Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Grand Committee

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

“is very difficult to decarbonise”

but that it is

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

The sector fears that,

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

leading to higher costs.

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Warm Homes Plan

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding on the Statement made in another place.

I very much appreciate that this plan has taken longer to finalise than expected, with a year’s delay, but I have to say that we will join those who support a measured and incremental move towards low-carbon home heating systems. If that is the objective, there are many measures in the plan today that are worthy of support, not least, for example, the greater role for home batteries.

Where our concerns lie is with the test against which any transition must be judged; namely, its impact on the capital and operating costs for families—in other words, on household bills. Having read the Statement and the impact assessment, our view is that what should be a welcome and important initiative to save consumers money looks more likely to have the opposite effect, with rising energy bills and taxpayer-funded initiatives, not least through the recently locked-in energy costs well above market rates.

In the impact assessment, there was no reference to the impact on tenants as a result of the requirements placed on landlords. I very much hope the Minister will address whether these costs can or in his view will be passed on to tenants.

Regarding heating systems, 50% of the British public are unlikely to install low-carbon systems, such as heat pumps, due to high installation costs. Even if the warm homes plan takes the proclaimed £200 off bills for the 5 million projected homes over the next four years, which is unlikely given current energy and projected costs, that will still leave 25 million homes without respite, worrying about the installation costs of the new heating systems. How does the Minister intend to reach the other 80% of the country struggling with higher bills?

Does the Minister agree that the central and more enduring problem is the ongoing operational costs of low-carbon heating? Two-thirds of people with heat pumps now find it more expensive to heat their homes than they did with their previous system. Frankly, that is no surprise. The price of electricity per unit currently sits at a multiple of that of gas, yet the Secretary of State’s plan offers no redress for the long-term costs of this policy. Perhaps the Minister can now lay out whether the department has plans to address the high operating costs of heat pumps.

The Secretary of State has also announced the founding of a new quango, the warm homes agency. The Government claim to be offsetting this with the abolition of Salix, but I am sure your Lordships are aware that this is not a like-for-like trade-off. Can the Minister now confirm what his colleague in the other place could not and give an estimate of the cost of both the new arm’s-length body and the net cost of this quango reorganisation?

Another key element of the plan is the move to introduce widespread solar panels in the UK, set out in the Warm Homes Plan as

“Unleashing the rooftop solar revolution”

on page 33. This is timely, given the Prime Minister’s visit to China. The reason this is so important is that well over 80% of PV modules used in the UK have significant Chinese content. The true figure is very likely to be above 90% when we include panels made by Chinese-headquartered manufacturers. As so many non-Chinese brands still rely on Chinese wafers, a panel can be assembled in, say, Vietnam, Malaysia or the EU and still be heavily Chinese in content. That is why estimates based only on the brand’s country of assembly understate the real proportion. Including these brands, most energy analysts treat around 90% of UK PV panels as having Chinese content in their supply chain.

China’s share of the global supply of polysilicon is some 80% to 85%, and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region’s share of China’s solar polysilicon has been variously estimated at between 35% and 45% at its peak, all of which implies that 25% to 35% of global solar polysilicon has plausibly been sourced from Xinjiang-based plants. Can the Minister inform the House how Great British Energy can meet its legal obligation to track exactly which polysilicon plant was used for any UK import, whether that plant is in Xinjiang or elsewhere, and whether specific batches are verified as free of Uyghur labour?

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has spoken in this House and discussed with me this morning his concern that forced labour has been widely documented in the region and that there is a need to shut the door on forced labour components found in Chinese supplies of polysilicon. Does the Minister therefore accept that independent auditors and NGOs still argue that full traceability is patchy due to multisite production in different factories and different time periods, continuously shifting new contracts and new plants coming online, and lack of full transparency at the level of polysilicon origin?

As I have said, the intentions behind the warm homes plan are commendable, and the help with capital costs is welcome, but this must be accompanied by plans for lowering operational costs, coupled with wider reforms to bring down the cost of electricity. Otherwise, this well-intentioned plan will become a passport to higher domestic electricity bills. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this Statement. Promised nearly two years ago as a “flagship response” to soaring energy bills and poor home efficiency, it has taken some time. Delays have consequences, particularly for the millions of families living in homes that are cold. They are paying the price.

That said, this plan brings forward welcome innovation and greater policy coherence, particularly through its focus on climate adaption and mitigation. It marks a significant milestone amid a national affordability crisis and an accelerating climate emergency. But if warm homes are one side of the equation, cheap, clean energy and market reforms are, indeed, the other. We need both to succeed.

The commitment to £15 billion of public investment is ambitious and right. Ministers forecast upgrades for 5 million homes and relief from fuel poverty for 1 million families by 2030. These are the benchmarks by which this plan will be judged. Too many families still live in cold and damp homes, causing ill health and rising health costs. Labour is right to call out the “lost decade” under the Conservatives, when investment collapsed and home upgrades fell by 90%. Greater vulnerability followed Russia’s invasion: 85% of our homes were still dependent on fossil fuels, and £40 billion in emergency support was required. This was the cost of the Conservatives’ delay.

Against this backdrop, the plan’s innovative pathway is welcome. Partnerships with British climate tech firms could, if implemented well, build a world-class retrofit industry, but SMEs need support, predictable regulation and open markets to bring products from design to real homes quickly. The proposed retrofit innovation panel and sherpa approval models are positive, if they deliver.

I am concerned about the six-month cliff edge gap between previous schemes winding down and new schemes starting. I ask the Minister for greater clarity, particularly on the use of the £1.5 billion reserve to help fill this gap.

I welcome the focus on climate adaption. Increasing heat will be a slow-motion killer, so homes must be built for cooling as well as warmth. Including air-to-air heat pumps and supporting communal ground source systems is vital. Passive measures are also needed. The plan’s emphasis on consumer-led energy flexibility is encouraging, with an ambition to triple solar by 2030. Integrating solar batteries, EVs and smart meters can turn homes into virtual power grid participants, cutting bills and easing pressures on the grid. However, this “rooftop revolution” will falter without faster grid connections, planning reform and more resources for local authorities.

The transition must create good jobs and uphold ethical standards. I supported the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to the Great British Energy Bill on forced labour. Our clean energy revolution must not rest on exploitation. What measures are we undertaking with our EU partners and others to build our solar manufacturing capacity?

Despite the promising direction and other areas of overlap, this plan stands in isolation from Great British Energy and our community energy plans. This is a missed opportunity. We welcome the support for the UK heat pump industry but question whether £19 million will be enough. The dilution of deployment ambition is troubling—well below the 600,000 a year target by 2028. Even with a £7,500 grant, typical households still face a £5,000 shortfall, which will be too costly for many.

I reiterate the Liberal Democrats’ call for free heat pumps and insulation for low-income families. We welcome the innovation financing models but ask for greater details. Can the Minister assure the House that these will be properly regulated and transparent, and will not put people’s homes at risk?

The new rented sector standards, benefiting some 3 million over the next four years, are also welcome, but how will their effectiveness be measured? We welcome the warm homes agency as a single point of leadership. What more can be done to make sure that people are not the victims of energy scams? Can the Minister explain how the plan will be monitored and reviewed, and confirm some level of flexibility?

Too often in the past, insulation was missing or simply done badly. Government must work to restore confidence. It is essential that we do insulation and we do it well. Without insulation, the best technology cannot prevent heat loss.

Finally, I agree with the Opposition: we need energy market reform, and clean energy needs to be affordable. Electricity costs are too high; while they are that high, households will not change from fossil fuels, so we must balance levies and take them off bills.

To conclude, we welcome the ambition and the funding, but ambition must now be met with urgency, coherence and fairness. Ministers must close the funding gap, put insulation back at the heart, reform markets to make clean energy affordable, and back British workers and innovators. If Ministers rise to that challenge, this plan can deliver not just warmer homes but a fairer, cleaner and more secure future for Britain.

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

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Earl for their contributions on this Statement. I think I can say that both of them were pretty supportive, which is nice for something as large as this. I therefore bank that support, as it were, and will address myself to the very pertinent questions that the noble Lords put forward.

In banking the support, it is worth reflecting on the real scale and the extent to which there are winners all round in the proposal before the House. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, it is £15 billion altogether. I might add that in respect of the total commitment by this Government, this is, all things considered, about two and a half times the total commitment of the previous Administration regarding overall energy-efficient measures. The noble Earl is also right to point out the collapse in measures that took place under the previous Government. Overall, this scheme is determined to get it right not only this time but for all sections of society.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out what will happen to the 80% who he thought would not be particularly affected by this. When you look at the breadth of the proposals in the warm homes plan, there is indeed something for everybody in it. There are low-cost and interest-free loans for the private sector. For the private rented sector, there is the quite dramatic commitment to make sure that landlords spend £10,000 uprating their properties to what will provisionally be band C EPCs by 2030. By the way, there is no real evidence that landlords have put rents up in relation to their commitments to the previous level of spending £3,500 to increase to band E.

For the social housing sector, there will be grants and particular investments in that form, and, of course, substantial investment in seeking out those in fuel poverty and bringing treatments forward for their homes that will substantially uprate their warmth and decrease their bills. We really will decrease their bills, sometimes quite dramatically, and make sure that those are permanent changes, not just ones that go with the volatility of the energy market.

The noble Earl asked about the whole question of forced labour and solar panels. I appreciate his point. We live in a world in which it is difficult to assess accurately who is doing what as far as forced labour is concerned. In the Modern Slavery Act we already have the wherewithal to take action, if we can identify those circumstances. Certainly, this Government would want to do that. We are collaborating with the Solar Stewardship Initiative, which seeks to have a more accurate spotlight on the issue of forced labour. It is something we are very well aware of. The noble Earl will understand that this is a difficult area to get absolutely right straightaway, but it is work that is ongoing.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned the ambition for heat pumps. I have a memory, from another time in the other place, about what happened with that ambition. The previous Administration declared a three-year programme for a total of 90,000 heat pumps, underwriting 30,000 per year for three years, up to 2025. Then there was a gap of three years, when nothing would have happened. Suddenly, in 2028 or 2029, there would then be 600,000 heat pumps installed per year—a piece of Guillermo del Toro magical realism, if ever there was one. That is what we are seeking to avoid on this occasion.

We want to have real targets, which we can actually meet. That is also important in terms of investment in UK heat pump manufacture, for example. We need to know that there is a steady market for those heat pumps, where they are increasingly manufactured in Britain—boiler manufacturers turning to heat pump manufacture—and that we have that target in place and we can reach it. With the measures in the warm homes plan—the £7,500 underwriting for heat pumps currently; the new underwriting for air-to-air heat pumps; the ability of heat pumps to be put into area schemes; and low-carbon loans and grants—there is every prospect that we can get to the target of 450,000 in an organised and effective way.

I am conscious that I have not been able to reply to every point that noble Lords made in response to the Statement. If I have missed anything, I will be happy to write to both noble Lords, so that we can have a full set of answers to their questions today.

Offshore Wind

Earl Russell Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to his position, and I look forward to working with him.

On these Benches, we welcome the results of allocation round 7, which has secured a record 8.4 gigawatts of future offshore wind capacity, including 192.5 megawatts of innovative, floating offshore wind, and seen £22 billion in private investment. This marks an important step forward on our clean power journey and towards our future energy independence—enough clean energy to power the equivalent of some 12 million homes or roughly equivalent to 12% of national energy demand.

This shows that, when properly managed, Britain can lead the world in clean, secure and affordable energy. After the chaos of the previous Government’s failed allocation round 5, which delivered no offshore energy contracts at all, this progress is indeed an enormous relief. This auction confirms what my party has long argued—that offshore wind is the future backbone of our energy electricity system.

Projects such as Berwick Bank in Scotland—set to become the largest offshore wind farm in the world—and the one in Wales, the name of which literally means “sea breeze” and is the first major Welsh project in over a decade, show that progress is being made.

But this is not only about climate targets; it is about our future national energy security. In an increasingly unstable world, every turbine we build reduces our reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets. Securing Britain’s wind power means freeing ourselves from the price shocks of the global gas markets. We should recall that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that the UK’s energy support response for the war in Ukraine, driven by fossil fuel prices, cost us £78.2 billion over 2022-23 and 2023-24. In contrast, CBI figures show that the green economy grew by 10% in 2024, and AR7 secures an important future pipeline of continued and sustained green jobs and green British jobs.

The UK has some of the best wind resources in the world and, when we harness our renewables—wind, solar and tidal—we strengthen our energy independence. Despite what some may claim, wind power remains the most effective long-term way to bring down energy bills. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit reports that, in 2025 alone, wind generation reduced wholesale electricity prices by around one-third. The average strike price in this round, around £91 per megawatt hour, remains extremely competitive. By comparison, building and running a new gas power plant today would cost around £147 per megawatt hour, making wind power roughly 40% cheaper.

However, we must be candid about the challenges that the sector faces: rising bid prices, driven by global supply chain pressures; high interest rates; and soaring material costs, particularly for copper and steel. I therefore ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to address these issues so that our 2030 onshore wind targets remain achievable.

The contracts for difference mechanism protects consumers and secures inward investment. It is a policy that has stood the test of time, but it can still be improved. Is the Minister considering extending CfD contract lengths from 20 to 25 years? This could provide greater certainty, lower financial costs and ultimately deliver cheaper electricity. Similarly, we think that moving older renewable projects from more expensive renewable obligation certificates to new CfD contracts could save typical households up to £200 a year.

More broadly, urgent action is needed to reduce energy costs by other means. Now that the Government have ruled out zonal pricing, I ask the Minister what alternative market reforms are being pursued to drive down energy bills. Despite rising renewable generation, gas still sets the market price around 97% of the time. Are proposals being assessed to move gas plants into a regulated asset base? As has been suggested, this could save some £5.1 billion a year by 2028, according to calculations done by Greenpeace. If we do not urgently upgrade and streamline our transmission systems, this record capacity will remain stuck in connection queues instead of reaching our homes and businesses. Does the Minister agree that a long-term, properly resourced spatial energy plan is now urgent and essential to ensure that these connections happen at speed?

The Liberal Democrats have a clear vision for 90% of the UK’s electricity to be generated from renewables by 2030. AR7 is indeed a welcome step on the road, but more must be done to ensure that we reach our targets, reduce the cost of energy bills and update our transmission systems.

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

I thank the noble Lords for their contributions this evening. They were deeply contrasting in both tone and content: one I substantially agree with; the other I do not at all. We need no guesses as to which is which. I am particularly disappointed by the contribution from the Opposition Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I think I have already welcomed him to his place in Questions, but this may be the first time we have sat across the Benches for a Statement or other debate, so a further welcome would not go amiss. I hope this, as it is shaping up to be, will be the beginning of a good debate between us in the House.

It is worth just reiterating what actually happened in AR7 for the House to judge whether this was the miserable failure that the Opposition Benches appear to suggest it was or the great success that I and, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, think it was.

In AR7, we procured 8.4 gigawatts of new, clean, low-carbon power for this country. That is new capacity over and above what we have at the moment and, indeed, represents no less than 40% of the installed capacity of offshore wind so far. In one round, the amount of wind capacity we have has leapt. That is at a clearing price 20% below the administrative ceiling price—a very competitive auction was undertaken—and that is within the bounds of present energy market prices. In the likely future that we see, it is not only below or around market prices; it is also a stable cost. Whereas, of course, we do not know where gas and other energy prices are going because of the extreme volatility in the world, and of gas prices over the last five years.

Interestingly, between this Statement being read in another place and repeated now, gas prices have leapt by nearly 40%. We are in a volatile gas market. Do not forget, prices went up as high as 600p per therm in the period just after the invasion of Ukraine. Compare the volatile price of gas fuels if we go down the energy route suggested by the Opposition—more purchases of unabated gas-fired power stations. Do not forget that this is not only an auction about energy prices and capacity; it is an auction about low-carbon energy prices and capacity. Among other things, if the Opposition had their way, we would apparently invest in a huge number of unabated natural gas power stations. That means we would be locked into that high-carbon system of generating power for perhaps another 30 to 40 years, which would be completely insupportable in terms of anybody’s energy ambitions.

The noble Lord says that he wants our energy policy to be characterised by security, affordability and clean energy. In this round, we achieved a great step forward for our energy security: this is all homegrown energy, not energy coming in on ships from elsewhere, or that is the responsibility of a dictator or a cabal of overseas energy organisations. This is British home-grown local energy that we have procured, and with it a bright future.

On affordability, the noble Lord referred to the levelised cost of energy, which he said was no longer the way to compare prices. That is a little bit surprising, because that is exactly what the last Government did in previous rounds. In the previous round—AR5—they secured precisely zero low-carbon energy, so compare and contrast, if you will, with what we are talking about today.

It is true, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, says, that the clearing price of this auction ought to be put in the context of what you can do to try to get new capacity on board as far as this country is concerned. You can either buy a series of gas-fired power stations at a cost of £134 per megawatt hour—the levelised cost of energy—or you can procure low-carbon capacity which both meets your climate targets and keeps the prices down on a constant basis of affordability for the future.

The result of the auction is actually good for affordability and for the stability of prices in the future. If we are thinking of building new capacity at £134 per megawatt hour levelised cost of energy as against £91, and we have procured something like five gas-fired power stations-worth of energy output with this auction, as far as we are concerned, there is really no contest.

Finally, as I have said, it is clean energy. This is what I thought we were all committed to for a period in the past. It is extremely disappointing that the Benches opposite appear to have decided to move away from clean energy and go back to gas and dirty energy, which we really cannot sustain as far as our future is concerned.

High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors

Earl Russell Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

On the first part of my noble friend’s question, he should partially congratulate himself, because he was very involved in making that happen, and I join him in congratulating him. We have a very significant nuclear programme with SMRs coming along; and the Fingleton review and a series of other processes, including EN-7, which was laid on 18 December, make planning and other aspects much easier. Siting is very important. A siting review, by GBN, is going on at the moment, looking at potential sites for future gigawatt production as well; it will report in the autumn.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister outline how the continued co-operation with Japan on HTGR reactors will contribute to achieving the Government’s net-zero ambitions and improving our long-term energy security, in particular by providing a reliable low-carbon heat and power source to decarbonise industrial sectors that are otherwise particularly hard to abate, such as steel-making and hydrogen production? What assessment will be made of the cost-effectiveness of alternative types of technology?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The point raised about the heat production of HTGRs is very important. This is not just about the electricity; it is about the heat and what can be done with it. It is why we are keen to encourage advanced modular reactors in the UK. There is also an opportunity to make them much smaller and to site them in different places, which will free up the link directly to industrial purposes. The advanced nuclear framework lays this out very clearly and encourages the private sector and others to join in putting forward new technologies.

COP Climate Negotiations: Cities

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I do not think the UK can really be determined as failing in its targets at the moment. We will shortly see this Government’s response to legal challenges about the soundness of plans that the Government had put forward recently. We have published a new version of those plans and we are confident that it is robust and will get us to the targets that we need to get to.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, by 2050 we will see both 2 degrees of warming and two-thirds of global populations based in cities. How we adapt our cities to extreme heat and extreme weather events will be at the very centre of humanity’s survival. The Minister has previously talked about encouraging UK cities to become partners in these global processes. Is not the noble Lord’s Question absolutely fundamental and right, and is it not time that the Government took a stronger stand on these matters?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The question of the role of cities in climate change generally is fundamental; by 2050, 80% of people in the world will live in cities. The cities in the C40 group are largely ahead of their respective sovereign Governments on emission reductions. Cities can and should play a central role in that march towards net zero. Certainly, the UK Government, among other things, are helping to fund the C40 cities organisation and are completely committed to making sure that cities play the leading role in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Net Zero: Civil Society and Faith-based Organisations

Earl Russell Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, three in four of our young people are moderately or extremely concerned about the impact of climate change. What action are the Government taking to include young people much more in decision-making processes to make sure that their voices are heard? Specifically, I ask the Minister: what intention do the Government have to have citizens’ assemblies so that young people’s voices are included in policy-making?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Earl will be aware of the many actions that the Government are undertaking to ensure that young people are committed, involved and energised as far as climate change and net zero are concerned. That is among the reasons why we have developed the Youth for Climate and Nature panel, which is part of our Energising Britain plan. It is also the case that some of the highest commitment to the green transition to low-carbon energy is to be found among young people, and they therefore need to be fundamentally included at both the community and faith level in the work that we are doing.

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

Earl Russell Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we support the Government’s fundamental ambition grow UK heat networks from the current 3% to 20% of the UK’s heat network demand by 2050. We share this ambition; we recognise that heat networks will play a pivotal role in helping to achieve our drive towards net zero and driving low-carbon energy growth. I particularly note that this is important in relation to the planned future growth of AI.

But, if this vision is to succeed, customers will have to have the absolute trust that heat networks are safe, reliable and cost effective. For too long, as the Minister acknowledged, this part of our energy system has been in the regulatory twilight zone. The half a million households on heat networks have often been left facing poor customer service, frequent outages and opaque billing. In many cases, people have found themselves trapped in contracts with extortionate charges and little way out. So this statutory instrument definitely goes a long way; it is long overdue and very welcome, because it helps to bring some order to that chaos. In the other place, the Minister himself noted the number of complaints that he personally had had about heat networks. So this is a significant step, and it places customers on a more equal footing with those in regulated gas and electricity markets, so we welcome it.

We also welcome the introduction of the special administration regime—SAR—for protected heat network companies. This is a vital safeguard. It ensures the continuity of heating and hot water supply even if the operator collapses, and it literally stops people being left in the dark and the cold.

We broadly share the plan to share the costs of the administration across the market. This seems a sensible approach and it strengthens market confidence by spreading that risk. When will the detailed regulations be published, and how will the Government ensure that these costs are shared fairly and equitably across the market, particularly in relation to the smaller operators? Will further consultations take place on that specific aspect of that sharing of the cost?

We welcome the new deemed contracts provisions, which are important because many people move to a house that is on one of these heat networks and have no choice but to sign up to them. So these deemed contracts are important and will help to ensure that people get a fair rate for their energy.

We fundamentally welcome the new powers that have been given to Ofgem. These give the regulator real teeth in this marketplace, with explicit authority to determine whether the charges are disproportionate, to investigate poor service, to extend the redress schemes and to support small businesses and micro-businesses. I recognise what the Minister said about how the definition around micro-businesses will be changed to make sure that it fits with the other regulations.

Nearly half a million households are on these networks and, to date, they have had little power or influence, and there have been problems. So what specific guarantees can the Minister offer that Ofgem will have both the additional resources and the new technical capacity to conduct effective investigations and issue binding directions where network operators are found to be guilty of unfair charging practices? Will the Government commit to publishing a transparent industry-wide methodology, showing how this issue of either disproportionate or not disproportionate charges is arrived at?

Generally, my questions further forward are about how, as we have heard, these regulations will come into force at the beginning of January—literally in a few weeks’ time. Considering the short amount of time before they come into effect, I ask the Minister to give an assurance about the customer redress scheme and the correction of technical error, and an assurance that Ofgem has the resources and capability to implement all these systems on time, because that is a concern.

Generally, these regulations are welcome. They bring order and clarity, and they help to bring confidence to this market. If this market is to grow, it needs this regulation, so we welcome this SI.

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

Earl Russell Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Grand Committee

[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?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome these regulations, which seek to establish a necessary legal framework for the public disclosure of protected carbon storage information and samples. These are crucial steps towards fostering a transparent culture in the UK’s nascent carbon capture, usage and storage—CCUS—industry. As has been said by others, CCUS is essential for the UK to meet its net-zero carbon targets and budgets—particularly as set out by the Climate Change Committee—and the sector is projected to support up to 50,000 jobs and significant future economic growth. As has also been pointed out, the UK’s continental shelf is estimated to hold up to 78 billion tonnes of theoretical CO₂ storage capacity, so this is essential in helping us meet these targets and creating the green jobs and growth of the future.

We support the principles of transparency set out in Parts 2 to 4 of the regulations, which govern the storage data obtained by the OGA, operating as the North Sea Transition Authority—the NSTA. We welcome the approach, as set out, of clarifying data based on levels of commercial sensitivity; this is sensible and pragmatic. We also welcome the decision that non-commercially sensitive items will be published straightaway. For more sensitive material, the NSTA has established clear and time-limited protection periods before disclosure. For example, detailed well information, protected carbon storage samples and computerised model information may generally be disclosed, but only after a period of two years. These two years are designed to protect licensees with sufficient exclusivity for the data they have paid to acquire.

On the regulations that relate specifically to the two-year period for the disclosure of computerised model information—relating specifically to the creation of CO₂ storage models that stimulate flows of fluids in storage complexes—the NSTA has acknowledged the need for further detailed consultation. Does the Minister know when those further consultations might be completed?

Other data is classified as highly sensitive, particularly in relation to storage resource information, quality of CO₂ that could be stored and substrate geology—that kind of thing. I note that the NSTA provides the ability, but not the obligation, to disclose protected material, so licensees will have an opportunity to make representations concerning the delay or withholding of disclosure. That protective mechanism is important, and I recognise the need for it in the regulations, but I simply ask the Minister: what is the minimum timeframe for representations that the NSTA will guarantee to licensees before commercially sensitive protected material is disclosed?

We generally welcome these regulations and think that they are crucial for the development of this sector. This instrument is crucial for safety and for ensuring that there is a balance between the sharing of information and protecting what is commercially sensitive. We feel that, in general, the balance is in the right place here. We support these regulations as they will help underpin the successful, transparent and efficient development of the UK’s potential CCUS industry. But we urge the Government to address these essential questions of implementation, technical definition and scope, in order to ensure that the regulations achieve their full potential.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. As has been explained, these are technical measures designed to update the periods during which information relating to carbon storage licences and offshore petroleum wells remain confidential, and to ensure a more consistent and timely approach to public disclosure. We recognise the intention behind the instrument: improving the flow of information, supporting effective regulation and giving industry greater clarity and certainty.

We on these Benches recognise the importance of transparency, accuracy and timely publication of data in the offshore sector. Carbon capture and storage will continue to play an important role in meeting the UK’s future energy needs, and the North Sea will remain central to that effort for years to come. It is therefore right that the regulatory framework keeps pace with technological and operational developments and that that information is accessible and consistent across the sector.

Drax

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

COP 30

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his recent appointment and welcome him to the Front Bench. The Secretary of State in the other place is fond of talking of the United Kingdom as a trailblazer. As the shadow Secretary of State in the other place outlined, we are—but for all the wrong reasons. We are the first country to voluntarily close down our own domestic energy supply and to voluntarily hike our own energy bills. We are not an example to the world: we are a warning.

Since the COP summit, it seems that the department has started to come to its senses. Monday’s termination of a liquified natural gas project in Mozambique is a welcome step. It was a typically green initiative with a well-meaning façade that was, in practice, damaging, as LNG gas emits four times more carbon than the North Sea off our very shores. These overseas initiatives are used to prop up a narrative of reduced emissions while simultaneously causing more harm to the natural world, and they encompass a whole one-third of our energy system.

Sadly, the Secretary of State’s Statement demonstrates that he has not returned from Brazil enlightened and that the department is still bound by his damaging ideology. He cites three achievements that he came back with from the summit. The first was the commitment to continue cutting global emissions towards net zero, which he said needed to be achieved by 2050. It should be noted that the Statement also acknowledged that the UK accounts for just under 1% of global emissions. That number has in fact halved in the past 20 years. Does the Minister not agree that this proves that the United Kingdom has already played its part in the net-zero drive?

Unfortunately, this COP 30 achievement will undoubtedly now be used to justify the continuation of his campaign to wreak utter havoc on the North Sea industry. The tired old clichés of a declining basin will be the response of the Government, and we have come to expect this narrative. But let us examine the human cost: 1,000 jobs per month, companies drawing back from investing and energy bills spiralling. I draw noble Lords’ attention to north of the border, where the Government are responsible for destroying what remains of Scotland’s industrial base. Alexander Dennis, Mossmorran, Grangemouth: going, going, gone. Is it time to accept that we need to face the root cause of this deindustrialisation, namely high energy costs and the effects of government green diktats?

The second achievement that the Secretary of State trumpets is a commission to reduce emissions through working with the finance industry. Again, this achievement will not benefit the British people. Investment will not be channelled into reducing bills. The Government’s team returned from Brazil with a pledge to scale up funding for developing countries to $1.3 trillion. It is internationalism at the expense of the British people.

The Statement mentioned nothing of the £60 billion investment required to build energy infrastructure in our own country to meet the Government’s artificially hastened 2030 net-zero target for the electricity grid, and nothing of the £3 billion annual government policy cost to turn off the wind farms.

There was nothing on the investment desperately needed in our nuclear sector. Cutting emissions is a noble aim, but the Government are undertaking it in a haphazard and ideologically blinkered manner, all to the detriment of the British people.

Thirdly, there is the announcement of not one but two road maps: one to cut fossil fuels and one to cut deforestation. The Government already have a road map to cut fossil fuels. In fact, John Fingleton’s nuclear report was published last Monday. The Government seemed to have accepted the recommendations on Monday, but let us see if that translates into a policy U-turn. Will the Minister outline to the House the timetable for the implementation of the Fingleton recommendations in legislative terms?

I offer the same argument for the deforestation road map. One of the primary drivers of nature depletion in the UK is a sprawl of solar and wind farms across our countryside. If the Government want to put a halt to deforestation, it could begin at home. This unfortunately means moving away from the endless expansion of solar. The Government cannot have it both ways. Once again, they need to build more nuclear.

This summit and the Secretary of State’s Statement will, unfortunately, do nothing to help British people with the exorbitant cost of energy, where our industrial energy prices are seven times those of China and four times those of the US. Even if wholesale energy prices halve in the next five years, electricity bills will still be £200 higher per household. That is the direct cost of government policy. No number of multilateral commitments will ease that burden. Only a radically different approach to energy and a comprehensive plan for cheap energy will take us forward.

[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.