While the Government did not announce an investment in the Tropical Forest Forever Facility at COP, we very much remain supportive of the TFFF and are proud to have substantially assisted Brazil to develop the initiative. We will continue to provide support to the TFFF, including through co-funding the World Bank trust fund that will operationalise the facility and through the AIM4Forests programme, which will provide critical technical assistance to support delivery of the TFFF.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his new role. It is deeply disappointing that the Government have let down historic allies such as Brazil, Norway and Germany by not investing in the Tropical Forest Forever Facility at COP 30. It is a desperately needed initiative to end tropical deforestation, and it has cross-party and public support. I have two questions for the Minister. First, why will the Treasury not count investment in the TFFF as an asset on its public balance sheet? Secondly, when will the Government implement the long-overdue Schedule 17 due diligence provisions under the Environment Act?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The decision on whether to invest in the TFFF, as it came up, following the intense work that the UK did in developing it with the Brazilian Government, was very much part of the question of our fiscal position around the time of the Budget. That does not mean that this is necessarily gone for ever; it will be under continuing review in the future. I will write to the noble Baroness on the implementation of the schedule that she alluded to, because I am not exactly sure of its status at present.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister may need to write to me too to answer my questions. In the autumn the Joint Intelligence Committee produced a report on the impact on the UK of global biodiversity loss, which the report is believed to say is very significant. Will the Minister please find out what has happened to that report? When will it be published? Will the Government continue to make clear that biodiversity loss, the loss of forests and global deforestation are damaging to us all?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I will indeed have to write to the noble Lord about where exactly that report is at the moment. I remind him that the UK is extremely active on its biodiversity arrangements, particularly its forestry and woodland arrangements. The target for the 16.5% coverage of woodland and forestry in England by 2050 is already being substantially adhered to: 21,000 hectares of new woodland were introduced last year, which is a generational record. The UK will continue to act in that manner on its biodiversity commitments.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to our Secretary of State for DESNZ and his team for their dedication to keep attention on the climate agenda. Does my noble friend agree that, besides finance, the United Kingdom’s organisational support and commitment to encourage deeper participation from other nations are critical to realising effective change?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Yes, I agree with my noble friend. The UK continues to be one of the major donors to forest conservation and restoration, and we expect to deliver on the £1.5 billion of spending on forests pledged at COP 26. The UK is co-chair of the Forest & Climate Leaders’ Partnership, a coalition of more than 30 Governments working together to accelerate delivery of the goal to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030. This played an instrumental role in delivering key commitments for indigenous peoples and local communities —who are, after all, the best stewards of tropical forest development and protection—including a commitment that will regularise land tenure in 160 million hectares of forest, one of the most effective ways to protect forests. We also backed the Belém call for the Congo Basin, which will deepen forest protection in the world’s second-largest rainforest.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the noble Baroness’s Question, is the Minister aware that Ed Miliband said that the TFFF is a key game-changer in reversing the destruction of rainforests and that that is why the Government worked closely with the World Bank and with the Brazilian Government to get this in place? The Minister mentioned that the last Budget was a problem in terms of UK decision-making, but France had similar issues, as did Germany, Malaysia, Singapore and Norway—I could go on—but all those countries came up with hard cash to support this very worthy scheme. Was Ed Miliband overruled?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

No. The particular circumstance surrounding the TFFF itself, as I am sure the noble Lord will be aware, was one of intense UK participation in the setting up of the TFFF. As the noble Lord mentions, we consider it to be an essential and significant initiative as far as the future of forests and biodiversity is concerned across the world. That is why we put so much effort into getting this off the ground and support the continued funding for the operationalisation of that fund. It is just that, at that particular moment, we were not able to produce some additional funding for the TFFF initiative. We very much welcome that other countries have initially put some in. As I have mentioned, it does not mean that the issue is gone and forgotten; it is under continuous review for the future.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, this might as well have been considered a Defra Question, so I offer my sympathies to the Minister. But here we are, and I am always grateful to be able to ask a DESNZ question, my first to the new Minister. In the COP 30 Statement repeat last week and his initial response today, the Minister did not rule out contributing to the TFFF fund in the future. He may not have had the opportunity to read the letter entitled “Nuclear necessities” in yesterday’s Times, signed by 14 senior academics and luminaries in that industry. Given our country’s current economic situation and the need for large capital investment to meet the Government’s own green targets, can the Minister now rule out funding the TFFF and instead guarantee that future funding will, as the letter requests, prioritise re-establishing our critical domestic infrastructure, perhaps including a medical isotopes reactor and a thermal hydraulics facility—preferably in north Wales?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I very much welcome the noble Baroness to her new position on the Front Bench opposite, and I hope we will have constructive discussions in the future. She underlines the question of the different priorities that are ahead of us at the moment in terms of where to put money at particular junctures. I must admit that I am not a habitual reader of the Times, so the noble Baroness is one step ahead of me there, but I will have a good look at that letter. What she says underlines that at the moment this country has a huge number of sometimes not always well-anticipated demands on our funding—nuclear is one of them, and obviously defence is another—and that clearly has an effect on where you put money at particular points, however much your heart tells you that you would like to do so.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned earlier the tree planting that has been going on in the United Kingdom. Is he aware that the biggest threat to those trees reaching maturity and helping with the net-zero calculation is the grey squirrel? Can he give signs of the Government’s determination to deal with the grey squirrel problem and the main research in fertility control going on at the government laboratories at the Animal and Plant Health Agency?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I am not sure I can give the noble Earl the assurance that the Government will go out and shoot large numbers of grey squirrels in the near future. I accept that squirrels, deer and other similar animals are probably the biggest threat to what we plant as a woodland plantation and whether it actually gets to maturity in 50 years so that it can make its impact on reafforestation and carbon emissions reduction. That is one reason why the UK is concentrating its woodland afforestation and forest development efforts on managed plantation woodlands, so that the best protection is available within those woodlands from the sort of predation that the noble Earl mentions as a barrier to the development of mature woodlands and forests.

Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 October be approved.

Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 4 December.

Motion agreed.

Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this is my first appearance before the Grand Committee—and a very welcome one for me. In my previous parliamentary career, I spent a lot of time trying to take statutory instruments apart as a member of the Opposition. I would pick little bits from those statutory instruments into pieces, to try to put the then Minister on his or her toes. I am sure that practice will not be followed in this House for statutory instruments, but I accept that, if it is, I will have only myself to blame for what transpires.

These regulations were laid before the House on 13 October 2025. They seek to establish the legislative basis for creating a statutory open data scheme—fuel finder—which will increase fuel price transparency across all UK petrol filling stations, empowering consumers to compare prices on a near real-time basis.

In recent years we have witnessed the rise in fuel prices and the profound impact that this has had on households, businesses and communities across the UK. Between 2021 and 2022, the price of petrol and diesel rose by over 60p per litre, driven by global supply and demand shocks stemming from the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In 2022, drivers paid an estimated £900 million more at the pumps across major supermarket retailers than the previous year. By 2023, higher fuel margins across the whole market had cost drivers a further £1.6 billion.

The CMA found that price rises for fuel and disparities between prices at a local level were largely driven by major retailers using this volatile backdrop, and the lack of transparency, to unfairly increase their profit margins at the expense of consumers across the UK. That therefore contributed to the cost of living crisis and the hardship that families up and down the country have felt in recent years. That is why we are delivering change to protect consumers, to put an end to unfair pricing practices and to increase transparency in the fuel retail market.

In line with the CMA’s recommendations as part of the road fuel market study, we are rolling out a statutory open data scheme for fuel prices—fuel finder—at the end of this year. These regulations will supersede the CMA’s current voluntary scheme and mark a decisive step in empowering motorists across the UK to compare prices easily and to make informed choices about where they purchase their fuel. Motorists across the UK will have greater visibility on the range of choice available to them, and retailers will be incentivised more than ever to offer more affordable prices in a more competitive market. Perhaps the fuel finder name ought to be “cheaper fuel finder” because that, I hope, will be the inevitable consequence of what these measures will put forward for the motorist.

I turn now to the detail of this instrument. These regulations will require all petrol filling stations in the UK to register and report changes to their fuel prices within 30 minutes of a change. The information will be freely available, and almost in real time. This marks a fundamental step towards restoring competition and fairness in a market that has proved that it will not self-correct without government intervention. By making this information openly available to any third parties that request it, we will enable the market to integrate this data into digital mapping services and vehicle satellite navigation services to help motorists locate the best prices in their area.

We recognise that this represents a change in operations for industry, and because of this we are taking a pragmatic approach. From 2 February, forecourts will need to be registered with fuel finder and begin reporting price changes. For the first three months, until early May, the CMA’s emphasis will be on supporting businesses to comply with the new regime, rather than enforcement. This will allow businesses a chance to adapt smoothly. We want retailers to succeed in meeting these obligations, and we will work with them to make sure that the transition is as straightforward as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument forward. This was indeed a Conservative initiative, started under the previous Government and designed both to increase competition and to benefit consumers; His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are of course pleased that the current Administration are continuing our work.

The need for this measure was made apparent by the excessive profits earned by major retailers due to a sudden rise in fuel prices in the wake of global supply shocks resulting from the Covid pandemic and Russia’s attack on Ukraine. By 2023, higher fuel margins across the whole market were costing drivers a total of £2.5 billion, £900 million of which went to major supermarket retailers as a result of a 60p per litre hike in fuel prices for consumers.

This instrument aims to create a fairer fuel market. Competition is its aim, and competition is best achieved through the transparency of data and information. Artificially increasing margins becomes materially more challenging when the consumer is no longer on the wrong side of asymmetric information and fully knows that he or she can drive just a few minutes down the road to save money. Being aware of pricing is one part of this, but knowing whether margins are fair and whether their past increases were proportionate is another equally important factor.

Although this instrument requires petrol filling stations to report price changes, it does not extend to reporting on the availability of fuel types. We would be most grateful if the Government could address this issue at pace. It cannot be logical that a driver will be able to see a competitive price but then be disappointed by an empty pump when they arrive at their destination. Is the Minister giving consideration to this? Do the Government accept that an individual using a fuel finder app will indeed be disappointed to arrive at the pump only to find that what they want is not available and will, as a consequence, potentially lose faith in the system?

If it occurs within the Government’s timeframe, the launch of the fuel finder will come two years after the CMA’s recommendation and a year later than originally planned. The Chancellor included the fuel finder in her Budget speech, but she failed to mention that it is a continuation of a Conservative policy and avoided saying that the measure was delayed by her own Government. Instead of the Government delaying for a year then, potentially, blaming complexity for not being able to introduce more thorough transparency measures while protecting low-volume providers, can we please have actions, not words? A potential solution would be to create categories of petrol filling stations and to require major retailers to report in more detail. We must ask: why is this out of the Government’s scope?

We are also concerned about the instrument’s timescale. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Consumers confirmed that guidance and training would be published before the rollout of the whole programme, but this will come as little reassurance to petrol filling stations. Both stations and providers need time to adapt, prepare and comply with these new regulations. It will do little to help them if the guidance is released as the regulations come into force. That will potentially happen if the Government leave this too late. Additional last-minute costs will be passed on to the consumer, which is precisely what this instrument aims to prevent.

The Under-Secretary of State said that the scheme is to be launched at the year end, but the full provisions of this instrument will come into force only on 2 February next year. Can the Minister please confirm that the guidance will come out before the end of the year, given that the Member in the other place was slightly less clear as to which date the guidance will be published by?

Despite these reservations, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition welcome the introduction of this measure that we initiated. It will provide a more competitive market and drive the rate of price increases down. Our aim should be to create a more certain and more competitive market for the consumer, bringing costs down for hard-working people. We very much hope the Government will take our suggestions on board and action them accordingly.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and in particular the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his very constructive contribution. As he rightly points out, this proposal originated with the previous Government but, I think, fell at the time of the general election—it had started to go through the House. The present Government have been able to take that original proposal and have some extensive consultations and discussions with industry and various other key actors in this field to make sure that the fuel finder was as streamlined and as effective as it could be. That is the form in which it comes before us today.

In terms of the regulations coming in in February, the aim is to make sure that this proposal comes in by the end of the year but, as the noble Earl will appreciate, there is a large number of technical issues to resolve in order to meet that date. What I can best say today is that there is an aim to do that by the end of the year and we hope that will be possible. I hope the noble Earl will understand that there is a lot of work to get this in place and we hope that will be finished in time for that target date to be achieved.

When the fuel finder was originally introduced, there was some suggestion that availability at the pumps should be included among the things that petrol stations had to provide. However, following substantial consultation and considerations of the practical challenge of reporting fuel unavailability—officials did conduct a thorough analysis—it was decided to postpone that and remove the requirement from the fuel finder scheme. But, as I have emphasised, that is a question of postponing and removing for the time being.

If a number of those really practical difficulties can be resolved, that might be something for the future as far as the scheme is concerned, but what the Government wanted to do was make sure that we could introduce a practically implementable and early actionable scheme so that we could get this running on an open access data arrangement as soon as was conceivably possible. I do, however, understand the noble Earl’s concerns. I happen to have an electric car, so perhaps I am a little outside the considerations in this instrument, but I know the problems of an electric car owner thinking that they have found an electric charge point only to find that someone else has been using it for the past three hours and they cannot get near it. There are measures in the industry to resolve that sort of problem, so this is something worth looking at for the future.

I emphasise that the first three months of those technicalities will be until early May. The CMA’s emphasis, as the enforcer, will be on supporting businesses to comply with the new regime rather than enforcement, as I have said, so there will be a period coming in to make sure that the scheme works well and that everybody is undertaking it properly. This scheme is well founded—I welcome the support that has been given to it by the noble Earl and the party opposite—and I am sure that, with a good wind from everybody in this place, it can be in place as soon as possible, to the benefit of motorists across the country.

Motion agreed.

COP 30

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I start by welcoming the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead. I pay tribute to his experience and look forward to working opposite him going forward.

COP is 30 years old and multilateralism, as frustrating as it can be, remains the only practical means of protecting our shared home, planet Earth, and progressing our joint efforts to ensure the survival of future human generations. Here in the UK, the Met Office’s State of the UK Climate in 2024 report confirmed that the UK is warming at approximately 0.25 degrees per decade, with the past three years ranking among the five warmest since records began in 1884. While some continue to deny the existence of climate change, last year in the UK we had the worst-ever wildfire season and the second-worst harvest on record.

Our world is warming faster than we can change our carbon-based ways, and even more extreme weather is inevitable. I thank Brazil, the Secretary of State, the UK negotiating team and all those who worked tirelessly to keep the COP process alive. It is testimony to global co-operation that, despite the challenges, 194 parties united to adopt the text, confirming that the global transition towards low emissions and climate-resilient development is irreversible.

It is important to acknowledge that collective progress since the Paris Agreement has bent the emissions curve, moving projected warming from over 4 degrees Celsius to the 2.3 to 2.5 degrees Celsius range. However, we cannot celebrate incremental progress when the future of our planet remains in jeopardy.

The final text acknowledged that the collective progress is

“not sufficient to achieve the temperature goal”

and that the carbon budget consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is now small and being rapidly depleted. The COP text acknowledges that there is likely to be an “overshoot” of the 1.5 degrees Celsius, the extent and duration of which we must work collectively to limit. This is a stark warning and my concern is that Governments have failed to grasp the urgency of the climate emergency.

Any delay in action will push millions of vulnerable people further into poverty and lead to climate breakdown. Urgency must be met with decisive global leadership, yet the UK Government’s commitment to this leadership has been undermined by a lack of financial support. While the negotiations resulted in ambitious financial targets, such as the call to scale up financing to at least $1.3 trillion per year by 2025 and the reward target to scale up and at least triple adaptation finance by 2035, the UK’s financial contributions failed to materialise.

The UK was acknowledged for working with Brazil to help it develop the pioneering Tropical Forest Forever Facility. This vital fund aims to prevent deforestation, yet while that fund secured $9.5 billion in commitments and was endorsed by 53 countries, the UK Government did not contribute. I note that the Secretary of State said in the other place:

“We have not ruled out contributing to investing in the TFFF in future”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/25; col. 247.]


We hope this is the case. Will the Minister say what non-financial contributions the Government are able to make?

We remain concerned about the UK’s official development assistance and the cuts to those programmes. They are vital programmes helping those on the front line of climate change to adapt. Global leadership could see the UK as part of the chair of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, working alongside Brazil, and using remote monitoring to help detect methane leaks and using our world-leading oil and gas expertise to help fix them.

The Government rightly acknowledge that the transition away from fossil fuels is critical, and that it was

“the hardest sticking point in the talks”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/25; col. 241.]

Despite a broad coalition of 83 countries backing a road map away from fossil fuels, the final text tragically contained no explicit reference to the phase-out. At home, we welcome the commitment to no new oil exploration in the North Sea. More must be done to bring about energy market reforms, reduce energy bills and insulate our homes urgently. Many parliamentarians, including me, attended the National Emergency Briefing on the climate and nature crisis last week, which called for an emergency-style Marshall plan. I call on the Government to engage with and take heed of these calls for urgent, sustained action.

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

My Lords, the climate crisis is the greatest long-term challenge we face, but, equally, the transition to clean energy is the greatest economic opportunity of our time. Emissions from energy being some 70% of emissions overall means that the path to clean energy is an essential part of tackling the climate crisis, not just in the UK but across the world. At home, our commitment to clean energy is about energy security, lower bills and good jobs. Globally, with the UK responsible for just 1% of emissions, working with other nations is the only way to protect our way of life and seize the opportunities of a green economy.

We are reflecting today on the outcomes of the COP 30 conference in Belém. More than 190 countries met in Belém, where the Brazilian-framed COP 30 focused on implementation. The UK worked with Brazil and partners to put forests at the heart of the agenda and supported global coalitions to cut methane, phase out coal and accelerate clean energy investment. The negotiations were tough, but progress was made on three critical fronts, and they will be reflected in some of the further questions that I think will follow from the Statement this evening.

The first goal is keeping 1.5 degrees Celsius within reach. Countries reaffirmed their commitment to 1.5 degrees Celsius global net zero by mid-century and encouraged countries to raise their targets where needed to support this. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, underlined, we are quite a way from that, and some of the more faint-hearted among us may think that it is a target we cannot reach now. I accept that it is very difficult, but the signs are good that there are some possibilities to moving further towards making that target achievable, such as new commitments from China, for example, in its NDC coming into the COP at this stage. China has pledged to cut its emissions significantly for the first time. Indeed, 120 countries so far have come forward with 2035 NDC, with large numbers coming up in the next year, including India, which is an important actor in this realm.

Secondly, there is finance for developing nations, building on the COP 29 pledge to mobilise $300 billion annually and scale towards $1.3 trillion from all sources. COP 30 agreed to pursue efforts to treble adaptation finance by 2035 within the climate finance goal agreed last year, ensuring that vulnerable nations have the resilience they need. The UK was active in that area.

Thirdly, and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Offord, is going to like this very much, there is the transition away from fossil fuels. While a universal road map could not be agreed, 83 countries and 140 organisations endorsed the concept that Brazil will launch road maps on fossil fuels and deforestation, showing that coalitions of the willing can drive progress even where unanimity is elusive. The UK very much welcomed that coalition of the willing and will work closely with the Brazilians to move that commitment forward, even though it was not the final communiqué as far as the COP itself was concerned.

The mutirão agreement advanced carbon markets, gender, technology, technology transfer and transparency. Importantly, more than 190 countries reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris Agreement and multilateral action. That is essential right now as far as the crisis we are in is concerned.

I shall now briefly answer some of the points raised by noble Lords this evening. Perhaps before I do that, I could just express, as a newcomer to this place, my extreme disappointment—almost distress—about the abrupt turn that the party opposite has taken on its commitments on climate change and all that is associated with it. I certainly recollect in my time in the other place working closely with many thoroughly dedicated Members on the Conservative side in bringing forward what Britain was going to do about climate change and how we would go forward together to achieve those goals. Indeed, I was a member of the committee that brought in the net-zero target as far as UK emissions are concerned. Noble Lords will recall that that was when the noble Baroness, Lady May, was Prime Minister. Indeed, she is one of the noble Lords who have, in effect, denounced this pivot away from action and support for net zero as a target for the UK and serious action on climate change. I am afraid that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, thoroughly reflected that pivot and simply did not address the issues at COP and what we need to do together as far as those issues are concerned.

The Government’s commitment on North Sea gas and net zero is clear. Our commitment to clean energy is about delivering energy security, lower bills and good jobs—400,000 new clean energy jobs by 2030. So this is not a threat but an opportunity as far as a low-carbon future is concerned. Indeed, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine illustrates the cost of relying on fossil fuels. Globally, twice as much is now invested in clean energy as in fossil fuels. Globally, renewables have this year overtaken coal as the largest source of electricity. The economics have shifted and the direction of travel is clear, and it is distressing to hear the party opposite going in precisely the opposite direction. I hope that wisdom will prevail in the longer term and that we will be back together with a consensus on where we go on climate change in the future.

I also remind the noble Lord, Lord Offord, that on nuclear the Government have committed £63 billion in capital funding for clean energy, climate and nature, including nuclear, putting the UK on a path to clean power by 2030, bringing bills down in the long term, creating thousands of good jobs for our country and tackling the climate change crisis.

In relation to the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on 1.5 degrees, as I have mentioned, we need great ambition—of course we do—but we should also recognise the progress that has been made since the Paris Agreement. The final text agreed on action to take in the form of the Belém Mission to 1.5 and the Global Implementation Accelerator, as well as countries’ commitments to net zero that can be built on. In respect of Brazil’s new fund for forests, the UK has played a big role in helping to support Brazil to design the TFFF. We have a difficult fiscal situation in this country. We have absolutely not ruled out—I stress that—contributing to it in the future. We are determined that the fund succeeds and will continue to work with Brazil to help ensure that it does.

The message from Belém is clear: clean energy and climate action are the foundations on which the global economy is being rebuilt. They are good for Britain because they deliver jobs, investment and energy security. They lower bills for families and businesses, and they are the only way to protect future generations from the threat of climate breakdown.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the new Minister to your Lordships’ House and to his role, and welcome particularly his response to the noble Lord, Lord Offord.

Central Hall Westminster on the morning of 27 November was very crowded. I did not see the Minister there and I appreciate that he had many other things to be doing at the time, but that of course was when the National Emergency Briefing to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred was being held, when 10 of the UK’s leading scientific experts spoke to the packed hall, addressing our interrelated climate and nature emergency. Given the, I am afraid, limited outcome of COP, particularly in the failure unanimously to agree the road map on transitioning away from fossil fuels, those experts asked for a televised emergency briefing to the nation to explain to the country the urgency of the crisis that we face. Are the Government prepared to support that call and act on it? What else are the Government planning to do to highlight the reality of the emergency situation we are now in, as demonstrated by the dreadful floods in Asia—Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Thailand—where the death toll is already more than 1,400?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right that we are seeing in front of us right now all the things that the scientists said were going to happen. They have been proved absolutely right. So the first thing we need to do is stick to the science, make sure that whatever we do is in line with the science and explain that science to the country in a very clear way: if we do not do these various things, we can already see the results of inaction in front of us. While I cannot commit this evening to a national televised discussion on how we go forward, what I can commit to is the continuation of the attempt by this Government to explain very clearly what they are doing, for example, on clean energy and why that is absolutely essential to keeping our hopes of 1.5 degrees open and making sure that as a result of that—for the episodes that we are now seeing, a lot of this is baked in, obviously, to the climate warming we have already—there is the possibility of a better, safer, cleaner and more prosperous world in the future.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. I pay tribute to Secretary of State Miliband for his sheer commitment working towards COP 30—building, let us not forget, on the work that the previous Government achieved, led particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Sharma and Lord Goldsmith. Those were Conservative commitments.

However, I note that in the language around coal and fossil fuels at successive COPs, there has been a great weakening, from the “phasing out” of Glasgow through “phasing down” to “transitioning away” and now to a weak plan and pathway. It was St Basil the Great who spoke about us always having two different paths,

“one broad and easy, the other hard and narrow”,

and that within our minds we are always working out which path to take. Basil said:

“The soul is confused and dithers in its calculations. It prefers pleasure when it is looking at the present; it chooses virtue when its eye is on eternity”.


If we are serious about keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees—an immense task in itself—does the Minister agree that we need to use bold language in the UK to show global leadership and to press those who have walked away from the Paris Agreement to follow the path of virtue?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question, which I very substantially agree with and find very little to disagree with. It is essential that we use bold language in moving forward as far as this crisis is concerned, and it is essential that globally we stick to what we have said at successive COPs—and I accept that some of the wording has been weakened over successive COPs—on moving away from fossil fuels and bringing in clean low-carbon power. It is fair to say that the UK has used bold language on this and continues to pursue policies which indicate the practical aspects of that bold language as far as the UK’s commitment is concerned. We were disappointed and would like to have gone further as far as the language and commitments of COP 30 were concerned, but I remind noble Lords that there was this commitment by 80 nations to pursue moving away from fossil fuels, and a great deal of activity from the Brazilians following on from COP 30. All is not lost in this activity, and I look forward to that being considerably strengthened and taken forward as we move from this COP to the next COP.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the way to increase energy bills is to go on with fossil fuels, which are the most expensive, and that the idea that we get cheaper energy by extracting more fossil fuels from the North Sea when we would be paying the international price for them is not sensible? Does he also agree that if Britain does not keep to this excellent policy, produced by Conservative Governments again and again, and supported by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, we cannot ask anybody else to do it? Would it not be the very worst thing for the British people to make global warming worse so that we have a climate in which we cannot live properly? Is it not the shortest of views not to recognise that we have to move as rapidly as possible to protect our children and grandchildren? Is it not about time we grew up and learnt the realities of life?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

As on so many other occasions, I cannot find myself disagreeing with a single word the noble Lord, Lord Deben, says on this subject. I have been, frankly, in awe of his commitment and clarity on this issue over many years as chair of the Climate Change Committee. Indeed, we have spoken on a number of joint platforms with precisely this view in mind. The only thing I would add is to remind noble Lords that the recent fuel price crisis was a fossil fuel crisis of the volatility of global gas prices and it exposed the extent we are in hock to fossil fuels in a way that we would not be if we had a much lower portion of fossil fuels in our economy—preferably none at all. We would have a much more stable energy economy and a great deal of new investment and jobs to go with it.

[Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am often dismayed at opposition to taking action on climate change, not simply out of a point of principle but because I am one of a number of mayors—well, I am a former mayor—around the world who have been urging national Governments and multinational organisations to create the conditions in which we can take action on climate change. I have just come back from the C40 World Mayors Summit in Rio—250 to 300 mayors getting together before COP because they were concerned that COP would not deliver the impetus for the scale and pace of change that we need. Those mayors are saying that they want to take action on climate change, not simply out of abstract principle but because, first, they see the huge economic opportunity in it and, secondly, they see the opportunity to avoid huge future costs—the impact of climate change on our physical infrastructure and cities being on the receiving end of the consequences of climate change; for example, migration. They are doing it not because they think it is just a nice thing to do; in the UK, from Bristol to Glasgow to Brighton, cities across this country are taking action.

In terms of bringing a question and a challenge, something missing from the Statement was cities. We have been making the case that, on the sheer math, 55% of the world’s population now lives in cities—it will be two-thirds by 2050—and we need to move to delivery, not just statements and, dare I say, not just language. What can we do to elevate the voice of cities and make them a formal part of climate negotiation processes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

My noble friend Lord Rees has a tremendous record of taking action on global warming and low-carbon economies in his own city of Bristol. The question of how cities bring to bear the enormous potential of their action alongside Governments nationally and internationally has long been recognised in terms of the Curitiba commitment and other things, where cities across the world have banded together to take local and sub-national action alongside national and international action. My recipe for this continuing is to encourage UK cities to take part in those international joint city arrangements and become partners in global green gas carbon emissions reductions, which can take place at all levels. COPs have increasingly recognised that and have enabled cities to play a much greater role in discussions as those COPs progress.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

If the noble Lord, Lord Rees, my noble friend Lord Deben and the Secretary of State are right that the cost of renewables is on a declining curve and already cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives, that will be a wonderful thing, but can the Minister explain why, if they are cheaper, we need to guarantee for 20 years a price in real terms for renewables backed up by subsidies in the shape of state-financed back-up power for when renewables are not producing and therefore cannot compete with fossil fuels?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

It is because the model of how renewables develop is precisely the opposite of how fossil fuels develop. They are very capital-intensive and, after that, the power that comes from them is, in essence, free. Therefore, we need to establish, through capital support in particular, those renewable arrangements which can give us in perpetuity that cheap power for the future. These things in essence are not subsidies; they are investments in how that power reaches us for the future. I am sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and I have had debates in the other place, that this discussion will continue, but I very much stand by my view—and accept he stands by his view—that non-fossil fuel power is inevitably going to be cheaper, more secure and more reliable than the fossil fuel economy we have at the moment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, since there is time, I very much appreciated the tone and the energy of the Minister’s response to my initial question, but that, and all our discussion, very much focused on the energy side of tackling the climate emergency. I hope the Minister will agree that, as was stressed at the National Emergency Briefing, the climate emergency and nature crisis are intimately interlinked. At that briefing, Professor Nathalie Seddon, professor of biodiversity at the University of Oxford and founder of the Nature-based Solutions Initiative there, spoke about the incredibly parlous state of nature in the UK and the impact that is having on human health as well as on the climate. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government really are focused on and understand that interlinkage between nature and climate?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Indeed. At COP 30, the essential integration of nature and climate change was emphasised both in the communique at the end and during discussions. I can assure the noble Baroness that the UK Government are absolutely alive to this. In terms of investment in nature funds, we have shown practically that we are willing to, as it were, put our money where our mouth is and make sure that we are full players in the international integration of nature and climate change action.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I still did not understand the answer from the Minister. If renewables are cheaper, why do they need a subsidy and a guaranteed price, just because they need a lot of capital up front? The same is true of most industries and it is simply not a convincing reply.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

As the noble Lord will know, these underwritings are not permanent.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

They are for 20 years.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

They are usually for 15 years, which means that a renewable development that is subject to that underwriting has, at the end of 15 years, a fully amortised and free energy solution for the future. Therefore, it is tremendously good long-term value, as far as that energy supply is concerned, to have that initial undertaking, which reduces and goes down to zero after that 15-year period.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Would the Minister remind my noble friend that this was precisely the reason why the Conservatives invented this system at the time? It was done because we have a present system of very large companies, with a great deal of money, pushing fossil fuels all the time. If you are going to replace that, you have to provide an alternative. That is what was done, it is what the Conservative Governments continued to do, and what the present Government absolutely properly have continued.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Indeed, and the noble Lord will recall that the previous system of renewable obligations was a continued underwriting, whereas the CfDs we now have are an investment reducing over time, leading to the implementation of secure long-term supplies of renewable energy. I am happy to pay tribute to the then Conservative Government for effectively inventing CfDs, which were a tremendous step forward from the previous arrangements. Among other things, they have certainly secured the enormous increase in wind and other forms of renewables that have come forward as a result. If only the Conservative Government had not banned onshore wind last time, we would be even further forward.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Lord Whitehead Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitehead]

That the Bill be read a second time.

Scottish and Northern Ireland legislative consent sought.

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

My Lords, it is a great honour to address your Lordships’ House for the first time, and particularly on a subject that has been close to my heart for as long as I can remember; namely, the health and welfare of our planet and how we can protect and repair our oceans—which will be greatly enhanced by the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill that I am introducing today.

I would like to commence my remarks, however, by thanking all those who have welcomed me to your Lordships’ House so warmly and have assisted with my introduction to it. My thanks go to the Garter King of Arms, to the clerks of the House, to Black Rod and, of course, to the esteemed doorkeepers of our House. Indeed, my thanks go also to the marvellous supporters at my introduction—my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Blake of Leeds—both former council leaders in their cities, as I was for a number of years in Southampton, the city I have lived in all my adult life, and which I had the honour to represent as one of its Members of Parliament for some 27 years. I have spent much of that time in Parliament promoting, advocating for and supporting action to fight climate change, particularly through the establishment of low-carbon energy, and I hope to be able to continue that advocacy in my time in this place.

I have taken the title of Baron Whitehead, of Saint Mary’s in the City of Southampton, as my thanks to the place that has nurtured me and given me all my life chances, and to which I am hopelessly devoted. St Mary’s is the parish in the centre of Southampton and, remarkably, contains two institutions of national and international repute: the St Mary’s Stadium of Southampton Football Club and the National Oceanography Centre. The former is probably of national repute mainly in the minds of its supporters—one of which, alas, I am—but the latter really is a centre of international repute. It has already played a huge role in monitoring and promoting the health and welfare of our oceans and will continue to play a key role in the UK’s approach to the matter following, I hope, the adoption of the Bill.

This is a Bill of ambition and global significance. It will, alongside associated secondary legislation, enable the United Kingdom to implement its obligations in the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction—the BBNJ agreement—and allow us to take the essential steps required for the UK’s ratification. This is a landmark agreement. It represents the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiation and determined scientific advocacy. It concerns nothing less than the future of the two-thirds of the world’s oceans that lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation.

These vast areas of ocean—remote, largely unexplored but fundamental to life on earth—regulate our climate, sustain fisheries, support communities and host ecosystems of staggering complexity and beauty, yet they are increasingly vulnerable to overexploitation, pollution and the cumulative pressures of climate change. The BBNJ agreement is the world’s collective answer to this challenge. The Bill gives the United Kingdom the means to play its full part in that shared endeavour.

The United Kingdom was among the first countries to sign the BBNJ agreement when it opened for signature at the UN in 2023. We did so because we recognised that the two-thirds of the oceans beyond national jurisdiction must be governed responsibly, transparently and with a shared sense of stewardship. The Bill provides the domestic legislative framework to implement the three core pillars of the BBNJ agreement, relating to marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, and environmental impact assessments. It provides for regulation-making powers, allowing us to implement future decisions taken by the BBNJ Conference of the Parties, ensuring that the United Kingdom can remain at the forefront of global ocean governance in the years ahead.

The Bill is divided into five parts, with Parts 2 to 4 aligning directly with the three substantive sections of the BBNJ agreement. Part 2 introduces obligations around the collection, storage, use and reporting of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction and of digital sequence information on those resources. UK researchers operating from UK craft—for example, our royal research ships—will be required to notify a national focal point within the FCDO before and after collecting marine genetic resources, including digital sequence information on those resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Repositories and institutions holding marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdictions will be required to provide access to samples under reasonable conditions. This will apply to bodies such as the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre and UK universities. Similarly, UK databases containing digital sequence information on such resources will need to ensure public access.

Those who make use of such material, whether for academic research or commercial innovation, will be required to notify the national focal point once the results of such research are available, including when those results take the form of published papers or granted patents. The FCDO will send these notifications to the BBNJ clearing house mechanism, an open-access platform enabling parties to the agreement to understand what is being collected and where, and how it is being utilised. This transparency is the foundation of the BBNJ agreement’s benefit-sharing regime. It ensures that researchers in developing states have access to the same scientific information as their counterparts in developed economies.

Marine genetic resources may be the source of tomorrow’s medicines, new sustainable materials, novel enzymes and breakthroughs that we cannot yet imagine. The UK is proud to be home to world-leading institutions such as the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre—there it is again—and our many outstanding universities. The Bill ensures that they can continue to operate at the cutting edge of marine science while contributing to a fair and inclusive global framework.

Part 3 gives the UK the necessary powers to implement internationally agreed measures relating to marine protected areas and other area-based management tools established under the BBNJ agreement. These measures will be agreed at future meetings of the BBNJ Conference of the Parties and may include restrictions or management measures that apply to activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This part enables the UK to implement emergency measures—for example, in response to a sudden environmental disaster requiring urgent international action. In essence, Part 3 ensures that when the international community collectively agrees to take measures to protect a vulnerable ecosystem in areas beyond national jurisdiction, the United Kingdom has the means to act accordingly.

Part 4 updates the UK’s domestic marine licensing regime to incorporate the environmental impact assessment requirements of the agreement as they apply to licensable marine activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The Bill grants powers to update domestic legislation as new standards and guidelines are developed by the Conference of the Parties. The ocean economy is evolving rapidly—new technologies, new industries and new pressures. This part ensures that the UK’s regulatory framework remains modern, agile and aligned with international best practice. Put simply, these measures future-proof our environmental assessment process for activities on the high seas.

In addition to this primary legislation, a small number of statutory instruments will be required before the United Kingdom can complete its ratification. These relate in particular to environmental impact assessments and the definition of digital sequence information, and will be laid after Royal Assent. Once that secondary legislation is in place, the UK will be in a position to deposit its instrument of ratification with the United Nations.

As noble Lords may know, the BBNJ agreement will enter into force on 17 January 2026, having now reached the crucial threshold of 60 ratifications. The inaugural Conference of the Parties is expected later that year. Importantly, the UK can attend that conference as a state party only if we have ratified at least 30 days beforehand. That is why timely passage of this Bill is of genuine importance.

The Bill may appear narrowly scoped and targeted, but its implications are profound. It supports the United Kingdom’s commitment to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. It reinforces our belief in multilateralism and the rules-based international system at a time when both face increasing strain. It allows us to address global challenges—climate change, biodiversity loss and food security—not in isolation but in partnership with allies and developing states alike.

The UK’s leadership in the early BBNJ negotiations was informed by the extraordinary expertise of our marine scientists, legal scholars and environmental advocates. Many of them have waited a long time for this moment. Their passion and persistence have been instrumental in bringing this agreement to fruition.

Allow me to recognise the considerable contributions made by noble Lords from across the Chamber, by civil society organisations and by our research community, all of whom have shaped the UK’s approach to the BBNJ agreement. In the spirit of cross-party relations, I pay tribute to the Ministers in the previous Government, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who were part of the team that signed the treaty on behalf of the UK Government in 2023. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for International Development for the opportunity to open this debate.

The health of our ocean is inseparable from the health of our planet. Although we may not often see these ecosystems with our own eyes, the responsibility to protect them falls on all of us. The BBNJ Bill is our opportunity to rise to that responsibility to safeguard fragile ecosystems, to support sustainable development and to ensure that the benefits of ocean science are shared fairly and responsibly. The United Kingdom has always played a leading role in advancing global ocean governance. With this Bill, we have the chance to continue that leadership. The ocean cannot wait, and nor should we. I beg to move.